Last week, Congress debated the annual defense authorization. Here are some thoughts about some of the amendments and why I came down where I did: 1. I offered an amendment that bars the U.S. military from collaborating with China for cyber security activities. Working with China on this issue is naïve and merely provides China with additional operational knowledge about U.S. cyber security. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 2. I offered an amendment that would allow the military to suspend the pay and allowances of service member who is committed to pretrial confinement and is awaiting trial for a capital offense. This amendment was a response to news that Major Nidal Hasan has racked up more than $280,000 in pay and allowances since he went on a jihadist rampage at Ft. Hood in November of 2009. The idea is that a member shouldn’t get paid for simply sitting in the brig, especially while vicitims and their families are not given their proper recognition and benefits. The amendment was blocked from coming to the floor by the House Rules Committee. 3. I voted “no” on the Blumenauer-Mulvaney amendment, which would have changed the statutory requirement for the Navy to maintain 11 operational aircraft carriers, reducing it to 10. Having an advanced aircraft carrier gives the U.S. the ability to move sovereign U.S. soil anywhere around the globe, thereby allowing our military to project power, deter threats and keep the sea lanes open. The reason the Navy must maintain 11 carriers by law is not arbitrary but is instead based on years of consideration about what would be required to fight and win wars on two separate fronts. I’m all for saving money and do not believe defense should be immune from sensible reductions, but reducing our carrier strength would be extremely shortsighted and, ultimately, more costly given the dangerous world in which we live. My position prevailed and the amendment failed 106-318. 4. I voted “no” on the Smith-Gibson amendment. The amendment was billed by its supporters as a protection for U.S. citizens against indefinite detention by the executive. If the amendment was only about protecting Americans, then I would not have objected, although I believe the Constitution, properly applied, and related laws already provide protection for American citizens. The problem with this amendment is that it applies to members of Al Qaeda who are not American citizens and are unlawful enemy combatants. If Al Qaeda fighters attack a U.S. military outpost in, say, Afghanistan, virtually everyone acknowledges that they are not entitled to any protections under the U.S Constitution, let alone to the same constitutional protections as Americans. Yet, the amendment mandates “immediate” transfer for trial to an Article III court when an Al Qaeda fighter attacks the United States, U.S. territories or U.S. possessions. This means no ability to interrogate for intelligence purposes, immediate Miranda warnings and custody overseen by Eric Holder. In other words, Al Qaeda fighters get a bonus for successfully attacking U.S. territory. I was also concerned that the amendment represented a backdoor attempt at transferring terror detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the domestic U.S. court system, since a court could very well find the Guantanamo detention facility to be a U.S. “possession.” My position prevailed and the amendment failed 200-226. 5. I voted “yes” on the Gibson amendment, which would have struck language in the underlying bill regarding Syria. I didn’t like the language about advising the President to arm the Syrian rebels. From what I can tell, the so-called rebels are Islamists who would not at all be friendly to the United States or our allies in the region such as Israel. We too often think that because someone like Bashar Al-Assad is a murderous dictator that what would replace him would be a noticeable improvement, but as we have seen in other parts of the region, there is a strong Islamist current in these societies which tends to fill the vacuum and creates problems of its own. I am especially concerned with how Christians have suffered under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and have been told that Christians in Syria fear the Islamist rebels and believe they would get persecuted under an Islamist government. My position failed and the amendment was defeated 123-301.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:20:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015