PDA

View Full Version : A reply from Sen. Kelly Ayotte




runamuck
12-19-2011, 03:53 PM
So, I wrote a little note to my Senator expressing my outrage that she voted for the NDAA with the included permanent detention provisions.

She sounded like a spot-on neocon in her reply:


Some have expressed concerns about provisions within the defense authorization bill that address how we treat terrorist detainees-those we capture who are members of al Qaeda or associated groups who are seeking to kill Americans and our allies. I welcome the opportunity to address those concerns and to clear up myths that have been circulating.

At issue is the fundamental question about whether the United States is at war with radical Islamists who are seeking to kill Americans and our allies. Some would prefer to treat terrorists as common criminals, focusing on criminal investigation and prosecution rather than the intelligence collection that is required to prevent future attacks. I firmly believe the United States is at war and our terrorist detention policies should reflect that fact. Any questions regarding the reality of the war we are engaged in and whether terrorists have brought the war to our homeland were put to rest on September 11, 2001. The attacks, and attempted attacks since that tragic day, have only confirmed that we remain at war with a deadly and determined enemy whose goal is to bring the war here and to strike us on our own soil.

Did you hear? We are at WAR! A never ending war against a faceless enemy! Keep the laws coming I guess....

Nate-ForLiberty
12-19-2011, 03:57 PM
When is she up for re-election?

gls
12-19-2011, 03:57 PM
Ridiculousness. Due process and intelligence gathering are not exclusive.

runamuck
12-19-2011, 04:01 PM
When is she up for re-election?

Sadly not for awhile... 2016?

Inkblots
12-19-2011, 04:01 PM
Would Lamontagne have supported this? If not, it's a tragedy he lost the primary.

Inkblots
12-19-2011, 04:02 PM
When is she up for re-election?

2016. She was elected last year. She beat out Ovide Lamontagne, a Tea Party candidate, for the nomination.

angelatc
12-19-2011, 04:07 PM
Both parties play the same game, and they play it because it works. Fear. The left keeps people afraid that they'll starve to death if the Republicans even so much as mention anything that leans towards fiscal sanity, while the right keeps us afraid of the people who aren't exactly like us.

jason43
12-19-2011, 04:08 PM
They are at war, but its a war against the American people, not 'terrorists'

The Free Hornet
12-19-2011, 04:20 PM
They are at war, but its a war against the American people, not 'terrorists'

+1 & QFT <---- my FIRST "QFT (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QFT)"

Donsta
12-19-2011, 04:31 PM
Kelly Ayotte is a joke! Just another warmongering establishment nutjob! This anemosity towards americans will go on forever as long as were in the middle east.

Anti Federalist
12-19-2011, 04:35 PM
Ayotte is awful.

Glad I had nothing to do with her campaign.

She will now be NH's senator until she dies.

NH's federal representation is atrocious, both Senators and Congressmen.

Cowlesy
12-19-2011, 04:36 PM
That really is a horrible, horrible answer. Justin Amash tore this whole question apart at RedState.com It'd behoove Senator Ayotte to read his work.

Hell, every congressperson should read what Amash penned.

malkusm
12-19-2011, 04:45 PM
That really is a horrible, horrible answer. Justin Amash tore this whole question apart at RedState.com It'd behoove Senator Ayotte to read his work.

Hell, every congressperson should read what Amash penned.

Link? (For the benefit of everyone) :p

Gravik
12-19-2011, 05:02 PM
OP, can you post the letter you sent her? I'd like to send something similar to one of my State Reps that supported the bill, since Idaho is full of neocons.

S.Shorland
12-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Your name is now top of the list!

Kodaddy
12-19-2011, 05:30 PM
Ask her if she voted to declare war on terror...

I don't recall any recent congressional vote to declare war on anything...

tod evans
12-19-2011, 05:33 PM
This poor lady is misinformed.....we are not at war!
She is voting with media generated fear as the catylist.
Not the person i want representing me!

Brian4Liberty
12-19-2011, 05:37 PM
She sounded like a spot-on neocon in her reply

Not surprising, as she was the lead neo-con on the point pushing this! (With Lindsey Graham, McCain and Lieberman close behind cheering her on.

Keith and stuff
12-19-2011, 05:45 PM
Would Lamontagne have supported this? If not, it's a tragedy he lost the primary.

I would be shocked if he didn't. My guess is all 4 of the top candidates would have supported it. My guess is 80% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats support it. It is a super popular issue.

Sen. Ayotte is better than the average GOP Senator so far, but it is so early into her term, we don't know how her record will end up.

Anti Federalist
12-19-2011, 07:03 PM
Sen. Ayotte is better than the average GOP Senator so far, but it is so early into her term, we don't know how her record will end up.

Maybe I'm not paying attention.

Please point out where she has broken in any meaningful way, with establishment GOP thinking and voting.

A fascist wearing two right pumps is no different than one wearing two left boots.

Yes, I called her a fascist, and no I won't walk that back.

If you think that "freedom" in any way means the government has the right to lock you up without trial or due process because the same government says you are a "terrorist", then you are, de facto, an authoritarian fascist.

Keith and stuff
12-19-2011, 08:04 PM
Maybe I'm not paying attention.

Please point out where she has broken in any meaningful way, with establishment GOP thinking and voting.

A fascist wearing two right pumps is no different than one wearing two left boots.

Yes, I called her a fascist, and no I won't walk that back.

If you think that "freedom" in any way means the government has the right to lock you up without trial or due process because the same government says you are a "terrorist", then you are, de facto, an authoritarian fascist.

Here are a few times this fall when she did the right thing or led an effort to do the right thing when some Republicans were all about doing the wrong thing. I am not saying she is good. I am not saying she is overall pro-liberty. I'm just saying that she is, so far, better than the average US Republican Senator. She certainly isn't one of the top US Senators as Sununu and Smith were in their day. And I am also not saying they were good or pro-liberty (just compared to everyone else.)

Kelly's courage: Right vote against spending
EDITORIAL
Published Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Nov 26, 2011)
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111127/OPINION01/711279965

Senators rally opposition to Internet sales taxes
Declan McCullagh November 2, 2011 10:28 AM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20129104-281/senators-rally-opposition-to-internet-sales-taxes/

Two U.S. senators are trying to prevent their colleagues from rushing to embrace Internet sales taxes, CNET has learned.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) are planning to introduce a resolution today saying that no laws should be enacted that would let states impose "burdensome or unfair" taxes on Internet retailers.

Ayotte Amendment Would Block Administration's Proposed Changes to Hours-of-Service
Oct 19, 2011
http://ayotte.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=252

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Transportation Appropriations bill that would block the Obama Administration from implementing its proposed changes for hours-of-service rules for commercial truck drivers.

Forty Twice
12-19-2011, 10:31 PM
Here is my exchange with Senator Cornyn (R- TX). No offense to any LSU fans out there.




Dear Senator Cornyn,

I very much appreciate your reply. I basically agree with Sections 1031 and 1032 as described by you. However, the text of the Section 1031 (b) in the bill (very bottom) is not so comforting and I would not have voted for such flawed language.

I concur with these changes applying to the first covered person description in (1). It is this qualification in description (2):

including any person who has committed a belligerent act

The bill goes through all of this trouble to delineate terrorists by their relationship to 9-11 or to Al Queada. Then you open coverage to anyone who has committed a belligerent act.

What is a belligerent act? I used to consider LSU football fans' behavior while visiting College Station to be belligerent behavior. Sometimes that behavior was translated into what I considered to be belligerent acts. Some may think they meet the criteria, but I really don't consider those LSU football fans to be terrorists. Is a belligerent act something that is solely defined by the President or Secretary of Defense? If I mistakenly commit a belligerent act and am taken to Guantanamo for indefinite detention, who do I complain to in between water-boarding sessions (thank you Sen. Ayotte)? It sounds like I have no rights in that situation. I would almost always resist trading civil rights for security more than you do. But this surrender of rights in the name of security is inexcusable.

I find it odd that both you and Senator Hutchison forgot to explain the belligerent act language when replying to my concerns. I should have been more specific in my original letter. But why would you vote for a law which is so unclear about the definition of a belligerent act? Did you read the actual language about who is covered?

You and Senator Hutchinson have both responded by attempting to convince me this only applies to terrorists (another unclearly defined term). However, neither of you explained the portion of the covering language that actually concerns me. In fact, I would not be very concerned with Section 1031 if the phrase "including any person who has committed a belligerent act" was not there. Until I receive a satisfactory explanation on that point, I will consider your vote to be negligent or worse.

The other part of your response which I feel is incorrect involves Section 1032 and it's supposed non-application to US citizens. It only states that the detention of US citizens covered by Section 1031 is not mandatory. It implies that such detention is at the discretion of the President. So obviously, your explanation using Section 1032 offers me no comfort.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXX



(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



--- On Mon, 12/19/11, SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov> wrote:

From: SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov>
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Monday, December 19, 2011, 10:50 AM


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the military detention and prosecution of terrorists. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and be granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants. Terrorists should be kept at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted through the military commissions established by Congress under terms circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court. Trying to hold civilian trials in the United States for terrorists does nothing more than place Americans at risk, while providing terrorists with a platform from which to spew their hate-filled ideology and recruit like-minded fanatics around the world to join them in jihad. We must not forget that we are a nation at war against ruthless killers who wear no uniforms and use civilians as human shields. Treating these war crimes as ordinary criminal acts and trying these killers in a civilian court under the U.S. Constitution is simply reverting to a dangerous, pre-9/11 mentality.

As you may know, Congress passed the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, making a powerful statement that U.S. civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to bring terrorists to justice. The military commissions were specifically designed to prevent damaging disclosures and to protect classified information, as well as sensitive sources and methods. We know that these military commissions have a long history in our Republic—dating back from the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to World War II. They are the most appropriate forum for terrorists to be tried for their crimes.

Therefore, I supported amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012 NDAA; S. 1867) regarding terrorist detention practices. Section 1031 of the FY 2012 NDAA would reaffirm the President’s military detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107—40). Additionally, Section 1032 would require military custody for a certain subset of unprivileged enemy belligerents, members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities, pending their disposition under the law of war. By its terms, Section 1032 does not apply to U.S. citizens. These provisions were included in the FY 2012 NDAA that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.

PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

cdc482
12-19-2011, 10:37 PM
I love you guys. Just wanted you to know.

Oddone
12-19-2011, 11:00 PM
--- On Mon, 12/19/11, SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov> wrote:

From: SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov <SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov>
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Monday, December 19, 2011, 10:50 AM


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the military detention and prosecution of terrorists. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I do not believe terrorists should be brought to the United States and be granted the same rights and privileges as American criminal defendants. Terrorists should be kept at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted through the military commissions established by Congress under terms circumscribed by the United States Supreme Court. Trying to hold civilian trials in the United States for terrorists does nothing more than place Americans at risk, while providing terrorists with a platform from which to spew their hate-filled ideology and recruit like-minded fanatics around the world to join them in jihad. We must not forget that we are a nation at war against ruthless killers who wear no uniforms and use civilians as human shields. Treating these war crimes as ordinary criminal acts and trying these killers in a civilian court under the U.S. Constitution is simply reverting to a dangerous, pre-9/11 mentality.

As you may know, Congress passed the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, making a powerful statement that U.S. civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to bring terrorists to justice. The military commissions were specifically designed to prevent damaging disclosures and to protect classified information, as well as sensitive sources and methods. We know that these military commissions have a long history in our Republic—dating back from the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to World War II. They are the most appropriate forum for terrorists to be tried for their crimes.

Therefore, I supported amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012 NDAA; S. 1867) regarding terrorist detention practices. Section 1031 of the FY 2012 NDAA would reaffirm the President’s military detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107—40). Additionally, Section 1032 would require military custody for a certain subset of unprivileged enemy belligerents, members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities, pending their disposition under the law of war. By its terms, Section 1032 does not apply to U.S. citizens. These provisions were included in the FY 2012 NDAA that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.

PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.


I got the same reply from Cornyn. I know who won't be getting my vote.

Keith and stuff
12-20-2011, 06:17 PM
Here is another recent one from Sen. Ayotte

AMA Stands Against Mandatory Helmet Laws
http://www.allaboutbikes.com/motorcyle-news/law-legislation/6524-ama-stands-against-mandatory-helmet-laws


The AMA said today that they were standing behind U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) who rallied against a proposal that would have indirectly forced states to pass mandatory helmet laws.

Anti Federalist
12-20-2011, 06:53 PM
Here is another recent one from Sen. Ayotte

AMA Stands Against Mandatory Helmet Laws
http://www.allaboutbikes.com/motorcyle-news/law-legislation/6524-ama-stands-against-mandatory-helmet-laws

Hmmm.

We already lose federal funding for both not having a seat belt law and a helmet law.

I'm assuming this would have taken even more extorted money.

I'm not sure that stand is all that courageous, but OK.