Habeas Corpus is not a right?

[sohotrightnow]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... NO11O1.DTL

[Rob Graff]

I'm usually quite temperate in my posts. Not on this topic. Mr. Gonzalez is just wrong on this issue (and on many others IMHO)

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states:

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.

Amendment IX to the constitution (otherwise known as the bill of rights)
states:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Thus the combinatino of these two portions of the constitution reveal the following:

1. There are certain unalienable human rights, and the enumeration of some does not deny the existance of others. Thus, the Constitution allows that some rights are NOT set forth or CREATED BY the Constitution - they exist via our existance as human beings.

2. The writ of Habeas Corpus has - in all countries that derive their laws from the english system of common law - been recognized as a basic human right. The article noted above states that, and Rep. Sen. Specter notes that as well,

a right, [Specter] noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons

Note that Specter (and most others I've ever heard speak on this topic) reference the WHC as a RIGHT that exists, not an entitlement created by statute.

3. The US Constitution recognizes the Habeas Corpus right exists via it's prohibiton on suspension of same reference at Article 1, Section 9. As the Senator noted (I'm paraphrasing), how can a right be protected if it doesn't exist?