# Did Gonzalez really say this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2007, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694 "2007-06-20T08:46:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/101 "2007-06-21T21:25:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Why do you begin your “key exchange” there? [/quote] Because that’s where the meat is. Notice how he chooses to focus on the content of the Constitution, instead of focusing on why Rasul had nothing to do with the Constitution. It should have been rather easy for him to say that Rasul was a non-citizen held on foreign grounds and therefore Constutitional habeas corpus did not apply. Instead, he chose to talk about the rights of citizens. This is what Spector said: > [@](#): > > 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? If AG meant what you think he did, a reasonable response should have been: “I meant by that comment, the Constitution didn’t apply in that situation because of the status [non-citizen on foreign soil] of the individual [Rasul] involved. That’s why the court viewed it as a statutory matter.” That makes sense, right? But what we get is this: > [@](#): > > 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 — He decides to tell Spector about what is promised (or not) in the Constitution for folks in the US. It doesn’t address Rasul at all. His argument either is another strike against his intelligence or another strike against his trustworthiness as servant of the Constitution. I think its both. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/102 "2007-06-21T21:25:36Z")
Unless the President declares the artichoke to be an enemy combatant. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/103 "2007-06-21T21:35:09Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Unless the President declares the artichoke to be an enemy combatant. [/QUOTE] Yes, and it is against such actions that we should be glad we have individuals like Antonin Scalia on the Supreme court. As he noted in [\*Hamdi \*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld) (Hamdi was an American born guy of Saudi parents who ended up in Gitmo): > [@](#): > > Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, went the furthest in restricting the Executive power of detention. Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus (a power provided for under the Constitution only in times of “invasion” or “rebellion”), which hadn’t happened; or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi’s detention—it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/104 "2007-06-21T21:51:49Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > He decides to tell Spector about what is promised (or not) in the Constitution for folks in the US. Lets parse it: > [@](#): > > GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States “Every individual in the US” would include non-citizen combatants; > [@](#): > > or every citizen Which taken alone, might imply US citizens abroad; > [@](#): > > 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 — He’s technically right. It seems like another “what is the meaning of the word _is_ is” kind of word game to me. > [@you with the face](#): > > It doesn’t address Rasul at all. Because he got asked about the Constitution by A. Spectre, not about _Rasul_, in the preceding question. For some reason, I find **John Mace** ’s arguments compelling. I think the President views himself as a wartime President, dealing with a serious National Security issue. (i.e. The War on Terror.) And I think he kinda is, too. But I also think that the President feels that he needs to suspend bits and pieces of the law (or Constitution) to deal with TWoT, kinda like Lincoln did… and the AG (whether he may personally agree with that view or not) is backing his boss. (Since the AG is a Presidential apointee, his loyalties lie more with the Executive Branch, and not the Judicial.) Am I wrong in how I read the situation? ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/105 "2007-06-21T21:55:33Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] OK, fair enough. When I say “technically,” I mean it literally, hypertechnically. Taking the exact meaning of his words, what he says is literally true. The Constitution contains no words that say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” You cannot point to ink on the paper of the Constitution that forms those words. Now, that’s obviously a ridiculous games. But so is the idea of taking Gonzales’ words out of the context of his conversation with Spector. Hence my point: if you wish to be hypertechnical, pointing only to Gonzales’ words and nothing else to claim that the AG misunderstands a fundamental tenent of the Constitution, then I disagree: hypertechnically, his words are literally true. But that’s a foolish question to ask; a foolish standard to propose. A better standard would be: what, _in the context of his discussion of the Supreme Court case with the Senator_, did his words mean? [/QUOTE] Thanks for the reply. FWIW, the point that confused me was the distinction between interpreting _Gonzales_ hypertechnically and interpreting _the Constitution_ hypertechnically. If we interpret the Constitution correctly (and hence _not_ hypertechnically), then a hypertechnical interpretation of Gonzales’s words yields a falsehood. If you are interpreting the Constitution correctly, there needn’t be text saying “the right of habeas corpus is hereby granted” for this to be true. You just need to point to text that has the effect, under the correct interpretation, of granting habeas corpus. Text might have that effect even if it doesn’t contain the particular words you suggested. But once it is granted that the Constitution does in fact have that effect, Gonzales’s statement would be incorrect when interpreted hypertechnically. However, I understand that your point is that the hypertechnical interpretation of Gonzales’s statement shouldn’t even be used. Therefore, whether the statement would be true or false under that interpretation is immaterial to your argument. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2007, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/106 "2007-06-21T22:15:35Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] For some reason, I find **John Mace** ’s arguments compelling. [/quote] What do you mean “for some reason”? 🙂 > [@](#): > > I think the President views himself as a wartime President, dealing with a serious National Security issue. (i.e. The War on Terror.) And I think he kinda is, too. > > But I also think that the President feels that he needs to suspend bits and pieces of the law (or Constitution) to deal with TWoT, kinda like Lincoln did… and the AG (whether he may personally agree with that view or not) is backing his boss. (Since the AG is a Presidential apointee, his loyalties lie more with the Executive Branch, and not the Judicial.) > > Am I wrong in how I read the situation? Yes, I think this is exactly it, although I don’t tend to agree with the sentiment. I’ve heard some analysts say (and I have some sympathy for this argument) that Bush need to to take some short cuts in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01. In fact, that is why FISA has a provision that allows the prez to issue warrantless wiretaps for 15 days in the event of an emergency. But it’s one thing to claim to need emergency powers immediately after an emergency, and another to claim those same powers indefinitely. The so-called War on Terror is never going to be over, and it’s absurd to claim war-time powers for “the duration” when the duration is forever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/107 "2007-06-21T22:30:10Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] But I don’t think it really matters, because even if he didn’t say so here, we know for a fact that he thinks the president can deny a US citizen the right (or privilege) of _habeas corpus_ so long as the president declares that person an “illegal enemy combatant”. [/QUOTE] We do?!? How do we know that? ---
**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:** [June 21, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/108 "2007-06-21T23:12:19Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] We do?!? How do we know that? [/QUOTE] That has been the position of the Bush administration since the beginning of the so-called War on Terror, and Gonzales has supported it: > [@](#): > > [Detention of American Is Defended](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64079-2005Mar1.html) > > Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales yesterday strongly defended the Bush administration’s decision to detain alleged al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla for more than two years without criminal charges, arguing that the government has the right to hold alleged enemy combatants in the war on terrorism “for the duration of hostilities.” > > But Gonzales, testifying at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Justice Department’s budget, also said that the administration “has no interest in holding someone indefinitely” and will eventually seek to “dispose of the matter” through criminal charges or other actions. > > \ > > Gonzales said that although the administration does not intend to hold Padilla indefinitely, the president has the authority to do so if necessary. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2007, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/109 "2007-06-21T23:26:46Z")
It might be (some small) comfort to note that the Bush administration has never yet failed to honor a writ a _habeas corpus_, even though it has argued that it shouldn’t need to. In the various cases before the courts (especially those concerning Hamdi and Padilla, since they are US citizens), the administration could have simply refused to accept that the court had jurisdiction and not defended its action at all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/110 "2007-06-21T23:28:07Z")
May I make so bold as to ask a direct question, friend **Bricker**? What do _you_ think? One gets the impression that you think Mr. Gonzalez is being unfairly pilloried for what are entirely acceptable interpretations of the protections afforded by the Constitution, or, alternatively, you accept the notion that present extraordinary circumstances justify a Presidential “overide”. And, of course, that such a Presidential discretion is firmly based on clear and unequivocal Constitutional text. Tell us what you think. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/111 "2007-06-22T03:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **David** : Look at the quote I was responding to-- the poster was talking about what the implications were for the entire constitution based on what AG said. [/QUOTE] > [@tim314](#): > > Exactly. This is my point from post 45 above. > > Supposing Bricker is correct and Gonzales is only talking about the Constitution as it applies (or doesn’t) to Gitmo detainees. > > With that interpretation, he seems to be saying: "The Constitution doesn’t contain the language ‘everyone has the right to habeas corpus’, thus Gitmo detainees may not have this right. And thus, the Constitution’s rules for when you can take away that right are irrelevant. > > It may be true that, legally, the Gitmo detainees aren’t guaranteed the right of habeas corpus. But the problem here is you could apply the same reasoning to anyone, even U.S. citizens (although at least in Bricker’s interpretation Gonzales stops short of doing this.) You could say the Constitution doesn’t guarantee tim314 habeas corpus rights, so its rules for when you may take it away don’t apply to him either. > > Assuming the Constitution does grant habeas corpus to someone. at least implicitly, then doesn’t this expose a flaw in Gonzales’ reasoning? Well, that isn’t how I read the above quote. It seems to me that the quote deals with the constitution as it applies in the case of _habeas corpus._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/112 "2007-06-22T03:33:17Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That has been the position of the Bush administration since the beginning of the so-called War on Terror, and Gonzales has supported it: [/QUOTE] Fair enough. I can only point out that six months AFTER Gonzales made the remarks you quote, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority, agreeing with what Gonzales said. But yes, I agree: Gonzales does support this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/113 "2007-06-22T03:41:25Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] May I make so bold as to ask a direct question, friend **Bricker**? What do _you_ think? One gets the impression that you think Mr. Gonzalez is being unfairly pilloried for what are entirely acceptable interpretations of the protections afforded by the Constitution, or, alternatively, you accept the notion that present extraordinary circumstances justify a Presidential “overide”. [/quote] Neither of the above. Gonzales is being pilloried for an opinion he never offered. His comment referred to a particular Supreme Court case, and was 100% correct. So what I think is that Gonzales may well be fairly attacked for views he holds. I don’t agree with him on the issue of detention of US citizens; I contend that a US citizen detained by the US government has a right to habeas review. But while Gonzales might well be a fascist-in-training, WHAT HE SAID TO SPECTOR IS ENTIRELY CORRECT. What he said at other times about habeas in general is wrong, or at least I contend it’s wrong. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Why must he be slammed for the one time he’s right? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/114 "2007-06-22T03:42:07Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] … a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority, agreeing with what Gonzales said. [/QUOTE] Which three judges? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/115 "2007-06-22T04:02:42Z")
That’s very reassuring, friend **Bricker**. One might otherwise think you hold Alberto in the highest esteem, a gem in the crown of Justice. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2007, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/116 "2007-06-22T05:16:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair enough. I can only point out that six months AFTER Gonzales made the remarks you quote, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority, agreeing with what Gonzales said. Yes, they did. But I have no doubt that decision would be overturned but the SCOTUS. We will, of course, never know since Padilla is now on trial for charges unrelated to the infamous “dirty bomb” charge that was initially sited as the reason for his detention. [QUOTE=David Simmons] Which three judges? [/QUOTE] THree judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. > [@](#): > > [JUDGE ORDERS CONTINUED DETENTION OF SUSPECTED ‘DIRTY BOMBER’](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/padilla_09-09-05.html) > > In a major victory for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court decided Friday that the president has the authority to detain enemy combatants. > > The ruling allows the government to continue its imprisonment of Jose Padilla, who has been deemed an enemy combatant by the government and has been held without charges for more than three years, despite being an American citizen. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/117 "2007-06-22T05:29:42Z")
Whats funny is, if Hillary wins, they’ll be falling all over themselves to declare the War on Terror officially over ---
**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:** [June 22, 2007, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/118 "2007-06-22T05:34:45Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Neither of the above. Gonzales is being pilloried for an opinion he never offered. His comment referred to a particular Supreme Court case, and was 100% correct. [/QUOTE] No. His comment was not in reference to that Supreme Court case. If it was, then why did he use the term “citizens” when that case had nothing to do with citizens. You have yet to address that issue. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/119 "2007-06-22T06:46:29Z")
**John Mace** , nice work on posts 97 and 98. You convinced me! The explanation that Gonzales gives reminds me of the description of the terms of the line of credit I’ve just taken out. Legal minds may have fun with the twists and turns and commas, clauses and ultimately the arguments. As for me, I like colors, textures, words, scents, stone, wood, silence. I think most Americans are really turned off by all of the technicalities. They want the straight dope. Simplicity. The Constitution is not simple, I know, but it is not supposed to be a Klein bottle either. We cannot trust the actions, recollections, compassion or interpretations of Alberto Gonzales who has apparently pledged his allegiance to a man and not to the ideals of justice for all. I heard a news story tonight (NBC?) that said that the President is seriously considering closing Guantanamo. The President denies that he has made a final decision. The word is that only a “small handful” of prisoners have enough evidence against them to be charged. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/120 "2007-06-22T12:57:32Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] THree judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. [/QUOTE] Yes, John, even I figured that out and it only took me 15 minutes. But there are a lot of judges on that court and it’s certainly not beyond our Justice Department to judge shop. The Chief Justice of that court doubtless assigns which judges heard the case. GW and his father have appointed the majority of the judges and those who elected and manage Republican presidentsd lately have made no secret of their intent to appoint judges who will rule favorably for them. That’s one of the things that the current administrations has succeeded in. To wit, raising suspicions about the motives and actions of the judiciary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694.md?page=7)