July 19, 2007 Bush Has Declared Himself Dictator of the U.S. ....and Our Response? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-20-2007, 01:16 AM

Remember the background on how much clout the DOJ's OLC <b>(Office of Legal Counsel)</b> wielded....triggering the Ashcroft ICU bed altercation between acting Atty. General James Comey vs. white house COS Andrew Card and legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales? I detailed the role of OLC's Jack Goldstein, after he took over the position that had been held by Cheney's current COS, David Addington:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=11

It was reported, last week, that the OLC's legal opinion, written by Stephen G. Bradbury, was relied on by the white house and Harriet Meiers to justify her
failure to acknowledge a congressional committee subpoena:

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=2&cset=true
or http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/12/2477/ or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...es&btnG=Search
Disregard subpoenas, Justice Dept. says
The opinion raises questions over whether Bush officials would be prosecuted for not cooperating in probe of U.S. attorneys firings.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors.

The opinion was prepared this week by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, in response to questions from former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, who was subpoenaed to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee. Miers told the panel in a letter faxed Tuesday night that she would not appear, citing the Justice memo and advice from the White House.

Under the law, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia decides whether to pursue contempt of Congress cases. Though that official can exercise independent judgment, some legal experts said it might be hard to ignore the <b>opinion from the legal counsel office</b>, whose decisions are often viewed as controlling throughout the federal government.

Others said that, as an alternative, lawmakers might seek the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate any contempt charges.

The legal opinion surfaced as another former White House official, Sara M. Taylor, testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the U.S. attorney case. Taylor was the White House political director and reported to longtime Bush advisor Karl Rove.....

Thursday, senate democrats on the judiciary committee wrote a letter that makes a case for the accusation that Stephen G. Bradbury is not serving legally (with senate approval...) in the OLC position that he wrote the legal opinion (excuse?) that Meiers and the white house relied on......

<center><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=1&">Stephen G. Bradbury opnion, page 1</a><br>
<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=2&">Stephen G. Bradbury opnion, page 2</a><br>
<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184266665DOJ-exec-priv_Page_3.jpg"><br><br><p><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184866326OLC-vacancies_Page_1.jpg"><br><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184866359OLC-vacancies_Page_2.jpg"></center>

Now, Bush "clears it all up"....by having his "administration officials" assert that the US Attorney in DC will be prohibited from enforcing congressional subpoenaes:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071902625.html
Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that <b>the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."</b>

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

<b>Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."</b>

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. <h3>Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."</h3>

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

...I think we can now observe, unless we refuse to look, that all precedent for congressional oversight....checks and balances is now "fair game". This "op" began with someone on Sen. Arlen Spector's staff, "sneaking in" a provision in a 2006 bill previously finalized via senate and house conference committee negotiations, and voted unnoticed into law....that exempted US Atty appointments from senate judiciary committee hearings (candidates have to testify, under oath....)...and approval. Now, the "op", if the 4 Senators who wrote the letter on thursday, are correct, has progressed to a point where an DOJ asst. Atty. General.....Bradbury, has continued to serve at the OLC, and to issue highly contentious legal opinions, even as he and the president who appointed him, ignore the requirement that he be examined, under oath, by the senate judiciary committee, as a condition of serving in the office that he wields such large influence, from.....

.....and now, we're told, that none of that even matters....because Mr. Bush is the law....and is above the law.

....and now, it's confirmed for us...the executive branch is unaccountable to the legislative branch, which was elected by the people, to provide oversight iof the other two constitutional branches, and to check and balance them.

Mr. Bush swore an oath of office:

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...enneF0.1899835

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush seems to have violated the oath that he took. The speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, and the senators of the senate judiciary committee, including the four who wrote the letter displayed above, should immediately call for, and begin an impeachment investigation against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

.....Or...."wait", you say....not so fast..... Wait? Wait? Wait for what?

dksuddeth · 07-20-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view

if congress had any spine at all, they would absolutely begin impeachment. I'm guessing that Bush would display alot of bluff and muster what little GOP support he had left to hold off any impeachment hearings and we'd still end up nowhere.

dc_dux · 07-20-2007, 11:19 AM

Here is an interesting option....The Senate Sergeant at Arms can enforce the rules of the Senate... go to Harriet Miers' home (or chief of staff Josh Bolton...or even Bush) and arrest her (them) for contempt of Congress and hold them in custody in the Capitol until the full Senates holds a trial on the contempt charges. If found guilty of civil contempt, they could be detained until compliance with the subpoena or until the session of Congress ends whichever comes first.

Quote:

The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate Wing of the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, chamber and galleries. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/offi...nt_at_arms.htm

Willravel · 07-20-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Here is an interesting option....The Senate Sergeant at Arms can enforce the rules of the Senate... go to Harriet Miers' home (or chief of staff Josh Bolton...or even Bush) and arrest her (them) for contempt of Congress and hold them in custody in the Capitol until the full Senates holds a trial on the contempt charges. If found guilty of civil contempt, they could be detained until compliance with the subpoena or until the session of Congress ends whichever comes first.

That's a really interesting idea. Forcing the right thing only works as a last resort, but we've been in last resort territory for quite some time now.

reconmike · 07-20-2007, 02:57 PM

Hail!!!! Dictator George!!!!! You have my utmost allegiance, cant wait till dissenters are taken into the woods and shot. Off with their heads all of em!!!

dc_dux · 07-20-2007, 10:09 PM

mike.....do you really want Bush's extremist interpretation of the separation of powers (and baseless according to some conservative Constitutional scholars) to serve as a precedent for Pres Hillary? .....or the next time the Republicans have a majority in Congress?

Do you really not see the danger of a President defining the scope and limits of his/her own power and rebuffing both Congress and the Courts?

pan6467 · 07-20-2007, 10:49 PM

Just my weird paranoidal thoughts..... Bush is going into surgery soon (colon work) and what happens if he were to.... say die... on the table?

(If he's out properly he can't say die.... shut up you..... sorry the voices in my head were talking.)

Anyway, woul;d he all of a sudden find some weird fame and support and would Cheney use the orders Bush signed to take control????

(Confused.... you won't be after this week's Soap episode...... I told you to shut up......asshole.... mam's boy....)

Have to instill humor these days, people are getting way too serious and life is way too short.

host · 07-21-2007, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Hail!!!! Dictator George!!!!! You have my utmost allegiance, cant wait till dissenters are taken into the woods and shot. Off with their heads all of em!!!

What the hell kind of a political and economic system are you advocating for, reconmike? Your posted opinions and your tenacity in posting them, IMO, contradicts what you post that you embrace, as values....and so...is confusing to me....

From the WaPo reporting in this thread's OP:

Quote:

......In defending its argument, administration officials <b>point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004</b>. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.....

.....It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. <b>Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."</b>

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.....

.....David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." <b>In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will."</b> And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."....

When the SCOTUS rejected Nixon's lawyers arguments, it recognized that there is a legitmate claim, under some circumstances, for assertion by the president of executive privilege, but the court, nonetheless, ordered the white house to surrender it's secret tape recordings

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/72.htm

....This presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] <b>is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.".....</b>

The language in the SCOTUS ruling, against Nixon's privilege assertions, <b>refers to principles worthy of fighting to the death....to PRESERVE</b>....the bullshit from the whitehouse, and from Olson in 1984, asserts that the president determines what the DOJ can prosecute....and what the courts can determine. Those assertions threaten an independent judiciary and the principle that prosecutors are independent and that they have the authority and the obligation to insure that NO ONE is above the law, and that no one is prosecuted for political purposes, but solely because of law breaking

reconmike, a long time, ago, in post #74, on the page linked in the first quote box, you posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...?t=1031&page=2

This veteran believes that these men would not allow anyone to burn a flag.<br>
<img src="http://www.americanfamilytraditions.com/Arlington_National_Cemetary_NR3_WEB.jpg">
<br>This veteran believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This veteran believes that freedom has a flavor the protected will never taste.

This veteran hates Japanese car sales on memorial day.

So while your out BBQ'ing, chasing those BIG sales stop for a moment and atleast try and pay alittle homage to those who felt so strongly that freedom was

worth defending.

reconmike, in post #40, in this thread, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93547"> Cindy Sheehan: What do you think of her situation?

</a>, you posted this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

08-19-2005, 01:29 PM

Oh my, her mother had a stoke. Where was Rove when this happened? Its all Bush's fault!!!! All that undue stress that came from Bush not meeting with her a

second time.
Impeach him!!! How dare he not meet with her, what she really needs is that fat ass Moore to hang out with her for a bit, maybe film it and make a

"documentary" about the whole thing.
She is dishonoring her son in the most tragic of ways, I really hope she wonders a weee bit too close Bush's ranch....ahhh you can figure out the rest.

And Host, Ill cut and paste this once more, the only justifaction needed to go into Iraq:....

<b>reconmike</b>, considering that the officials who you have consistently defended in your posts in this forum, <b>(even after Abramoff's and Delay's abuses

and exploitations have been publicized, it was reported yesterday that Bush's former 2004 national campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, and Bush's former press

secretary, Trent Duffy, have agreed to be contracted to continue the "work" of Abramoff, and Delay, et al...)</b> have vigorously pursued a political

strategy that has turned the "free market" capitalist system, "unfettered" by government interference that you embrace, as it is practiced on Saipan, and, to

a lesser, but still abusive and exploitive extent, in the rest of "the America" that these officials "govern", into one of human rights abuse for the sole

purpose of maximizing "profits", what do you perceive is the result of their deliberate "abuse of office and of official duties" as the "outcome" relates to

the living conditions on Saipan....an island that is what it is....today, politically and economically....because more than 3500 US Marines died and another

9500 were wounded, fought successfully, 63 years ago, this month, to "take it" from the Japanese, for the United States, how do you explain (justify) your

political and your economic opinions?

In the past, you've posted about United States military war dead, if they had the opportunity, <b>"would not allow anyone to burn a flag"</b> and you've

posted that Cindy Sheehan was <b>".... dishonoring her son in the most tragic of ways"</b>...you followed with what seemed to be your wish that this grieving

mother of a US soldier KIA in Iraq, would advance close enough to Bush's ranch to be restrained by, or physically harmed by Bush's security detail....

....How would you explain, reconmike, if you could have a conversation with one of the 3500 US Marines killed taking Saipan, how you, a man convinced that US

war dead would not permit the burning of a US flag....explain to one of the 3500....how you have come to so strongly to support the political and economic

platforms, actions, policies, and agendas of a group of US federal officials, their political party, and their politcal operatives, and their contributors

from the "business community, on Saipan, and on the US mainland, <h3>who have deliberately turned...and still work to keep it that way the...the island of

Saipan into a place of human suffering and exploitation.....for the sake of profits?</h3>

You've posted that you "know" that our US military war dead would, if they could, prevent the burning of a US flag. Saipan was taken, and became a US

territory, because of the valor and sacrifices of so many US Marines. Do you think that Delay, Abramoff, Bush, Doolittle, Ashcroft (he fired Frederick Black,

the US Atty investigating the activities of Abramoff and his relationship with CNMI officials), <b>have worked to make those islands that those Marines gave

their lives to bring under US control, more of a place that those Marines would be proud to visit or to live on, today, or have those republican officials,

operatives, and contributors worked to make life for so many on the CNMI islands more similar to a burned US flag?

reconmike, consider that the contradiction of your opinions vs. what has been documented on this page, <b>is not solely (if you read it...) read by you. This

is an anecdotal example of what I see....are the flaws in the arguments that you have making here....for so long. I believe that you've provided unwavering

support for corrupt officials who have corrupted not only their political party, but their entire country and it's constitutional protections of it's people,

from it's government, using the cooperation of corrupt corporate and other business and financial interests, to a point where, in your zeal, you may not have

noticed that they turned, in exchange for money and political sujpport and control, a place where so many Marines gave their lives to make a part of the

United States, into islands of immense suffering, denigrating and disrespecting the sacrifice of the brave Marines who made it possible for these thugs to

corrupt the land they gave their lives to gain...for their country....

Quote:

http://infoshop.org/news_archive/marianas.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...arianaislands/

A 'Petri Dish' in the Pacific
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
<B>Wednesday, July 26, 2000; Page A10</B>

Last year, two close associates of one of the most powerful members of the U.S. House spent part of their New Year's holiday 8,000 miles from Washington in

the Northern Marianas. Although the islands are known for their balmy weather, golf courses and great snorkeling, the trip could hardly be described as a

junket--the advisers to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) were there on a political mission.

.... Composed of 14 islands in the Pacific just north of Guam, the area now known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, was seized by

the United States from the Japanese during World War II. But it wasn't until 1986 that a covenant went into effect granting Northern Marianas residents U.S.

citizenship and all the benefits that flow from that, except the right to vote in federal elections.

For House Republicans, the territory embodies many of the ideals they promoted when they seized the majority in 1994. It is exempt from federal labor and

immigration laws, setting its minimum wage at $3.05 an hour; of the roughly 79,000 residents, many are low-wage workers from China or the Philippines. The

factories churn out clothes bearing the label "Made in the USA," which can be sent without tariffs or quotas to the mainland. <h2>"It is a perfect petri dish

of capitalism," DeLay said in an interview. "It's like my Galapagos island."</H2>

But Democrats and labor activists say the dearth of regulations has fostered abhorrent conditions for workers. They accuse the garment manufacturers of

forcing people to work long hours without overtime, failing at times to pay them at all, and requiring them to live in crowded "barracks." In 1995, when the

U.S. Senate adopted a bill to impose U.S. immigration standards on the Northern Marianas, then-Gov. Froilan Tenorio hired Preston Gates to block the measure

in the House.

The man Tenorio turned to, Abramoff, had impeccable GOP credentials. A former chair of the nation's College Republicans, Abramoff become so close with his

executive director, Ralph Reed, that he let the future Christian Coalition leader sleep on his couch for a time. These days, Abramoff is a top fundraiser for

DeLay and other House Republicans and a major fixture on the city's power lunch circuit.......

Quote:

http://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/For...--en/index.htm
Forced labour

At least 12.3 million people around the world are trapped in forced labour. The ILO works to combat the practice and the conditions that give rise to it.

Forced labour takes different forms, including debt bondage, trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The victims are the most vulnerable – women and

girls forced into prostitution, migrants trapped in debt bondage, and sweatshop or farm workers kept there by clearly illegal tactics and paid little or

nothing. The ILO has worked since its inception to tackle forced labour and the conditions that give rise to it and has established a Special Action

Programme on Forced Labour to intensify this effort.....

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff/CNMI

.....In October 1996, the contract with Preston Gates expired. The CNMI government broke its own laws by continuing to pay the firm - The initial Preston

Gates contract with CNMI was from June 1, 1995 - June 30 1996, for about $860,000. After the expiration of the contract, then Governor Pedro Tenorio's office

continued to pay Preston Gates, despite the lack of a valid contract, until January 11, 1998, a grand total of $5.21 million. (Between October 1996 to

October 1997, the total was just over $3 million. [1]) The payment without contract was later judged illegal in an investigation by the CNMI Office of the

Public Auditor.

Abramoff later arranged an all-expenses paid trip to Saipan for Tom DeLay on New Year's Eve in 1997. Although House ethics rules at the time prohibited House

members from accepting such gifts from lobbyists, the trip was funded directly by Saipan and thus was technically allowable. An internal memo from Preston,

Gates, and Ellis stated that these sort of trips are "one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill." [4] While on the trip, at a

benefit dinner for Willie Tan of Tan Holdings Corporation, DeLay was quoted as saying:

"When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see

firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made." [5]

An undercover investigation by ABCNews captured Willie Tan speaking on a hidden camera about a conversation with DeLay about labor reform laws. According to

Tan, "[DeLay] said, 'Willie, if they elect me majority whip, I make the schedule of the Congress, and I'm not going to put it on the schedule.' So Tom told

me, 'Forget it, Willie. No chance.'" [4]

After the trip, Abramoff helped DeLay craft policy that extended exemptions from federal immigration and labor laws to Saipan industries, though the island

is part of the U.S. Commonwealth. Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998 pointed out that factories in Saipan have forced their workers to have

abortions in order to keep their jobs.

In addition, Abramoff's lobbying team helped Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) craft statements [6] attacking the credibility of "Katrina," a teenaged sex slave who

escaped from the CNMI and testified to federal investigators about the sex trade on that island. [7]

Abramoff also negotiated for a $1.2 million no-bid contract from the Marianas for 'promoting ethics in government' to be awarded to David Lapin, brother of

Daniel Lapin. [8]

Abramoff also allegedly paid the expenses for at least two other trips to the Marianas. In both cases, Abramoff was reimbursed by Preston Gates & Ellis,

which was then being paid by the Marianas government. [9]

The first trip involved two aides to Tom DeLay, Edwin A. Buckham and Tony Rudy, both who later joined the lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group. Buckham and

Rudy traveled with Abramoff from December 4 to December 12, 1996. Abramoff paid at least $3,000 of the costs, according to a memo written by his assistant

Jennifer Senft Hamann. [9] The second trip involved James E. Clyburn (D-SC) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS). In a letter dated December 17, 1996, the National

Security Caucus Foundation invited the lawmakers to attend a trip to the island in January 1997, saying that the government would incur no expense. Non-

profits are allowed to pay for lawmaker travel, and Clyburn and Thompson said they believed the NSCF was doing so. Greg Hilton, the director of the NSCF at

the time, has said that Preston Gates & Ellis sent him the airline tickets and told him the government had paid for them. The cost of the trip was, according

to an Abramoff memo, $15,657. The lawmakers said that they never met Abramoff nor knew of his involvement. [9]

[edit] Contract suspended and renewed

Abramoff's lobbying contract with the CNMI was suspended in late 1998 due to a change in administration and financial problems. In December 1999, allegedly

at the request of CNMI politician Benigno Fitial, Edwin A. Buckham and Michael Scanlon visited the CNMI intending to convince two legislators to support

Fitial for speaker of the CNMI's 18-member House of Representatives. Scanlon was still a member of Tom DeLay's congressional staff, and was on unpaid leave

at the time. Buckham and Scanlon extended promises to help deliver federal aid to the legislators' districts, and succeeded in convincing the two Democratic

legislators to vote for Fitial, a member of the rival Covenant Party. After Fitial was elected speaker in 2000, he wrote the governor insisting that the

islands contract again with Abramoff at Preston Gates & Ellis. [10]

In August 1999, Abramoff's firm, Greenberg Traurig (which, all told received $4.04 million from 1998 to 2002 from the commonwealth), hired Millennium

Marketing (a division of the Ralph Reed-founded Century Strategies) to "sen[d] out a mailer to Alabama conservative Christians asking them to call then-Rep.

Bob Riley (R-Ala.) and tell him to vote against legislation that would have made the U.S. commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands subject to federal wage

and worker safety laws. "The radical left, the Big Labor Union Bosses, and Bill Clinton want to pass a law preventing Chinese from coming to work on the

Marianas Islands," the mailer from Reed's firm said. The Chinese workers, it added, "are exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ" while on the islands, and

many "are converted to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand." [2]

In February 1999, a congressional delegation visited the islands in February of 1999; it included Representative John Doolittle, who would get significantly

more involved in 2001.[2] Doolittle and Representative Joel Hefley write in June 1999, a "Dear Colleague" letter, saying that a May 1999 show on ABC's

newsmagazine, 20/20, "The Shame of Saipan", had numerous inaccuracies, and that "Tom DeLay has consistently engaged government leaders in taking steps toward

reform in the Mariana Islands to ensure and maintain a vibrant economy under local control." [3]

By late July 2000, Abramoff and Preston Gates were hired again, for $100,000 a month.

In January 2001 Abramoff switched lobbying firms to Greenberg Traurig. "'Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of

the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department,' Abramoff wrote in a January

2001 letter in which he persuaded the island government to follow him as a client to his new lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig." [4] Patrick Pizzella joins

the Bush-Cheney transition team, and in April 2001 is nominated to Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management at the Department of Labor.

In January 2006, CNMI Governor Benigno Fitial demanded that Preston Gates & Ellis and Greenberg Traurig return much of the money originally paid for lobbying

services, claiming that "the positive benefits of those services have been undone by the wide scandal brought on by the criminal charges against

Abramoff."[11]

In August 2006, Roger Stillwell, formerly an employee of the Department of the Interior, pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to report gifts

received from Abramoff during the period that Abramoff was lobbying the Interior on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Marianas Islands.[12].......

Quote:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA...5/06140369.htm
JAPAN FIERCELY DEFENDED ITS GARRISON ON SAIPAN
{LEAD} Editor's note: Memorable events in World War II will be recounted week by week in this column by military researcher William R. Hawkins.

\ On June 15, 1944 - 50 years ago today - the 2nd and 4th Marine divisions, with air support from escort carriers and gunfire support from battleships,

cruisers and destroyers, landed along 4 miles of beach on Saipan's west coast.

{REST} In defense was the Japanese 43rd Division with its artillery carefully emplaced on the high ground in the center of the island. The Japanese had

anticipated the landing and had range markers set in the surf to guide their heavy fire.

Shells rained down among the 600 Amphtracs churning toward the shore. A number were hit, but within 20 minutes 8,000 Marines had landed, and by afternoon,

20,000 would be ashore. But the enemy guns had been accurate, and resistance had been stubborn.

By evening the 2nd Marine Division had nearly 600 men dead and more than 1,000 more wounded. 4th Marine Division casualties were almost as heavy.

The Japanese prevented any deep penetration and during the night launched a counterattack led by tanks. But as they massed for the assault, star shells burst

above them, turning the night into day. The Marines opened up with everything they had, and they had plenty. As the enemy fell back, artillery and naval

gunfire chased them on their way.

The next day, the Army's 27th Infantry Division landed to join the Marines. Tanks led the U.S. advance - but the Japanese were far from finished. A platoon

of M-4 Shermans ran into a battery of enemy 77 mm guns.

Gunnery Sgt. Bob McCard's tank was hit, and the crew abandoned it. McCard was the last out, covering his men by throwing grenades at attacking Japanese

infantry. Hit by enemy fire, McCard knew he could not get away. He grabbed the tank's machine gun and faced the enemy. He killed 16 before being swarmed

under and won a posthumous Medal of Honor.....

Quote:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...as-5.html#cn33
D-Day Bombardment and Ship-to-Shore Movement

On the night of 14-15 June most of the support ships retired, leaving a handful to continue harassing fire along the coast line. Meanwhile the Western

Landing Group, commanded by Admiral Hill and consisting mostly of transports and LST's carrying the 2d and 4th Marine Divisions, was slowly approaching the

island from the east. As dark fell the marines could observe fires burning ashore and the glow of star

--78--

shells fired by the naval ships left in the area. Shortly after 0500 the gigantic convoy moved into the transport area off the west coast of Saipan. In

the early dawn, Mount Tapotchau lay silhouetted in the east. Streaks of fire from the armada of naval support ships colored the sky and the shore was blurred

in a haze of smoke and dust. As the light improved, the town of Charan Kanoa became visible. To the north lay Garapan, the capital city. In its harbor,

called Tanapag, lay several Japanese ships, beached, half-sunken, and smoking.

Naval bombardment commenced about 0530. Heavy close support ships were ordered not to approach closer than 1,500 yards from the reef. Destroyers were

permitted to move in as far as 1,000 yards. Two old battleships, two cruisers, and seven destroyers were assigned the duty of last-minute preparation of the

landing beaches themselves.31 At dawn these ships took station and shortly thereafter the two battleships commenced main battery fire at the beach defenses;

less than an hour later the two cruisers opened up with their 12-inch guns.

In spite of the apparent intensity of this barrage, the Japanese high command was not overly impressed--at least not officially. From 31st Army

headquarters came the report: "They did not carry out large scale shelling and bombing against the positions on the landing beach just prior to landing. When

they came to the landing, even though we received fierce bombing and shelling, our basic positions were completely sound."32

But to other less exalted defenders of the island, the shelling appeared more formidable. One member of the 9th Tank Regiment observed fairly effective

results from the shelling of the Magicienne Bay area. A naval supply warehouse was hit, causing a considerable number of casualties, and a nearby ammunition

dump was set off. "There was no way," he reported, "of coping with the explosions. We could do nothing but wait for them to stop."33 Somewhere in the same

vicinity, the Japanese naval officer mentioned above took to the bottle again to calm his nerves against the shock of the shelling. "I quietly opened the

quart I brought along," he noted in his diary, "and took my first 'shot' from it. There is something undescribable about a shot of liquor during a

bombardment."34

At 0545 the word was passed throughout the American task forces that H Hour, the moment at which the first troops were supposed to land, would be 0830,

as scheduled. Guns and winches were manned; boats were lowered into the water from the transports.

Shortly after 0700 the thirty-four LST's carrying the Marine assault battalions moved into position and dropped anchor about half a mile off the line of

departure. The line, the starting point from which the assault landing craft would take off, was located 4,250 yards offshore. Bow doors swung open; ramps

lowered, and hundreds of amphibian tractors and amphibian tanks crawled into the water and commenced to circle. In all, 719 of these craft would be employed

in the operation.

Astern of the assault landing ships lay twelve other LST's carrying light artillery,

--79--.....

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...as-5.html#fn58

.........Before dark the 2d Marine Division's commander, General Watson, had established his command post on RED Beach 2. By this time the division was

digging in for the night and consolidating its positions against counterattack. Amphibian tanks and tractors had set up a defensive net against possible

counteramphibious attacks from the sea. Division casualties were estimated to amount to 1,575--238 killed, 1,022 wounded, and 315 missing in action....

Quote:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res71z3x/index.html
"The Fighting Fourth"

....The 4th Marine Division landed on Saipan 15 June 1944. The severity of this battle was indicated by the 2,000 casualties suffered in the first two days

of battle. The Flag was raised on Saipan after 25 grueling and bitter days of combat. The Division sustained 5,981 casualties killed, wounded and missing.

This represented 27.6 percent of the Division's strength. The Japanese count was 23,811 known dead and 1,810 prisoners were taken.....

<b>...and the CNMI, of which Saipan is a principle part of, as found on web pages, these days:</b>

Quote:

http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/cnmipage.htm

OIA Field Office in Saipan

....In 1947, the Northern Mariana Islands became part of the post-World War II United Nations'Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI). The United

States became the TTPI's administering authority under the terms of a trusteeship agreement. In 1976, Congress approved the mutually negotiated Covenant to

Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in Political Union with the United States. The CNMI Government adopted its own constitution

in 1977, and the constitutional government took office in January1978. The Covenant was fully implemented on November 3, 1986, pursuant to Presidential

Proclamation no. 5564, which conferred United States citizenship on legally qualified CNMI residents.

On December 22, 1990, the Security Council of the United Nations terminated the TTPI as it applied to the CNMI and five other [the Marshall Islands and the

Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap)] of the TTPI's original seven districts.

Under the Covenant, in general, Federal law applies to CNMI. However, the CNMI is outside the customs territory of the United States and, although the

internal revenue code does apply in the form of a local income tax, the income tax system is largely locally determined. According to the Covenant, the

federal minimum wage and federal immigration laws "will not apply to the Northern Mariana Islands except in the manner and to the extent made applicable to

them by the Congress by law after termination of the Trusteeship Agreement:"

Quote:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/...-bitch-at.html
Thursday, July 19, 2007

Here it is, take it
by Dover Bitch

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.....

Quote:

http://doverbitch.blogspot.com/2007/...testimony.html
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
CNMI Testimony

SenateC ommitteeo n Energy and Resources
304 Dirksen SenateB uilding
Washinglon,D C 20510
July 12,2007
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
I am requestingt hat the attacheds tatementb e included in the CongressionaRl ecord as
testimonyf or the July 19, 2007S enateH earingo n the U.S . Commonwealtho f the
Northern Mariana Islands. I am unablet o attendt he hearingb ecauseI am a foreign
contract worker in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Sincerely,
The UndersignedC NMI foreign contractw orkers

<center>Wnrrrnx SUTnMENT
OF
THn Fonnrcx Coxrnecr WonxnRs ox'THE
[I. S.C oumoNwEALTHo F THEN onrHnnx MaTANA Islauos
PnTpa,RED FoR THE
snnarn courrrrrrEE oN ENnncy AF{DN arunal Rnsouncrs
RnclnorNc
SnlvarnB u,r, 1634r" THE NonrHnnN MannNa Isranos
Covnxaxr Impln*TENTATToANc Tt'
July l9,2AA7</center>

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. <h2>How will we be able to provide our U.S.

citizen children with education, healthcare and nutrition?</h2>

<h3>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. </h3>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.<h2> The last time

guest workers with no voting privileges or political rights outnumbered the citizens on U.S. soil it was called slavery.</h2>

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics
Marianas governor and Doolittle ally says cooperating in probe

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, July 19, 2007

....The governor of the Northern Mariana Islands said Thursday he's cooperating with the Justice Department's corruption investigation around jailed GOP

lobbyist Jack Abramoff, which is focused in part on GOP Rep. John Doolittle of Rocklin, Calif.....

<h3>....Fitial, who in past years pushed to extend Abramoff's contract to represent the Marianas, did not distance himself from the disgraced lobbyist, or

from Doolittle.</h2>

"When I have a friend that friend always remains a friend," said Fitial, who became House speaker of the Marianas in 2000 after intervention from two aides

to former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. After becoming speaker <h3>Fitial pushed for Abramoff's contract to continue.....</h3>
"Doolittle, he's also a friend," said Fitial.

"I feel the same way," <h3>Doolittle later told reporters on a conference call.

"I have no regrets about trying to help the Marianas in the past. It was right then and it's right now," he said.....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/282501.html
Brighter day for islands bill
<H3>Approval's likely for Marianas plan opposed by Doolittle in 2000.</H3>
By David Whitney - Bee Washington Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, July 20, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4

WASHINGTON -- Benigno Fitial, governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, said Thursday that he still regards jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff

and Rep. John Doolittle as "good friends."

But the hearing at which Fitial had just testified revealed just how much some friendships can cost.

Abramoff's jailed for political corruption, in part because of his dealings while representing the commonwealth. Doolittle, R-Roseville, is under

investigation because of his relationship with Abramoff.

Abramoff's jailed for political corruption, in part because of his dealings while representing the commonwealth. Doolittle, R-Roseville, is under

investigation because of his relationship with Abramoff.

Fitial said he is "cooperating" with prosecutors but would say no more on the advice of his Los Angeles attorney, Thomas Pollack....

.... David Cohen, deputy assistant secretary of the Interior Department for insular affairs, said the commonwealth's lax immigration policies pose a

national security threat to the United States.

Labor abuses on the islands -- dismissed by Republican defenders a decade ago -- are still there, though shrinking with the decline of the garment

industry, Cohen said. Also still around is the trafficking in humans and forced prostitution.

In the past year, Cohen said, 36 female victims of human trafficking were served by a Catholic nonprofit organization. "All of the victims were in the

sex trade," Cohen said. [snip]

"The CNMI's immigration system must be federalized as soon as possible," said the Bush administration official in support of the legislation. [snip]

Doolittle said he had not seen the revived legislation but assumed it was "some punitive bill that takes back their right to control immigration."

<h2>"It's the only territory that is free-enterprise oriented," Doolittle said. "It's a shame to hurt them rather than help them."</h2> [snip]

"A number of foreign nationals have come to the federal ombudsman's office complaining that they were promised a job after paying a recruiter thousands

of dollars to come there, only to find, upon arrival in the CNMI, that there were was no job," Cohen said. "Secretary Kempthorne met personally with a young

lady from China who was the victim of such a scam, and who was pressured to become a prostitute."

These charges were common during Abramoff's heyday, too, but were dismissed, along with the reform legislation.

At a 1999 House hearing, Doolittle said that any abuses were the result of the failure of the U.S. government to enforce its laws there. But Cohen said

the problem is that the commonwealth controls its own borders, and the sieve-like texture of its enforcement is a threat to the security of mainland America.
.......

<h3>The corrupt CNMI officials who Abramoff and Doolittle shilled for, have hired former National spokesman for the Bush-Cheney 2004 Campaign, Terry Holt and

former Deputy White House Press Secretary, Trent Duffy:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.mvariety.com/frontpage/front02.htm
http://www.saipantribune.com/newssto...1&newsID=70546
Friday, July 20, 2007

Gov’t hires PR firm in Washington

By Gemma Q. Casas
Variety News Staff

THE cash-strapped government has hired a major public relations firm in Washington, D.C. to help beef up the efforts of its lobby firm in opposing the

passage of S. 1634, the CNMI immigration federalization bill.
Press Secretary Charles P. Reyes Jr. said Holt Strategies and its partner, Duffy PR Strategies, are now the commonwealth’s media agent and public relations

counsel in the nation’s capital.
Reyes said the firms will be retained for an unspecified period of time and will be paid about the same fee — $15,000 a month plus extras — that the CNMI

government is paying its “consultant” Oldaker, Biden & Belair LLP.
He said Gov. Benigno R. Fitial who is in Washington, D.C. to testify against S. 1634 decided to hire a public relations firm to assist the commonwealth in

building up its image as an economically struggling U.S. commonwealth with a rich historical past.
“We need a professional and reliable firm to tell our story,” Reyes told Variety in an interview yesterday at his office.
Holt’s major clients include the U.S. retail supermarket giant Wal-Mart and Earthlink, an Internet service provider.
Holt Strategies and Duffy Public Relations collaborate on projects, providing media relations, media training and strategic communication services to

corporate and associate clients.
Reyes said the fees for its PR firm and lobbyist will cost the cash-strapped government much needed resources but “in this case, we believe it’s a

necessity.”
Terry Holt of Holt Strategies issued a statement saying their firm is pleased to represent the commonwealth.
“The CNMI can be an American success. They are struggling to rebuild their economy and have initiated reforms to put immigration and labor problems in the

past,” said Trent Duffy of Duffy PR Strategies.
Duffy said they will rebuild the commonwealth’s image.
“Too often, the only time policymakers have heard about the CNMI, it’s been in the context of the Jack Abramoff story. It is time to move on,” said Duffy.
The administrations of Govs. Froilan C. Tenorio and Pedro P. Tenorio hired the now disgraced lobbyist Abramoff to block federalization measures in Congress.
“Northern Mariana Islanders are American citizens and we share an important history, forged stated battle for the Pacific in World War II. And their place on

the map makes them a significant national security asset. It’s time people hear about some of these facts too,” Duffy said.

...and, if you do "get it"....if you really believe that Cindy Sheehan <b>"dishonor[ed] her son in the most tragic of ways"</b>, merely by publicly questioning Mr. Bush and by protesting near his vacation home, why does it not follow, that by turning Saipan into a place where foreign workers are trapped, exploited, and permanently kept as an underclass with no representation and no chance for citizenship, in exchange for "lobbying fees", even though the exploited were admitted to a US territory legally, and by violating our rights to privacy, to habeas corpus protections, and by shitting on our constitution, on our DOJ, and on our congressional leaders as they carry out their constitutionally mandated duties of inquiry and checks and balances, shouldn't it follow that you're supporting officials and a political party that have done the same thing to all US military war dead, that you've accused Ms. Sheehan of doing to her son?

tecoyah · 07-21-2007, 04:00 AM

It would seem that there are still some individuals willing to support virtually all actions this administration takes, regardless of the damage evident to the way our country has functioned historically. That these people also call themselves "Conservative" has become something of a joke, as supporting such drastic change in our way of life is the opposite of conservative values.
America as we know it is based on a check and balance system which is currently under assault at the highest possible level, yet those who in the past championed the laws of the land now turn a blind eye to those bypassing the very laws that make the United States what it is.

To me at least....this is the definition of "Un-American", and by defending the corruption of our constitution they are little more than traitors to the place we call home.

Hows that for a back in your face.

seretogis · 07-21-2007, 06:47 AM

This is indeed a disgusting manipulation of our system and blatant abuse of power.

But, guess what? The Democrats will do nothing about it, because they want to retain the option to abuse the same power in 2008-2012.

Deltona Couple · 07-23-2007, 03:49 AM

I am curious, since I have yet to hear or read anyone else posting this thought, but who here sees in our near future Bush stating that it is not in our contries best interest to change administration durring this "time of terror" and write an executive order postponing the election until "the conflict with the terrorists" is over? I wouldnt be a bit supprised. And I hate to say it NOW after all the latest trouble, but I actually VOTED for this guy....wow....

pan6467 · 07-23-2007, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am curious, since I have yet to hear or read anyone else posting this thought, but who here sees in our near future Bush stating that it is not in our contries best interest to change administration durring this "time of terror" and write an executive order postponing the election until "the conflict with the terrorists" is over? I wouldnt be a bit supprised. And I hate to say it NOW after all the latest trouble, but I actually VOTED for this guy....wow....

I have been saying that for 4 years and nobody on this board took me seriously..... right and left both told me I was nuts and that it would never ever happen.

It's highly possible. My fear is though, with all this news about his colon, something is going to happen on the operating table and leave Cheney in charge.

Sets up the power grab much nicer and neater. President is incapacitated, he takes control and he (Cheney) already has stated he isn't answerable to anyone.

I pray I'm off my rocker..... we'll see.

guyy · 07-23-2007, 08:01 AM

I have to admit that at this point, i'm not that worried about a Bush dictatorship. For one, they did not suspend the 2004 election. (But who knows, what with rumours of Diebold leaving the voting machine business, maybe they have more incentive to use a state of emergency now.)

Second, what would be their incentive to take such a risk? Why not go the usual way (lobbying, Bush/E. Establishment connections, Rovework) and get Jeb (or Neil!) installed in office? Even without a friend in the White House, they could still advance their agenda easily enough.

On top of that, that giant sucking sound you hear is the Cheney/Bush power base swirling down the toliet. They barely had the power to hold on to/consolidate what they stole in the 2000 Florida putsch. Now that Main Street is pissed off at them, too, there's just too much room for their political enemies to outmaneuver them.

Finally, do they have the support in the military to pull off a coupe d'etat? If you're talking about the regular army, i'd say no. However, with the privatisation of the US military under Rumsfeld/Cheney, one has to consider Halliburton, Wackenhut, et. al. Would you want to rely on the loyalty of mercenaries?

In sum, the payoff of trying to install themselves as dictators would not offset the probability of them ending up in Gitmo.

roachboy · 07-23-2007, 08:54 AM

the claims concerning executive privelege are obviously feints in a political game being played with congress. it is in the context of this game that the administration's carlschmitt legal philosophy still twitches about, not quite dead simply because it is in this context that the giant sucking sound that guyy alludes to above has no real consequence....

but i cant imagine why this move would be abstracted from its context and set up as some kind of definitive statement concerning where the bush people actually are politically in any wider sense. what i can see as potentially problematic is the possibility that there'd be another "terrorist attack" right about now...but this would put the bush people on the par with the fln in algeria a decade or so ago, which would stage massacres in order to pin them on the islamic salvation front (fis)...which is of course the Problem that the bush people's absolute incompetence has created for them...even if they were in fact committed to running the schmitt philosophy to its logical conclusion and wanted to use a new and improved "state of exception" to install themselves as Leader, as Decider, their political credibility is so shot in the country as a whole--not to mention internationally--that i dont think they could pull it off.

on the other hand, it seems sometimes that folk are so committed to forgetting that their everyday lives unfold within a political context that maybe they could pull off such a move--even if it would require an Occasion of pretty huge proportions. folk seem to prefer to pretend that the debacle in washington is background noise floating about a surface that in all other ways is normal. were this state of affairs otherwise, the "political problems" the bush people have created for all of us would be a political crisis. but it isnt--not really--because we--all of us--do not seem to be able to quite cope with what that would entail. it is easy peasy to allow yourself to be sucked into the stream of immediate events and tasks and loose yourself there. the political world is very big, beyond your control, while your living room and the tv at its center is small and you can control the living room by playing with decor and reality by turning off the tv set.

so sometimes it seems like we are practicing for that eventuality, getting used to it, adjusting the degrees of avoidance that would be required to move from being able to pretend that everything is normal now to the more athletic types of evasion that would be required to continue pretending everything is normal under an extreme rightwing dictatorship.

but that we the people would in all probability just hide in our domestic routines were this to happen and do nothing does not mean that the bush people are in a position to walk into that possibility. IF things move in a straight line from where they are now, there is no chance that it'll happen. they really do need another "terrorist" attack.
at that point, the carpet would meet the linoleum.

smicer · 07-23-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

This is indeed a disgusting manipulation of our system and blatant abuse of power.

But, guess what? The Democrats will do nothing about it, because they want to retain the option to abuse the same power in 2008-2012.

Exactly, all the armchair politicians, and every other internet whiner will do absolutley nothing about it but write up these types of posts.

pan6467 · 07-24-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smicer

Exactly, all the armchair politicians, and every other internet whiner will do absolutley nothing about it but write up these types of posts.

And if Bush does use this noone will do anything but complain on here. I agree with you. On here, they can impress people but in real life they do nothing but complain and let the aggravation build up and since that is negative energy, it just feeds more into the beast we are creating.

If everyone just did something positive to help change, no matter how small, and believed they were doing all that they feasibly and realistically could and believed that, that little bit of positive energy helped keep the ripple alive..... the positive energy in this world would be overwhelming.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 08:20 AM

Pan...with all respect to you and smicer....you have no idea what I or others do in our real life to express our outrage and concern with the the abuses of the WH, their disdain for the Constitution and other acts that are counter to what this country stands for.

What have either of you done in your real life?

shakran · 07-24-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am curious, since I have yet to hear or read anyone else posting this thought, but who here sees in our near future Bush stating that it is not in our contries best interest to change administration durring this "time of terror" and write an executive order postponing the election until "the conflict with the terrorists" is over? I wouldnt be a bit supprised. And I hate to say it NOW after all the latest trouble, but I actually VOTED for this guy....wow....

I dunno. . . A year ago I'd have been with you on that, but now I think he wants to get out of office and hide in a hole somewhere. He's a laughingstock the world over and he knows it. Why would he want to stay in office with that over his head?

Deltona Couple · 07-24-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

On top of that, that giant sucking sound you hear is the Cheney/Bush power base swirling down the toliet. They barely had the power to hold on to/consolidate what they stole in the 2000 Florida putsch. Now that Main Street is pissed off at them, too, there's just too much room for their political enemies to outmaneuver them.

I am not sure where you live. But I DO live in Florida, and was here durring that election. I do not see it as being stollen. There was ALOT of accusations made about what happened here, so they had to scrutinize ALOT of what was done. What I find the funniest is that if you lok back at the results, and what EACH of the politicians wanted done as far as the Florida votes; If we did what BUSH wanted, then Gore would have won the election. Instead, the votes and processes used were closer to what GORE actually wanted, so Bush won. Personally I find some SERIOUSLY ironic humour in that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

In sum, the payoff of trying to install themselves as dictators would not offset the probability of them ending up in Gitmo.

Since when has the risk of imprisonment or overthrow ever stopped leaders of other countries in the history of the world from doing the same thing? Just because it would be political suicide, doesn't mean that the attempt won't be made. I personally have come to the conclusion, and I am not saying this as a "he is just plain nuts" kind of way. But I honestly do feel that Bush has possibly developed some SERIOUS mental stability problems. I have watched many of his news conferences, and You can see some big changes in his demeanor and facial expressions. I truely think he may be losing it.

pan6467 · 07-24-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Pan...with all respect to you and smicer....you have no idea what I or others do in our real life to express our outrage and concern with the the abuses of the WH, their disdain for the Constitution and other acts that are counter to what this country stands for.

What have either of you done in your real life?

I've mentioned what I have done, I have written letters to the editor and my congressmen, I have talked personally to governmental representatives, I have friends who are active and I help them out, I am active to some degree in my local party.

I have been asking for a year what people on here do besides post and I hear crickets, I think Host was the only one who has ever answered.

So tell us what do you do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I dunno. . . A year ago I'd have been with you on that, but now I think he wants to get out of office and hide in a hole somewhere. He's a laughingstock the world over and he knows it. Why would he want to stay in office with that over his head?

I still think it's not so much Bush we should be worried about, I think it'll be Cheney.

Just a hypothetical and a what if..... what if Bush dies or is "incapacitated" and Cheney takes over. Then puts this in effect with Bush I and Clinton (possibly some presidential candidates from BOTH sides) standing behind him showing support and saying it is needed for the time being? What if with the latter, some respected Congress officials of both sides stand behind and show support also?

Could really get messy. Hypothetically.

host · 07-24-2007, 11:12 AM

The precedent is clear...and no matter what they whip up as a catalyst or as an excuse, to attempt to justify an extension of their time "in office"....stopping them from extending their time in office would be a cause worth the risk of one's life or limb...

Quote:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/writer/1864.htm
Lincoln on the 1864 Presidential Election

Response to a Serenade

November 10, 1864

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.

pan6467 · 07-24-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The precedent is clear...and no matter what they whip up as a catalyst or as an excuse, to attempt to justify an extension of their time "in office"....stopping them from extending their time in office would be a cause worth the risk of one's life or limb...

Yes, it would be Host.

But let me ask you in all seriousness, and anyone here:

If this were to happen and the press told this nation of followers and we saw on boards like this lots of talk but no true organized revolt and any revolts we did hear about were crushed before they truly started. Would you still risk everything and run the risk of getting imprisoned and losing everything or would you wait hoping for people to organize and revolt?

Remember what happened in Seattle a few years ago, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and so on and so on...... the police, the FBI, the ATF, the military have all been taught to not question orders and the promise of money and power to the right people, I fear could easily make this a police state.

Hopefully, we will never have to find out.

dc_dux · 07-24-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I've mentioned what I have done, I have written letters to the editor and my congressmen, I have talked personally to governmental representatives, I have friends who are active and I help them out, I am active to some degree in my local party.

I have been asking for a year what people on here do besides post and I hear crickets, I think Host was the only one who has ever answered.

So tell us what do you do?

Pan....I've been doing all those things for six years. I also attend town meetings of my congresswoman (even though she has no vote) and town meetings of several Congressman in N. Virginia (both Dem and Repub) where I try to ask hard questions and pin them down on their votes on various issues.

I volunteered for Jim Webb's (hardly a flaming liberal) successful campaign for Senate in Virginia against that asshole George Allen.....since I have no Senator of my own to hold accountable.

I have participated and spoken at several anti-war events in DC, other than those sponsored by ANSWER, who are too radical for me.

and most fun of all, I have participated in and spoken at Billionnaires for Bush events....highlighting the corrupt corporate influence in the Bush administration.

In case anyone is confused by Billionaires for Bush....B4B is "a grassroots media campaign using humor, street theater and press conferences to expose politicians who support corporate interests at the expense of everyday Americans."
.....
ps....as bad as things are with the WH contempt for the Constitution and the separation of powers, I am still not losing any sleep over the possibility that Bush/Cheney will somehow still be in the WH on Jan 21, 2009. There is just no plausible scenario under which that would or could happen.

guyy · 07-24-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so sometimes it seems like we are practicing for that eventuality, getting used to it, adjusting the degrees of avoidance that would be required to move from being able to pretend that everything is normal now to the more athletic types of evasion that would be required to continue pretending everything is normal under an extreme rightwing dictatorship.

This brings up the epistemological question of whether we would even know that we are living under a dictatorship. If it is true that we are so far from the political, I doubt that we'd even notice until it was over.

Then again, in a depoliticised environment, a dictatorship might not be necessary. There'd be no effective resistance anyway. I think that describes the situation we are in now. It may even be worse than a dictatorship.

07-20-2007, 02:57 PM	#5 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Hail!!!! Dictator George!!!!! You have my utmost allegiance, cant wait till dissenters are taken into the woods and shot. Off with their heads all of em!!! __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

07-20-2007, 10:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	mike.....do you really want Bush's extremist interpretation of the separation of powers (and baseless according to some conservative Constitutional scholars) to serve as a precedent for Pres Hillary? .....or the next time the Republicans have a majority in Congress? Do you really not see the danger of a President defining the scope and limits of his/her own power and rebuffing both Congress and the Courts? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-20-2007 at 10:23 PM..

07-20-2007, 10:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Just my weird paranoidal thoughts..... Bush is going into surgery soon (colon work) and what happens if he were to.... say die... on the table? (If he's out properly he can't say die.... shut up you..... sorry the voices in my head were talking.) Anyway, woul;d he all of a sudden find some weird fame and support and would Cheney use the orders Bush signed to take control???? (Confused.... you won't be after this week's Soap episode...... I told you to shut up......asshole.... mam's boy....) Have to instill humor these days, people are getting way too serious and life is way too short. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-21-2007, 06:47 AM	#10 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	This is indeed a disgusting manipulation of our system and blatant abuse of power. But, guess what? The Democrats will do nothing about it, because they want to retain the option to abuse the same power in 2008-2012. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-23-2007, 03:49 AM	#11 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I am curious, since I have yet to hear or read anyone else posting this thought, but who here sees in our near future Bush stating that it is not in our contries best interest to change administration durring this "time of terror" and write an executive order postponing the election until "the conflict with the terrorists" is over? I wouldnt be a bit supprised. And I hate to say it NOW after all the latest trouble, but I actually VOTED for this guy....wow.... __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

07-21-2007, 04:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It would seem that there are still some individuals willing to support virtually all actions this administration takes, regardless of the damage evident to the way our country has functioned historically. That these people also call themselves "Conservative" has become something of a joke, as supporting such drastic change in our way of life is the opposite of conservative values. America as we know it is based on a check and balance system which is currently under assault at the highest possible level, yet those who in the past championed the laws of the land now turn a blind eye to those bypassing the very laws that make the United States what it is. To me at least....this is the definition of "Un-American", and by defending the corruption of our constitution they are little more than traitors to the place we call home. Hows that for a back in your face.

07-23-2007, 08:01 AM	#13 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I have to admit that at this point, i'm not that worried about a Bush dictatorship. For one, they did not suspend the 2004 election. (But who knows, what with rumours of Diebold leaving the voting machine business, maybe they have more incentive to use a state of emergency now.) Second, what would be their incentive to take such a risk? Why not go the usual way (lobbying, Bush/E. Establishment connections, Rovework) and get Jeb (or Neil!) installed in office? Even without a friend in the White House, they could still advance their agenda easily enough. On top of that, that giant sucking sound you hear is the Cheney/Bush power base swirling down the toliet. They barely had the power to hold on to/consolidate what they stole in the 2000 Florida putsch. Now that Main Street is pissed off at them, too, there's just too much room for their political enemies to outmaneuver them. Finally, do they have the support in the military to pull off a coupe d'etat? If you're talking about the regular army, i'd say no. However, with the privatisation of the US military under Rumsfeld/Cheney, one has to consider Halliburton, Wackenhut, et. al. Would you want to rely on the loyalty of mercenaries? In sum, the payoff of trying to install themselves as dictators would not offset the probability of them ending up in Gitmo.

07-23-2007, 08:54 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the claims concerning executive privelege are obviously feints in a political game being played with congress. it is in the context of this game that the administration's carlschmitt legal philosophy still twitches about, not quite dead simply because it is in this context that the giant sucking sound that guyy alludes to above has no real consequence.... but i cant imagine why this move would be abstracted from its context and set up as some kind of definitive statement concerning where the bush people actually are politically in any wider sense. what i can see as potentially problematic is the possibility that there'd be another "terrorist attack" right about now...but this would put the bush people on the par with the fln in algeria a decade or so ago, which would stage massacres in order to pin them on the islamic salvation front (fis)...which is of course the Problem that the bush people's absolute incompetence has created for them...even if they were in fact committed to running the schmitt philosophy to its logical conclusion and wanted to use a new and improved "state of exception" to install themselves as Leader, as Decider, their political credibility is so shot in the country as a whole--not to mention internationally--that i dont think they could pull it off. on the other hand, it seems sometimes that folk are so committed to forgetting that their everyday lives unfold within a political context that maybe they could pull off such a move--even if it would require an Occasion of pretty huge proportions. folk seem to prefer to pretend that the debacle in washington is background noise floating about a surface that in all other ways is normal. were this state of affairs otherwise, the "political problems" the bush people have created for all of us would be a political crisis. but it isnt--not really--because we--all of us--do not seem to be able to quite cope with what that would entail. it is easy peasy to allow yourself to be sucked into the stream of immediate events and tasks and loose yourself there. the political world is very big, beyond your control, while your living room and the tv at its center is small and you can control the living room by playing with decor and reality by turning off the tv set. so sometimes it seems like we are practicing for that eventuality, getting used to it, adjusting the degrees of avoidance that would be required to move from being able to pretend that everything is normal now to the more athletic types of evasion that would be required to continue pretending everything is normal under an extreme rightwing dictatorship. but that we the people would in all probability just hide in our domestic routines were this to happen and do nothing does not mean that the bush people are in a position to walk into that possibility. IF things move in a straight line from where they are now, there is no chance that it'll happen. they really do need another "terrorist" attack. at that point, the carpet would meet the linoleum. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-24-2007, 08:20 AM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Pan...with all respect to you and smicer....you have no idea what I or others do in our real life to express our outrage and concern with the the abuses of the WH, their disdain for the Constitution and other acts that are counter to what this country stands for. What have either of you done in your real life? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-24-2007 at 08:24 AM..