Newspaper logo  
Local Gov’t Stories, Events


Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Books, Films, Arts & Education

10.19 NAACP Calls for No More Charters Until Privatized Schools Face Same Standards as Public Schools


Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

10.21 Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump on science, energy, and the climate

10.21 That's 4 straight debates without a single question on climate change. Good job, everyone.

10.21 Bottled Water or Tap: How Much Does Your Choice Matter?

10.21 We are approaching the Trumpocene, a new epoch where climate change is just a big scary conspiracy

10.21 Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded

10.21 Onshore windfarms more popular than thought, UK poll finds

10.21 Europe's offshore wind industry booming as costs fall

10.20 Climate Change Got Exactly 2 Seconds of Time in the Final Debate


10.20 Toxic products cost the US $340 billion a year

10.20 Air pollution more deadly in Africa than malnutrition or dirty water, study warns

10.19 Hottest September on Record Basically "Locks In" 2016 as Hottest Year: NASA

10.18 The past two weeks are a perfect illustration of what “solving” climate change will look like

10.17 This new technology could save the troubled nuclear power industry

10.17 Neoliberalism is creating loneliness. That’s what’s wrenching society apart

10.17 Planned Parenthood is 100 years old, but the fight for reproductive rights goes on

10.17 Use of strongest antibiotics rises to record levels on European farms

News Media Matters

10.21 Naomi Klein and Glenn Greenwald Tackle Ethics of WikiLeaks' Podesta Emails [32:21 audio clip]

10.21 Foreign journalists on 2016: ‘Is this the demise of objective American journalism?’

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

10.21 Will 2016 Mark the Return of the Blue Dog Democrat? [Dems willing to do anything but look left for support]

10.20 Seven races that could flip the Senate: Trump’s impending defeat may lead to a down-ballot massacre

10.20 Donald Trump refuses to say if he will accept election result in final debate [videos]

10.19 The Popular Populist

10.19 How the 'Losers' in America’s Trade Policies Got Left Behind

10.19 Paul Ryan: If Republicans Lose the Senate, Bernie Sanders Wins

10.19 To Build the Political Revolution, Grassroots Group Endorses 22 "People's Candidates"

10.19 Sanders Champions Colorado Single Payer Effort as Model for Nation

10.19 'Unforgivable': Women Blockade Trump Campaign Offices Nationwide

10.19 With No Illusions, Says Climate Leader, Clinton Must Be Elected—Then Fiercely Confronted

10.19 Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton face fear and loathing at third debate

10.18 Ascendance of Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton Equals Big Win for Big Business

10.18 In Town for Pramila Jayapal, Bernie Sanders Booed at Mentions of Hillary

10.18 How Trump's Casino Bankruptcies Screwed His Workers out of Millions in Retirement Savings

10.18 Sanders and Warren: First Vanquish Trump, Then Mobilize for 'Political Revolution' [1:12:25 video]

Justice Matters


10.20 Mass incarceration in America, explained in 22 maps and charts

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

10.21 Capitalism Is Doomed — Without Alternatives, So Are We

10.21 Debate Moderators Under the Spell of Deficit-Obsessed Billionaire Pete Peterson

10.20 Here’s the Trade Policy That Progressives Should Get Behind

10.19 Prop. 51 Versus a State-Owned Bank: How California Can Save $10 Billion on a $9 Billion Loan

10.18 The privilege of being privileged


10.20 Elon Musk says fully self-driving Tesla cars already being built

10.19 Everything You Need to Know About the Momentous Habitat III

10.17 Break the Silence: Hillary Clinton’s Role in the 2009 Military Coup in Honduras [sadly, we believe Trump would have done even worse for a bigger bribe]

10.17 India's comic-book superheroine trains her powers on acid attacks

10.17 An insider's guide to Beijing: caged birds, smog and internet satire [1:15 audio clip]

10.17 'A bus in a traffic jam? It's as unjust as it once was not to allow women to vote'

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
This site Web
  Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
Newspaper logo


Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

While Gonzales’s statement has a measure of quibbling precision to it, his logic is troubling because it would suggest that many other fundamental rights that Americans hold dear also don’t exist because the Constitution often spells out those rights in the negative.

For instance, the First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.
Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.

Similarly, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The clear meaning of the clause, as interpreted for more than two centuries, is that the Founders recognized the long-established English law principle of habeas corpus, which guarantees people the right of due process, such as formal charges and a fair trial.

That Attorney General Gonzales would express such an extraordinary opinion, doubting the constitutional protection of habeas corpus, suggests either a sophomoric mind or an unwillingness to respect this well-established right, one that the Founders considered so important that they embedded it in the original text of the Constitution.

Other cherished rights – including freedom of religion and speech – were added later in the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.”
Bush's Powers
Gonzales’s Jan. 18 statement suggests that he is still seeking reasons to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to President George W. Bush’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “a time of war,” even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” which may last forever.

In the final weeks of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Bush administration pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively eliminated habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal resident aliens.

Under the new law, Bush can declare any non-citizen an “unlawful enemy combatant” and put the person into a system of military tribunals that give defendants only limited rights. Critics have called the tribunals “kangaroo courts” because the rules are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecution.

Some language in the new law also suggests that “any person,” presumably including American citizens, could be swept up into indefinite detention if they are suspected of having aided and abetted terrorists.

Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that “any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct.”

Who has “an allegiance or duty to the United States” if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

The law states that once a person is detained, “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

That court-stripping provision – barring “any claim or cause of action whatsoever” – would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can’t file a motion with a court, he can’t assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.

Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights – such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” – would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.

Special Rules
Under the new law, the military judge “may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings” if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it “possesses sufficient probative value” and “the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable.”

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a “national security privilege” that could stop “the examination of any witness,” presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel “star chamber” system for the prosecution, imprisonment and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.

Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants,” Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for “any person” – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some ill-defined line.
Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants,” Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for “any person” – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some ill-defined line.

There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush and advisers will interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in their favor, thus granting Bush the broadest possible powers over people he identifies as enemies.

As further evidence of that, the American people now know that Attorney General Gonzales doesn’t even believe that the Constitution grants them habeas corpus rights to a fair trial.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at It's also available at, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

Note: Also read Deborah Kory's parody: How to Interpret the Ten Commandments -- An attempt at legal analysis of Biblical law following Gonzalesian logic.

Copyright © 2007 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on January 19, 2007.

Public Service Ads: