Here it is, take it

At 9:30 ET this morning, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing to discuss a bill that would federalize immigration for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). It should be available via webcast.

Why is this hearing important? After all, it's not on the evening news. It's not even scheduled to be broadcast live on C-SPAN.

The truth is, this hearing is only important to people who believe that America shouldn't be a place like this:

Using its immigration authority, the Commonwealth has created an economy that relies upon the wholesale importation of low-paid, short-term indentured workers. Foreign workers pay up to $7,000 to employers or middlemen for the right to a job in the CNMI. When they finally reach the Commonwealth, they are assigned to tedious, low paying work for long hours with little or no time off. At night they are locked in prison-like barracks. If they complain, they are subject to immediate deportation at the whim of their employer. Some arrive in the islands only to find that they were victims of an employment scam. There are no jobs waiting for them, and no way to work off their bondage debt.

That's from a February 2000 press release, issued by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) to announce the unanimous passage in the Senate of a bill that would put an end to the "system of indentured immigrant labor [that] is morally wrong, and violates basic democratic principles."

It's not hard to understand how the Senate came to unanimity on the issue. The Department of the Interior had issued a report that highlighted horrors like "forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry."

Congress, itself, had heard testimony so gut-wrenching, I honestly can't bring myself to quoting it here.

Of course it was a unanimous vote. Who could vote against ending forced abortions? Who could vote against stopping children from being forced into prostitution... On American soil, no less? It just breaks your heart thinking about it.

That is, if you have a heart. Akaka's celebratory press release ends with this: "S. 1052 now moves to the House of Representatives for action."

And that's where Tom DeLay took over. That's where Jack Abramoff's money went. That's where Don Young's convicted felon aide and former CNMI labor secretary worked. That's where a decision was made to allow the rape and slavery continue. DeLay called it "a perfect petri dish of capitalism."

For years, the House of Representatives was a place where these victims -- on American soil legally -- could seek no relief. That can all change right now, if good Americans decide we won't let this oppression continue on U.S. soil.

It's really that simple. Either we convince a Democratic Senate and Congress to stop it right now, while the issue is in front of them, or the Senate will move on to other things and the horrors will continue. The TV isn't telling you that, but that's what the blog-o-sphere is for, right?

Blogger Dengre is attending the hearing. He has brought with him the testimony of thousands of CNMI workers praying for S.1634 to pass (with amendments to make it stronger). The testimony was gathered by human rights advocate Wendy Doromal, who travelled to CNMI specifically to help these victims have their voices heard.

DeLay, Abramoff and their cohorts have prevented Congress from restoring human rights and human dignity to the indentured servants and oppressed women of the Marianas. The universe has finally aligned to give us the opportunity to rescue people who need help. If we squander this opportunity to do what is obviously the right thing -- stopping this abuse -- it will be to our everlasting shame.

Here are the senators on the committee. Please contact yours and urge them to support S.1634. Dengre suggests the following changes:

1. Create a pathway to Citizenship for Guest Workers who have been on the CNMI for more than five years—and a Green Card for all workers with children who are US Citizens.

2. Outline a clear appeals process for any worker denied Immigration Status and/or other rights by the local CNMI Government through new or existing Federal systems of appeals.

3. Mandate that all CNMI entry visa programs—both work and tourist—are run by the Federal Government. (To allow the local CNMI Government to run a tourist visa program is to allow human trafficking.)

4. Mandate random, spot check interviews of guest workers and tourists as they arrive and leave the CNMI to ensure that they were (and are not) victims of abuse.

Sometimes it's hard to find solutions to the worst problems on earth. This one has been handed to us on a silver platter. Let's not miss this chance to do something tremendous.

CNMI Testimony

DB has received the documents Dengre will submit on behalf of the workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a hearing on S.1634 tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Human Rights advocate Wendy Doromal is in CNMI gathering this information because these people would otherwise have no voice in the process, which is just par for the course. Please contact your senators on the committee and urge them to support S.1634, amended to protect the exploited workers.

Here (if this widget works) are the PDFs of the documents that will be presented to the committee:



Here is the full-text of the brief statement by the workers (followed by some excerpts from Doromal's statement:

July 12,2007
Dear Chairman Bingaman:

We are foreign confract workers in the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands(CNMI). We have lived and worked in this community for 5, 10, 15, or 20 or more years. We have served the community as nurses, security guards, technicians, mechanics, accountants, engineers farmers, domestic workers, entertainers, construction workers, fishermen, hotel workers, garment workers, restaurant workers, office staff and other positions. We were invited here to work and have contributed much to the commumty. We are the threads that hold the economic fabric of the CNMI together.

We make up the majority of the population in the CNMI, but we have no vote. We pay taxes and many of us have social security and Medicare taxes taken from our pay, yet most of us will never receive those benefits. We are often victims of criminal acts, but we cannot serve on juries. We are voiceless.

The illegal alien workers in the mainland United States have had their voices raised by the U.S. Senate who created a bill to raise their status. As legal non-resident workers also laboring and living on U.S. soil, don't we deserve to have our voices raised by the United States Senate also? An estimated 3,000 of us are documented as having United States citizen children who have lived in the CNMI all of their lives. Presently, we have no way to be united States citizens ourselves. Once we have completed with our contracts we are forced to return to our home countries. How will we be able to provide our U.S. citizen children with education, healthcare and nutrition?

We do believe CNMI is not only a part of the U.S., but is really U.S. soil. As workers, we have seen that the U.S. Constitution is not followed here in the CNMI. We do not understand this. The U.S. Constitution states that all residents of the United States are treated equally and given freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The CNMI and United States are one country, but has two systems -- one democratic and one that supports indentured servitude and refuses to enforce U.S. law.

We need to have federalization of U.S. immigration laws. For years we have suffered with an insecure status and are in the islands only as indentrued servants. Many of us have been victims of illegal recruitment and labor and human rights abuses. Many of us had labor cases that have never been resolved, backwages never recovered, and criminal attacks never prosecuted. We were told that the United States was a democracy, but we do not live in a democratic society here. We urge you to pass legislation that would federalize immigration and help us to achieve the stability and United States citizenship we deserve.

Here are some bits from Doromal's statement:

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over matters affecting territories of the United States. From 1984 to 1995 I lived and worked as a teacher in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). I witnessed appalling labor and human rights abuses of contract workers who came from their homelands to work in the United States. They came from the Philippines, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan, and other Asian countries. They sold their land, houses, and businesses to pay up to $7,000 in recruitment fees for a chance to live the American dream. But too many of these workers lived a nightmare instead. In 1993, I wrote a report that detailed the labor and human rights abuses in the CNMI and offered solutions. It was submitted to CNMI officials, to selected U.S. members of Congress, congressional committees, and the U.S. Departments of Labor, Justice and State.

My family left the islands in 1995 due to threats and terrible harassment that came about because of our human rights work on behalf of these victims. I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in May 1995 and submitted an updated report on the status of the guest workers and problems with the CNMI labor and immigration laws.

Before I left the CNMI, I promised the workers that I would continue to appeal to U.S. government leaders to extend United States minimum wage, immigration, labor and customs laws to the CNMI. I am ashamed to tell you that 12 years after I made this promise I continue to plead with US government officials to fulfill this promise and finally put an end to the abuses and systemic corruption, and to give a voice to the foreign contract workers. That is why I am in the CNMI this month to evaluate the current status and conditions of the foreign contract workers.

The United States Congress has known about the seriousness of the labor and immigration problems in the CNMI for two decades. Although there have been attempts over the years to enact effective reform legislation, ultimately the Congress has failed again and again its responsibility to ensure human rights and enforce U.S. law on United States soil. Legislation is long overdue, and S. 1634 offers some solutions to the existing problems. With needed revisions, it could be effective in addressing ongoing problems in the CNMI.

[...]

Census figures reveal that the nonresident worker population has grown from 3,709 or 22% of the total population in 1980, to 39,089 or 56% of the total population in 2000. Today there are an estimated 84,000 people in the CNMI and only 20,000, or one-third of the adult population, can vote. The last time guest workers with no voting privileges or political rights outnumbered the citizens on U.S. soil it was called slavery.

Do the right thing

Here's a trick question:

Do you think it's OK for women on American soil to be raped, forced into prostitution, forced to have abortions, forced to work for a bowl of noodles a day, forced to live in squalor, ultimately to be deported, broken and penniless?

You know why that's a trick question?

Because it's not a hypothetical. It's been happening in plain sight for decades and unless you do something or say something right now, while Congress is finally looking at the problem, your answer might as well be yes.

It's also a trick question because I have forced you to make a decision. You will either act or you will allow these crimes against humanity to continue.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the rest of his thugs have prevented Congress from restoring human rights and human dignity to the enslaved workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Now that the Democrats are in control, the issue has come up again. If we squander this opportunity to do what is obviously the right thing -- stopping this abuse -- it will be to our everlasting shame.

It's that simple. We have a chance to end this practice right now. We might not have the chance again. Please read Dengre's diary, recommend it and take action now.

This is one of the things we really can change. The hard part was getting the chance to actually do something. The universe has aligned to give us the opportunity to rescue people who need help. How can any of us do nothing when it's so clear what the right thing to do is and the opportunity has presented itself to us so readily?

Schooled

Every now and then, there's a terrific example of the rich and/or powerful demanding accountability or sacrifice from the least powerful people on earth, while exhibiting none of the behavior they expect from the less-fortunate. Actually, it's more than every now and then. It's every day.

Sometimes it's obvious, like Iraq and Katrina. Sometimes, you need to pay attention, like with AIDS in Africa and how the rate of infection has climbed:

But very quickly, the strings of the plan—now known as PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—began to show. Starting in 2004, the U.S. recommended—and by 2006 required—that 33 percent of all prevention funding be earmarked for abstinence and fidelity programs. Condoms could be recommended only for high-risk groups, not for sexually active people in general. No funds would be provided to groups that don't explicitly condemn prostitution. Finally, the Bush administration seemed to be spreading a significant share of AIDS funding through faith-based groups.

Meanwhile, the AIDS pandemic has been rapidly feminized over the past 15 years. But PEPFAR—underpinned by the political and religious philosophies of the Bush administration—often doesn't take into account the facts of life for women in the countries it serves.

"The gender dimensions of the epidemic are completely ignored," says Beatrice Were, a Ugandan mother of three who has devoted herself to AIDS activism since 1993. "We know very well that women don't [always] have control [over sexual decisions]. There is rape in marriage. … Many women can't make a decision on whether to have protected sex or not, even whether to have sex or not, because it's their husbands [who] make the decision."

In Uganda polygamy and promiscuity among men is both significant and socially acceptable. "This [PEPFAR] approach places a huge burden on a woman to abstain and, when she's married, be faithful," says Were. "Personally, I did all of that, but I still got infected, too. It just doesn't work."

It's not just hypocrisy, though it is certainly that. It's morally repugnant because the results are tragic for the people at the bottom.

Yesterday, the clear example was distilled by Joe Kennedy, who gave a pitch-perfect rebuttal to John Fund and the Wall Street Journal greedsters on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room. Kennedy points out that the rich and powerful in America are not just using the same products from Venezuela, but they're the ones with both the ability to choose different options for themselves and also to provide different options for the poor.

Here's Kennedy's segment on CNN. It's long for a blog post, but it's excellent, so here's the whole thing:

And joining us now from Boston, the former Congressman Joe Kennedy. He is the CEO of Citizens Energy Cooperation.

Congressman, thanks very much for doing this.

I guess the logical question, how comfortable are you dealing with Hugo Chavez, given his record?

KENNEDY: Well, Wolf, first of all, first and foremost, I should just point out that Citizens Energy has been in the business of delivering inexpensive heating oil and natural gas, electricity, and a range of other services for 25 or 30 years to low-income people in many states all across the country, not just in Massachusetts.

But, in all the years that I have been doing this, I have never once been able to buy discounted oil. The only country that ever offered us that was Venezuela. And for those people who say that this is simply a -- some sort of propaganda item to try and offset the speech that -- the famous speech that he gave last fall, I would point out that we were running this program with the Venezuelans all last year. And nobody mentioned it that -- at that point.

And I further would point out to those who say these -- you know, that I'm being used as a propaganda arm of -- for the Venezuelans, look, at the end of the day, if you have a problem with the fact that the Venezuelans are providing the poor of the United States with inexpensive heating oil, first of all, the Bush administration has supported it.

Secondly, we should recognize it. If that's what your problem is, then, you should have a problem with the entire 588 million barrels of oil that the Venezuelans sell to the United States every year.

BLITZER: Here is the problem that some Americans have. And...

KENNEDY: Sure.

BLITZER: And I'm not referring to a conservative or Republican. I'm referring to Charlie Rangel, a man you used to serve in the Congress with. He's a very liberal Democrat.

KENNEDY: Sure.

BLITZER: He's going to be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a veteran. He represents a poor district in Harlem, as you also know. And they're grateful for any breaks they can get on heating oil.

But he issued a press release condemning Hugo Chavez because of this attack on President Bush, his personal attack, comparing him to the devil. Then, he was on this program, here in THE SITUATION ROOM, and he made this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SITUATION ROOM") REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: This is one country, whether we're Democrat or Republicans. And to come here, at the invitation of our people, and insult the president of the United States, you insult the flag; you insult the president; you insult the country; and you insult my constituents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, he is pretty angry about all of this.

KENNEDY: Well, I mean, no one -- I'm certainly not going to defend the speech that President Chavez made in -- at the U.N.

I also don't, you know, support the fact that the Bush administration was -- had its hand in the attempted coup against President Chavez. I don't condone the -- that fact that one of President Bush's major contributors and supporters in this country called for President's Chavez assassination, long before those speeches.

So, there is a lot -- at the end of the day, Wolf, there's a lot of rhetoric that's way too hot on both sides. We have to remember, Venezuela -- in the OPEC oil embargoes against the United States, the only country that -- the OPEC country that continued to support the United States was Venezuela.

In our own revolution, they...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, that was long -- that was long before Hugo Chavez became the president.

KENNEDY: Well, but my point is that -- just that, that the relationship between the United States and Venezuela is a lot deeper than...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It used to be a very strong relationship.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: But it is -- it still is.

No, Wolf, wait. Hang on. Last year, GM and Ford sold 300,000 cars in Venezuela. We have imported 588 million barrels of oil. Should we say -- if you have got a problem with this, then, you should say, oh, no, Ford and GM, you can't sell any more cars down there. Oh, and, by the way, we shouldn't drive any cars that are using Venezuelan gasoline. We shouldn't fly any jets, whether they be "The Wall Street Journal"'s or anybody else's, that is using Venezuelan jet fuel. We shouldn't be using any trucks.

BLITZER: But...

KENNEDY: Oh, no. Come on, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm not...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: If it's goose -- good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

BLITZER: But...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: So, don't just complain about a program that's helping the poor, and then give everyone that's helping the rich off the hook.

BLITZER: I...

KENNEDY: That's the dilemma.

BLITZER: I'm...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: And that is what is unfair.

BLITZER: I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just asking some questions.

KENNEDY: Sure. Let's go.

BLITZER: Let me read -- let me read to you -- and I'm sure you saw that editorial in "The Wall Street Journal."

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: "In his eight years in power, Mr. Kennedy's business partner has also polarized Venezuela with his class warfare. Freedom House now ranks Venezuela's -- Venezuela 34th out of 35 countries in the Western Hemisphere in press freedom. Only the Cuban press is more repressed. But Mr. Kennedy keeps on trucking."

I know you saw the editorial. It was a very nasty editorial, directly accusing of you, in effect, of being a propaganda tool of Hugo Chavez.

KENNEDY: You know, I have had so many negative editorials written about me by "The Wall Street Journal." It's like water off the back.

You know, I -- it -- the -- that isn't the point, whether or not they attack me personally, or anything else. The crucial issue is whether or not we're going to say, we have, as a nation, a problem with Venezuela, because of a speech that the guy made, and so, therefore, we're going to cut off all business relationships with the Venezuelans. Or is it somehow righteous to say, no, let's just focus on the one country that is actually providing a little help and assistance to the poor, to help them pay their energy bills.

And, if that's the problem, then, what we should do is, we should say, we're going to stop dealing with them altogether. And, in that case, we shouldn't be using their oil. We shouldn't be having our banks operate in their country.

But why is it that I am the only focus of this? How come these discussions -- how come "Wall Street Journal" doesn't go after its own? How come they don't go after all the corporations that are making so much money out of the Venezuelans? How come they only went after a program that is designed to help? And it's a nonprofit.

We don't make a dime off of this. Everything gets passed through to the poor. So, my only point is, it's duplicitous. It is, you know, people who have power who are threatened, those who have the capitalist system, who are threatened by a kind of compassionate capitalism that looks out after the poor and the vulnerable.

That's what we're trying to do with Citizens Energy. And, if we can get some help and assistance from OPEC -- you know, I don't see the Saudi Arabians offering us this. I don't see the Kuwaitis offering us this. But I sure see an awful lot of business that goes on with these countries.

Why is it that it's just the -- the Venezuelans that we -- that we are content to go after?

BLITZER: All right.

KENNEDY: We're content to do it because it's easy. That's why "The Wall Street Journal" did it. It's easy.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: It's -- anyway, Wolf, that -- that's obviously my...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I -- you know, I hear your argument.

You know, it's interesting. If you see behind you, near Fenway Park, you see a huge Citgo sign right behind you. It's a coincidence. We didn't deliberately put you in that location. But you can clearly see Citgo right behind you.

Why is it, though, that you have asked all these other oil companies, these oil-producing companies, to do what the Venezuelans, what Hugo Chavez and Citgo are ready to do, give a discounted price for poor people in the country? What is their response to you when you say, why not follow Hugo Chavez's lead?

KENNEDY: You know, Wolf, it really is eye-opening. They -- you get a letter back. I write to the CEOs of the companies. You get a letter back from a mid-level bureaucrat, saying, you know, that they're doing something to help out with some illness or some, you know, disease or something like that.

But, you know, Citgo gives $80 million to muscular dystrophy. Nobody is saying, hey, give the money back to muscular dystrophy. Then, when they give money to the Baseball Hall of Fame, nobody says, give money -- the money back to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

It's just when it helps the poor. Why -- Exxon Corporation, last year, in one quarter, made $10 billion. Their CEO himself made $1 billion. And, yet, what has he done? He's sat by and allowed the price of oil to skyrocket, from $25 a barrel to almost $60 or $70 a barrel. They haven't done a darn thing better.

BLITZER: All right.

KENNEDY: And, yet, what they're willing to do is take those profits, make themselves a boatload of money, and basically let the poor be damned. And that is just -- it doesn't feel right, Wolf. It just doesn't feel right.

BLITZER: Former Congressman Joe Kennedy, making his case, and doing it well, as usual, appreciate it very much.

KENNEDY: Nice to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, good.

KENNEDY: Thank you.

BLITZER: I suspect, though, the story is not going to go away.

America deserves a real discussion

Following up on the post about fascism, the reason DB will go to sleep feeling pretty good is that today we saw two examples of influential people (Rocky Anderson and Keith Olbermann) speaking not just truth to power, but reclaiming our right as Americans to speak, period.

Sure, there have been moments in the last few years when it felt so good to hear somebody tell it like it is. But all the while there has been a constant effort to keep America from having an honest debate about the direction of the country.

Forgive the late-night rant, but it cannot be a secret to anybody that the GOP and its supporters have made it a mission to stifle dissent and prevent debates from taking place.

It happened when Kerry was swiftboated. In their wildest dreams, those liars couldn't have imagined that the charges would stick, that the Kerry campaign would be so slow to respond, that the media would be so complicit in the attacks. John O'Neill was on practically every cable news show.

John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural speech said "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans." But in the 2004 campaign, we were robbed of our right to a real national debate. While the problems facing our and future generations were looming, we were forced to rehash a debate that aired on the Dick Cavett Show a generation earlier. That was the swiftboaters' goal: To distract the nation and steal our chance to have a real candid discussion about our future. The damage to Kerry's candidacy was just gravy.

Bring up the question of warrants for wiretaps and watch them turn the debate to the effectiveness or necessity of tracking terrorists. Nobody in America -- nobody -- thinks we shouldn't track terrorists and everybody in America knows it. But the media doesn't play host to the debate we deserve.

Bring up the question of oversight and watch them change the subject to the seriousness of fighting terror. The media puts up the poll numbers and, again, refuses to play host to the debate we deserve.

Bring up any alternate plan for Iraq -- phased withdrawal, benchmark withdrawal, partitioning, etc. -- and listen to the howls of "cut-and-run" and "cowardice" instead of any oversight or constructive discourse.

You're either for drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coasts or you're for continuing our dependence on foreign oil. Raising our fuel-efficiency standards doesn't make it into the debate at all because the GOP way isn't the best way, it's the only way.

They don't want us to have a real debate about anything. They've already hatched their schemes and there is no point to any discussion about it. They are never persuaded to follow any other course because when they are sworn into office, they carry with them a mandate, regardless of the margin of their electoral victories.

And the bought-and-paid-for media just doesn't care. When events in the world spark inquiries into the administration's capabilities or the soundness of their decisions, a terror alert or reminder that we should be afraid and quiet is enough to prevent any real engagement with the issues. It doesn't even need to be a remotely good reason; warnings of wandering black holes in the galaxy or super-volcanoes on Earth had to suffice this week.

Or some tabloid garbage supersedes all reason. The media was supposed to have learned its lesson when 9/11 came on the heels of non-stop Gary Condit coverage. Then Katrina hit during Aruba-vision. This month, in the midst of two costly wars and tremendous developments in the wiretapping case, we were asphyxiated with John Mark Karr. Even if he had been the real murderer of Jon Benet Ramsey, enough is enough. The fact that he lied is just salt in the wound.

And then, there are the Democrats who enable the scoundrels who steal our right to a real dialog.

"I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom."

Thank you, Ed Koch. And thanks, Joe Lieberman, for the concern about "undermining the president's credibility."

And on the floor of the Senate or in the halls of Congress, the debate is just as easily avoided. John Murtha makes a proposal and the GOP puts a bogus, superficial rip-off up for debate, just so it will be voted down with prejudice.

Minimum wage comes up for a vote and instead we get to hear a debate about whether it should be paired with the proposed repealing of the estate tax.

Important legislation about our nation's health care or energy policy is written in secret and passed without a chance for the public to evaluate it. Instead of debating Kerry's health care plan on its merits... instead of criticizing any flaws in the plan and offering America a chance to consider and possibly improve it or legitimately decide against it, the GOP said we should all fear a complicated government takeover of our medical decisions. That was the extent of the debate on the future of our health care system: Should we have a giant bureaucracy or not?

Practically nobody read the Patriot Act. How can we call this a true democracy when we don't even get to hear about our possible choices? They don't want us to have any choices.

During the campaign, they said Kerry had no plan. When he published his plan, it was automatically a horrible plan that would cost trillions. There is nothing in between "no ideas" and "horrible, dangerous ideas." There's no reason to expect more from the political operatives, but the media is supposed to fill that void. Tragically, the media is just not interested in presenting us with the information we need to make informed decisions and force accountability on our leadership.

Even when our most statesmanlike Senators have an actual debate, there are always reasons why something shouldn't even be considered. While Sens. Feingold, Boxer and Kerry were trying to get their amendment to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq considered, we heard this:

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I agree fundamentally with the premise that the Iraqi people, in the final analysis, are the ones who are going to be able to bring about their own measure of democracy and enable this Government to exercise sovereignty.

Other Senators want to participate, so I will soon yield. I know both of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service. I don't know about you, but it has been difficult for me today to contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and executed.

[snip]

What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today.

Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.

Ripeness is all, as Shakespeare wrote. But as respectful as Sen. Warner was to Kerry, his message is infuriating. Our nation lost 63 brave soldiers in Iraq in the month of June. Sixty-three. Those deaths occurred on 20 of the 30 days in the month. That means the chances were twice as great that the amendment would be brought to the floor as a soldier was giving his or her life for this country. Not only is it shameful to use their deaths to evade the responsibility of the Senate to practice oversight, those morbid details and numbers are even more of reason to actually consider alternatives to the failing strategy of staying the course.

America deserves a real debate. Had we been allowed a real debate before going to Iraq, we might not have been stuck in this horrible war. We were entitled to that debate, but were denied.

We were denied because we were only given facts that supported the decision Bush had already made. We were denied because the media and pundits didn't respect their role in our society and didn't give an adequate platform to those who rejected the party line.

We were denied because too many career politicians in both parties made calculated political decisions instead of representing a diverse electorate.

We, as Americans, are entitled to a real debate about our future. We've been denied in the past, and Donald Rumsfeld upped the ante on Monday by, as Olbermann said, "question[ing] the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes."

It's about time the people in this country say they've had enough of this. Yesterday was a tremendous day for America because two men with a well-crafted message, a microphone and a huge crowd or prime-time audience finally did. Let's make sure that tomorrow there are even more people demanding respect for ideas and free expression. Someday we just might be able to go back to taking our rights for granted.

Rummy was right

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

Fascism, eh?

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

Let's see... exalts nation and often race above the individual...

• "America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
  
  
• "So, welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."
  
  
• "The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted by a different people."
  
  
• "Declaring that airport screeners shouldn't be hampered by 'political correctness,' House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King has endorsed requiring people of 'Middle Eastern and South Asian' descent to undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion."
  
  
• "District officials feared Hamlin's display violated a state law prohibiting the display of any flag but the American, Colorado or local flags on public buildings, including schools. Temporary displays for instructional or historical purposes are exempt, but the school principal did not consider Hamlin's display temporary enough."
  

...stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader...

• "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to [crush the testicles of a person's child]."
  
  
• "Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch."
  
  
• "The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
  
  
• "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."
  
  
• "Several justices seemed deeply concerned that the government had gone too far in its plans to hold a special trial for Hamdan. Some were downright indignant over the Bush administration's claim that a new federal law bars the high court from ruling in the Hamdan case."
  
  
• "In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, [Sandra Day] O'Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. ... I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies."
  

...severe economic and social regimentation...

• "Frist also reiterated that the GOP will not split the minimum wage apart from the estate tax, and that future votes on the pay increase will be linked to cutting taxes on multimillion-dollar estates."
  
  
• "If one were to work a normal 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year for minimum wage, it would take between 988 and 3,665 years to amass Frist's fortune."
  
  
• "President Bush on Wednesday signed into law a bankruptcy reform bill that will make it harder for individuals to clear their debts through bankruptcy."
  
  
• "However, the number of people without health insurance increased to 46.6 million in 2005. About 45.3 million people were without insurance the year before. The last decline in the poverty rate was in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when it dropped to 11.3 percent. With the poverty rate steady but median household income rising, 'that could represent an increase in inequality' between the wealthy and the poor, said David Johnson, chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division of the Census Bureau."
  

...and forcible suppression of opposition...

• "Earlier administrations have fired and prosecuted government officials who provided classified information to the press. They have also tried to force reporters to identify their sources. But the Bush administration is exploring a more radical measure to protect information it says is vital to national security: the criminal prosecution of reporters under the espionage laws."
  
  
• GOP callers overwhelm City Hall lines: "Offended by Rocky Anderson's plans to protest President Bush this week, the Utah Republican Party is waging a public-relations campaign urging Utahns to call the mayor and tell him to 'stop embarrassing' the state."
  
  
• "The phones were starting to ring, and as I would pick up one phone, it automatically bumped over to another line," testified Manchester firefighter Jeffery S. Duval, who was working the phones at union headquarters. "There was nobody on any of the phones. The phone lines were dead once we went to pick them up. .. We gave the police department a call."
  
  
• "Minutes before the U.S. president would tell Congress how much he appreciates 'responsible criticism and counsel,' the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was dragged from a gallery overlooking the House chamber, handcuffed and arrested for the 'crime' of wearing a T-shirt that read: '2,245 dead. How many more?'"
  
  
• "At Neel's trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views' in a so-called free speech area."
  

I guess Rummy was right.

It won't open a black hole, either

CNN just did a story on the unmanned aerial drones that may be patrolling the skies of Los Angeles soon. After allowing a USC law professor to suggest that the police, who do a great job in his words, might be tempted to take this technology too far in invading privacy, CNN responded with footage of killer drones in "Terminator 3" and a comforting pledge from the police that the drone will not behave similarly.

DB feels much better now. Thanks, CNN!

Cowards

There is just about nothing that pisses DB off more than this article on Raw Story.

Will somebody with both principles and balls join Russ Feingold in Washington? For the love of God?

Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue. Bush has defended the program, calling it a "terrorist surveillance" program, and has used aides to defend its legality.

More investigation? How about any investigation? How much more do you need to know about it to determine whether or not it was illegal? Hint: It was.

While you wimps are "noting a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue," please also note that a large portion of those voters believe it should continue with oversight. And censuring the president for violating the law would not stop you from being able to refine the laws and review the program. Idiots.

Standing up for principles, civil liberties and the rule of law is not a position of weakness. You don't look soft for standing up for justice. You look weak by tossing your principles out the window because some freaks who sleep in dirt have threatened us. If you want to look strong on national security, propose and defend ideas on protecting America and hammer away at the administration and GOP leaders when they drop the ball. Don't stop. Every damn day, deliver that message.

But caving on other issues isn't signaling strength to anybody. It's shameful and it tells the people who try to support you that you don't reciprocate.

"Feingold's grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist's hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would've split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support. Russ Feingold had only one persons' interests in mind with his Sunday bombshell, and those were his own. He practically handed a victory to a Bush White House that desperately needs a win."

Maybe after watching the party cave to Frist and Roberts, Feingold decided that waiting for the rest of the caucus to get on board would be on par with waiting for a disconnected phone to ring.

Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide... too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they'll say we'd better just focus on domestic issues...[Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you're helping the terrorists."

You're goddamned right. Thank God there's at least one member of the party who gets it. Oh, and John Murtha, also the recipient of a lackluster effort by his party... despite the fact that he was right and the majority of the country agrees. [UPDATE: DB didn't give Congressman John Conyers his due.]

"I don't think people are unwilling" to support it, one Democratic Senate aide said. "I don't think people are 100 percent yes. If you look at the comments of Senator Reid and other senators' comments, you can see that other people want further investigations. Nobody's said no on censure except Joe Lieberman as far as I know."

Joe Lieberman has as much integrity as an Uzbek duplex in a magnitude-10 earthquake, but the rest of the caucus already blew their chance for a real investigation. How high are they? Are bloggers the only ones paying attention?

"The majority of the American people agree with what the president's doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that's keeping Americans safe."

Translation: We already totally fucked up delivering our message and we can't understand how to read a poll. Or a series of polls.

The rest of the article is just painful:

"There were concerns that this would backfire on the Democrats just as they were beginning to get the upper hand or at least beefing up the playing field on homeland security credentials," the aide added. "The Dubai deal, the war in Iraq, the president's numbers heading south. Democrats have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot when the good things work and we've been known to do some things that end up hurting us rather than helping us."

Several aides said their offices were stressing "more investigations" as an alternative to censure. One aide said public hearings would be better in bringing Americans around to the idea that Bush had done something wrong.

"Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure," one staffer quipped. "Hearings would've forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would've made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors."

These lazy, worthless tools. The Democrats weren't "getting the upper hand." The Republicans are just being exposed as frauds.

"Forcing Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration" just makes them look more independent and principled. Running away shitless makes Democrats look pathetic. Besides, how many Americans or television pundits are giving the Democrats even half the credit for standing up for port security?

In 2004, the Republicans scored points by saying Kerry couldn't stand up to Howard Dean, let alone terrorists. How do these morons expect to look if they can't stand up to Bill Frist or a president with a 34% approval rating?

Why does everything have to be a calculated political strategy for these "leaders" anyway? When, in the last six years, have any of their political calculations yielded anything positive for them?

Can't they agree that a president who breaks the law needs to be challenged? Can't they stand up for civil liberties? Is Bill Frist correct -- do they have no principles or convictions?

Live Free or Die, Stupid!

If there is one good thing to come out of this debate over warrantless spying, so far at least, it is that other people seem to be waking up to the fact that a bunch of F---ING CAVEDWELLERS shouldn't be enough to scare America out of the principles that have made this the greatest country on Earth.

Congrats to Digby and Glenn Greenwald, for fighting the good fight.

The way to protect America is to do what is necessary, not what is comforting. To go after loose nukes, not lesbians in Santa Cruz. To have the watchful eyes of Homeland Security focused on chemical plants and the nation's ports, not on animal rights activists.

During the 2004 election, DB was dumbfounded by the onslaught of supposed "liberals" gleefully abandoning their principles (salvaged from a copy of a page from the old, extinct blog):

On Sept. 14, 2001, I went out to a local hangout -- a place where street performers do their acts for the gathered crowds, standing around in front of all the usual national chain stores.

It was eerie.

On any other Friday night, it would take some maneuvering just to negotiate through the masses. But on the first Friday after 9/11, there was practically nobody there. I made eye contact with just about everybody who passed by. It was like we were all on high alert in case anybody suspicious was there. No funny moves...

I've been there dozens, maybe hundreds of times since then and every time I go there, I think of that night.

I also remember dialing a friend on my cell phone that night. He was a Bush supporter in 2000. I wasn't. We had some friendly debates at the time. Neither of us thought it would be the end of the world if our guy didn't get elected.

I called him that night and told him I was glad Bush won. He said, "Of course, you are."

I really was. I was glad, not because of Bush, to be honest. I was happy that the team he had assembled had been around for the first Gulf War. I thought that experience would be a real blessing, I explained to my friend. I had no doubt that we were at war. I was behind it 100 percent. In fact, I was only worried that our response wouldn't be overwhelming enough.

September 11 had an enormous impact on me. But it did not change my core values. As fervently as I supported the president in responding to the attacks with force, I was equally chagrined at the site of people like William Bennett on my television, explaining to people like me that what I was feeling was "moral clarity." How revolting.

It's been three years and I am no longer grateful that Bush and his team are in office. I haven't felt that way in a long time. In my estimation, they haven't done anything right, in any capacity, since they took out the Taliban.

I've listened to all the people on my TV and radio telling me why I should vote one way or the other. If they support Bush, I can still respect them, as long as I don't think they're being dishonest (there are so many dishonest people involved in both campaigns).

But there is one group of people, represented by a trio, for whom I hold particular scorn. I'm talking about the people who know and don't care that the president will actively oppose all the policies and causes in which they believe.

I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom. -- Ed Koch

I think there are September 10 people and there are September 11 people. I'm one of the latter. Everything changed for me. Since then I see everything through the prism of what happened that day. For me this election is about one issue and that is the response to 9/11. In that sense I think the president is doing exactly the right thing. If 9/11 hadn't happened then I'd be firmly in the Democratic camp. -- Ron Silver

Well, you know, I'm libertarian, liberal in almost everything, Lou, except 9/11 changed me. I am quite frankly shocked it hasn't changed the whole country, but obviously that's the beauty of a democracy. Anybody can believe what they want, but the moment they blow up the two biggest buildings in your culture and the Pentagon, you know, I'm certainly thinking preemption. It doesn't seem like a dirty word to me anymore. I believe the game has to be taken to the enemy. -- Dennis Miller

First of all, I completely disagree with the premise that only Bush will take it to the enemy. I wouldn't vote for Kerry if I thought for a second that he wouldn't take his role as Commander in Chief seriously.

I also disagree with the premise, and according to the polls I've seen, a majority of the electorate, that Bush is more capable of handling terrorism. I think the Bush campaign has been successful at creating a national debate about preemption in order to divert the debate away from the specifics of how they've handled the war. I'm not against preemption, if there's sufficient evidence to justify it. Neither is Kerry. But Bush has botched it. Badly.

I've already spent a great deal of time on this blog pointing out how poorly Bush has conducted the war in Iraq. I could spend all the time up to the election cataloging his mistakes.

But the real root of my disdain for these three stems from their admission, offered without qualification and almost with a hint of glee, that they support Bush despite the fact that they are opposed to everything he stands for outside of the war.

I can think of nothing more cowardly than abandoning all your principles because some cave dwellers have attacked us.

People don't drive around New Hampshire with "Take my rights, just don't hurt me" on their license plates. Those plates say "LIVE FREE OR DIE."

Of course, I think it's not much of a coincidence that the three biggest spokesman for ditching your core beliefs are all financially secure white men over the age of 50 (make that five of them if you throw in moderate Republicans Giuliani and Schwarzenegger).

September 11 changed me, too, despite what Miller may think about me. But it doesn't make me forget who I am. It doesn't make me forget what I stand for. It certainly won't make me celebrate the abandonment of my principles the way these three have.

At the time of the election, DB wrote that the strength of an administration that publicly demonstrates its power solely through the use of military force is illusory. The added dimension of the secret domestic spying makes concrete the weakness and fear-based motivations of this president and his supporters.