Romney said, "I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda."
He continued, "Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.
And I recognize, I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and I that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles."
That was not the right answer, according to Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips, who wrote on the group's website , "This is so mind blowing you have trouble even trying to figure out where to begin."
Phillips then went further in his disgust, writing:
"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 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."
Rick Santorum was asked about the NDAA, and said that the law has been that if you are a U.S. citizen and detained as an enemy combatant, then "you have the right to go to federal court and file a habeas corpus position and be provided a lawyer. That was the state of the law before the National Defense Authorization Act and that should be the state of the law today."
Ron Paul has said he does not support the law, but critics noted that when the bill came before the House, he actually didn't vote up or down on it, because he was on the campaign trail.
