…or who aren’t American citizens. What I am concerned about is the erosion of basic constitutional rights of American citizens after they’ve been captured.

The Constitution doesn’t apply to only citizens… 14th Admendment, Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

>>When he goes into the national security side of the admin (military, cia, nsa), he certainly is not so constrained, just like every previous president and every other goverment.

I don’t really think you’re seeing where I’m coming from and the fantasy is up to you.

Obviously, the President has inherent powers in being commander-in-chief, and as leader of the executive branch, his responsibility also stems to the duties of the CIA, DHS, NSA, etc. What I’m concerned about that makes me say that conservatives are willing to throw away the constitution for the sake of security is this: the status of American citizens or residents being locked up indefinitely for being called “enemy combatant” by the executive.

IMO, since American citizens and residents would be considered under the 14th amendment, they would require habeas corpus and due process (meaning they can’t be held indefinitely or not knowing what they’ve been accused of). I’ve talked to so many conservatives willing to throw the 14th amendment away because someone named “enemy combatant” by the executive, American citizens no less, were not given basic habeas corpus protections as enshrined in the constitution. And they can’t give me this “well, it’s a time of war” crap because the constitution also applies in time of war unless Congress suspends habeas corpus and the president declares martial law because of revolution or insurrection. Yeah, that hasn’t happened.

I don’t care what happens to terrorists who are killed and captured overseas who are not “under the jurisdiction of the United States” or who aren’t American citizens. What I am concerned about is the erosion of basic constitutional rights of American citizens after they’ve been captured.

You are living in a fantasy world of your own making. You have one standard for today’s conservatives, and a completely different one for every previous president of these United States. When the president goes into the attorney general’s office, he is constrained by the bill of rights. When he goes into the national security side of the admin (military, cia, nsa), he certainly is not so constrained, just like every previous president and every other goverment. Warrants are only for a court of law. No warrant has ever been required for national security matters.

If they can kill terrorists, they can certainly eaves drop on them. When has anyone stood up in horror while watching Bond 007?

This issue drives me insane. I’d consider myself a conservative with classic liberal tendencies, but these days, I find that conservatives are willing to throw away and subvert the constitution for the sake of security, just as liberals and socialists would subvert the constitution for their domestic agenda. When it comes to honoring true constitutional law, Democrats and Republicans are no different.

I had read Mitt as a bit of an opportunistic blank slate as he doesn’t really represent any interests the way McCain, Guiliani, Thompson represent the Beltway elites.

I was rather surprised he did not jump on the chance to separate himself from the DC-regime with the opportunity professional Conservatives from the Beltway presented him with, in the pledge above.

That tells me his campaign isn’t ready for prime-time and there is no defensible reason to offer even nuanced support as he has offered nothing and as tarran notes, his record is awful on legislative matters.

RomneyCare

The man is a corporatist at heart.

The American Freedom Agenda should prominently display the names of those who have signed, even if Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who values the Constitution.