From: Ad 

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

"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. 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.”"



Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5