RedStateEclectic

How One Man Has (Almost) Ended the Indefinite Detention of Americans (NDAA)

On December 15, 2011 Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which contained a provision giving the President of the United States the authority to indefinitely detain Americans who were classified by the President as terrorists or provided material support for terrorists or terrorist organizations. This is the story of how one man (and his office staff) helped expose this dangerous provision and has nearly killed it.

The NDAA is an annual bill that works its way through the Armed Services Committee and includes all the mundane funding and provisions outlining military spending, personnel strengths, and procedures for the country's national defense. The act works its way through the Senate and House committees and then goes to the floor of each chamber for passage and is signed by the president. It is not unusual for there to be arguments about funding issues and discussions about how the military operations/wars are being conducted, but there is usually very rarely Constitutional 'controversial' material that ever comes to light. [It is worth noting that Don't Ask Don't Tell came through these committees but I don't find that a Constitutional question but I recognize that it was very controversial]

Last year, that all changed. 

The NDAA had worked its way through the appropriate committees in the Senate and House with little resistance.It moved through the House committee chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon (R) on a 60-1 vote and became HR 1540. The bill then passed the House on May 25 on a vote of 322-96 (only 6 dissenting Republicans).  It passed through committee on November 15th in the Senate chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D) on a 26-0 vote and became SB 1867. 

Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI3) has made it a habit of reading all the legislation that he votes on and posting all of his votes and reasoning on Facebook. He began this process when he served in the Michigan State House of Representatives and has continued it now in Congress. He and his office in reviewing the NDAA recognized that Sections 1021-1024 of the NDAA of 2012 contained new 'clarification' of what the President's new powers were to be. As a lawyer, Amash quickly recognized the vagueness of the wording within the new provision and saw that it could be construed as giving the President broad new detention privileges while denying the defendant any legal recourse.

Now before we go any further it is important to point out that Amash is a freshman legislator in Congress. This is in a chamber where seniority rules decisively and completely. Rarely are freshmen allowed to introduce legislation. They serve on the lowliest committees and are expected to follow along and not cause trouble. The new Congressmen also know virtually no one in the chamber except maybe fellow members from their home state so their ability to find the 'go-to' guy or gal is almost zero. Finally, since they have barely been serving (in Amash's case in this example May of 2011 he'd been in Washington only 4 months) they certainly don't know anyone in the Senate either.

In May this NDAA of 2012 which includes the provision in Sections 1021-1023 for indefinite dentention passes the House with minimal resistance - especially from Republicans. Rep. Amash recognizes the danger of the law and also opposed Section 1034 which gives the President sweeping ability to conduct extended military operations. With the military operations in Libya hot on the minds of Americans this was probably seen as a good way to get some public opposition to the NDAA.

Over the next few months Amash begins to meet more of his colleagues and develops a friendship with Senator Rand Paul (a clear ally politically both on governing principles and he is the son of Rep. Ron Paul who endorsed Amash in the August 2010 Republican primary). Amash describes the potential risk for the new provision and Paul convinces a few Repbulicans and Democrats in the Senate to oppose the law. 

By this point, Amash is recognizing that the indefinite detention rule is a nonpartisan issue that people from all over the political spectrum should rightly oppose. He then goes on the offensive both on Facebook and (allegedly) during the House Republican strategy conference where he actively opposes House Armed Services Chair and long time member Buck McKeon.

Imagine the scene if you will. In December, before most of the Republican delegation of Congress (Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, etc.) Amash rises and addresses the group to explain how the NDAA Section 1021-23 provides for the power of indefinite detention of American citizens. He cites the specific language and tries to convince people who probably have little knowledge of him that the nearly 20 year veteran and chair of the powerful Armed Services Committee is mistaken. McKeon counters that Amash is flat out wrong.

The battle then leaves the room and heads to the ethernet.

McKeon writes a rebuttal to all of the 'misinformation' about the provision and has it posted at Redstate.com. Amash counters with this post rebutting the rebuttal. Amash manages to sway a few more Republicans including Representatives Huizenga and Walberg who are also new members from Michigan.

Amash starts hitting the ether hard on Facebook calling all of his 'followers' to call their representatives knowing that many are not his constituents. Still, he only has 18,000 followers or so in a nation of 310 million people to put the heat on Congress.

In fact, on the vote in December to adopt the Senate version (which was basically the same as HR 1540) Amash succeeds in getting 43 Republican defections instead of the previous 6.The bill still easily passes the House and becomes law after President Obama signs it a few weeks later. If this were the end of the story, it could almost be viewed as a Don Quixote mission where we might give the Congressman an "atta boy, thanks for trying, keep your chin up."

But the story was only beginning.

Through those 18-20,000 followers there was intense outrage. They did call their Representatives. And told their friends. And those friends told their friends. And... well you get the picture. 

Suddenly, at town halls Congressmen were getting questioned about their NDAA vote and pilloried if they voted for it or praised for voting against. The NDAA issue was showing up in the presidential campaign as Ron Paul would use it to point out the growing power in Washington and it even came up at a presidential debate where all the candidates except Huntsman and Paul said they would have signed it (as Obama did).

Stories about the NDAA and its detention provisions are no longer just contained on ACLU and InfoWars websites but it's also appearing in the Washington Post and International Business Times. There is a definite possibility that the Armed Forces Committees in both chambers will have to revise or potentially remove the provisions entirely from the NDAA 2013 bill!

The indefinite detention provision is close to dead. I believe we have reached critical mass and one man has maintained just a little bit of our liberty. It is very important to recognize that even one person can have a profound impact if they are tenacious and don't settle on 'just voting' or just speaking out once or twice. I am proud to say that Justin Amash is my personal Congressman but hope that you see he is defending the liberties of not just my district in West Michigan but those of all Americans.

Keep up the heat until the indefinite provision is killed. Call your Senators and Representatives today and tell them to axe this un-Constitutional provision from this year's NDAA and beyond. Here is the Congressional Switchboard #1-866-220-0044 and here is a little 'how-to' when calling Washington D.C.

Don't forget to wish Rep. Amash Happy Birthday on April 18th on Facebook. You might even want to send him your two cents (maximum donations up to $2500 I'm sure would be accepted as well.)

Politico profiles GOP US Rep. Justin Amash (MI-3)

Politico today has a piece profiling US Representative Justin Amash and his similarities in voting, etc. to presidential candidate Ron Paul. The article is fairly neutral yet pointing out the dangers of a willingness to oppose your party's leadership and stand alone at times in votes.

“The biggest similarity between [Ron Paul and me] is that we are two people who will vote our conscience. We are not there to please the system, please the establishment,” Amash told POLITICO.

Of course, the establishment has some serious problems with this — and that could threaten Amash’s political future.

Republicans who dislike Amash said that Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor are disgruntled about his “holier-than-thou” approach, and colleagues have frequently accused Amash of grandstanding.

“Most members in the [Michigan] delegation realize that when you’re in the majority, sometimes you have to take votes that stink to move the agenda forward. He’s not a team player,” said a high-ranking official in the Michigan delegation.

Rep. Candice Miller, who oversees the whip operation for the delegation, is said to have given up counting on Amash as a reliable vote. “That’s not the first time I’ve heard that,” she remarked once, when told that Amash would be a “no” on yet another vote, according to a staffer who was present.

This is the every day struggle for those who wish to try to vote their conscience when their party is violating their principles. This is why the GOP establishment is uneasy with an Amash congressional seat and anyone really who bucks the powers that be. Be sure to read the rest of the article. Only time will tell if Amash drains the swamp in DC or drowns in it.

I Am the Unibomber

I Am the Unibomber. At least that's who I feel like I am based upon the questions asked at AmericansElect.org. 

From their website:

THE GOAL OF AMERICANS ELECT is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters—not the political system. American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders who will work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.

Below are a few of my answers to questions they ask:

 

 

 

 

I thought this was an interesting question. My personal point of view is that other people's income is none of my business. Thus my "unsure" answer.

 

I thought this was an interesting question. Do I think states could do better? Yes. I don't think, however, that the federal government needs to take over this role.

 

Am I the Unibomber? No. But after answering quite a few questions I'm starting to feel that I live outside of the mainstream. Not that I'm concerned about how I think. I'm more concerned that others will force me to think like them. And based on this survey, they'll be glad to use the federal government to do that.

(For the sake of the Echelon program, I am not the Unibomber.)

###

 

Silver (or should I say gold) lining for Ron Paul’s 2nd place finish

 

With all the talk in the media about how important the Ames Straw Poll results between Bachmann and Pawlenty were going to be (while at the same time hedging their bets by minimizing the meaning of a possible Ron Paul win) a VERY close second place finish by the good doctor is probably the best thing that could have happened.  The media can’t say this is a huge plus for Bachmann while at the same time saying that the 152 vote difference second place finisher means that the poll is meaningless...especially when the separation to third place was well over 2,000 votes.

Another huge plus is that the predictions were that a large turnout was going to be bad for Paul because of his “devoted grass-roots army of supporters who are unlikely to support other candidates, but ALWAYS has trouble expanding beyond that hard-core group.”  He came within an eyelash of winning WITH a large turnout, which by the media’s own reasoning means his “small but energetic base” is in fact growing!

 

Free Spirits Descending on Omaha

In honor of Laura’s hard work for the upcoming LibertyFest. Must be some interesting personalities out there.

Earth Day, April 22, 1995 - Remember?

What did you do on 22 April, 1995, or on that day 25 years earlier?

April 22 [1995] marks the 25th anniversary of Earth Day.  Now as then its message is spiritually uplifting.  But all reasonable persons who look at the statistical evidence now available must agree that Earth Day’s scientific premises are entirely wrong.

During the first great Earth Week in 1970 there was panic.  The public’s outlook for the planet was unrelievedly gloomy.  The doomsaying environmentalists–of whom the dominant figure was Paul Ehrlich–raised the alarm: The oceans and the Great Lakes were dying; impending great famines would be seen on television starting in 1975; the death rate would quickly increase due to pollution; and rising prices of increasingly-scarce raw materials would lead to a reversal in the past centuries’ progress in the standard of living.

The media trumpeted the bad news in headlines and front-page stories.  Professor Ehrlich was on the Johnny Carson show for an unprecedented full hour–twice.  Classes were given by television to tens of thousands of university students.

It is hard for those who did not experience it to imagine the national excitement then.  Even those who never read a newspaper joined in efforts to clean up streams, and the most unrepentant slobs refrained from littering for a few weeks.  Population growth was the great bugaboo.

Every ill was the result of too many people in the U. S. and abroad.  The remedy doomsayers urged was government-coerced birth control, abroad and even at home.

On the evening before Earth Day I spoke on a panel at the jam-packed auditorium at the University of Illinois.  The organizers had invited me for “balance,” to show that all points of view would be heard. I spoke then exactly the same ideas that I write today; some of the very words are the same.

Of the 2,000 persons in attendance, probably fewer than a dozen concluded that anything I said made sense.  A panelist denounced me as a religious nut, attributing to me weird beliefs such as that murder was the equivalent of celibacy.  My ten-minute talk so enraged people that it led to a physical brawl with another professor.

Every statement I made in 1970 about the trends in resource scarcity and environmental cleanliness turned out to be correct. Every prediction has been validated by events.  Yet the environmental organizations and the Clinton administration–especially Vice President Al Gore, the State Department, and the CIA –still take as doctrine exactly the same ideas expressed by the doomsayers in 1970, despite their being discredited by recent history.  And the press overwhelmingly endorses that viewpoint.

Here are the facts: On average, people throughout the world have been living longer and eating better than ever before.  Fewer people die of famine nowadays than in earlier centuries.  The real prices of food and of every other raw material are lower now than in earlier decades and centuries, indicating a trend of increased natural-resource availability rather than increased scarcity.  The major air and water pollutions in the advanced countries have been lessening rather than worsening.

In short, every single measure of material and environmental welfare in the United States has improved rather than deteriorated. This is also true of the world taken as a whole.  All the long-run trends point in exactly the opposite direction from the projections of the doomsayers.  There have been, and always will be, temporary and local exceptions to these broad trends.  But astonishing as it may seem, there are no data showing that conditions are deteriorating.

Read the entire piece by Julian Simon, in which he challenges Bill Clinton and Al Gore to a wager.

Mark Perry of Carpe Diem offers a readable column piece on Earth Day. See also The Courage to Think.

German Greening (1)

In the local dialect spoken here in the western part of the palatinate region, "ü" isn't pronounced; instead of "grün," it's "grie(n)" - sounding in English similar to "gree(n)," and meaning just that. So "ü" isn't difficult for foreigners alone, many Germans find it hard to pronounce the diphtong.

"The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain ..." - "es grünt so grün ... it's greening so greenly" is the German rendering of Prof. Higgins' pronounciation test for Eliza, a Cockney flower girl who is in the habit of "dropping aitches everywhere."

While spring has arrived, not only biologically has it been "greening so greenly" over here.

P. Gosselin, an American living in Germany, writes in his NoTricksZone blog about his fear that "... Germany is headed for a Green 1933."

Geez – can’t these volks just be happy having normal prosperous lives? Life has never been better for Germans – ever.

Yet, an elitist few have to concoct ways to mess it all up – getting many Germans to believe the end of the world is coming because they are too happy and comfortable, and that the only way to avert the end of the world is to let the elitist few dictate how everyone else lives.

Everywhere in the media today the news is about Germany’s Green Party soaring to record high popularity in the opinion polls, climbing to the number 2 position in opinion polls not far behind Angela Merkel’s CDU party – reaching almost 30%! The jump is due to recent environmental hysteria sparked by the Fukushima accident. When fear spreads, the Greens profit.

Sure this is different than 1933 – but there are plenty of disturbing similarities and signs, all showing it is all headed towards tyranny and authoritarianism. Don’t be fooled by all the green moral righteousness. The green movement is a wolf dressed up as grandma.

The Greens’ rise to this level of power, like in back in the 1930s, is all based on raw irrational fear and hysteria, spurred on by hysterical and scandalous junk science. Whereas in 1933 Hitler’s rise to power was based on the junk science of eugenics and xenophobia, today’s rise of the Greens is based on climate-phobia, CO2-phobia and nuclear-phobia (add to this BSE phobia, gene-food phobia, fine particle phobia, golden rice phobia, tipping point-phobia, etc. etc. etc.), all based on crackpot science.

Make sure to read the entire, short and incisive article at the source.

See also my post Ecofascism - The Nazi Roots, The Bully "Sciences" of a Politicised World, Epistemic Consequences of Totalitarian Democracy, and The Sun Queen of Germany.

Chernobyl Revisited

I believe, the only international event that ever caused me a sense of personal panic was the nuclear power station disaster that occurred on April 28, 1986. I was at the London office of an American bulge bracket investment bank, when I heard the news. For days, I felt spells of extreme disquietude bubbling up in me.

The world has advanced enormously, since then. Thanks to the internet, it is much easier to discern credible from noncredible information, today.

As the serious incident at Fukushima et al shows, unfortunately, for many people time has stopped on April 28, 1986.

The concerted efforts to distort by untruthful hysteria causes and consequences of the events at the distressed nuclear plants in Japan are a time-lapse variant (a deluge of false information compressed into the time span of a few days) of the (thematically different) global warming propaganda onslaught perpetrated against us over years on end.

It is amazing how much almost any random interlocutor (here in Germany) knows about the medical and other scientific findings that have been produced with respect to the consequences of the Chernobyl accident and nuclear power in general - without ever having studied any research of the pertinent type.

It is all the more illuminating to read a paper by a scientist who has devoted decades of his life to studying the Chernobyl disaster from the moment of its occurrence to this day.

Thus, consider this article on the Chernobyl accident and the beneficial health effects of low level radiation, written by Zbigniew Jaworowski, the former chair of the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

Chernobyl was the worst possible catastrophe. It happened in a dangerously constructed nuclear power reactor with a total meltdown of the core and 10 days of free emission of radionuclides into the atmosphere.

Probably nothing worse could happen. Yet, the resulting human losses, although tragic, were minute in comparison with catastrophes from other energy sources.

Highly sensitive monitoring systems that had been developed in many countries for the detection of fallout from nuclear weapons enabled easy detection of minute amounts of Chernobyl dust, even in remote corners of the world. This added to global epidemics of fear induced by the accident. [...]

[At Chernobyl, G.T.] a vast environmental dispersion of radioactivity occurred that did not cause any scientifically confirmed fatalities in the general population. The worst harm to the population was caused not by radiation, and not to flesh, but to minds.

The article's conclusion:

It is reassuring, however, that 16 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, another group, composed of four U.N. organizations—the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.N. International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affaires (UNOCHA)—dared to state in its 2002 report, based on UNSCEAR studies, that a great part of the billions of dollars used to mitigate the consequences of the Chernobyl accident was spent incorrectly. The dollars spent in these efforts did not improve, but actually worsened, a deteriorating situation for 7 million socalled “victims of Chernobyl” and solidified the psychological effects of the catastrophe and the wrong decisions of the authorities.

The report (UNDP 2002) recommended that the three post-Soviet countries and the international organizations abandon the current policy. The misguided basis of this policy, i.e. expectation of mass radiation health effects, was responsible for the enormous and uselessly expended resources sacrificed for remediation efforts. Instead, the report presented 35 practical recommendations needed to stop the vicious cycle of Chernobyl frustrations, social degradation, pauperization, and the epidemic of psychosomatic disorders.

The recommendations suggest a reversal of the policy of concentrating attention on nonexistent radiation hazards, and propose that relocated individuals be allowed to return to their old settlements. That is, that essentially all of the restrictions should be removed. *

But here we enter a political mine-field. How well will people accept losing the mass benefits (equivalent to about $40 a month) that they poetically call a “coffin bonus”?

How can it be explained to them that they were made to believe that they were the “victims” of a nonexistent hazard; that the mass evacuations were an irresponsible error; that for 20 years, people were unnecessarily exposed to suffering and need; that vast areas of land were unnecessarily barred from use; and that their countries’ resources were incredibly squandered?

Would fulfilling the recommendations of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2000 report again result in a political catharsis and perhaps induce violent reactions? Probably not in Russia, where a more rational approach to Chernobyl prevails. But the political classes of Belarus and Ukraine have for years demonstrated a much more emotional approach. When the UNSCEAR 2000a report, documenting the low incidence of serious health hazards resulting from the Chernobyl accident, was presented to the U.N. General Assembly, the Belarus and Ukraine delegations lodged a fulminating protest.

This set the stage for the Chernobyl Forum in 2002, and helped to focus its agenda. Today, the Chernobyl rumble and emotions are beginning to settle down. In the centuries to come, the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that nuclear power is a safe means of energy production.

Making the Difference

I doubt this kind of project could even commence in Germany. We have regulations. The state makes the difference. Think of the nails, the hazards of the sea, the torment of child labour ...

 

Cacofonix and the Nuclear Issue

The image depicts Heino, a singer of German folk music, whom many adore, while others think him a nuisance.

Below is an interview with a sensible gentleman from Australia, with whom I do not agree on a number of issues, especially his dislike of fossil fuel and CO2, but he does say many valuable things about Fukushima - and I am sure it would be a pleasure to have a debate with such a civil and bright opponent.

Laura, dear fellow-bloggers, dear readers, should you feel I am publishing too much stuff on Fukushima, do step on the brake - and make me feel like Cacofonix:

Cacofonix is the village bard. He is usually only a supporting character, but has a major part in the plots of some albums (see Asterix and the Normans, Asterix the Gladiator, Asterix and the Magic Carpet and Asterix and the Secret Weapon). He loves singing and playing his lyre, and jumps at every opportunity to do so. He also plays the bagpipes, drum and a Celtic trumpet resembling a boar called a Carnyx. While he can accompany traditional dances, and conducts a village band, his singing is unbearable. In Asterix and the Normans it is so unbearable that it teaches the fearless Normans the meaning of fear. In recent albums his music is so spectacularly horrible that it actually starts thunderstorms (even indoors), because of an old French saying that bad singing causes rain.

For his part, Cacofonix considers himself a genius and a superb singer, and he is angrily offended when people criticize his singing, to the point of dismissing them as barbarians.

Some villagers go to extreme lengths to avoid hearing Cacofonix's music. Most notably, Fulliautomatix, the village smith, bangs him on the head at the merest hint of breaking into a song, and has destroyed his lyre on a number of occasions, at one point being called the "ancestor of music critics". As a running gag, Cacofonix is generally tied up and gagged during the banquet at the end of most albums to allow the other villagers to have a good time without having to keep him from singing. He is nonetheless well liked when not singing.

The source.

The clip is from the blog of the interviewee, Professor Barry Brook.