Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local Gov’t Stories, Events

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

03.24 How Corruption Fuels Climate Change

03.24 ‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

03.24 A river of rubbish: the ugly secret threatening China's most beautiful city

03.24 Europe poised for total ban on bee-harming pesticides

03.23 Daily Reads: World Enters ‘Uncharted Territory’ on Climate; Manafort and the Oligarch

03.23 Two Ohio coal-fired plants to close, deepening industry decline [hurrah!]

03.23 Exclusive: Lead poisoning afflicts neighborhoods across California

03.22 Dozens of Mich. water systems top Snyder’s lead limit

03.22 Carbon fibre: the wonder material with a dirty secret [making solid-state carbon products removes carbon from the atmoshere, diminishing CO2 as a warming factor]

03.22 Coal in 'freefall' as new power plants dive by two-thirds

03.22 World Water Day: one in four children will live with water scarcity by 2040 [watch and learn: "conservatives around the world will fight public water projects to support privatization and for-profit (mafia-like?) "solutions"]

03.20 Tensions rising as Chinese no longer willing to hold their breath on pollution problems

03.20 Medicare for All should replace Obamacare: Column

03.20 Atlantic City and Miami Beach: two takes on tackling the rising waters

03.19 Why I think there's still hope for the climate in 2017

03.19 19 House Republicans call on their party to do something about climate change

03.19 Elon Musk, meet Port Augusta: four renewable energy projects ready to go

03.19 Humans may have transformed the Sahara from lush paradise to barren desert

03.19 The eco guide to mainstream organics

03.19 The climate change battle dividing Trump’s America

News Media Matters

03.24 When lower regulations meet high-caliber reporting

03.23 The Media Should Become a True Opposition Party

03.20 Google braces for questions as more big-name firms pull adverts [practice confers unmerited legitimacy to extremist videos]

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

03.24 Does It Matter Who Pulls the Trigger in the Drone Wars?

03.24 How the Donald Came to Rule

03.24 Healthcare bill hangs in balance as Republicans agonise over Trump's vote gamble [cross your fingers and make a wish]

03.24 Senate Democrats pledge to block Neil Gorsuch's supreme court nomination

03.23 Has the Trump Budget Blown Republicans’ Cover? [an immoral focus]

03.23 Predator Colleges May Thrive Again

03.23 ‘There’s a Smell of Treason in the Air’

03.23 AHCA would cost Americans roughly $33 billion a year in higher out-of-pocket costs by 2026

03.23 GOP’s Health Plan: Tracking Key Changes One Amendment at a Time

03.23 Citing FBI Probe of Trump, Democrats Told to 'Declare National Emergency'

03.23 Two Months In, Trump Breaking Every Vow to 'Drain the Swamp': Report

03.23 Trump’s Spending Cuts Would Create the Black America He’s Been Talking About [an immoral focus]

03.23 House GOP’s Proposed "Fix" for Health Bill Prioritizes Tax Cuts for Richest

03.23 Trump-Russia inquiry in 'grave doubt' after GOP chair briefs White House [0:56 video]

03.22 The smug style in American liberalism: It’s not helping, folks — but there’s a better way

03.22 President Trump and the Crisis of Governance

03.22 Dakota Access pipeline: ING sells stake in major victory for divestment push

03.22 US diplomacy in crisis amid cuts and confusion at state department

03.22 I was sent Donald Trump's 2005 tax return. We need the rest – right now

Justice Matters

03.24 TRUMP’S RUSSIA PROBLEM IS FAR FROM MARGINAL

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

03.23 Bank that lent $300m to Trump linked to Russian money laundering scam

03.23 What's In President Trump's Tax Returns?

03.22 Oil theft 'provides billions for terrorists and drug cartels'

03.21 Forbes billionaire list: Trump loses $1bn as elite club gets 233 new members [how're YOU doin?]

03.21 British banks handled vast sums of laundered Russian money [video]

03.19 Why transaction laundering is turning into a huge financial blindspot [what happens when bad actors–usually Republicans–weaken or stop effective regulations to avoid taxes]

International

03.24 The Coming Ban on Nuclear Weapons

03.24 Trump's weekly list of 'immigrant crimes' is as sinister as it sounds

03.24 Outrage as Belarus arrests authors, publishers and journalists in crackdown

03.24 The Guardian view on UK’s tax havens: British laws or your own

03.22 Resisting the Siren Song: Stopping the Advance of the Right-Wing Populists

03.22 Myths of Migration: Much of What We Think We Know Is Wrong

03.21 Paul Manafort, Former Trump Campaign Chief, Faces New Allegations in Ukraine [birds of a feather...]

03.21 Rex Tillerson will miss Nato talks for China meeting and visit to Russia – reports

03.20 UN asks UK to suspend work on Hinkley Point [why allow the potential of a Fukushima catastrophe?]

03.20 Norway ousts Denmark as world's happiest country – UN report

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
Google
This site Web
  Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
Newspaper logo

COMMENTARY:

Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus

by ROBERT PARRY
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 secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, 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: