[Vision2020] This Attorney General Has to Go?

[Tony]

Thank you Andreas for the context I requested.  Could you please provide 
another few minutes of the exchange in order to make sure Gonzales did not 
eventually explain his reasoning effectively?

Thanks,  -Tony
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: <nickgier at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] This Attorney General Has to Go?


> On 2/22/07, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
>> Nick, would it be reasonable to expect you to quote A.G. Gonzales' entire
>> message with regard to habeas corpus?  One might otherwise suspect, after
>> all, that you are quoting him out of context.  He does seem like a
>> reasonable man......   You don't having anything against Hispanics in 
>> this
>> administration do you?  I know that the diversity of the Bush cabinet has
>> caused consternation for more than a few.
>
> Tony --
>
> Here is the entire context in which it appears:
>
>    SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit
> provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except
> for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that
> habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in
> Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the
> statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there's an express
> constitutional provision that it can't be suspended, and an explicit
> Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
>
>    GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme
> Court case you're referring to dealt only with the statutory right to
> habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
>
>    SPECTER: Well, you're not right about that. It's plain on its face
> they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They
> talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except
> in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John
> Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in
> the Constitution.
>
>    GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the
> constitutional right to habeas doesn't mean that the decision dealt
> with that constitutional right to habeas.
>
>    SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
>
>    GONZALES: It has been a while, but I'll be happy to — I will go
> back and look at it.
>
>    SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
>
>    GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the
> Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the
> Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's
> never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme —
>
>    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?
>
>    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 —
>
>    SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating
> common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
>
>    GONZALES: Um.
>
> What part of this don't you understand?
>
> -- ACS
>
> P.S. to Sunil: I promise this will be my last time! I promise!
>
>