« Unable to prosecute terrorists because they've been tortured. | Main | Iraqi bloggers record life of fear... »

Since the presidential campaign has already started (9 months early), one question the press should be asking each candidate is: Does the president have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens without review? It seems that two of the three top Republican candidates have already answered. The Cato Institute's president, Ed Crane, recently asked both Giuliani and Romney if they believed that the president could imprison U.S. citizens without review:

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.

Really? This is actually stunning news that should come out during this race. Glenn Greenwald at Salon dissects what this means:

Two of the three leading Republican candidates for President either embrace or are open to embracing the idea that the President can imprison Americans without any review, based solely on the unchecked decree of the President. And, of course, that is nothing new, since the current Republican President not only believes he has that power but has exercised it against U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. -- including those arrested not on the "battlefield," but on American soil.

What kind of American isn't just instinctively repulsed by the notion that the President has the power to imprison Americans with no charges? And what does it say about the current state of our political culture that one of the two political parties has all but adopted as a plank in its platform a view of presidential powers and the federal government that is -- literally -- the exact opposite of what this country is?

And the fact that this hasn't garnered more attention is even further proof of how asleep we have become. In fact, Chalmers Johnson's new book, Nemesis, discusses how the power grab by the executive branch is just one sign that the end of U.S. empire is near. It's truly amazing that more Americans haven't reacted to what has become the de facto position of the Unitary Executive.

Greenwald continues:

Romesh Ponnuru can pass along these views as though they are the most unremarkable things in the world, nothing that warrants comment, just the latest position of the Republican candidates, like whether they believe in adjustments to the capital gains tax or employer mandates. It would be as if there were a blog item on the American Prospect blog by Ezra Klein along these lines:

Spoke to both Clinton and Obama today and asked whether they intended to seize and nationalize all American industries after they are inaugurated. Clinton said she would have to consult first with lawyers and decide only after a full debate, and Obama said he would likely only nationalize some industries, perhaps not all.

Or:

Spoke to both Edwards and Clinton today and asked whether they intended to shut down conservative Christian churches. Edwards said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind, and Clinton said that she would want to use this authority infrequently.

He concludes:

One of our two major political parties believes that the U.S. President should have powers that not even the pre-Revolution British King possessed. Maybe that is worth some commentary and examination.

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.