# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/61 "2007-01-25T18:13:48Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > To clarify something which I have inadvertently started here, I was not accusing Liberal of having hijacked the thread, but rather that, he having posted from his views on political philosophy (duly held, and as he points out, as appropriate as anyone else’s), we had gotten off into a rather theoretical discussion about the origin and nature of rights. Thanks for clearing that up. I do think that the origin and nature of rights bears directly on this topic. If our freedom is slipping away, it is because government is using its power to usurp an unethical authority. What I’m saying is that if the right to the writ can be destroyed by this Gonzales maneouvre, then it is proof that the alleged Constitutional guarantees are illusory, and subject to the whims and interpretations of men with power. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/62 "2007-01-25T18:20:38Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Can anybody find a cite for this besides the one linked in the OP? I can’t find any other mention of this exchange in Google, nor can I find a transcript of the hearing. [/QUOTE] [Video and transcript](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/63 "2007-01-26T02:22:32Z")
It occurs to me that, sidestepping arguments over what rights exist when they are discussed certain ways in the Constitution, there’s a very simple thing going on here. The Constitution forbids restriction of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and Gonzales is…restricting habeas corpus. Not much you can really do with that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/64 "2007-01-26T02:55:28Z")
He did leave himself a weasel-hole, a rhetorical trap door. Note: “…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…” He could sidestep with “every citizen” not being equivalent to “every individual”. He could say that of course every citizen has assurances of habeas, but that does not necessarily extend to every _individual_. Non-citizens such as terrorist infiltrators and illegal aliens of other stripes are not so blessed. As well as such persons who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship rights by way of treasonous actions or utterances and whose names appear on The List… (OK, made that up, not a true fact you can look up. I hope.) So he has some squirming room. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/65 "2007-01-26T02:58:22Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] . . . but if I were to even suggest once that the real solution to habeas corpus issues is more sexual bondage . . . [/QUOTE] Nah. They already **tried** that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124/66 "2007-01-26T03:00:07Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] As well as such persons who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship rights by way of treasonous actions or utterances and whose names appear on The List… [/QUOTE] Well, there’s also this clause prohibiting [Bills of Attainder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder) . . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alberto-gonzalez-and-habeas-corpus/389124.md?page=3)