Vile, Loathsome Scum.
Alberto Gonzales Edition
There are some truths which are (or ought to be) self-evident. One is that, all men being created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these is Liberty, and a government, which derives its powers from the consent of the governed, is instituted to secure this right.
It seems anathema to the core principles of the Founders that explicit language in the Constitution would be required to empower one to demand of the government why he was being denied his liberty. Habeas corpus is fundamental to our conception of government. Specific language would be required to explain if and when government wouldn't be required to respond to that demand. Which is why the Constitution reads as it does.
Gonzales might as well have pointed out that the Constitution doesn't say "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to breathe air."
Notably absent in Amendment I is the language that grants every citizen the right of free speech, press, or assembly. The language there merely contains a prohibition against taking them away, which by Gonzales' reasoning appears to be something else entirely.
That the Attorney General of the United States of America could be spouting such vile sophistry should shame every one who had a role in granting him authority, to say nothing of those who allowed him out of law school and into the bar. It is a sign of how debased our system has become, and how low our national pride had ebbed, that he could say this in open testimony before Congress, and yet he has not been fired.
Sadly, the last six years of lies and debased rhetoric have so dulled the senses of our legislators that no one called for him to be immediately cited for contempt of Congress. No one called for his impeachment. One who reasons this way is clearly unqualified for the position Gonzales now holds. After all, if as the administration would have us believe, we are in an existential struggle against medieval totalitarian ideas, we need people in government who are familiar with the Enlightenment. (It is what separates us from them, after all.)
Of course, he talks this way because he has to, in order to preserve the mishapen, brown and tattered fig leaf covering the administration's Guantanamo cesspool. I long for the day when that abomination is removed from our lives, and the ridiculous habeas statute vomited up by the last Congress is struck down. Until then, we'll have to listen to more of this ongoing rhetorical assault on our nation's fundamentals.
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.Um, indeed.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
GONZALES: Um.
There are some truths which are (or ought to be) self-evident. One is that, all men being created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these is Liberty, and a government, which derives its powers from the consent of the governed, is instituted to secure this right.
It seems anathema to the core principles of the Founders that explicit language in the Constitution would be required to empower one to demand of the government why he was being denied his liberty. Habeas corpus is fundamental to our conception of government. Specific language would be required to explain if and when government wouldn't be required to respond to that demand. Which is why the Constitution reads as it does.
Gonzales might as well have pointed out that the Constitution doesn't say "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to breathe air."
Notably absent in Amendment I is the language that grants every citizen the right of free speech, press, or assembly. The language there merely contains a prohibition against taking them away, which by Gonzales' reasoning appears to be something else entirely.
That the Attorney General of the United States of America could be spouting such vile sophistry should shame every one who had a role in granting him authority, to say nothing of those who allowed him out of law school and into the bar. It is a sign of how debased our system has become, and how low our national pride had ebbed, that he could say this in open testimony before Congress, and yet he has not been fired.
Sadly, the last six years of lies and debased rhetoric have so dulled the senses of our legislators that no one called for him to be immediately cited for contempt of Congress. No one called for his impeachment. One who reasons this way is clearly unqualified for the position Gonzales now holds. After all, if as the administration would have us believe, we are in an existential struggle against medieval totalitarian ideas, we need people in government who are familiar with the Enlightenment. (It is what separates us from them, after all.)
Of course, he talks this way because he has to, in order to preserve the mishapen, brown and tattered fig leaf covering the administration's Guantanamo cesspool. I long for the day when that abomination is removed from our lives, and the ridiculous habeas statute vomited up by the last Congress is struck down. Until then, we'll have to listen to more of this ongoing rhetorical assault on our nation's fundamentals.
posted by Paul at 7:29 PM |
|
email this
