# 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:** 8
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/141 "2007-06-22T17:46:44Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] The problem with the second argument is that it’s subjective, and not a matter on which all reasonable people will automatically agree. If Gonzales were the only person holding his view, you might have a point. When a circuit court agrees (and two of the three judges are Clinton apointees and one is a Bush apointee) you may certainly argue they’re wrong, but you can’t argue they’re so unreasonably wrong that no reasonable person could hold the view. [/QUOTE] So what? There is very little in law or the constitution on which reasonable people don’t disagree. The courts are full of cases in which reasonable people are disagreeing. And if a court is wrong it doesn’t make any difference whether or not it is reasonable wrong. The court appears to adopted the position that a US citizen taken within the US can be denied relief because the president has declared him to be an enemy combatant with no way to challenge that declaration and because congress authorized the use of military force in another nation entiresly. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/142 "2007-06-22T18:39:52Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] So what? There is very little in law or the constitution on which reasonable people don’t disagree. The courts are full of cases in which reasonable people are disagreeing. And if a court is wrong it doesn’t make any difference whether or not it is reasonable wrong. The court appears to adopted the position that a US citizen taken within the US can be denied relief because the president has declared him to be an enemy combatant with no way to challenge that declaration and because congress authorized the use of military force in another nation entiresly. [/QUOTE] And is the court wrong? See, here’s the nub of the issue: you want the court to correct national policy by making law which gets us to the right answer - the answer that SHOULD be so. The court should not accept the invitation to do that. The court should rule on what the text of the laws say, and rely upon the legislature to change the law. You want to empower a group of wise philosopher-kings to have super-legislative powers, to intervene when the foolish legislature fails to get it right. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/143 "2007-06-22T19:19:05Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] See, here’s the nub of the issue: you want the court to correct national policy by making law which gets us to the right answer - the answer that SHOULD be so. [/quote] In general, I think that’s the case, absolutely. In this case, though, a person who believes that the Constitution covers this situation (as the SC hints they believe) will reach the same conclusion. It doesn’t require an activist judge to believe that prisoners held in US-controlled territory by US forces who are not uniformed combatants ought to be covered by constitutional habeas protections. Daniel ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/144 "2007-06-22T19:21:59Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] In general, I think that’s the case, absolutely. In this case, though, a person who believes that the Constitution covers this situation (as the SC hints they believe) will reach the same conclusion. It doesn’t require an activist judge to believe that prisoners held in US-controlled territory by US forces who are not uniformed combatants ought to be covered by constitutional habeas protections. Daniel [/QUOTE] No, it doesn’t. But neither is the opposite conclusion the work of a madman. This is an issue about which reasonable people may disagree without being accused of not having read the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/145 "2007-06-22T19:22:27Z")
**John** from Post #121: **Daniel** was absolutely correct in Post #122. The _Rasul_ Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the detainees were entitled to the protection of the Constitution to preserve whatever right to habeas corpus they might have because they were conclusively entitled to _statutory_ habeas protection in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/146 "2007-06-22T19:43:03Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] No, it doesn’t. But neither is the opposite conclusion the work of a madman. This is an issue about which reasonable people may disagree without being accused of not having read the Constitution. [/QUOTE] True, and I won’t accuse them of not having read the Constitution. I might, however, accuse them of holding beliefs dangerous both to the ideals of democracy and to our nation’s security, inasmuch as such beliefs undermine our claim to the moral high ground of human rights, a tool that once was as powerful as our military. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/147 "2007-06-22T19:48:13Z")
Continuing from my previous post: And, of course, statutory habeas was stripped by the DTA and (after _Hamdi_) by the MCA, and then the D.C. Circuit decided _Boumedienne_, which—with wonderful weirdness—essentially held that the detainees were not entitled to constitutional habeas protection on the same ground that the _Rasul_ Court **rejected** in determining that they _were_ entitled to statutory habeas protection — namely, that GTMO, despite being completely under United States control, was not part of our sovereign territory and thus excluded from the understanding of habeas at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Ha. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/148 "2007-06-22T20:00:52Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Look, if someone comes along and says that David Duke was a child molestor, and I demur, must we leap to the conclusion that I revere his Klan-loving ass? [/QUOTE] Not a fair question. _Reductio ad absurdum est._ I don’t doubt that you are possessed of the purest motives, you are sore wrought to see Bertie so heartlessly pilloried by such as we. Have you a moment to spare for the other victims? Surely it must have occured to you by now, as it has to so many of us, that several of the detainees are guilty of little, if anything, that might be construed as “enemy combativeness”. (If they are America’s enemies _now_, who could blame them?). Mr. Gonzales labors mightily to protect that injustice from correction, he seeks to ferret out a rationale to make it more seemly, if not less nauseating. Are these the actions of a man whose reputation is worthy of defense? Have you no better uses for a nimble mind, so carefully trained? I neither know nor care whether David Duke is a child molestor, he is a pustule regardless. Mr. Gonzales squandors his talents to defend molestors of Justice Herself. Can you point to any effort he has expended on behalf of the falsely accused? Has he offered any alternative to _habeas_ that might serve the cause of protecting the innocent, shown us any reason to believe he gives more of a rat’s ass than his Master? ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/149 "2007-06-22T20:11:05Z")
[QUOTE=Gadarene] **John** from Post #121: **Daniel** was absolutely correct in Post #122. The _Rasul_ Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the detainees were entitled to the protection of the Constitution to preserve whatever right to habeas corpus they might have because they were conclusively entitled to _statutory_ habeas protection in that regard. [/QUOTE] :smack: My bad. For some reason I didn’t see “constitutional” in your original post. We are all three of us saying the same thing. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/150 "2007-06-22T20:12:29Z")
[QUOTE=Gadarene] Continuing from my previous post: And, of course, statutory habeas was stripped by the DTA and (after _Hamdi_) by the MCA, and then the D.C. Circuit decided _Boumedienne_, which—with wonderful weirdness—essentially held that the detainees were not entitled to constitutional habeas protection on the same ground that the _Rasul_ Court **rejected** in determining that they _were_ entitled to statutory habeas protection — namely, that GTMO, despite being completely under United States control, was not part of our sovereign territory and thus excluded from the understanding of habeas at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Ha. [/QUOTE] And the US Supreme Court had every opportunity to grant cert to _Boumedienne_ and correct the misunderstanding of their subtle hint of approval of the Constitutional underpinnings of habeas rights to Gitmo detainees. But they denied cert instead. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/151 "2007-06-22T20:14:16Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] And is the court wrong? See, here’s the nub of the issue: you want the court to correct national policy by making law which gets us to the right answer - the answer that SHOULD be so. The court should not accept the invitation to do that. The court should rule on what the text of the laws say, and rely upon the legislature to change the law. You want to empower a group of wise philosopher-kings to have super-legislative powers, to intervene when the foolish legislature fails to get it right. [/QUOTE] Courts have been known to decide that the legislature was wrong in passing an unconstitutional law. That’s not making law. I think the answer should be that US citizens are not subject to what might very well be an unfounded accusation by the president or anyone else that they are of a class of person who can be held indefinitely without being brought to trial. Until there is an exposure of the evidence on which the president made his decision and the accused has an opportunity to explain or refute it whatever it is we call justice hasn’t been served. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/152 "2007-06-22T20:18:32Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] …whatever it is we call justice hasn’t been served. [/QUOTE] America stands, first and foremost, for truth and justice. Remember when you believed that? Wasn’t it lovely? ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/153 "2007-06-22T20:21:31Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I neither know nor care whether David Duke is a child molestor, he is a pustule regardless. [/QUOTE] This is my problem. Sure, Duke’s a pustule. But if he’s not a child molestor, then it’s not correct to sit back and let him be accused of such even if he IS a pustule. Similarly, if Gonzales is crazy-mad with his desire to strip away judicial review of any kind for detainees, fine - criticize him for that. But don’t accuse him of stuff that isn’t true, or yawn when others do. I’ve mentioned before this tendency, which I’ve come to call the Aunt Polly Syndrome: > [@Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer](#): > > Sid, happy in his immunity, reached for the sugar-bowl–a sort of glorying over Tom which was wellnigh unbearable. But Sid’s fingers slipped and the bowl dropped and broke. Tom was in ecstasies. In such ecstasies that he even controlled his tongue and was silent. He said to himself that he would not speak a word, even when his aunt came in, but would sit perfectly still till she asked who did the mischief; and then he would tell, and there would be nothing so good in the world as to see that pet model “catch it.” He was so brimful of exultation that he could hardly hold himself when the old lady came back and stood above the wreck discharging lightnings of wrath from over her spectacles. He said to himself, “Now it’s coming!” And the next instant he was sprawling on the floor! The potent palm was uplifted to strike again when Tom cried out: > > “Hold on, now, what 'er you belting ME for?–Sid broke it!” > > Aunt Polly paused, perplexed, and Tom looked for healing pity. But when she got her tongue again, she only said: > > “Umf! Well, you didn’t get a lick amiss, I reckon. You been into some other audacious mischief when I wasn’t around, like enough.” Who cares if he did THIS bad thing? He’s done plenty of other bad stuff, so let 'im hang for this one, too. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/154 "2007-06-22T20:22:22Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > And the US Supreme Court had every opportunity to grant cert to Boumedienne and correct the misunderstanding of their subtle hint of approval of the Constitutional underpinnings of habeas rights to Gitmo detainees. > > But they denied cert instead. Which, while somewhat unusual given the import of the case, is not to be taken as any indication of their position on the merits. Yadda yadda. Besides which, if you look at the explanation issued by Stevens and Kennedy regarding _why_ they voted to deny cert. (an action that may be unprecedented—I certainly can’t remember ever having seen it before), they appear to believe that the nature of constitutional habeas is still very much up in the air. They just want to require the detainees to go through the MCA process first: > [@](#): > > Statement of Justice STEVENS and Justice KENNEDY respecting the denial of certiorari. > > Despite the obvious importance of the issues raised in these cases, we are persuaded that traditional rules governing our decision of constitutional questions, see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), and our practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus, cf. Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572 (1944) (per curiam), make it appropriate to deny these petitions at this time. However, “[t]his Court has frequently recognized that the policy underlying the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine does not require the exhaustion of inadequate remedies.” Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561, 570, n. 12, 68 S.Ct. 240, 92 L.Ed. 170 (1947) (Rutledge, J., concurring). If petitioners later seek to establish that the Government has unreasonably delayed proceedings under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Tit. X, 119 Stat. 2739, or some other and ongoing injury, alternative means exist for us to consider our jurisdiction over the allegations made by petitioners before the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651(a), 2241. Were the Government to take additional steps to prejudice the position of petitioners in seeking review in this Court, “courts of competent jurisdiction,” including this Court, “should act promptly to ensure that the office and purposes of the writ of habeas corpus are not compromised.” Padilla v. Hanft, 547 U.S. 1062, 1064, 126 S.Ct. 1649, 164 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). And as always, denial of certiorari does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 480-481, 124 S.Ct. 2686, 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004) (majority opinion of STEVENS, J.); id., at 487, 124 S.Ct. 2686 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment). 127 S. Ct. 1478, 1478 (2007). ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/155 "2007-06-22T20:28:30Z")
And,again, I ask: what steps can you point to that he has taken to protect the innocent, nearly so energeticly as he has protected their oppressors? Where is this ferocious determination to protect innocence expressed for those who suffer _from_ Mr. Gonzalez? I fall short, I fear, of your shining example, I cannot help but feel that those how deny justice to others are less deserving of Her shelter. Clearly, you are made of sterner stuff, ideals unsullied by such partisan concerns. Yes. That must be it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/156 "2007-06-22T20:33:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I fall short, I fear, of your shining example, I cannot help but feel that those how deny justice to others are less deserving of Her shelter. [/QUOTE] That seems to be a trait you share with Gonzales, I’m afraid. Part of the mark of our system surely ought to be that we treat scumbags with dignity and fairness, shouldn’t it? But if you think he ought to receive less protection from justice than others, are you really that far removed from his stance in this case? I’ve imagined a missed opportunity in the war on terror: every time a video came out of terrorist decapitating a prisoner, imagine if we could have responded with a video of prisoner’s quarters that were clean, comfortable, and respectful, with the prisoner’s identity blurred out to protect their Geneva Convention rights. If, in our every action, we could have established a stark contrast between Al Qaeda and ourselves. Abu Ghraib put paid to that idea, unfortunately. It woulda been grand, I think. Daniel ---
**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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/157 "2007-06-22T20:41:49Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] America stands, first and foremost, for truth and justice. Remember when you believed that? Wasn’t it lovely? [/QUOTE] Well, it was never perfect but I think most of our prosecuters and Attorneys General were trying. Now I don’t think that’s the case. Instead we are looking for every legalistic dodge that can used to not try. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/158 "2007-06-22T20:49:47Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I neither know nor care whether David Duke is a child molestor, he is a pustule regardless. Mr. Gonzales squandors his talents to defend molestors of Justice Herself. Can you point to any effort he has expended on behalf of the falsely accused? Has he offered any alternative to _habeas_ that might serve the cause of protecting the innocent, shown us any reason to believe he gives more of a rat’s ass than his Master? [/QUOTE] Well, as Bricker says, context is important. And I think it’s quite reasonable to judge AG’s intent from his other actions. Surely, if his intent is to defend the Constitution and maintain the strength and resilience of American government, it will show in his other actions. For example, what lessons are we to learn about AG from his statement that the Geneva Conventions are quaint? What lessons are we to learn from his finding that if an activity does not involve pain equivalent to major organ failure, it’s not torture? What lessons are we to learn from his acquiescence if not active participation in transforming his own Justice Department into a political tool for Karl Rove to use in his electioneering efforts? Now, when you apply the lessons we have learned from AG to his statement about habeas, surely we have a basis for a more nuanced, refined understanding of his intent wrt to his seeming willingness to discard habeas. Namely, that he would really like to discard habeas. It’s quaint, y’know? ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/159 "2007-06-22T22:01:38Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] That seems to be a trait you share with Gonzales, I’m afraid. Part of the mark of our system surely ought to be that we treat scumbags with dignity and fairness, shouldn’t it? But if you think he ought to receive less protection from justice than others, are you really that far removed from his stance in this case?.. [/QUOTE] What dreadful consequence, outside of our shared contempt, does Mr. Gonzalez face? How big is his prison cell, what considerations are afforded to his religious beliefs? His foot rests on the neck of the innocent, does it tire from the stress? Poor dear, poor dear. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694/160 "2007-06-22T22:12:53Z")
On a related note… > [@](#): > > [U.S. struggles with shutting down Guantanamo](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070622/ts_nm/usa_guantanamo_dc_3;_ylt=AvQuB7rFKp0wbCNfA_3blB8E1vAI) > > After insisting for years the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay was vital to national security, U.S. officials are now trying to shut it down but are having trouble coming up with a plan to do it. > > \ > > Bush would like to clear up the Guantanamo issue and what to do about the 375 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban followers held there before leaving office in January 2009 and remove it as an issue for his successor… I almost find that last part hard to believe. Perhaps The Decider can tackle Iraq next, so as not to leave that for “future presidents” to deal with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gonzalez-really-say-this/408694.md?page=9)