The South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News sponsored a debate last night. One of the candidates gave one of the worst answers possible. It is an answer that should disqualify the candidate.
Who is the candidate and what was the question?
The candidate was Mitt Romney. The question was the whether he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act (The NDAA). The NDAA is very controversial because of a provision in it that allows for the indefinite detention of Americas at Guantanamo.
The provision concerning indefinite detention of Americans was included at the request of the Obama regime. It is blatantly unconstitutional and hopefully will be declared so shortly.
Mitt Romney was asked if he would have signed that bill as President. Romney said he would. Then he said he would not misuse that power and he believed Barack Obama would not misuse it either.
This is so mind blowing you have trouble even trying to figure out where to begin.
Our nation does have the right to detain enemy combatants who are captured on the battlefield. Those combatants should not have the right to have an attorney or go to court to challenge their detention.
However, that is as long as they are not American citizens.
If someone captured is an American citizen, a different set of laws applies, including various criminal laws, such as treason. An American citizen does have the right to file for Habeas Corpus. But the down side for such a person is they should be indicted, tried and in appropriate, given the death penalty.
However, Mitt Romney thinks there is nothing wrong with the NDAA. We just need to take his word that he would not abuse that power that the NDAA gives the president.
I suppose we should all believe that the check is in the mail too.
Given the number of flip-flops Mitt Romney has had, I’m not comfortable with his reassurances and no one else should be.
The idea of indefinite detention of American citizens is repugnant to the American Constitution. That is why our founding fathers specifically included the right to a fast, speedy and public trial by a jury of your peers. The right to the writ of Habeas Corpus is also specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Liberty is under assault. The government and political class members do not like criticism and do not like democracy. Democracy is a messy experience. It is not a great system; it is simply better than the alternatives.
The fact that members of Congress and a President think this law was a good idea, ignoring the issues of Constitutionality, is simply stunning.
The fact that any Republican candidate would say this bill is a bill he would have signed is simply stunning.
Any Republican who would have signed such a bill, like Mitt Romney says he would, should not receive any serious consideration.
The fact Mitt Romney says he would not only sign such a bill but has no problems with giving this kind of unconstitutional power to a President, means he should never receive a vote from anyone who believes in freedom and liberty.
YOU ARE RIGHT, You have just restored my faith in people really listening to what is being said.
If Romney won he would just take over where Obama left off.
Thanks ,your a smart man.
If we truly believe what we say, we will do a lot more than just say what we believe...we will act. We will act now, tomorrow, and every day until the elections are over...and then wake up and act some more...to preserve our nation, our heritage, our culture, our traditions, our hopes and our dreams for generations to come...and THAT is being a partriot citizen.
The NDAA does a lot more than void a U.S. citizen's right to "habeas corpus". It also takes away a citizen's right to be represented by an attorney, to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of one's peers (all of which are guaranteed in the Constitution & Bill of Rights), allows indefinite detention without charges and even authorizes the military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, (it declares the entire country to be a battleground) which violates the century old doctrine of "posse comitatus". All the government has to do is state that they believe it is possible that an individual is a terrorist or belligerant. A judge or magistrate does not have to be consulted. In effect, the Congress and Odumbo have declared MARTIAL LAW and there's practically nothing about it in the mainstream media. Couple all that with the fact that government contractors were recently notified that FEMA will soon be stocking, supplying and manning their "camps" throughout the country (here's a link for more) and it doesn't bode well for freedom. It should interest most readers here that there are already certain government officials that already consider Tea Party members as well as gun rights activists and other groups and individuals who believe in defending their rights to be terrorists.
WAKE UP, people! They're stealing our country right out from under our noses!
They done stole it, they are in the process of carrying it away right now.
And the Republicans let him in the party why?
I disagree. I think the worse answer of the night was Ron Paul saying "if we stopped bombing countries maybe they would leave us alone."
That is a stunningly naive outlook on Islam.
They love to kill innocent people with suicide bombers. They are still doing it in Iraq, even though we tried to give them a constitution which would give them a chance for a good government.
They will not leave us alone. They are bound by their religion to spear islam throughout the world. There are countries under siege by the practitioners of the religion of peace that did nothing to the muslims other than just existing. islam is the devils religion and we can fight it or submit, there is no other option in the end.
Well, I am certainly in agreement with both of you. Islam is our greatest threat, coupled with what is happening in our government. This is all in the word.
The question is: should we be pre-emptive in killing them before they do anything more to us, or should we issue an ultimatum to the enemy letting them know that any actions on their part resulting in destruction of U. S. property, freedoms, or lives will result in their paying the cost--a cost they will not want to pay? I prefer the latter.
The only conflicts we have won are the ones in which we took the first hit.
Also, there is no better incentive for the enemy to not attack than the sure knowledge that such an attack will end up costing more than it is worth.
It pretty much started on November 4, 1979 and has continued to this day.