ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Saipan Worker Exposes DeLay’s Lies

At the behest of lobbyist Jack Ambramoff, Tom DeLay has worked to protect special labor laws for Saipan. For years DeLay has “fought against imposing immigration restrictions and the federal minimum wage on Saipan, part of a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean.”

Last month in the Galveston County Daily News, DeLay denied reports that workers were being abused:

“Incredible lies” was the way House Majority Leader Tom DeLay described charges that some foreign workers on Saipan labored in sweatshops in the 1990s while others were forced into sex slavery.

Carmencita Abad, a woman who worked in Saipan for six years, says it’s DeLay who has it wrong. In a telephone interview Abad said:

My answer is, Mr. DeLay, I am that person. I am an example of an individual who can prove that the accounts of sweatshop labor and forced prostitution are not just allegations but true accounts of working conditions in the Marianas Islands when Mr. DeLay traveled there and turned a blind eye to our misery.

DeLay’s denials are also contradicted by “two federal agencies and by congressmen from both parties that the charges were true.” Abad detailed that horrendous treatment of women on the islands:

Women were fired for being pregnant. And to keep her job, any pregnant woman would either go to an illegal abortionist or try to induce miscarriage by drinking herbal potions or falling down on purpose. Women who are fired from work have no way to support themselves aside from the sex trade. There’s no way to feed yourself aside from that.

As these abuses occurred, Jack Abramoff was paid $4.5 million to represent corporations who did business on the island. His job was to do whatever it took to convince politicians like Tom DeLay to keep things exactly the same. And unfortunately for Carmencita Abad and others like her, he succeeded.

Politics

How Janice Rogers Brown Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Great Depression

Lochner v. New York stands with Dred Scott v. Sandford as one of the most reviled Supreme Court decisions in the nation’s history. Liberals and conservatives alike have denounced it. Robert Bork called it an abomination. FDR accused the Lochner Court of mak[ing] our democracy impotent.

So what was this case that is too radical even for the likes of Judge Bork? Lochner held that laws such as minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws, as well as laws regarding peaceful labor activities and collective bargaining, were unconstitutional for violating the so-called “freedom to contract.”. President Roosevelt blamed Lochner as one of the causes of the Great Depression, and he chastised the Court for striking down laws designed to jump-start the economy out of the Great Depression.

In a speech to the right-wing Federalist Society, Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, praised Lochner as consistent with her radical view of the Constitution:

In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the “constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.” Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. That Lochner dissent has troubled me — has annoyed me — for a long time and finally I understand why. It’s because the framers did draft the Constitution with a surrounding sense of a particular polity in mind.

The Senate plans to vote on Justice Brown as early as this week.

– Ian Millhiser

Media

Where’s the Backbone?

Last week, I wrote a piece in the American Prospect about how the recent stories trumpeting Deep Throat/Watergate highlighted the contrast between the muckraking journalism of eras past and today’s sad state of media affairs. Interestingly, I got a number of positive responses from journalists who are equally frustrated by the situation.

Thankfully, I am not the only one who has tried to give voice to this tragedy. Check out Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D) courageous comments in the New York Times today.

Abetting the conservative agenda, Clinton said in some of her sharpest language, is a Washington press corps that has become a pale imitation of the Watergate-era reporters who are being celebrated this month amid the identification of the anonymous Washington Post source, Deep Throat. “The press is missing in action, with all due respect,” she said. “Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren’t they asking the hard questions? It’s shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don’t stand their ground. If they’re criticized by the White House, they just fall apart. I mean, c’mon, toughen up, guys, it’s only our Constitution and country at stake. Let’s get some spine.”

The reason I said those comments are courageous is because there are very few politicians in Washington willing to give voice to the public’s frustration with the media. Conservatives have made an art form out of intimidating the media — and its time for progressives to fight back by demanding the press do its job, instead of serving as a propaganda machine.

Politics

How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying

Two years ago, the FBI knew its $170 million “Virtual Case File” project was in serious trouble. By 2004, officials had discovered an estimated 400 problems with the software, which was intended to coordinate the agency’s anti-terrorism measures.

The seriously botched program was the work of an outside contractor, the Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). The company continuously fought with the FBI over system requirements and changes. And at the end of the day, SAIC pocketed a cool $100 million for creating software that just didn’t work.

So has the White House decided to kick SAIC to the curb?

Nah. The Pentagon just gave SAIC a brand-spanking new, $25.7 million contract to “help the Army integrate virtual combat training systems.”

(This isn’t the first time SAIC has taken U.S. taxpayers for a ride; read ThinkProgress’s “Enough To Make You SAIC” for more examples of botched government contracts as well as the revolving door between SAIC and the Bush White House.)

Media

This One Time at Camp Guantanamo…

The Wall Street Journal Editorial page is completely unimpressed by what it calls the “unhorrifying” recent findings of Koran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, it would seem that we need such measures for our own good:

“Someone in the administration ought to point out that these [special detention or military-justice] measures are designed to prevent the next terror attack — which, if it ever comes, could prompt a bipartisan crackdown on civil liberties that would make Guantanamo look like summer camp.”

Media

Meeting Between Bush and Blair Should Force Question on Downing Street Memo

Having already missed a couple of opportunities to ask President Bush about the Downing Street Memo, the media must use the “meeting and working dinner” between Blair and Bush this Tuesday to question Bush about the memo. It will be the first public appearance between the two leaders since the minutes taken of a July 2002 meeting between Blair and his high-level staff were revealed, in which British officials said the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around [Bush's] policy” of attacking Iraq. Recall that Blair’s government has already said it does not dispute the claims of the memo. The White House has so far slyly-avoided responding to the memo directly.

In a preview of the talking points we might expect from Bush once he’s asked the question, Ken Mehlman this weekend told Tim Russert, “I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed have been totally discredited by everyone who’s looked at it.” Mehlman cited the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee as backing for his claim.

As previously reported on this blog , the Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to undertake its review of whether Bush officials knowingly manipulated their public statements about the threat of Iraq.

As for the 9-11 Commission, it was never charged with investigating the Iraq pre-war intelligence claims made by the Bush Administration. Responding to questions about the commission’s mandate, the vice chairman of the commission, Lee Hamilton, said:

“I really do not see how you can reasonably read that statute and the legislative history that preceded it and say that the commission should be looking at the war in Iraq. We were to focus our attention on 9/11 and those events, and not the war on Iraq.”

Contrary to Mehlman’s claims, the revelations in the Downing Street Memo have not been discredited. It’s not enough for President Bush to dispute the veracity of the report by suggesting that others have disputed it. We need to know whether he himself disputes the claim that his comments on the intelligence about Iraq were knowingly hyped prior to the war in order to justify an attack. He knows better than anyone else, and he should answer it for himself.

Security

Bolton Ousts Director to Push War With Iraq

Revelations about John Bolton’s unlawful orchestration of the firing of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, are not entirely new. In fact, the firing of Bustani caught the attention of many individuals who had become wary that the Bush administration was intent on military action against Iraq. In an April 16, 2002, column published by the British newspaper the Guardian, George Monbiot asserted:

On Monday, the U.S. government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These recent attempts to undermine international treaties are being pursued with an eye to the impending war with Iraq. The U.S. justification for war is that Saddam Hussein may possess weapons of mass destruction. So the two foremost obstacles to war were Blix and Bustani, who have proposed nonviolent methods of getting rid of these weapons.

The ousting of Bustani was typical of the smoke and mirror games that the administration played during the run-up to the Iraq war: present a false claim and push ahead before anyone can ask questions. One of the principal justifications for getting rid of Bustani was that the organization had hit financial problems under his reign. However, according to Bustani, “the organization had hit financial problems because its three biggest funders — the US, Germany, and Japan — failed to make their payments on time.” [Press Association, 5/14/02]

As if the treatment of Bustani wasn’t enough, the further emasculation of the entire Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was equally as shameful. According to the 7/1/02 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The U.S. ambassador to the OPCW told the staff it would be difficult to find a replacement for Bustani, because no one wants ‘to be associated with a dying organization.’ After remarking that the United States also wanted no more Latin American directors because of their ‘sheer incompetence,’ the ambassador then added, ‘If any of this gets out of this room, I’ll kill the person responsible.‘”

Politics

Don’t Spray Urine on My Koran And Call it Rain

On May 17, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita told the public “we’ve not seen specific, credible allegations” of Koran mistreatment by U.S. guards or interrogators. Seventeen days later, the Pentagon acknowledged “that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy.” That information was released at 7:15 PM on Friday night, after the evening newscasts, the best time to bury a story. But the specifics of the latest administration deception obscures the larger point: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically authorized religious degradation as an interrogation tactic. That ill-conceived policy has endangered the lives of U.S. soldiers and impeded the progress of peace and democracy in the Middle East.

The White House described the Koran mishandling as “a few isolated incidents by a few individuals.” But religious degradation was an interrogation tactic approved at the highest levels. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld “authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair, and removal of clothing.” These tactics were “designed to offend Muslims.” An investigation of Guantanamo Bay by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, “found cases in which a female interrogator ‘touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees’ religious beliefs.’”

More coming up soon in today’s Progress Report. You can sign up to get the Progress Report every morning via email here.

Politics

David Horowitz Thinks You’re Stupid

Frontpagemag.com, the publication of right-wing activist David Horowitz, has this to say about ThinkProgress.org readers:

Podesta and Think Progress here have an advantage: half the people in America have an I.Q. of 100 or less, and this half tends to vote for Democrats. The Think Progress constituency is easy to fool precisely because it does little thinking and is easily misled by pseudo-intellectual card tricks…

Frontpagemag.org doesn’t like ThinkProgress.org itself much either:

Its unspoken motto seems to be that an ounce of wit or sarcasm is worth of pound of actual facts or intelligence, today’s liberals and leftists often being too dense or hysterically obsessed to notice the difference.

Horowitz et. al particularly dislike this post about Rick Santorum.

It’s good to know we’re getting under their skin a little bit.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up