Thursday, May 31, 2007

Attorney Giuliani Would Suspend Habeas Corpus

Rudy Giuliani believes that the President of the United States has the authority to imprison Americans. without charge.

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.

Giuliani was a former U.S. Attorney. He knows fill well the Constitution does not grant the President that kind of power.

Article 1 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.

There is no war within the borders of the United States. The fact that Giuliani would consider suspended Habeas Corpus shows him the be a national security lightweight.

Andrew Sullivan points out Giuliani is advocating the kind of tyranny the Founding Fathers feared.

I never thought I'd read a post like this in America in my lifetime. Isn't this power of a sovereign to detain any citizen without charge at any time part of the reason this country was founded? And now it is simply assumed that this kind of monarchical power is fine. A country that grants its executive the power to do this is definitionally not a free country. It really is as simple as that.

The conservative pundits and bloggers this proves that Giuliani is a tough guy. Imagine is more important than effectively fighting terrorism. Which is why I love popping the Rudy tough guy myth.

Labels: , ,


At June 01, 2007 12:20 PM , Blogger Dave said...

Some would argue that there's no war outside the border of the US either.

On February 6, 2006 Alberto Gonzales testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority that -

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home