The stupidest man in America holds a law degree and used to be a judge in Texas. Today he's the Attorney General of the United States. A few days ago, while testifying before the U.S. Senate, he proclaimed that Habeas Corpus is not a constitutional right. The problem with this statement (made under oath) is that the right to Habeas Corpus is specifically enshrined in the Constitution.

Habeas Corpus is a protection against arbitrary and oppressive government, dating to the Magna Carta of 1215. It means that the government cannot detain you without good cause. Murder, rape, arson, kidnaping and embezzlement are good cause to detain someone. Plucking someone off the street because of his political views is not good cause. If the government detains someone for no good reason, there is not a judge in this country (liberal or conservative) who will allow such an injustice to continue. That is what Habeas Corpus gives us.

The Constitution says this about Habeas Corpus:

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.

In other words . . . well, there are no other words to describe this. It's a plain as day. The "privilege" of Habeas Corpus cannot be taken away from us except in dire emergencies. This means we have the right of Habeas Corpus.

So what did Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tell the Senate the other day? Here's transcript and some commentary from ConsortiumNews.com:

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.

The full exchange and more commentary is here.

Taken to its logical extreme, Gonzales's distorted view of the national charter which memorializes democratic freedoms means that we have no "right" of free speech or protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Again, ConsortiumNews:

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.

I don't know what Gonzales is trying to say here. The Bush administration has at least partially wiped out Habeas Corpus in the Military Commissions Act, a monumental event that should have gotten more attention if the Earth-shattering news about Tom Cruise's marriage and Britney Spears' panties did not consume our attention instead. So I don't know if Alberto Gonzales' preposterous interpretation of the Constitution will get much attention, either. It's not as if he is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. (Actually, he is).