Did Gonzalez really say this?

[Little_Nemo]

I just read a supposed quote by Attorney General Gonzales in which he supposedly said, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or secured the right to Habeas Corpus. It doesn’t say that.”

This isn’t true. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Being as the United States isn’t in Rebellion or Invasion at the moment, I figure Habeas Corpus is pretty much guaranteed.

So my question then is: Did Gonzales actually make the quote above? Was the context in which he made it such that the quote is not indicative of what he actually meant? Or has our Attoreny General neglected to read the Constitution? What is his interpretation of this issue? Under what circumstances does he feel Habeas Corpus can be suspended?

[Sefton]

I’d quote it for you, but some things have to be watched to be fully appreciated:

- YouTube

That guy’s a piece of work, isn’t he? Smiles like it was just a big ol’ joke.

[cckerberos]

Video and transcript here.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

Wow, I’d forgotten that there was a time that Alberto Gonzales was responsive to questions.

[Smapti]

I just read a supposed quote by Attorney General Gonzales in which he supposedly said, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or secured the right to Habeas Corpus. It doesn’t say that.”

This isn’t true. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Privelige != right.

That is all.

[Bricker]

I can’t speak for what the AG may have meant.

However, I’m perfectly happy to adopt and defend his statement.

The OP’s own words reveal that the Constitution itself imagines an exception for for habeas corpus if in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

So it doesn’t seem impossible to reconcile the statement you say the AG made. “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or secured the right to Habeas Corpus.”

It doesn’t. In cases of rebellion or invasion, if the public safety requires it, they are not. That alone makes his statement true, and it’s an exception found within the four corners of the document.

Of course, if we consider the context of the question the AG was responding to from Senator Spector, it’s clear that both the AG and the Senator were well aware of that exception.

And it’s clear to me, anyway, where the disconnect was.

The discussion involves the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). Gonzales was right: the Court in Rasul did not hold that the aliens detained in Guantanamo had a constitutional right to habeas corpus. They decided that the detainees had habeas rights conferred by federal legislation, specifically 28 U. S. C. §2241, which authorizes district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” to entertain habeas applications by persons claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the … laws … of the United States,” §§2241(a), ©(3).

So: if you chose to capture the quote out of context, the AG’s words are correct.

If you choose to consider the context of the quote, then the AG’s words are correct, because the Court’s decision was not, as Spector seemed to believe, grounded in an Article I Sec 9 right, but rather in federal law.

[RTFirefly]

I liked the part where Gonzo said, “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.”

So the government can’t suspend the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion - but since the writ’s never been granted, it’s just a moot point that the Framers decided to run off at the mouth about for inexplicable reasons.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

I liked the part where Gonzo said, “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.”

So the government can’t suspend the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion - but since the writ’s never been granted, it’s just a moot point that the Framers decided to run off at the mouth about for inexplicable reasons.

Does my post explaining the context of his statement cause you to reconsider this sentiment?

[Giles]

If you follow Attorney-General Gonzalez’s line of thought, you’ll conclude that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee freedom of speech, just that Congress can’t take it away.

Has this line of argument about habeas corpus ever been argued before the Supreme Court?

[Liberal]

I thought he meant individuals as compared to society. Much like courts have ruled that police have no obligation to protect individuals, but only society as a whole.

[Evil_Captor]

Oh, come on. The meaning of the Constitution in this case is clear. Unless foreign troops have boots on our soil, or there’s an out and out Civil War going on, everybody has a right of habeas corpus. Anything else is just lawyerly word-twisting.

[Steve_MB]

@Evil Captor

Oh, come on. The meaning of the Constitution in this case is clear. Unless foreign troops have boots on our soil, or there’s an out and out Civil War going on, everybody has a right of habeas corpus. Anything else is just lawyerly word-twisting.

It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

[Giles]

@Steve MB

It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Gonzalez would probably want to argue about the meanings of “a” and of “of”, too.

[you_with_the_face]

@Evil Captor

Oh, come on. The meaning of the Constitution in this case is clear. Unless foreign troops have boots on our soil, or there’s an out and out Civil War going on, everybody has a right of habeas corpus. Anything else is just lawyerly word-twisting.

Basically.

The reason why habeas corpus is called a privilege is because exceptions exist in theory. In the absence of those exceptions, it should be treated like a right no different than other rights. Otherwise, there’d be no point of it even being mentioned in the Constitution.

AG’s response should not be defended on lawyerly, loopholey principles. Too much is at stake for games like that.

[Bricker]

@you with the face

AG’s response should not be defended on lawyerly, loopholey principles. Too much is at stake for games like that.

Excuse me for saying, but I believe your dismissal of the issues in play here results from your lack of knowledge. You are waving you hands at what you don’t understand and dismissing it as a game.

There are some key questions: does the Constitution’s habeas guarantee protect people outside the bounds of the United States, such as those held in Guantanamo?

According to the Court in Rasul, no. Such people have habeas protection by operation of federal law, but not by the Constitution. So Congress, if it wished, could remove such protection tomorrow. That’s a key, important concept, and it’s what Senator Spector and AG Gonzales were discussing.

If you believe it’s only a game, or a “loopholely principle,” then please tell me: can Congress remove the habeas petition from the reach of Guantanamo detainees? Why? Or why not?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Does my post explaining the context of his statement cause you to reconsider this sentiment?

Not really. I think you’ve explained the context of “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or secured the right to Habeas Corpus. It doesn’t say that.”

It’s one thing to say the Constitution doesn’t make clear how broad the grant of Habeas Corpus is, in terms of who (besides American citizens, one assumes) is covered by the grant.

But it’s another thing to claim that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily make such a grant, and I don’t see what part of your post addresses that.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Not really. I think you’ve explained the context of “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is granted or secured the right to Habeas Corpus. It doesn’t say that.”

It’s one thing to say the Constitution doesn’t make clear how broad the grant of Habeas Corpus is, in terms of who (besides American citizens, one assumes) is covered by the grant.

But it’s another thing to claim that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily make such a grant, and I don’t see what part of your post addresses that.

My post made reference to the actual discussion between Senator Spector and AG Gonzales, although it didn’t quote it; perhaps that was where I failed to make things as clear as I could have.

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.

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’ comments are in response to Spector’s questions about the “explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.” Gonzales is pointing out that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee habeas to alien detainees in Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court decision that does doesn’t rest on Constitutional grounds.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Excuse me for saying, but I believe your dismissal of the issues in play here results from your lack of knowledge. You are waving you hands at what you don’t understand and dismissing it as a game.

There are some key questions: does the Constitution’s habeas guarantee protect people outside the bounds of the United States, such as those held in Guantanamo?

No, it doesn’t. But then again, AG’s statement about the Constitution not guarranteeing habeas to people in the US ostensibly did not address Gitmo anyway. So I fail to see how you can defend the accuracy of his response, as it is misleading and probably intentionally so.

[you_with_the_face]

And Bricker, can you defend this piece of apparent wackery? It doesn’t make sense to me.

AG: The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.

How can there be a prohibition against taking away something unless it exists to begin with?

[John_Mace]

I usually find the wikipedia articles on SCOTUS cases to be quite good and informative, but I can’t figure out what the hell they’re talking about in the entry for Rasul.