# Alberto Gonzalez and Habeas Corpus **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 23, 2007, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124 "2007-01-23T18:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/21 "2007-01-23T23:37:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] What did you have in mind, runes carved into walrus tusks? [/QUOTE] Nature works for me, thanks. Or God. However you want to put it. Rights come with your body and mind. You’re born with them. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/22 "2007-01-23T23:40:12Z")
[QUOTE=whole bean] Yeah, I think it’s safe to call the American Civil War a rebellion. As for the other wars, uh, you got me, invasion? There were attacks and battles on US soil during 1812 and WWII. All I’m saying is that previously, it appears as though administrations sought to justify the suspension of habeaus rights, as opposed to arguing that they never existed (for certain citizens). [/QUOTE] Ah yes, I agree wholeheartedly, I am not sure if this argument for H.C. has ever been used before. Of course, you do know, that they may soon argue that the “War on Terror” did have a battle on U.S. soil. Please, for the love of Og, don’t let the AG hear of this 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/23 "2007-01-24T00:12:38Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Nature works for me, thanks. Or God. However you want to put it. Rights come with your body and mind. You’re born with them. [/QUOTE] From you lips to God’s ass. But it’s still good to write them down somewhere, in case there’s any questions. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/24 "2007-01-24T00:52:03Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] From you lips to God’s ass. But it’s still good to write them down somewhere, in case there’s any questions. [/QUOTE] Write what down? I don’t view rights as permissions. Permissions are granted by rights bearers. You have the right to use your body and your mind to the extent that you do not suppress someone else’s same right. No one gave your mind and body to you, least of all any magistrate. If you say it is ethical that they dispense rights to us, then don’t complain when they cut them off. You’ve already conceded that they’re theirs to give. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/25 "2007-01-24T01:49:55Z")
At this point, we should be long past being shocked. From [_The Nation:_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/editors) > [@](#): > > Unwanted war, the threat of a wider, even less wanted war, a constitutional crisis: The United States has experienced this combination before, and not so long ago. The war of course was Vietnam, ending in defeat in 1975, and the President was Richard Nixon, driven out of office under threat of certain impeachment the year before. Commentators of every stripe have been reaching back to this period for analogies. Is the present moment a repeat of 1968, when President Johnson, facing defeat in his renomination bid in the Democratic primaries, resigned from the campaign and opened peace negotiations; or of 1970, when Nixon widened the war by invading Cambodia and touched off an explosion of protest around the country that forced him to reverse course (and led Congress to prohibit funding for Cambodian operations); or of 1974 and 1975, when the Nixon Administration and the war ended (not accidentally) _seriatim?_ Iraq is different from Vietnam and Bush is different from Nixon, yet the elements of the crisis are the same, as if we were still looking through the same kaleidoscope but after it had been given a shake. Again, we have the war launched on the basis of deceptions, again the duel between popular opinion and executive power, again executive secrecy, again the contempt for law, again the smearing of political opponents as abettors of the foe, again wiretapping, again defiance of Congress, again the imperial pretensions. > > But more important than the similarities is the direct continuity between the two crises. The war in Iraq was framed as the culmination of a long campaign to overcome what the current President’s father called the “Vietnam syndrome.” The goal–probably the most important of the many aims of the whole enterprise–was to demonstrate that the United States had at last restored its ability, thrown into question by Vietnam, to determine the political future of nations (to accomplish regime change) through the use of military force. And this aim was in turn a pillar of the grandiose ambition, announced in White House documents, of achieving global dominance for the United States. Likewise, the most important theme of Bush’s other usurpations–for example, of power to wiretap without a warrant, in contravention of statute, and to imprison and torture citizens as well as foreigners without due process–was to swell the power of the presidency at home. For in the minds of the Bush officials, Nixon’s pre-impeachment presidency was not a cautionary tale but a model to be imitated, as Vice President Cheney, for one, has stated on many occasions. It is not only the Vietnam syndrome but the Watergate syndrome that they want to overcome. If the keynote of Nixon’s character was covertness (not for nothing was he called Tricky Dick), then the keynote of Bush’s character is brazenness: He seeks to carry out in broad daylight, as his formal right, the usurpations that Nixon committed under cover of night. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/26 "2007-01-24T01:53:04Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] What did you have in mind, runes carved into walrus tusks? [/QUOTE] C’mon, **'luci** that’s one of **Lib** ’s greatest hits. We’re born with rights. “Scribbles on paper” represents a statement specifying which of those rights are to be guaranteed by all of us in concert, acting through the government we have constituted for ourselves. The rest, each individual is responsible for securing for himself. When people speak colloquially of this statement, and the mechanisms for enforcing the guarantees, it is not uncommon for them to lapse into a verbal shorthand that has folks speaking of rights “granted” by the Constitution. Evidently, this shorthand is offensive to friend **Liberal**. His vigilance in the matter of making sure the map is not mistaken for the territory (as it were), is, on balance, a good thing (IMHO), if a tad repetitive. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/27 "2007-01-24T01:53:13Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Write what down? I don’t view rights as permissions. Permissions are granted by rights bearers. You have the right to use your body and your mind to the extent that you do not suppress someone else’s same right. No one gave your mind and body to you, least of all any magistrate. If you say it is ethical that they dispense rights to us, then don’t complain when they cut them off. You’ve already conceded that they’re theirs to give. [/QUOTE] Even if we grant the truth of natural rights theory, it doesn’t mean a fig when it comes to legal rights. Just because you have a natural right to use your body to the extent etc., doesn’t do anything whatsoever to prevent someone from coming along and violating that right. In particular it doesn’t prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review. Natural rights are absolutely worthless in that regard. You might argue that the government _should_ respect your natural rights. You may even be right. But the government should do a lot of things that it doesn’t, and should refrain from doing a lot of things that it does, natural rights be damned. What constrains the government, or at least some governments (usually including the US Government) are legal rights. Legal rights are derived from scribbles, and never exist independently from those scribbles. Those scribbles _do_ prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review (usually), unlike your natural rights which do no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/28 "2007-01-24T02:24:29Z")
[QUOTE=whole bean] dammit, I missed the edit window and hit submit by accident, that should read: with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of \*habeas corpus \* occured during the Civil War, I think you’ll find it’s in line with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9[2] provides that “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.” AGAG’s interpretation seems to be without precedent. [/QUOTE] Yes, and Article I concerns the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. That was the big controversy, and the reason why the the US Circuit Court in Maryland ruled against him in _Ex Parte Merryman_. Lincoln chose to ignore the ruling. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/29 "2007-01-24T02:37:38Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That’s what happens when people believe their rights come from scribbles. What is written can be erased. [/QUOTE] You’re right. It would be SO much better if all laws were unwritten. Do you ever read what you post here, Lib? You give libertarians a bad name, by embodying all of the flimsiest, naivest qualities of the too-rarified-to-actually exist parody of a libertarian. Are you seriously advocating actual, literal anarchy? Or ar you just drunk? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/30 "2007-01-24T02:40:42Z")
[QUOTE=Gorsnak] Even if we grant the truth of natural rights theory, it doesn’t mean a fig when it comes to legal rights. Just because you have a natural right to use your body to the extent etc., doesn’t do anything whatsoever to prevent someone from coming along and violating that right. In particular it doesn’t prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review. Natural rights are absolutely worthless in that regard. You might argue that the government _should_ respect your natural rights. You may even be right. But the government should do a lot of things that it doesn’t, and should refrain from doing a lot of things that it does, natural rights be damned. What constrains the government, or at least some governments (usually including the US Government) are legal rights. Legal rights are derived from scribbles, and never exist independently from those scribbles. Those scribbles _do_ prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review (usually), unlike your natural rights which do no such thing. [/QUOTE] No argument from me there. Rights do not prevent tyranny. Only force does that. (And of course, you have the natural right to use force to secure your rights — though force against a government is usually futile.) But by the same token, squabbles over legal rights are moot for the same reason. It’s not the scribbles that guarantee you a judicial review (usually). It’s the people with guns who defend the scribbles. When they stop defending them, you’ll stop benefiting from them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/31 "2007-01-24T02:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] Are you seriously advocating actual, literal anarchy? Or ar you just drunk? [/QUOTE] No. I’m just intelligent, and you… maybe not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/32 "2007-01-24T02:49:09Z")
Maybe we could try to get a “Habeas Corpus” Amendment added to the Constitution? Just to be on the safe side, and all? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/33 "2007-01-24T03:05:55Z")
[QUOTE=Rufus Xavier] Maybe we could try to get a “Habeas Corpus” Amendment added to the Constitution? Just to be on the safe side, and all? [/QUOTE] “28th Amendment: Y’know that thing we mentioned in article one section nine? Well we really really mean it, dawg.” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/34 "2007-01-24T03:06:34Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] No argument from me there. Rights do not prevent tyranny. Only force does that. (And of course, you have the natural right to use force to secure your rights — though force against a government is usually futile.) But by the same token, squabbles over legal rights are moot for the same reason. It’s not the scribbles that guarantee you a judicial review (usually). It’s the people with guns who defend the scribbles. When they stop defending them, you’ll stop benefiting from them. [/QUOTE] Sure. The men with guns are inevitable. There has never been a society where physical force did not enforce the social order, and barring dramatic changes to human nature, there will never be one. Contriving a society in which the men with guns have come to feel obliged to defend those scribbles has been the great genius of the founders of western democracy. Pooh-pooh it all you like, our existing political and social structure utilizes human nature to perpetuate a social order which allows greater freedom than any other system ever has. Your own preferred political structure blindly ignores the reality of human nature, much as its diametrically opposed cousin communism always did as well. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/35 "2007-01-24T03:10:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Guess who can’t go to the State of the Union speech? **Alberto Gonzales**! Because just in case the aliens blow up this joint session, somebody from the White House must be able to continue illegally torturing people all over the world. [SOTU Liveblogging](http://wonkette.com/politics/sotu/sotu-liveblogging-like-woodstock-for-wolf-blitzer-230971.php) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/36 "2007-01-24T03:17:22Z")
[QUOTE=Gorsnak] Pooh-pooh it all you like, our existing political and social structure utilizes human nature to perpetuate a social order which allows greater freedom than any other system ever has. [/quote] I’m not pooh-poohing anything. I’m shaking you by your shoulders and telling you that you are watching the legal rights you cherish die right before your eyes. You’re just hearing what you want to hear. > [@](#): > > Your own preferred political structure blindly ignores the reality of human nature, much as its diametrically opposed cousin communism always did as well. Democracy is a political structure. Republic, dictatorship, parliament —these are all political structures. Communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, centrism — these are all political _philosophies_, adaptable to any arbitrary political structure. I’m not going to suggest that you disband your Congress or rescind your Constitution (although that would be my personal preference) because you and I will never get past the practicality question. You will argue that my preference is impractical, and I will argue that what is practical depends on what you’re practicing. Neither am I suggesting that you ignore human nature. I’m just telling you that your governors have that same nature, and they are in the process of reaming you out. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/37 "2007-01-24T03:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Gotchaya! _Habeas Corpus_ can be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion! Iraq is a perfect example of an invasion followed by a rebellion! [/QUOTE] I know this comment sort of fell by the wayside, but I just wanted to say “Congratulations **elucidator**! First time I spewed Coke all over my laptop today!” ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/38 "2007-01-24T03:56:51Z")
I have it on good authority that any and all objections to Alberto Gonzales are based on prejudice against Hispanics. Actually, I can’t remembering back to when Ashcroft left and I thought, “Well, at least the next guy has to be better.” Schmuck. (And, oddly, I keep remembering “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Funny.) ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/39 "2007-01-24T05:04:41Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I’m not pooh-poohing anything. I’m shaking you by your shoulders and telling you that you are watching the legal rights you cherish die right before your eyes. You’re just hearing what you want to hear. Democracy is a political structure. Republic, dictatorship, parliament —these are all political structures. Communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, centrism — these are all political _philosophies_, adaptable to any arbitrary political structure. I’m not going to suggest that you disband your Congress or rescind your Constitution (although that would be my personal preference) because you and I will never get past the practicality question. You will argue that my preference is impractical, and I will argue that what is practical depends on what you’re practicing. Neither am I suggesting that you ignore human nature. I’m just telling you that your governors have that same nature, and they are in the process of reaming you out. [/QUOTE] Dude, I don’t have a Congress and my legal rights are just fine. Just because your country is going all to shit doesn’t mean mine is. If your politicians are reaming you out, vote them the fuck out of office. Nitpick on ‘structure’ vs ‘philosophy’ if you like, it doesn’t change the fact that libertarianism is hopelessly naive concerning human nature in much the same respect that communism is. Your preference isn’t impractical because most people disagree with you. Your preference is impractical because people are wicked and nasty to each other unless constrained to a greater degree than your philosophy allows. Sure, a libertarian state would be possible, and sure, it would result in fewer injustices perpetrated by the government. But it would do so at the cost of far more and greater injustices perpetrated by private citizens. Not a bargain I care to make. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2007, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/40 "2007-01-24T06:50:03Z")
[QUOTE=Lissa] Not disputing this, although Lincoln’s staff allowed this to be used to stop those who spoke out against him (rebellion I guess), but what about during World War 2, or the War of 1812 where similar methods were utilized. All I am saying is that the presidency has a long history of suspending constitutional H.C. when they deem necessary. In other words, using the moist towlette when needed. [/QUOTE] The right of H.C. came back after those wars ended. The difference in this case is they are being stripped in the name of a fuzzily defined and open ended war on terror. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124.md?page=3)