Hi 34° | Lo 18°

Letter: Ayotte’s stance tramples on Constitution

I was dismayed to see that The New York Times is identifying New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte as one of those calling for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant. This tactic of dubious constitutionality enables, as I understand it, the individual to be held without charge indefinitely without trial, without access to legal representation or protection against self incrimination.

An issue here is how to define “enemy combatant” as distinct from any other accused person. The danger in this practice is a blurring of the distinction such that anyone could conceivably be named as such at the whim of the executive branch, wisked away to be tortured and confined for an indefinite amount of time without charge, trial or access to due process of any kind.

The danger to our existence as a free society ought to be obvious. It is especially alarming to read that public servants who have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution are eager to throw it aside.

Ayotte recently indicated her opposition to gun control measures that would impact those who seek to own firearms, presumably in support of the Second Amendment. It is curious then that she is willing to scrap the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

I’m at a loss to explain the clamor for such dangerous (to our liberty) practice except as a shameful attempt to make political capital out of this tragic event, the recent bombing at the Boston Marathon.

Surely we and those who have suffered at the hands of this despicable act deserve better. Shame on you Kelly Ayotte!



Legacy Comments11

Ayotte is being used as a distraction so folks will not have to discuss the terrorist bombing in Boston. That is what the left does. By discussing the facts, they have to admit the FBI, Homeland Security etc, dropped the ball. Not going to do that under President' Obama's watch. Talk about anything else to deflect the excuses and changing stories that we are hearing. The same deal happened with Libya.

I think Congress is well-suited to decide whether the FBI and others "dropped the ball". Ayotte's vote is a separate issue, and a fine profile in cowardice. The fact you continue to raise the Libya issue, another entirely different issue (as a distraction from Ayotte's actions?) and a tragedy but thoroughly vetted by the media, and the result of the fog of war, is telling. If you're looking to place blame for the lack of security in Libya, find it in the long-term trend to privatize security details (think Blackwater) and subsequent abuses by private contractors. As a result, Libya banned private security companies from working there. Also look at the long-term underfunding of the State Dept. and the militarization of our foreign policy. None of this began under Obama and these trends may prove impossible to undo, as we continue to respond to 9/11 in ways that are irrational and counterproductive.

I watched both hearings on Libya bruce in full. Here is how it went down. The Dems asked the state dept pretty much nothing about who got the requests for more security, etc. They did nothing when they questioned Clinton they did nothing but praise her for her work, no tough questions there, when she was asked questions by Reps, she cried. Same thing will happen again with Boston hearings. Both these instances are about security. You tell me why this adminstration shut down the process of getting info from this bomber? By the way we are talking a terrorist here. You know that word the Dems hate to say. The pattern is incompetence. That is pretty scary when it comes to protecting us in my book.

Americans died and Hilary LIED LIED LIED

if there ever was a doubt, the constitution should always prevail all doubts. It's not a document that you invoke and revoke at pleasure.

Bruce, Oh the inherent tension between "law" and "justice" and trying to apply those in an asymmetrical war. No Easy answers methinks. When public safety is your responsibility - I hope all becomes clear (and then please call me - i want to know the black & white answers also)

I read all of the Ayotte bashing letters and came up with some statistics. Over the last week 6 folks are members of Democrat groups, 2 contributed to Hodes in the last election, three are known progressives who write letters regularly. So I take these letters with a grain of salt and so should Ayotte, these are partisans, my bet is that none of them voted for Ayotte in the first place. It is easy enough to figure some to these things out, a simple web search and a look at sites that tell you who contributed to whose campaign. The letters seem to be stacked on one side but don't forget most are from Concord and the pretense in Concord is the order of the day.

Exactly what has Ms. Ayotte done to make her qualified for the office. That is other than being the darling of the GOP in NH. Let's see the case of the cop killer in Manchester, nope. A trained monkey would have gotten the same conviction with the preponderance of evidence. It must have been knowing enough to get out of dodge before the FRM ponzi scandal engulfed her office, good timing Kelly. Not exactly a case of "Mr. Smith goes to Washington".

She is infinitely more qualified than this bunch.........before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that she, President Barack Obama and other political officials at the top of this administration have the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore........google it

Still stalking folks eh Itsa?

My thoughts exactly.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.