Lest We Forget....

With so much happening, it's easy to forget the Sheriff of Rottingham, Al Gonzales. We need to keep that two faced, NeoCon lackey in the light until he gets the boot. Nothing would please the Bushies more than to have us be diverted from this.
Thanks to that great paragon of 20th Century virtue, Larry Flynt, for a great blog that keeps the spotlight on the Sheriff.

Hustler June 2007: Why Habeas Corpus Matters

The ultimate measure of just how dangerous the reign of George Bush has been to our basic freedoms was documented in January at a packed hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Provoking the shock and anger of the committee's deputy chair, Republican Senator Arlen Specter, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez had the temerity to insist that the right of habeas corpus—that basic principle of English common law enshrined in the Magna Carta guaranteeing prisoners the right to appear in a court of law to have their case reviewed—is NOT one of the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, which Gonzalez took an oath to enforce.

"There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution," Gonzalez insisted, while lamely conceding that, in that sacred document, "There's a prohibition against taking it away…." To which a flabbergasted Spector responded, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there is an invasion or rebellion?"

Gonzales did not appear any more perturbed at being caught in an egregious violation of America's tradition of liberty than he had been at previous Congressional hearings during which he defended torture and illegal wiretapping. This time, however, his rationale was more sweeping and therefore more ominous in its implication. What our nation's top law enforcement officer argued—and bear with me because his logic is quite bizarre—is that because the Constitution refers to habeas corpus as a right that can be suspended in the midst of a rebellion or invasion, that it is not a basic right at all.(emphasis added)

I think Gonzales worked as an intern for the firm of Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe back in his formative years.

"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," said Gonzalez. "Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except—" At which point he was cut off by an exasperated Spector, who accused him of "violating common sense."

Worse, Gonzales espoused a philosophy that would strip away most of the guarantees of our Bill of Rights, for they too are affirmed only by the negative prohibition restricting Congress from interfering with what was assumed by the Founders to be obvious basic human rights established by the Enlightenment.

As Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee, put it pointedly to Gonzales: "Many of our most cherished rights are guaranteed by the Constitution in much the same way. For example, the First Amendment is also a negative construction. It prohibits Congress from making laws infringing on religious freedom and our freedom of speech, but you wouldn't say that it doesn't guarantee free speech and religion."

In fact, the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution clearly establishes that rights are assumed unless clearly taken away: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."(emphasis added)

I think this may be they key element in what is going on today. If the NeoCons can strip away the 9th, the rest becomes very easy. In fact, the 9th is exactly opposite of the fundamental tenant of NeoCon philosophy. They believe that there are no rights fundamental to all humans except the ones they enumerate.

But why is Gonzalez not only confused but indeed desperate in asserting an obviously invalid legal doctrine? How could someone presumably well-versed in the country's legal traditions—and officially pledged to uphold them—be so oblivious as to their essence? Commenting on this mystery, John Dean, former White House counsel in the Nixon Administration, wrote on FindLaw.com of Gonzalez's sorry performance: "I must confess that watching his testimony makes me deeply uncomfortable. Gonzalez does not seem to know when he is making a fool of himself, and I can't tell if he is suffering from empty-suit syndrome or an unhealthy case of hubris."

It takes one to know one.

Unfortunately, there is a lot more at stake here than one man's reputation for intelligence. Not content to just obnoxiously insult the basis of our civil democracy, the Bush Administration has acted as if there are no restraints on its behavior, as when it decided to illegally wiretap Americans even when a secret judicial review process was already in place, hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely as "an enemy combatant," and give no due process to hundreds held in Guantanamo Bay without charge or prisoner of war status.

As with torture, the denial of habeas corpus—basically, the threat that you will never have your day in court and be imprisoned for the rest of your life—is clearly counterproductive to getting at the truth concerning the dangers we face as a nation. It is a proven axiom of law enforcement that witnesses who testify under terrible duress tell their inquisitors what they want to hear rather than the truth. But if the purpose of the interrogation is to exploit the crime—in this case, the tragedy of 9/11—for political advantage, then the truth is not what the prosecutor is after.

We know from even the limited information made available through the 9/11 Commission that none of the key prisoners interrogated have confirmed the Administration's portrayal of the roots of the attack. Most importantly, they deny any connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and therefore their testimony in an open court in accordance with habeas corpus requirements would embarrass the administration and possibly our allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

In other words, these witnesses have been kept out of sight precisely because their day in court, while not in any way exonerating any crimes they may have committed, would nonetheless expose the lies of the administration as well.

Hats off to the old self proclaimed "Smut Peddler". This is actually a very well written essay.
Isn't it ironic that Larry Flynt is on the moral high ground compared to this administration? I mean, they are the family values, patriotic, God is on our side bunch, right?
The administrations level of arrogance and corruption makes Larry look, well, Presidential!
Larry Flynt in '08!

P.S. To My Ex, I told you I read Hustler for the articles!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet