US Democrats try to block funding of new nuclear tests

 (July 7) As rumors spread that the Trump administration is thinking of taking steps to resume live nuclear testing, last done in 1992, Democrats in the House of Representatives have added a measure to a 2021 spending bill that prohibits funding of live tests.

The blocking measure

The US House Appropriations Committee has added the blocking measure to the draft of the 2021 appropriations bill for the Department of Energy. It would prohibit funds being used to conduct or even prepare to conduct any explosive nuclear weapons test that produces any yield.

Representative, Nita Lowery a Democrat from New York said in a statement: “Critically, the bill would prevent the Trump administration from using any funds to carry out its dangerous and short-sighted plan to resume nuclear testing.”

Rumors about resumption of tests

On May 30 the Washington Post noted: "On May 22, "The Washington Post broke the story that senior officials within the Trump administration have considered the resumption of nuclear testing. The story has provoked criticism of the Trump administration for considering a move that would set back the cause of nuclear disarmament and increase environmental risks." The new tests would be intended to send a message to Russia and China.

Amendment to the 2021 NDAA

In June the Senate Armed Services Committee had included $10 million to be used for live nuclear testing if needed in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for next year. The amendment to add the sum was proposed by Senator John Cotton a Republican from Kentucky.

START treaty expires in February 2021

Russia has offered to extend the treaty but the US would like to see a new trilateral deal with China involved. However, China has repeatedly rejected the idea since its nuclear arsenal is much smaller than either that of Russia or the US. The Start Treaty was signed in April of 2010.

Talks began between the US and Russia started in June and are expected to pick up in July or August.

US appears prepared for a new arms race

Marshall Billingslea, President Trump's envoy for arms control, claimed that the US has signaled that the US is ready for a new arms race. In May, Billingslea claimed that the US is willing to spend Russia and China "into oblivion" to win a new arms race.

The US is already budgeting over $700 billion for defense this year according to Wikipedia: "For Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020), the Department of Defense's budget authority is approximately $721.5 billion ($721,531,000,000). Approximately $712.6 billion is discretionary spending with approximately $8.9 billion in mandatory spending. The Department of Defense estimates that $689.6 billion ($689,585,000,000) will actually be spent (outlays)" Yet the US is content to see an arms race that would see even more spent on the military. The race may harm the economies of China and Russia but it will also harm the US. Instead of funds being spent on universal health coverage, or needed repairs on infrastructure the military-industrial complex will gobble up government funds that could have been used to improve the quality of life of the American taxpayer who fund the arms race.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Democrats want to ban Trump from sending more terror suspects to Guantanamo

(June 10) Democrats on the House Armed Service Committee are attempting to stop the Trump administration from detaining any new terror suspects at the prison facility in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

New bill's restrictions

A recent article describes the restrictions: "The committee’s annual policy bill, according to a copy obtained by Defense One, prohibits the use of funds to detain additional individuals “including United States citizens” and “would prohibit detention of additional individuals under the law of war or pursuant to a military commission proceeding.” It also requires the administration to come up with a plan “identifying a disposition other than continued law of war detention” at Gitmo for each of the 40 detainees currently held there."

Obama made it a campaign promise to close the facility but was unable to do so and faced bipartisan obstruction of his plans.

Obama's failed attempts to close Guantanamo

Wikipedia notes: "On 6 January 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.[25] In February 2011, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Guantanamo Bay was unlikely to be closed, due to opposition in the Congress.[26] Congress particularly opposed moving prisoners to facilities in the United States for detention or trial.[26] In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[27] On 4 November 2015, President Barack Obama stated that he was preparing to unveil a plan to close the facility and move some of the terrorism suspects held there to U.S. soil. The plan would propose one or more prisons from a working list that includes facilities in Kansas, Colorado and South Carolina. Two others that were on the list, in California and Washington state, do not appear to have made the preliminary cut, according to a senior administration official familiar with the proposal.[28] By 19 January 2017, however, the detention center remained open, with 41 detainees remaining.[6]"

Obama was forced in January of 2011 to sign a Defense Authorization Bill which placed restrictions on Obama's transfer of prisoners both to the mainland and foreign countries. This helped sabotage Obama attempts to close the facility. However, in 2015 Obama tried again to have some moved to the US. However, the facility is not only still open as money has been spent on repair and upgrading as illustrated by this 2017 article.

Guantanamo was begun under George W Bush

Wikipedia describes Guantanamo: "The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-Bay, GTMO, and Gitmo (/ˈɡɪtmoʊ/), which is on the coast of Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Indefinite detention without trial and torture have led the operations of this camp to be considered a major breach of human rights by Amnesty International and a violation of Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.[2][3][4]The camp was established by President George W. Bush's administration in 2002 during the War on Terror. "

Trump vows to keep the facility open

On the campaign trail for president in 2016 Trump promised not only that he would keep Guantanamo open but that he would also fill it with bad dudes. Trump is bothered by the high expenses at the facility that retains just 40 inmates. Expenses may increase as the facility is home to aged suspected terrorists many of whom can expected to be in the facility until they die. No doubt medical costs will increase significantly.

The new bill notes that the increasing age of Guantanamo detainees poses a challenge as the US is obligated to provide medical services that meet appropriate standards of car. Although the bill bans transferring any of the remaining prisoners to Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Syria there is no blanket prohibition of transfers to the US.

There will be opposition to any transfers to the US

The bill would allow exceptions to the ban on transferring prisoners to the mainland US. It would allow transfers of prisoners to medical treatment not available at the prison. Under the Geneva Conventions the US must give detainees the same level of care as US service members. Senior officers at the base have been asking how they can be able to do this for the increasing elderly detainee population.

The House committee's bill is expected to be made public on Monday and marked up on Wednesday. Wikipedia describes marking up legislation: "Markup (or mark-up) is the process by which a U.S. congressional committee or state legislative session debates, amends, and rewrites proposed legislation."

Previously published in the Digital Journal