SureFire

SureFire Responds to NDAA Rumors

In the interest of putting some downright far out rumors to bed, we are publishing this statement by SureFire verbatim.

Dear Concerned American Citizens and SureFire Customers,

We’ve been made aware of various articles pertaining to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and SureFire’s alleged role as a lobbyist and/or financial supporter of the bill and its primary political backer, Sen. Robert Portman. The news reports are using our associations with a Political Action Committee (PAC), a former consulting group, and a government contract to infer that we support indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. These reports are false and misleading. Our association with this bill has nothing to do with citizens’ rights and SureFire is now the casualty of a disregard for sound journalism.

We’ve never supported the removal of citizens’ rights let alone do we have any connection with those responsible for the injustice. Any news outlet alleging SureFire’s support of anti-American rights, is reporting lies. SureFire’s support of unrelated parts of the NDAA does not constitute support for every part of the bill like those that are now being contested.

The current NDAA, officially known as Senate Bill 1867*, is a 682 page bill that specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. The NDAA has been passed each year for the last five decades and shouldn’t be considered something out of the ordinary. Also, the NDAA as a whole doesn’t affect the rights of U.S. citizens and legal residents. News reports on one specific section in this bill, SEC. 1031(a-e), has unfortunately vilified the term NDAA and anyone associated with it.

The majority of articles negatively portraying SureFire, stem from one article published by RT.com. When we did an internet search of “RT.com,” this statement comes up in the search results: “RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news.” We’re baffled how a Russian news source has become the expert on American politics and could stir up so many Americans into becoming anti-SureFire, but we digress.
• http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-ndaa-portman-torture-913/
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/19/1046972/-Anonymous-Uncovers-Night-Raid-Equipment-Maker-Donations-From-NDAA-Supporter-to-SenRob-Portman
• http://thehivedaily.com/blog/2011/12/18/military-contractors-funded-detention-bill/
• http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/dont-be-fooled-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-american-citizens-us-soil
• http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195949-senate-defeats-amendment-to-remove-terrorist-detainee-language

The link posted above from the DailyKos.com is titled, “Anonymous: Night Raid Equipment-Maker Lobbied for NDAA, Singles Out Sen. Rob Portman”. Within the article, there are multiple examples of misinformation. Simply put, we did not lobby Sen. Portman and we never supported him financially.

The DailyKos states, “Surefire retains DC lobbyists Upstream Consulting to do its lobbying on Capitol Hill.” That’s false. SureFire allowed its contract with Upstream Consulting to lapse in September 2011 and has not retained their service or any other consulting or lobby group since.

As the DailyKos infers within their article, we did use Upstream Consulting. However, at no time was lobbying done for S. 1867, the bill that Sen. Portman backed. What Upstream Consulting did lobby for was portions of HR 1540 as it related to SureFire and not to the bill as a whole. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmbills.php?id=F16469&year=2011. The irony here is that the DalyKos.com even states, “OpenSecrets.org shows Surefire lobbying for HR 1540 which is the House counterpart to the Senate bill, S. 1867….” As his title states, Senator Portman, is not in the House of Representatives where H.R. 1540 was created. So that’s a “no” on us lobbying Sen. Portman.
In regard to the statement made by the DailyKos and their reference the RT.com article, “Anonymous singles out Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for receiving a particularly large sum from companies and PACs lobbying for the NDAA,” and “…$272,853 he received from special interest groups.” We’ve already ruled out our involvement in lobbying Sen. Portman. Here’s a list of his top 100 financial supporters: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00003682&cycle=2012&type=I&newMem=N&recs=100. You won’t find Upstream Consulting or SureFire on this list. Additionally, Upstream Consulting isn’t even a PAC, which is the entity that contributes money to a political campaign and the only way we can contribute. So that’s a “no” on us financing Sen. Portman.

RT.com reported, “Among the supporters of NDAA are California-based manufacturer Surefire, L.L.C., who won a $23 million contract from the Department of Defense three months ago.” Again, we’re simply lumped in with the NDAA as a whole because of HR 1540, which is not the bill that has people upset. For argument’s sake, let’s say supporting HR 1540 means we support S. 1867, which means we supported the NDAA in its present form. Watch this video and see what happened to HR 1540 and S. 1867 and how there’s no way any company knew this was going to happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Oo3gzj2oc&feature=player_embedded#!. The zerohedge.com link above will also take you to an article where this same video is embedded.

You’ll see/hear in this video this statement made by Sen. Levin: “…and the [Obama] administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.” That means that the Senate passed a bill with the provision in it and let it go to the White House. So anyone supporting the “…bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee,” didn’t support the change that now has everyone, including us, very upset. This means the change came after HR 1540, which was the last time we ever had any involvement related to the now controversial NDAA.

In regard to the $23 Million contract, we did receive an award for an Indefinite Order, Indefinite Quantity*** contract. The significance of this is as follows: it’s not guaranteed. We got the prospect that the DoD might purchase up to $23 Million for USSOCOM.

While we have a stake in Department of Defense spending and this bill as a whole defines the expenditures, we at no time lobbied or supported for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. We’re not even closely associated with any part of this measure, one we might add, we’re still unclear on as the verbiage in SEC. 1032(b)(1-2) of the bill states and is discussed in thehill.com article which is linked above:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Regardless, as we’ve proved, we’ve never supported the removal of citizens’ rights let alone do we have any connection with those responsible for the injustice. Any news outlet citing RT.com, DailyKos.com, and/or any statements alleging SureFire’s support of anti-American rights, is reporting lies. SureFire’s support of the related HR 1540 bill, which is not the issue here, does not constitute support for every part or change to the subsequent bills that pass, especially a 682 page bill that was changed by the Senate at the insistence of the Obama administration, long after we lent any support to the HR 1540 bill.

We hope you now realize that we in no way have ever supported the removal of American citizens’ rights. We have been unjustly singled out by negligent and uneducated news sources whose material is now proliferating across the World Wide Web. We appreciate your understanding and ask for your support in putting an end to this.

Kind Regards,

SureFire

* http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
** http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eh.pdf
***https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2016_5.html

Tags:

5 Responses to “SureFire Responds to NDAA Rumors”

  1. CB says:

    It’s clear and evident, that the true intentions of the bill were worded in such a way to skew the perception of the reader. Just read the executive orders, they are written in the exact same political BS to mislead the public. It is very clear and concise what the intent of the bills are if you read between the lines, and actually listen to what it is saying.

  2. CB says:

    It’s clear and evident, that the true intentions of the bill were worded in such a way to skew the perception of the reader. Just read the executive orders, they are written in the exact same political BS to mislead the public. It is very clear and concise what the intent of the bills are if you read between the lines, and actually listen to what it is saying. In addition to this, there seems to be a lot of blame being focused on RT as if they did something wrong. RT is not the subject of this article.

    • ET says:

      WTF? RT??? I would never take what they say with ANY credibility pal. They’re Fox News on steroids only with the thieves of Russia pulling the strings.

  3. […] Allegations that SureFire supported the NDAA. And SureFire says no they did not. […]