Politics

Wow.

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration’s handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an “unnecessary” war in Iraq and pursuing an “unrealistic” quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is “near the breaking point.”

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the “global war on terrorism” and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

“[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted,” Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign “is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security.”

The full 56-page report can be found on the Strategic Studies Institute website.

(via Al-Muhajabah)

iTunes: “Memories of the Future” by Edge of Motion from the album Essential Chillout (2000, 13:02).

Mr. Man says he hears a knock.

Yup, it’s a faint knock.

I open the door a crack and it’s Eric. Eric is from the Sierra Club “our nation’s oldest environmental group” and did I know the Bush administration is a total disaster environmentally and the Bush administration’s policies are “raping our forrests and …”

ME: One question.

ERIC: Sure.

ME: Did you vote for Nader in 2000?

ERIC: Yes sir!

ME: Get off my fucking porch.

The good news is – Mr. Man learned a new word tonight.

Picture me, standing up and applauding.

On the one hand, I have more respect for someone who votes — even if they voted for Nader — than for someone who doesn’t vote. I also can’t really argue with someone voting their conscience, if they cast their vote for the candidate they truly thought would best lead the country.

However.

Last election (and the three years since then) should serve as an example to any and everyone. Much as people may wish that a third-party candidate could come out of nowhere and win, realistically, it’s not going to happen. At this point, any vote that does not go to help the Democratic nominee gain the Presidential office will just help Bush retain his position, and that’s the last thing we need right now.

I’m a Dean supporter. But in the event that Dean doesn’t get the nomination, the bottom line is simply anybody but Bush. And by “anybody”, I mean anybody who can realistically have a chance of defeating Bush — and by that, I mean the Democratic nominee.

It’s got to happen.

I hope none of you sent any comments in to the Treasury if you were actually expecting your comments to remain anonymous:

The U.S. Treasury Department plans to publish nearly 10,000 e-mail addresses on the Web, violating its privacy promise to Americans who used e-mail to comment on a government proceeding.

In March 2003, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) asked for e-mail comments about a proposal (.pdf link) that could raise the price of malt beverages like Bacardi Breezer and Smirnoff Ice. At the time, the department said that the text of comments would be made public–but assured people that e-mail addresses, home addresses and other personal information of individuals would be removed first.

“For the convenience of the public, we will…post comments received in response to this notice on the TTB Web site,” the initial notice said. “All comments posted on our Web site will show the name of the commenter, but will not show street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses.” The TTB is the successor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, portions of which are now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

As news of the proposed regulations circulated around malt beverage aficionados online, word-of-mouth took over and comments started flooding in to nprm\@ttb.gov. By October, the Treasury Department had received about 9,900 e-mail messages, plus 4,800 comments sent through the U.S. mail or fax–and decided it could no longer keep its promise.

“The unusually large number of comments received…has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner,” the Treasury Department said in a follow-up notice (.pdf link), published last month in the Federal Register. “Therefore, to ensure that the public has Internet access to the thousands of comments received…at the earliest practicable time, we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments.”

(via /.)

Bush to low-income workers: “Look! I’ve revamped the payroll system so that more of you will get overtime pay! We’re talking \$895 million more in wages here! Aren’t I great?”

On July 10, the House…voted to support the Department of Labor’s (DOL) efforts to give 1.3 million low-income workers the right to receive overtime pay. Education & the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) and Workforce Protections Subcommittee Chairman Charlie Norwood (R-GA)…praised the Labor Department for its efforts to provide additional protections to low-income workers and ensure that they are entitled to overtime pay.

Millions of workers in America are not going to lose their overtime pay in the United States if DOL completes its proposed update to “white collar” overtime regulations.  Unfortunately many Democrats, organized labor, and other opponents of this proposal are trying to scare everyone into believing that they will.

Bush gets votes.

Meanwhile…

Bush to employers of low-income workers likely to be affected by the changes: “Okay, here’s how you can get away with not having to pay them any more money after all! Aren’t I great?”

A proposed Labor Department rule suggests ways employers can avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible this year.

[…]

Among the options for employers: cut workers’ hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new \$22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

[…]

Employers’ options include:

[…]

Making a “payroll adjustment” that results “in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs,” the department said. Workers’ annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary.

Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.

Bush gets votes.

And in the end, of course, real people get screwed.

Crap like this makes me sick, and really makes me worry that Bush and his cronies will be able to wheedle and manipulate their way back into the White House in November. I hope not, but I won’t say that it doesn’t make me worry.

(via Lane)

More good news from the legal front: the US 2^nd^ Court of Appeals has just ruled in Jose Padilla vs. Donald Rumsfeld (188k .pdf) that Jose’s dentention was unconstitutional.

From the introduction:

We also conclude that Padilla’s detention was not authorized by Congress, and absent such authorization, the President does not have the power under Article II of the Constitution to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat.

As this Court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center once stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the President and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.

And from the conclusion (emphasis mine):

In sum, we hold that (1) Donna Newman, Esq., may pursue habeas relief on behalf of Jose Padilla; (2) Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is a proper respondent to the habeas petition and the District Court had personal jurisdiction over him; (3) in the domestic context, the President’s inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of an American citizen seized within the country away from a zone of combat; (4) the Non-Detention Act prohibits the detention of American citizens without express congressional authorization; and (5) neither the Joint Resolution nor 10 U.S.C. § 956(5) constitutes such authorization under section 4001(a). These conclusions are compelled by the constitutional and statutory provisions we have discussed above. The offenses Padilla is alleged to have committed are heinous crimes severely punishable under the criminal laws. Further, under those laws the Executive has the power to protect national security and the classified information upon which it depends. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. app. § 3. And if the President believes this authority to be insufficient, he can ask Congress—which has shown its responsiveness—to authorize additional powers. To reiterate, we remand to the District Court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Secretary of Defense to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days. The government can transfer Padilla to appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him. Also, if appropriate, Padilla can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings. In any case, Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extended to other citizens.

Charge, try, and convict Padilla. But do so under the same rules and protections as are accorded any other citizen of the United States.

Thank you, Judges Pooler, B.D. Parker and Wesley.

(via Al-Muhajabah)

Hot damn. It’s sounding more and more like the upcoming investigation into the events preceding and surrounding Sept. 11, 2001 is going to cause some major firestorms — and could seriously damage Bush’s reelection efforts.

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

“This is a very, very important part of history and we’ve got to tell it right,” said Thomas Kean.

“As you read the report, you’re going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn’t done and what should have been done,” he said. “This was not something that had to happen.”

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

“There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed,” Kean said.

[…]

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, “Yes, the answer is yes. And we will.”

The public testimony begins next month, and will be worth watching very, very closely.

(via Kos)