No, this is not a career comeback for Brittany Spears. Instead, the comment reflects the clumsiness and lack of tact or competence on the part of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. This is the man appointed by President Bush and confirmed by a GOP controlled Senate to be the top legal officer of the United States. He is a co-author of a legal memorandum advising the President that torture of prisoners and detainees of the US government was legal in some circumstances, and that the Geneva Convention was obsolete. The memo was intended as “advice of counsel” upon which Bush Administration officials could rely if prosecuted as war criminals. What was he thinking?
Now consider his most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testimony that confounded even ranking GOP Senator Arlen Specter (who supported his confirmation):
Gonzalez: "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away,"
Specter: "Wait a minute. 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?"
Gonzalez: "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. "
Specter: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."
This apparent new “gloss” on the Constitution is advanced by the Bush Administration instead of the Supreme Court which is usually charged with such fundamental tasks. In an expansion of this imperial Presidency, the testimony of Gonzalez would suggest that American citizens are not entitled to the right and privilege of habeas corpus that we had thought the Constitution guaranteed us for over 200 years. It seems that Gonzalez believes that while Congress is not allowed to take away the right of habeas corpus from anyone who has the right. The Executive branch gets to decide, in the absence of a specific act of Congress granting the right to certain individuals, whether you or I have the right. Aside from the acknowledgement of inalienable rights of citizenship in the Preamble, the Sixth Amendment spells out pretty clearly that the right to speedy trial, to know the charges asserted, to confront accusers and to compel testimony of witnesses. Anyone completing a high school civics class would appear better informed than the top legal officer of the nation.
While the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights may be turning over in their graves, there is little that they can do at this point to save Americans from the dangers every American may face from its own government, the Justice Department. We don’t know if Gonzalez truly failed to grasp what he was saying and its implications, a question of mental acuity. Given the chance in friendly questioning to correct himself, and failing to do so, we might assume that Gonzalez both understood and believes what he said. That would represent arrogance and a disregard for centuries of legal precedent. Could we realistically expect such a legal mind to view any action by the White House as unlawful?
At the same time comes a report that up to seven Attorneys General have been fired and replaced with political operatives closely aligned with Karl Rove and the Bush Administration. Those relieved of duty include Carol Lam in San Diego who successfully prosecuted Former Congressman Cunningham for fraud, corruption and malfeasance in office. No longer shielded from oversight by a GOP controlled Congress, the Bush Administration is taking steps to assure that illegal and corrupt actions will not be prosecuted. The accidental choice of an independent minded prosecutor in the Scooter Libby case taught Karl Rove and Bush a lesson. They don't intend to make the same mistake twice.
No comments:
Post a Comment