Free Man In Kentucky!

Little bit of Southern Culture littering the internet.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

NDAA, What Would Brett Guthrie Do? Follow the Constitution, Ignore it For Political Gain or maybe he didn't understand what he read?



January 3rd, 2012

I've talked to Congressman Guthrie two times before he gave his vote to extend the Patriot Act. It seemed when we talked as if he got that the three provisions that most objected to were unconstitutional. The loan wolf provision in particular could be used on anyone that was thought to attend a "political thought" rally even if they did not agree with the speakers.

I was confident Congressman Guthrie would go in and argue the case for his constituents, like Senator Rand Paul who made this argument:



Maybe Brett did think myself and Senator Paul wanted America to be attacked and not defend the Constitution and Civil Liberties. Well, I do want to defend our great document that we base our laws on and protect Civil Liberties. After that, I was pretty much done with Congressman Guthrie. Figured he was not really interested in some guy who voted for him. He's a nice guy but maybe he just didn't see my politics. Then came the NDAA or the National Defense Authorization Act.

Where do we start. Well, let's look at Congressman Brett Guthrie's letter to the Bowling Green Daily News on a Christmas Eve. He starts the letter off politely thanking people for their concern. Nice, right? Then he rolls into it:

First and foremost, it is illegal for any arm of government or law enforcement to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen.

Nothing in the National Defense Authorization Act changed this protection.


Well, obviously I read the bill and Congressman Guthrie is either not reading the bills, needs a lawyer to help him understand or he's not telling the truth. Under the provisions of section 1031, President Obama and future Presidents are afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges and without any due process safeguards protected by the constitution of the United States.

Then again, maybe I'm just a blogger:



So a Republican and Democrat Senator disagree with our Representative from Kentucky Congressman Guthrie. Well, he ends his letter like this:

The actual wording of the law reads: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” The requirement to detain is so narrowly constructed it would exclude two alleged terrorists arrested in Bowling Green this year.

We are still fighting a war on terror. Our soldiers are engaged in a great struggle to keep us safe. I strongly believe those captured by our soldiers on foreign fields should be treated as enemy combatants.

I also strongly believe that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens must be preserved. The National Defense Authorization Act does both. It is a clear declaration that U.S. citizens will always be protected by the Constitution, however al-Qaida and the Taliban will not.


This is where I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he either didn't read all the sections of the bill or did not understand the bill. Or maybe he doesn't watch Fox or listen to defenders like John McCain:


Maybe he doesn't talk to Lawyers:


Maybe he doesn't listen to Lindsey Graham:


Again, maybe Congressman Guthrie was just not told what was in the act, didn't understand it or maybe he just didn't care about the Constitution. It's your choice to figure out what he was thinking. His actions, violated the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold:

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 or 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.


Other Kentucky Votes on NDAA:
Ed Whitfield- Yea
John Yarmuth- Nay
Geoff Davis- Yea
Hal Rogers- Yea
Ben Chandler- Yea

Senate:
Mitch McConnell- Yea
Rand Paul- Nay

0 comments:

Post a Comment