United States.” There are also two other, similar clauses in the law and additional language protects legal aliens. It should be noted, these are the very same passages opponents of the law say show the president has powers to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge. Amodei, a Republican, is being afflicted by something that more often causes problems for Democrats—the widespread things we all “know” that, however, aren’t true.
Rep. Mark Amodei fussed with his tableware amid the noise of the coffee shop in south Reno. He was exasperated by my question.
Nuking the facts
I’d asked about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a measure then before Congress that had generated a lot of grassroots opposition for its “counterterrorism” authority for the president on U.S. soil, including use of the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens. In fact, the very day we spoke, a Reno resident had entered the race against Amodei’s reelection and cited the NDAA as part of his motivation. The measure, I said to Amodei, “seems like an unusual thing for conservatives to support, that kind of power in a president’s hands.” He looked pained and said, “Yes, but you know what?—and your statement represents a lot of the thinking—let me tell you my frustration. … There are two provisions in that bill that are highlighted—and we’ll get them to you—that, Dennis, just flat out says this does not apply to citizens of the United States.” Amodei said this kind of thing happens often enough that he has learned to start looking for someone “manufacturing a perception.” Later, we found this in the final language of NDAA: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the
Weapons of mass destruction are probably the best example of something bogus that we all “know” to be true, but WMD lies started long before Iraq. Nevada experienced it in the 1950s when, as a result of what U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah later called “a massive campaign to assure the public that no danger existed,” the public “knew” that atom tests within the United States were not a threat to public health. U.S. officials and their civilian contractors went to great and ethically challenged lengths—including letting people die—to make sure that nothing disrupted the tests. When U.S. Rep. Douglas Stringfellow of Utah demanded that the Atomic Energy Commission stop using the Nevada Test Site because it caused clouds of fallout to land in Utah, AEC scientists Alvin Graves and Jack Clark were sent to Las Vegas, Mesquite, St. George and Cedar City to mislead residents about the safety of tests. The Utah cities later developed high rates of cancers and leukemias. It’s not as though reporters didn’t have plenty of reasons to investigate. In 1953, the Atomic Energy Commission admitted that atomic testing in southern Nevada was injuring livestock, which suggested that some-
thing about the tests was hazardous. In 1954, the AEC had Tonopah residents wearing “radiation badges.” The lack of curiosity of Nevada and national reporters was startling. But those who bucked the government line faced consequences. When two Colorado scientists reported findings on radiation danger that conflicted with government claims, they were red-baited by the Hearst press and attacked by the governor of Colorado (“Blinded to science,” RN&R, March 2, 2007). When southern Nevada rancher Martha Bardoli Laird wrote to her U.S. senator about her fallout concerns, Sen. George Malone of Nevada questioned her patriotism. U.S. Atomic Energy Commissioner Willard Libby said, “Exposures from fallout are very much smaller than those which would be required to produce observable effects in the population.” He was lying, and knew it. But the heat of the Cold War melted all the fuses, including journalism, that are supposed to safeguard a free society against its government. The cover-up of radiation danger was maintained. So since everyone “knew” the tests were safe, U.S. policies allowed actions and practices that threatened—and took—lives. Relying on conclusions that are intuitive rather than proven has pitfalls. The war on drugs is based almost entirely on things we “know” instead of things we know.
Criminal coverage On June 17, 1971, President Nixon, in an effort to get his war on drugs approved, reported to Congress that illicit drug use caused crime amounting to “more than $2 billion every year.” As former Wall Street Journal reporter Dan
“DAYS OF OUR LIES” continued on page 12
OPINION
|
NEWS
|
GREEN
|
FEATURE STORY
|
ARTS&CULTURE
|
IN ROTATION
|
ART OF THE STATE
|
FOODFINDS
|
FILM
|
MUSICBEAT
|
NIGHTCLUBS/CASINOS
|
THIS WEEK
|
MISCELLANY
|
MAY 17, 2012
|
RN&R
|
11
