Sorry it’s been quiet around here – it’s been a busy week for me. Anyway, many of you have probably already seen this, but this past week our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that “there is no express grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution”. His reasoning goes that it only says when it can be taken away (invasion or rebellion) but never states when it is a given:

GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

Is there a term of art for this faulty use of logic by Gonzales? A sort of: P is true unless Q and R , therefore NOT P. Gonzales finds this statement valid, so I guess he’s assuming ALWAYS Q and ALWAYS R are true. That’s not properly notated logic, but you get the idea.