The Sunday Drill, Vol. 1, No. 36

Wow. This was . . . unexpected. (I haven’t subjected the House health care bill to analysis yet, but I probably will tomorrow.)

Another source from the army says more troops are needed in Afghanistan. I’m tempted to advise President Obama to just send more troops there so the army can have a few extra on hand, i.e. “In case of increased counter-insurgency attacks, break glass.” At least it would shut everyone up about it.

The Supreme Court is preparing to look at some cases involving teenagers sentenced to life for crimes lesser than murder. In one case, that includes armed robbery. Granted, that would be an improvement over the system in my province (“Don’t keep them in jail for their full sentence, they’re just kids, doncha know!”), but not much of one.

Democrats are worried about a repeat of the 1994 midterms. Keep in mind that Clinton did win a second term after proving himself worthy following a period of uncertainty. I expect a repeat of that, too.

House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) encourages Republicans in office and in the media to use more inclusive rhetoric. It’s a healthy sentiment, but (sigh) no doubt he’ll be kissing Limbaugh’s feet in apology for questioning him within the week.

New job opportunity: military therapy. With the turnover rate in that capacity, we could keep every therapist in America employed for at least a few months.

The Fort Hood incident, like the Georgia Tech incident and other mass shootings, is a further illustration of the following: If “some predict trouble” regarding one of their own, they might be right. Take them seriously.

Hey, anyone remember the polluted oceans? Yep, they’re still there. You might want to take a look at that one of these days.

Canada’s host city for next year’s meeting of G8 foreign ministers will be Quebec City. Bad, bad idea. You shouldn’t have a meeting of foreign ministers in a province that considers itself a foreign country in the making, or “within” the real one.

Iran to Russia: “Don’t be late, or you’ll be sorry.” Heaven forbid that a Russian spill their vodka on Iranian soil, or something like that; it might be all-out war!

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband jumps onto the Obama-isn’t-Jesus-so-don’t-expect-single-handed-miracles bandwagon. Because American detractors of Obama always listen to the British Foreign Secretary.

Get Bachmann where she once belonged

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Now, it’s been proven on several occasions that her political activities and statements tend to be a little . . . off. To name a few:

• hinting that she thinks President Obama has anti-American sympathies
• referring to certain provisions of a bill to expand funding for AmeriCorps as promoting “re-education camps”
• accusing GLBTs of viewing the nation’s children as their “prize”
• encouraging federal prohibition of Internet poker
• telling Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” on the issue of cap-and-trade (she later said she meant “armed with knowledge”)

But here’s her latest fail, on the same day I published a letter in my city paper about the ineffectiveness of protests: Bachmann has encouraged opponents of the House health care bill to use “scare tactics” to explain why to Congress, since, apparently, they don’t get their nuts in a bunch more when they see a horde of “freedom-loving Americans” on their steps. On Bachmann’s side: Sean Hannity, Jon Voight (still trying to be relevant), and Mark Levin. That says it all.

As a member of Congress herself, Bachmann could be taking an opportunity to explain her own opposition to her colleagues, now that debate in the House is open. Hell, I’m not too thrilled about the House bill myself. Instead, she has somehow deluded herself that a bunch of screaming civilians with placards will stop everyone else from staying in chambers and at least attempting a rational discussion. August’s town-hall incidents didn’t do that, and this won’t, either.

Moreover, Bachmann has just proven the argument of some on the Left that a few Republican lawmakers are responsible for rallying the troops. In the summer, it was mostly commentators and advocacy groups running the show; now it’s someone who should have had a much better absorption of the standards of congressional decorum.

If Bachmann runs for re-election in 2010, or for a higher office, I encourage Minnesotans to use scare tactics to keep her out. They’re the only tactics to which she’ll listen.

Disorder in the court

The Senate’s question regarding detainees at Guantánamo Bay is no longer about whether or not they should get a fair trial, but where they should get it. If it helps your initial reaction, the detainees we’re talking about here are accused of having a hand in plotting the 9/11 attacks. The choice: military commissions at Gitmo vs. federal courts in the U.S.? It’s not quite obvious.

The article does not clarify which branch of the federal court system they’d be using, but I doubt they’re talking about district courts of the kind we’d see on Law & Order. It might go all the way to the SCOTUS. Nonetheless, a quorum in the Senate believes this option should still be on the table, opposing the measure made by two Republicans (Sens. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and John McCain [R-AZ), one Democrat (Sen. Jim Webb [D-VA]), and one Independent (Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-CT]).

One member of the opposition to this measure is Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who says the decision is best made by “professional prosecutors.” I assume this is a hint to both Congress and the White House that neither one of them is fully equipped to handle the situation. On the other hand, they’ll be considering angles that prosecutors might not (budgeting, etc.), so perhaps their decision ought to come after that of whichever prosecutor to whose opinion they see fit to defer.

I agree with the 54 against (versus 45 for) that all options should be on the table when it comes to these suspects, just in case, short of shooting them on the spot. That would feel damn good, but it wouldn’t get any necessary information out of them. But let’s be honest: Is it really viable to try 9/11 suspects in a U.S. court? I’m not worried that their mere presence on the continent will be harmful to national security or anything like that, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have them tried by people who have been trained specifically in the art of military law?

More importantly, why should they be tried only by Americans? The 9/11 attacks were indeed targeted at the U.S., but if these five hadn’t been caught, they could have easily set their sights elsewhere. And the attacks were a violation of international law. I know world courts aren’t treated with much enthusiasm by Western defense hawks, but they could at least attempt to work in conjunction.

And as for the rights groups who insist that federal courts will work best: These ain’t your grandma’s detainees we’re talking about.