What part of ‘shall not’ was vague?
We all took at least one test that included the term habeas corpus. Latin for "you [should] have the body", otherwise known as the great writ. It guarantees that any person imprisoned has the right to go before the court for determination of whether that person is serving a lawful sentence and/or whether he or she should be released from custody. It is one of the pillars of a lawful sociaty. It was first granted used by King Edward I of Engalnd in the 1300’s. When our founding fathers wrote the consitution the writ was 300 years old.
Constitution Article I, Section 9:
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.
Now bring us to modern time. Apparently we have out lived the great writ. It is no longer useful. In fact it is dangerous. This is according to our current executive branch of government.
The Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings yesterday:
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
Yes, he is right Edward I granted. One has to read implication of what the consitution states in order to view the wirt as granted to everyone. So if one is reading the bible as long as the man’s wife you’re coventing does not actually live next door, it’s not a sin.
Think about the effect of no having habeas corpus. Anyone can be lockup without ever having a trial. No need for anyone to prove that you are guilty. No law need apply. That is what the Attorney General of the United States is being glib with.