Detention of Americans violates Constitution

I received this from Rick Allen, campaigning to win the congressional seat in the Second District of Georgia.

“Our country is based on the idea of individualism with personal sovereignty and the original intent of the Constitution is to protect our inalienable rights. How is any bill that allows the president to detain American citizens without charges on his own personal suspicion not violating the original intent of the Constitution?” (Rick Allen is referring here to the executive order that was signed the first of May. NDAA-detention of American citizens, slipped into the defense budget.)

“Most of this 500-page bill is a re-authorization of the defense budget. Many ill-informed and weak congressional members signed this so as not to appear un-patriotic or anti-military. The two sections which were stealthily slipped in, #1021 and #1022 need to be taken out of the bill. These two sections are ambiguous and state that a person labeled a “belligerent” will not have the right of habeas corpus.

“Who will decide who a belligerent is? — Could anyone who wants to express their view or doesn’t agree with the current administration be considered one? With so much corruption in Washington any political enemy could be targeted and then arrested and linked to a suspected terrorist plan.

“This bill violates our basic rights and specifically Article 1, Section 9 and Amendments 1, 9 and 10. I believe the founding fathers would be appalled that we have stooped so low as to voluntarily give up our freedom without coercion, and then additionally give the President the unlimited authority to go after citizens who are perceived enemies, and detain them indefinitely without due process.

“Isn’t this the definition of tyranny?”

Yes, it is the definition of tyranny, Mr. Allen, yes it is. This is one of the many reasons that I support Rick Allen to replace Sanford Bishop. Please consider giving him your support.

SARAH WEBSTER

Albany