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.)

The Turncoat, or why I dislike Huntsman

People have asked me why I disliked Jon Huntsman. Out of all the other candidates — not the warmongering Rick Santorum, not the flip-flopping Mitt Romney, and not the laughably corrupt Newt Gingrich — Huntsman is the only one I truly and personally disliked. I might disagree with Santorum’s insane anti-Muslim hysterics, but I hold no personal dislike (or like) for him. It is the same with Romney, Gingrich, and Bachmann.

From all accounts, I ought to identify more with Huntsman than I could with any of the other Republican presidential nominee contenders. He is modern, cosmopolitan, educated, somewhat secular, and willing to set aside partisan politicking to serve a cause. His policies are moderate and he recognizes science’s role in our society. His acceptance of a position under the Obama administration is very admirable and as Tumblr blogger Karamazov Alexei pointed out, also patriotic.

That Huntsman can set aside partisanship and work with a president from an opposing party, that is admirable. However, Huntsman served ambassador under the Obama administration, only to then run against the very same man who trusted him with that prestigious appointment. After which, Huntsman’s campaign spent considerable effort attacking Romney’s policies only to then completely backtrack and endorse that very same rival. All of this taken together is a picture of a man not bound by any sense of loyalty.

Huntsman has shown himself to be a turncoat: to his party, to his president, and to his own campaign. That is despicable and his actions are indications of a great deficit of character and integrity.

Indefinite Detention

This past week, the US Senate and House passed the National Defense Authorization Act which, in its 1800 pages, confirms the executive branch's assertion that American citizens who are associated or provided material support to terrorists may be held indefinitely without trial or rights. We now afford more rights to serial killers and child molesters in this country than the person who supports some humanitarian group that may surreptitiously provide support for terrorist states.  Congressman Justin Amash (MI-3) has led the charge in the House to amend the grievous sections that codify these new powers. Unfortunately his efforts failed and the bill passed with just 43 GOP and 93 Democrat nays. I sort of feel like if more understood what the implications were and the media covered it at all the outcome might have been more close.

Amash published his rebuttal explaining why the provisions are so dangerous at redstate.

Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.”  While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday.  To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”

Who could this cover?  An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group.  Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S.  Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.

Comments vary from the typical, well if it passed with a majority of Republicans then it must have been conservative to my favorite reply from someone responding to that argument:

They hate it so much they're going to pass it

znjs Saturday, December 17th at 11:45AM EST (link)

And if “Conservative” now means hating the bill of rights, then I guess I’m not conservative anymore.

Be sure to read all of Amash's very detailed explanation here.

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.

Justin Amash Needs Some Fundraising Love

I know, I know - I've been embarrasingly absent of late. For that I apologize, but my life should be returning to relative normalcy tomorrow, so hopefully I'll get back in the swing of all things political soon. However, I spotted something on the internet that I wanted to pass along, and it's this: Justin Amash is having a money bomb today and tomorrow, and as of this writing he's raised a relatively small sum.

Now, we know he's a friend of liberty, but the presidential elections tend to drown out the campaign noise from candidates for the lesser positions, and it seems this is no exception. And if you haven't been paying attention in MIchigan (and really, who does?), residtricting has made Justin's district a much different battle than it was last time out - he's really going to have to fight to keep a Democrat out of it this time out.

Donations are being accepted through his website, which is AmashForCongress.com.

And if you're just not *that* inspired by Justin's pro-liberty stance today, then I encourage you to read the MLIVE comments posted in response to the news that Justin had endorsed Ron Paul.  Warning: they aren't pretty, and they're definitely not intelligent, either.  

Voters don't need brains or beauty to gain admittance to the voting booth though. We still have a long way to go in Michigan, but if we're going to go anywhere at all, we need Justin Amash in office. 

Please donate!

 

A voice of reason in Congress (really)

A little late blogging this because I only had my iPad last week on vacation through beautiful (and hot) Iowa. Let it not be said that there aren't any voices of sanity in the asylum we affectionately call Congress. Here's an excerpt from Sunday's op-ed (8/7) by Congressman Justin Amash (MI-3):

Last week, the federal government utterly failed to produce the debt ceiling deal that the American people deserve. Instead, Republicans and Democrats came together, realized that real economic reforms would require politically difficult compromises, and agreed to do nothing except promise to work on it later.

To excuse their failure, both sides made up scary claims about a coming “default” when, in fact, simple math shows that default was impossible. I joined 65 other House Republicans and 95 Democrats in voting “no.”

In the end, the deal had the impact of a rounding error on our out-of-control budget. The federal government takes in around $6 billion a day and spends $10 billion. That means $4 billion per day is borrowed. Total enforceable cuts in this deal were $21 billion for all of next year. That’s less than one penny of cuts for every dollar of government spending — a small blip on a spending graph that slopes upward into perpetuity.

The rest of the “cuts” in the deal — the ones the politicians bragged about — are promises to pass laws that slow the growth of spending in the future. Promises to pass smaller spending increases are not cuts, and, even if they were, Washington’s reputation for keeping promises is not good.

That is not the sound of partisanship to my eyes. It is the sound of someone politely screaming at the lack of credibility shown on both 'sides' of the issue. Of course, the 'sides' are both of the establishment meaning the outcome was exactly as it has been for years putting us in exactly the spot we find ourselves in today after the credit downgrade and continued economic malaise. 

I like to compare his piece to the email I received the next day from West Michigan's other freshman 'conservative' congressman, Bill Huizenga (MI-2).

Dear Eric,

We have changed the terms of the debate in Washington.

- Debt increases are now paired with spending cuts and not tax increases. A new precedent.

- The old Washington train of thought has been once spending baselines were passed, they were locked in and could only go higher. Not any more.

- It used to be that the debt ceiling was an automatic blank check to spend more taxpayer dollars. We forced a vote to cut spending.

- The president first called for a "clean" debt ceiling increase that did nothing to lower spending. While small, we included real cuts.

- The president insisted that tax increases be a part of the bill and deemed it a "balanced approach." We listened to the American people and passed a bill that includes no new taxes and moves us towards a "balanced budget."

- Senate Democrats attempted to pass legislation that used the same smoke and mirror gimmick of Washington to reduce spending. We passed real reductions.

I agree with many people that the negotiated plan does not go far enough to cut spending immediately. However, in the end I supported the bill because it puts in place a framework for spending controls  that Washington desperately needs, particularly the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Some of the key elements of the spending reduction plan include: it will reduce spending as much as it increases the debt ceiling; it does not increase taxes; it keeps the conversation going about the need for fiscal responsibility to improve our economic security; and provides an opportunity to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The silver lining in this latest agreement is the Balanced Budget Amendment. We have the opportunity to end inter-generational theft and begin living within our means. This is the next battle to end big government and higher taxes, and I ask that you join me to work to see the Balanced Budget Amendment enacted.

Let me be clear, this agreement will not solve our fiscal crisis. With control of only one of the three legislative branches, we need more support to fully address out of control spending. But, we will continue this fight at every turn to have the government responsibly manage its checkbook just as you and your family does.

Sincerely, 

Bill Huizenga

The email above, depending on your state of mind, will either make you laugh of cry. either way, it drips with insincerity as we all know that the mentality of Washington did not change one iota with that bill. One could go through point by point and dispute each bullet point but suffice it to say that the bill didn't change the terms of the debate since spending was not substantively changed and we will continue to borrow against our future. 

History of Congress' Abdication of War Powers

Aquinas College professor Dr. John Pinheiro has a great piece describing the slow erosion of Congress' abdication of its war powers to the (now) imperial presidency. Here's hoping that Representative Justin Amash can help rein in the president's unlawful "kinetic action" in Libya and elsewhere.

In fact, the slide to which Congressman Nadler referred has been going on for much more than seventy years.  Throughout much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—long before Pearl Harbor—presidents undermined congressional war powers in two ways:  first, presidents incited wars or opened hostilities and then sought (and received) congressional declarations after the fact.  Second, they conducted military interventions and long-term occupations with no declarations of war at all.

Read the rest here. Be sure to check out Pinheiro's blog at "History for Smarties".  

Amash's Attempt to Limit Executive War Powers Fails

Rep. Justin Amash's (Rep - MI CD#3) amendment to the recently passed Defense Authorization Act which would have lmited the power of the executive branch to use military force against anyone associated with our enemies (to be defined by the president) in the perpetual War on Terror. Unfortunately, the amendment failed handily as most congressmen and women apparently like to abdicate their responsibility in the what actions our military take. Here's a bit from the American Spectator:

Many neo-conservative congressmen have no trouble with the U.S. military targeting U.S. citizens. Representative Allen West (R-Fla.) opposed Amash's amendment, claiming that “If we allow an amendment such as this to go forward, it would have precluded us from going in and killing the world’s No. 1 terrorist, Osama bin Laden. If this amendment passes, we will not be able to go after Al-Awlaki.” Anwar Al-Awlaki is a propagandist for the Yemeni-based al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula and a U.S. citizen who has already reportedly been targeted by U.S. drone attacks. As reported by Politico, "Amash countered that bin Laden was killed when the original, narrower language [of the congressional Authorization of Use of Military Force] was in effect." On his Facebook page, Amash referred to his refutation of West, adding: "That was easy."

Be sure to read the rest. Disappointing that people have so much faith in putting extraordinary amounts of power in the executive branch.

Rep. Amash on the Judge

Justin Amash on Presidential War Powers

Congressman Amash is one of the good ones—we need many more like him.  I look forward to watching him in the future.