Ramesh Ponnuru at the National Review's Corner posts this without comment (I assume in the same passive-agressive way Instaputz Glenn Reynolds links to things he approves of without comment)-
Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. 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.
This blog post is so wrong on so many levels. Romney needs to hear from smart lawyers before he made up his mind on arresting citizens with no review. Well, let me tell you something, even this high school drop out knows the answer is a resounding "NO!" Last time I checked, Habeas Corpus could only be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion, neither of which the United States is suffering from right now. If Romney cannot unequivicably come out and say that violating the Habeas Corpus rights of American citizens (or anybody, really) is wrong, then Romney needs to go back to Constitutional Law class.
And Giuliani. Do we need any more proof that he is an authoritarian who would waterboard you before he said hello? The mayor said that he would want to break the law use this authority infrequently. I could only imagine if I were a major Manhattan coke dealer appearing in court 20 years ago and instructed my council to negotiate with the prosecutor (Giuliani) starting from the position that I would only deal multi-kilo amounts of coke "infrequently". What do you think eveyone would be saying?
"Attica! Attica! Attica!"
But then again, since when does Rudy really care about the law, as illustrated by this 1986 New Yorker article about the Adventures of Da Fonz and Rudy in Cracktown -
SURELY it was not some urgent desire to establish that Italian Americans are on the right side of the law which moved Giuliani and D'Amato one day last month to stage an act that got their pictures on the front pages of the Neus, the Post, and the Times. In comically disreputable-looking getups- D' Amato wore an Army jacket and had a greenvisored cap pulled down over his forehead, while Giuliani was in a Hell's Angels leather vest, confiscated from a captured drug dealer, with patches that said "Filthy Few" and "Dirty Thirty"-they invaded what amounts to an open-air drug market in Washington Heights, in upper Manhattan, accompanied by thirty heavily armed federal agents and undercover police officers as well as a vanful of photographers. Within a few seconds, each had bought two vials of crack. Despite all the firepower on hand, no arrests were made. The excursion's purpose, federal agents explained, was to demonstrate that it is very easy to buy crack in that neighborhood. Anyone within miles of the place could have told them that-and that it doesn't matter how you are dressed. However, as a News editorial pointed out, "the costuming made the pictures jazzier."
So there you have it. Two of the major Republican Presidential candidates coming out against the US Constitution. Two major Republican Presidential candidates that don't know/don't care that Habeas Corpus has been the bedrock upon which Western jurisprudence has rested for the last 700 years. More proof of the moral bankruptcy of the National Review. Two Republican candidates that cannot distinguish basic right from wrong. Two more Republican candidates that accept the divine right of kings, as if the Enlightenment never happened. More proof that a Republican winning the Presidency in 2008 will just lead to more lawbreaking as usual. How did it come to this - an explicitly Constituional Rejectionist party in the United States of America?