Alberto Gonzales Hero or Goat?

Dancing David

Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
39,700
Location
central Illinois
I think he is wrong the Constitution states clearly that all people in criminal case shall have a hearing of some sort before a grand jury. And the right to a fair and speedy trial.

He is a Goat Supreme who is subverting the Consititution, much to the harm of our nation. All they had to do was give them their hearing and try them.

Coersive testimony is not allowed under the fifth amendment.
 
Dancing David said:
I think he is wrong the Constitution states clearly that all people in criminal case shall have a hearing of some sort before a grand jury. And the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Click to expand...

I think you're not a lawyer and you probably don't actually understand what he's really claiming. I think Gonzales IS a lawyer, and understands constitutional law much better than you do. I don't think he's a hero or a goat, but I don't trust your opinion to be able to tell the difference anyways.

Coersive testimony is not allowed under the fifth amendment.
Click to expand...

Not for criminal cases, that's correct. It's also irrelevant for enemy combatants.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you're not a lawyer and you probably don't actually understand what he's really claiming. I think Gonzales IS a lawyer, and understands constitutional law much better than you do. I don't think he's a hero or a goat, but I don't trust your opinion to be able to tell the difference anyways.



Not for criminal cases, that's correct. It's also irrelevant for enemy combatants.
Click to expand...


Ah gee Ziggy that is a lame appeal to authority. The other debate started because AG said that there is no explicit right to habeas corpus. Which on the surface is true, yet there are two rights declared in the Constitution 1. A hearing of some sort and 2.a fair and speedy trial.

Neither of which The Gitmo detainees have had. So while habeas corpus is not expressed as a direct right of those held in criminal cases, the Constitution does stae that you have the right to something before a grand jury and to a fair and speedy trial. In fact it doesn't say that only citizens are entitled to those.

I think that the Gitmo guys are at least entitled to them and haven't gotten them.

The constitution states in the fifth amendment:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

The language states 'no person', not 'no citizen', or at least so I think. And while I believe that enemy non-combatants are not part of the 'laws of war' and that they may need to be sequestered and dealt with they fall into the category of person.

Now there is that troublesome use of the wrod "in" in the phrase "cases arising in the land or naval forces', it is a mighty fine point if that means 'people' "in" 'the armed forces' or if that means 'cases' "in"-volving "the armed forces".

But it does say 'no person shall be held'.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Ah gee Ziggy that is a lame appeal to authority. The other debate started because AG said that there is no explicit right to habeas corpus. Which on the surface is true,
Click to expand...

If on the surface it's true, then it IS true, and there's no reason to take his statements to mean anything more than a technical statement.

yet there are two rights declared in the Constitution 1. A hearing of some sort and 2.a fair and speedy trial.

Neither of which The Gitmo detainees have had. So while habeas corpus is not expressed as a direct right of those held in criminal cases, the Constitution does stae that you have the right to something before a grand jury and to a fair and speedy trial. In fact it doesn't say that only citizens are entitled to those.
Click to expand...

No, but you are overlooking what it DOES say, namely that those are rights for criminal trials. Prisoners of war, for example, are not given trials at all. Why? Because they aren't charged with crimes. It's a DIFFERENT classification, and so rights from criminal law need not apply. Enemy combatants are likewise not tried of crimes per se.

I think that the Gitmo guys are at least entitled to them and haven't gotten them.
Click to expand...

That's nice that you think that, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And that's not just an appeal to authority, they actually have the power to make that determination.

The language states 'no person', not 'no citizen', or at least so I think. And while I believe that enemy non-combatants are not part of the 'laws of war' and that they may need to be sequestered and dealt with they fall into the category of person.

Now there is that troublesome use of the wrod "in" in the phrase "cases arising in the land or naval forces', it is a mighty fine point if that means 'people' "in" 'the armed forces' or if that means 'cases' "in"-volving "the armed forces".

But it does say 'no person shall be held'.
Click to expand...

Once again, the ammendment specifies treatment for those held for crimes and tried for criminal cases. But we're not talking crimes or criminal cases, we're talking war. And that's something different. Even full-fledged Geneva-conventions-protected POW's don't get these rights, and that's ALWAYS been the case.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you're not a lawyer and you probably don't actually understand what he's really claiming. I think Gonzales IS a lawyer, and understands constitutional law much better than you do. I don't think he's a hero or a goat, but I don't trust your opinion to be able to tell the difference anyways.



Not for criminal cases, that's correct. It's also irrelevant for enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

Well if Gonzales was actually the lawyer for the USA (which is what he is supposed to be) as opposed to being another Bush shill (which is what he actually is), then he would have noticed quite some time ago that the US Constitution as well as a few treaties that the USA is party to clearly state that all accused have the right to trials that are fair and that are done in decent time frame, as well as the prohibition of using any testimony obtained via coercion.
 
Crossbow said:
Well if Gonzales was actually the lawyer for the USA (which is what he is supposed to be) as opposed to being another Bush shill (which is what he actually is), then he would have noticed quite some time ago that the US Constitution as well as a few treaties that the USA is party to clearly state that all accused have the right to trials that are fair and that are done in decent time frame, as well as the prohibition of using any testimony obtained via coercion.
Click to expand...

So you've fallen for the same clueless rhetoric too, I see. Why am I not surprised?

If you guys were correct, standard POW's would have to be tried for crimes. They are not, and never have been. Why not? Because war is DIFFERENT than crime. You do not hold POW's because of specific crimes they commit, but because they are an enemy of the state. Hell, you can hold an enemy POW indefinitely (under the Geneva conventions too, I might add) even if he's never actually DONE anything. War is not the same thing as crime, it has never been the same thing, it never will be the same thing. Repetition of appeals to the 5th ammendment do not change that.
 
Ziggurat said:
So you've fallen for the same clueless rhetoric too, I see. Why am I not surprised?

If you guys were correct, standard POW's would have to be tried for crimes. They are not, and never have been. Why not? Because war is DIFFERENT than crime. You do not hold POW's because of specific crimes they commit, but because they are an enemy of the state. Hell, you can hold an enemy POW indefinitely (under the Geneva conventions too, I might add) even if he's never actually DONE anything. War is not the same thing as crime, it has never been the same thing, it never will be the same thing. Repetition of appeals to the 5th ammendment do not change that.
Click to expand...

What is supposed to happen is that Prisoners of War are held until the war is over, at which time they are sent back to their country of origin.

On the other hand, if the Prisoners of War are actually War Criminals, then they are supposed to be charged and tried, at which time they will have a fair chance to legally defend themselves.

It is really just that simple! Either send them back or legally charge them with something: that is what the Geneva Conventions say and since the USA has signed on to them, then they have the same force of law as does the US Constitution.
 
Crossbow said:
On the other hand, if the Prisoners of War are actually War Criminals, then they are supposed to be charged and tried, at which time they will have a fair chance to legally defend themselves.
Click to expand...
They can be charged and tried, they do not have to be. And not necessarily in a civilian court.

It is really just that simple! Either send them back or legally charge them with something: that is what the Geneva Conventions say and since the USA has signed on to them, then they have the same force of law as does the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Or hold them for the duration of the war.
 
Hmmm, can you even have POWs if you have not declared war? I don't think we did, the Senate just voted to let the "C in C" do some "C in C"ing.
 
WildCat said:
Followed by the word "except".
Click to expand...
Which is followed by "in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".

Which clearly means military personnel during wartime or time of public danger. Which also clearly means that all non-military personnel therefore 'shall not be held'.

I am not any kind of constitutional scholar, but I can at least read. There are only two constitutional categories for people. Enemy combatants are either military or non - so either rights for 'persons' or military rules apply. There is no constitutionally stated 3rd option.
 
Crossbow said:
What is supposed to happen is that Prisoners of War are held until the war is over, at which time they are sent back to their country of origin.
Click to expand...

Yes. And that's an idefinite length of time, as I said.

It is really just that simple! Either send them back or legally charge them with something: that is what the Geneva Conventions say and since the USA has signed on to them, then they have the same force of law as does the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well, no. First off, the Geneva conventions do not apply to enemies who are neither signatories AND who do not abide by the treaty themselves. The treaty itself so specifies, and I am continually amazed that people who appeal to it so vociferously can be so ignorant of its actual contents. Secondly, even if you want to treat them according to the geneva conventions, since the war with both the Taliban and Al Qaeda is still ongoing, there is no reason to try them for war crimes OR to send them back. We are perfectly within our rights to simply hold them until hostilities are over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom