The militant arm of the GOP

In 2004, the GOP held their national convention in New York City. The actions of the New York police department that week turned out to be another indication that fascism lives in the USA. The NYPD detained 1,760 political protesters, crowding them into a filthy pier. The detainees were exposed to the frigid New York nights common in the autumn, some without needed medical care, and many without ever being charged with a crime. The conditions were so bad, a judge finally ordered the release of those held over 24 hours, although the police department refused to obey the order.

It seemed as if the NYPD were nothing more than a militant band of the Republican party. How did the NYPD manage to detain such a large number of peaceful, law abiding citizens over the few days of the Republican national convention? Police records and interviews are beginning to show that for at least a year before the convention, teams of undercover NYPD officers traveled globally to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention.

The partisan aspect of this activity is that the US District Court has ruled that the NYPD must have "some indication of unlawful activity on the part of the individual or organization to be investigated" before monitoring political activity. However, the NYPD violated this law in its covert surveillance program. Most of the NYPD's reports about their surveillance were regarding people who were not displaying any intent to break the law.

Subjects of the covert surveillance included the likes of antiwar organizations, street theater troupes, environmentalists, church groups, and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Even three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

One of the reports was on a design student named Joshua Kinberg. There were four pages from the intelligence reports on his master's thesis project, a "wireless bicycle" equipped with cellphone, laptop, and spray tubes that could squirt messages received over the Internet onto the sidewalk or street. If it were to spray paint, it would have been an 'unlawful activity.' However, the report noted that the messages were printed in water-soluble chalk to avoid a criminal mischief charge.

NYPD records on Bands Against Bush reported that the group was planning a concert in New York during which, between musical sets, there would be political speeches and videos. The records said, "activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda." If this is the NYPD's idea of 'unlawful activity,' the department is clearly partisan.

It appears that the mission of the NYPD is not only to protect and serve the people of New York City. It is also to conduct unlawful covert surveillance of Americans whose politics are in opposition to the Republican party.

About face in four years

On March 16, 2003, vice president Cheney said, when asked whether the war would be a short one or a long one, that it would be measured in "Weeks rather than months." Fast forward four years (and three days, to be exact) and the USA is still mired in a war that has now lasted longer than World War II. Last week found Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House discussing his bloating troop 'surge.' Of the Baghdad security plan, the latest tactic in the war, Bush said "success will take months, not days or weeks." This is a direct contradiction of how the White House was representing the Iraq war to the American people before president Bush invaded Iraq.

With allies like this, who needs insurgencies?

England is supposed to be the right hand of the "coalition of the willing." One would think that would qualify the Brits as allies. Well, it seems that they're not so willing anymore. Just as Bush is beginning to surge 21,500 additional troops into Baghdad, his key ally in the war, Tony Blair, is pulling out 2,100 of his own troops from Basra.

In total denial of the implications, the Bush administration is painting the withdrawal as a "sign of success." Vice president Dick Cheney said "I look at it and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that in parts of Iraq ... things are going pretty well." What Cheney failed to consider is that Basra is right on the supply line to Baghdad. With reduced security in the south of Iraq, the logistics supporting the surge are compromised, right at the time when they become most crucial.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are supposed to be the Americans' allies in Baghdad. Iraq's forces are leading American troops into Baghdad for the White House's 'new' Clear, Hold, and Build strategy (which didn't seem to make a dent in the insurgency when American troops tried it a year ago). However, it turns out the reason the mostly Shiite Iraqi forces are leading the American troops into Baghdad is so that they can warn Shiite residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating paraphernalia from the Americans. It seems the Iraqi forces are more like insurgents than national police officers.

The implication of Bush's 'surge' strategy is that, while there will be an initial swelling in forces, it will not be sustained. However, Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan, which is setting up hundreds of "mini-forts" all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, will take at least five years to as much as ten years to complete. With 160,000 American troops leveraged all around Iraq for many years to come, and insecure supply lines, they will need more allies, not more insurgents.

Bloating surge

The Commander in Chief has ordered a "surge" of 21,500 troops into Baghdad. Considering the failures of past troop increases in Iraq, many question the effectiveness this one will have calming the violence in a metropolitan area of 8-million. With a majority of Americans now wanting their country to withdraw from the war in Iraq, the "surge" is widely considered just more of the same tactics that have only led to increased violence.

Americans could be happy that at least Bush did not go into six figures for the troop increase since many generals have said that's what was needed early on in the war. After all, it's only a little over 20,000 troops, right? Wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the deployment of of 21,500 troops could require as much as 28,000 additional troops to support the surge. It went on to say that the cost to sustain the surge could be as high as $27-billion if it's sustained for a year. Of course the cost that can't be calculated is the additional deaths that our military will sustain by having an additional 50,000 targets in Iraq.

To prevent Bush from following through on his planned surge, the senate is trying to pass a non-binding resolution opposing it. Of course, Bush's signing statements show his total disregard for binding law, so there's no expectation he'll pay any attention to the non-binding resolution.

An incomplete title

The New York Times today published an article titled U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data. It actually should've been titled "U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data Until the Bush Administration Gets the Chance to Finish Fabricating It." They're not successful connecting the dots with the data they have now.

The cost of extraordinary rendition

Maher Arar was a victim of extraordinary rendition by the USA. Rendered to Syria, Arar was imprisoned there for ten months and tortured.

Clearly a violation of Arar's human rights, the government made restitution for the harm Arar suffered. It compensated him $8.9-million for its role in the rendition. The restitution was clearly acknowledgement that extraordinary rendition is an unjust act.

Does this mean that the USA will end its practice of extraordinary rendition? Sadly, it doesn't. The USA was not the country who made restitution; Canada did. The USA will go on rendering terror suspects (i.e. people not convicted of terrorism) to countries that have no qualms about torturing people.

Canada was only indirectly involved in the rendition. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrongly labeled Arar as an Islamic fundamentalist and passed misleading and inaccurate information to U.S. authorities. Canada considered this role in Arar's rendition worth $9-million.

How much is the USA's role in Arar's rendition worth? After all, the USA is the country that interrogated Arar for eleven days while he was chained and shackled. It was the USA that put Arar on a plane and flew him to Syria (ironic that the USA will not talk to Syria about the mess in Iraq but would use it to outsource torture), leaving him there for almost a year knowing full well that he would be tortured. As long as the torture czar himself, Albert Gonzales, is the attorney general, you can be sure Arar will not see a dime from the USA.

One plus one equals two

Most people know what adds up and what doesn't from a young age. President Bush still has not worked out how to do this yet. In the State of the Union address, Bush promised to submit "a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years." He also said he "can do so without raising taxes."

However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does not agree with him. The CBO released their annual report which projects future budgets. The data in the tables make it clear that the budget would either need an additional influx of cash or a substantial reduction in spending to prevent the continuation of budget deficits.

Who should Americans trust: the president who took this country from record surpluses to record deficits in a few short years or the CBO, a non-partisan congressional office? If you have a tendency to believe the CBO, then you should know what its director, Peter R. Orszag, says. He says that even if the president were able to balance the budget by 2012, the large numbers of baby boomers soon to be retiring would just send it right back into deficits.

However, the Senate is even more critical of where Bush is sending the budget. The Senate Budget Committee tells us the CBO is required to base its projections on current spending and tax law. It can't even take into consideration changes that are likely to occur. Currently, most of the funding for the Iraq war is off the budget, paid for through emergency appropriations. That means its cost, which is sure to approach half a trillion dollars, is yet to get in the budget. Furthermore, many of Bush's tax cuts are slated to expire in 2010.

Almost anyone with a grade school education can see things just don't add up. Bush might want to make those tax cuts permanent (and maybe give out some more cuts to the wealthy before he leaves office) and he might want a balanced budget in five years. However, he's about the only one who can't figure out that he can't have both.