GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Ramesh Ponnuru makes note of Mitt Romney’s startling position on the ability of the president to arrest US citizens without trial or review:
Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.
Let that sink in for a minute: he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. This has to be one of the more disturbing answers to a question so far during the campaign. Nevermind that such an action would be blatantly unconstitutional, it would also make the US no better than the Soviet Union or Cuba; disappearing United States citizens never to be heard from again. The fact that Romney would need to make up his mind regarding what he thinks about this, based off of the opinions of lawyers, speaks volumes.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Good catch, LJ.
You have to wonder what he really means is to check with his political consultants to see how far he can go to the right on this (or any) issue without getting into trouble.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Whats Rudy’s position on this?
March 31st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Wow…
I was neutral on Romney, but now I will not support him under any circumstance.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Tano,
Guess you didn’t click through the link. Heh.
“Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.” That’s not much better of an answer, in all honesty.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
So, if Romney later decides that unauthorized arrests are not good then he will branded as flip-flopping from his prior neutral stance on the issue, no?
March 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
C’mon guys,
We’ve already been doing this. This has probably been going one for well over 100 years. It happens all of the time, every where very quietly. Nobody even recognizes it.
I’ll never say never to military action because I’m for keeping all options on the table. I’ll never agree to the total abolishment of the death penalty because I’m for keeping all options on the table. As with this, I can understand why a president would want to also keep all options on the table.
This is a very sticky situation. I think what Mitt is saying here is that he’d like to here the pro’s & con’s argued by the “experts.” Perhaps next then devising a system for reasonable checks & balances that will give the president the ability to execute his oath of office (to preserve & protect the land etc), while at the same time a check & balance system. His statement does not concern be one bit.
The president has the ability to give a full pardon to these guys.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
You were aware, were you not, that that very thing is discussed in the Constitution? Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 gives the Government the right to arrest people without trial or hearing (it’s called suspension of Habeas Corpus) under cases of rebellion or invasion. Lincoln did it during the Civil War. I believe I read somewhere that the Supreme Court ruled the action unconstitutional. He ignored them.
You would want whoever is President to take that drastic of a step without taking counsel of knowledgeable people first?
March 31st, 2007 at 6:18 pm
To LJ and most of the posters above,
Am I correct to interpret your postings on this topic that you think an enemy combatant who is actually an American citizen, set to set off a bomb in your local Starbucks or something or to commit mayhem abroad, should not be arrested before a trial or “review”? What, do you want to wait until he or she actually kills 40 people or something? Citizenry should have its privleges, but wanton killing should not be one of them.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:24 pm
This is one of the most awesome and potentially destructive powers granted to a President — any President — Republican or Democrat, man or woman, conservative or liberal. It has one of the greatest potentials for abuse of any of the powers granted to him. It is there, enshrined in the Constitution, and is usually lumped in with the war-making powers of the Executive.
I would hope that any candidate for President, whoever he or she might be, will have given some serious and sober thought to this power, and how he might use it, and under what circumstances he would evoke it. As LJ states, it has the potential of cutting to the very heart of the freedoms we hold dear. It is not to be taken lightly. LJ, you had better hope that your man McCain has given it some thought.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Crazy Mitt!
Wanting to get outside opinions before he does something! Man I wish this guy would just fly by the seat of his pants and make his legal choices by what ever is popular at Redstate!!
March 31st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Lj, this sounds like willful misinterpretation on your part….
March 31st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
What Romney is really saying, is that he wants to consult the lawyers in order to figure out who is best to pander and patronize to. THE GUY IS A FARSE. I have been saying this all along.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Seems to me that both Rudy and Mitt gave the wrong answer here.
Mitt seems to need “expert” opinion from two sides of what is a fundamental principle of American governance.
Rudy can make up his own mind. And get the wrong answer.
Marksal seems to misunderstand the concept here.
The question was not about getting “review” before you arrest something. That should be obvious. People get arrested everyday. The question is whether you get review after arrest, or get thrown into a Gitmo-like black hole, never to emerge until the CiC decides to let you go.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
someone, not something
March 31st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Romney wants to exercise the power that Washington, Lincoln and FDR exercised. Shocking.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:02 am
“Seems to me that both Rudy and Mitt gave the wrong answer here.” - Only a liberal can conclude such a thing.
All presidents have the power to do this already. It is not only legal and within the powers of the executive to do this; it is very reasonable to exercise this authority with extreme caution on a case by case basis consulting with lawyers as to the specifics of each case. I don’t see how Mitt’s response can be reasonably misconstrued as the “wrong answer.”
April 1st, 2007 at 1:18 am
At least Mitt was willing to defer to people who have studied the issue more intensely rather than dig a hole for himself. I can think of an instance recently where McCain had trouble figuring out what his position was on a much simpler issue regarding condoms and HIV prevention: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/ .