This offhand post by Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner has been making waves in the blogosphere:
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Serious question: How is it that there is ANYONE in the US willing to vote for people who say they will ignore the writ of habeus corpus "infrequently", or (more contemptible still) say they will need to consult people with working brains before they can issue an opinion on whether habeus corpus is a good idea? Is the US chock full of people completely clueless about the need for the most basic civil liberties? Isn't the protection of the freedom of the individual supposed to be the rock on which your country is founded?
I really don't get it. Is there anyone here willing to defend the idea that habeus corpus is one of those things you can just ignore when you don't feel like respecting it?