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:
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:
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.
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 * (Hamdi was an American born guy of Saudi parents who ended up in Gitmo):
“Every individual in the US” would include non-citizen combatants;
Which taken alone, might imply US citizens abroad;
He’s technically right. It seems like another “what is the meaning of the word is is” kind of word game to me.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
THree judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
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.
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.
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.
