Some people say Mitt Romney is unfit to be President of the United States of America
Here is why:
On January 16, 2012, at the Fox News GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney was asked the following question:
Question by Kelly Evans of the Wall Street Journal: "Governor Romney, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody. Many, including congressman Paul, have called this unConstitutional. At the same time, the bill did provide money to continue funding U.S. troops. Governor Romney, as President, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?"
Answer by Mitt Romney: "Yes I would have, and I do believe it is appropriate, to have in our nation, the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of Al Qaida. 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 challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans and has declared war against America. That's treason. And in this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. And I recognize, I recognize that when you're in a setting when there are enemy combatants and some of them on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this President does wrong, lot's of them, but I don't think he is going to abuse this power and I know that if I were President I would not abuse this power, and I can also tell ya that in my view, ya have to chose 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 but let me tell you, people who join Al Qaida are not entitled to the rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants."
Contrast Mitt's answer with what the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, says:
The Bill of Rights, Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The U.S Constitution, Article I Section 9 Paragraph 2
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."
The U.S Constitution, Article III Section 3
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act or on Confession in open Court."
The Bill of Rights, Amendment VI
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Analysis of Mitt's answer:
The right to not be held without being charged (writ of habeas corpus) is one of the most fundamental rights of an American citizen. Mitt Romney has publicly stated he supports holding U.S. Citizens in jail indefinitely, without charging them, when they are accussed of being involved in terrorism, thereby violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Article 1 Section 9 and Amendment 6).
Mitt said he would deny U.S. Citizen's access to the court system, upon mere suspicion of terrorist involvement. Access to the court system is a fundamental right guaranteed to U.S. Citizens by the Bill of Rights (Amendment V).
Mitt Romney would also deny U.S. Citizen's the presumption of innocence, or innocent until proven guilty, if the accusation involved terrorism. Mitt says if you are accused of any kind of involvement in terrorism, you are guilty.
Mitt says you should not have a way to challenge the accusations against you, if the accusation inolves terrorism. If a citizen does not have access to the courts, and they are innocent, how can they prove their innocence? The U.S. Government has already acknowledged it has mistakenly held some detainees as enemy combatants, and subsequently released them, after wrongfully detaining them for years. People and governments make mistakes; that is why we have a judicial system to review the facts and hear both sides of a case.
Mitt Romney said he would deny U.S. Citizens access to legal counsel when the accusation involved terrorism. Access to legal counsel, when accused of a crime, especially a crime as serious as terrorism or treason, is a fundamental right of American citizens, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Amendment VI).
In effect, Mitt Romney is saying that if you are accussed of terrorism, there is only one branch of government - the executive branch, accountable to only one man, the President, with no way to challenge the accusations made against you, but that you should not worry, because our Presidents have so much integrity that you can trust them.
Mitt Romney's response to Kelly Evan's question indicates a horrific lack of understanding of the most basic American Constitutional principles and guarantees of the Bill of Rights for American Citizens. Mitt Romney's response indicates he would likely violate the Constitution's Bill of Rights and several other fundamental provisions of the Constitution.
Some say that on January 16, 2012, Mitt proved himself unfit to be President of the United States by publicly abandoning the Constitutional principle of Habeas Corpus and several other of the most fundamental rights of a citizen in a free society. They say a candidate who publicly states he will violate the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendments V and VI, is unfit to be President of the United States.