Author: Duke1676

As we approach this year’s election cycle, progressives are optimistic for success. With the Abramoff and Plame investigations, Katrina, Delay, Frist, Iraq, domestic spying, torture, rendition and a myriad of other failures, crimes and lies tainting Republicans, many believe victory is assured for Democrats. Yet while all the stars seem to be in alignment for a tectonic shift, we must remember how effective the Republicans were at framing the debate in the 2004 election cycle.  Although the reasons for Bush’s re-election could be argued ad infinitum, it’s safe to say that the opposition was blindsided by a successful Republican campaign to continually re-frame the debate and shift focus away from Administration failures to oversimplified wedge issues and character attacks. This is evidenced by the ineffective response to “values” issues such as “gay marriage” and the swift boating campaign waged against Kerry. For over a year, many on the left have been warning that the issue of illegal immigration could become the next Republican distractive wedge to shift the debate. It appears now that they will be proven right.
In response to the current revelations of failure and corruption the Republicans have been busy formulating their next electoral diversion …. or should I say …  11 million electoral diversions. Even a cursory examination of recent Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislative proposals on both the national and local levels reveals a growing campaign to shift the focus of the upcoming elections away from the real issues at hand to a xenophobic/racist referendum on the 11 million illegal immigrants living and working in this country today.

ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL

HR 698“Citizenship Reform Act of 2005” Sponsored by Deal (R-GA)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizenship Reform Act of 2005′.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.

SEC. 3. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CHILDREN OF NON-CITIZEN, NON-PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.

(a) In General- Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

`(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United States shall be considered as `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if–

`(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or

`(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.

For purposes of this subsection, a child is considered to be `born in wedlock’ only if both parents are married to each other and parents are not considered to be married if such marriage is only a common law marriage.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 301 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended by inserting `(as defined in section 101(d))’ after `subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

1.The bill is obviously unconstitutional under the 14th amendment and would not hold up to review by the courts but that appears to be of little consequence as it’s real purpose is to allow Republicans to claim they are taking a tough stand on illegal immigration.  

2.Also of note is Sec 3, (2) that states that a child would be considered a citizen when born “out of wedlock” only in the case when the mother is a citizen or legal resident. If a male citizen was to father a child “out of wedlock” with a non-citizen woman that child would not be considered a citizen under this bill. (Is this provision to protect unsuspecting males from being “entrapped” by wilely illegal immigrants into fathering unwanted “anchor babies”?)

In Wahington Republicans Propose Constitutional Changes

Republican wants to change Census count

A Republican lawmaker on Tuesday proposed changing the U.S. Constitution to exclude non-citizens from the Census for the purpose of drawing congressional districts, a move that effectively would deny them a voice in U.S. politics.

Under the present system, as determined by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, the Census Bureau counts all individuals living in the country once every 10 years. This data is used when drawing up the 435 congressional districts and when determining each state’s vote in the Electoral College that decides presidential elections.

Michigan Rep. Candice Miller wants to change that so that both legal and illegal aliens would be excluded.

-snip-

Miller’s proposal comes amid a growing tide of anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly among Republicans in the House of Representatives. Several proposals are under consideration to toughen border controls and make it more difficult for employers to give jobs to illegal aliens.

-snip-

According to Clark Bensen of Polidata, a Virginia firm which analyses demographic information, excluding non-citizens would have boosted President George W. Bush’s margin of victory in the Electoral College from 4 to 12 votes in the disputed 2000 election and from 34 to 42 in 2004.

Miller’s proposal ran into fierce resistance from Democrats and Hispanic leaders as well as from a former head of the Census Bureau who said it would politicize the count, diminish public confidence in the census and make it more inaccurate.

“The Census Bureau cannot become a quasi-investigatory agency and still perform its basic responsibilities as a statistical agency,” said Kenneth Prewitt who headed the agency from 1998 to 2000 and oversaw the last national census.

“Lawful members of our society who pay income, property and sales taxes as well as for your and my Social Security, will ask why they are being denied the earliest and most basic right of our democracy — political representation,” Prewitt said.

The chances of the Republicans re-writing the Constitution are slim to say the least, but the mere fact that they are raising the issue of how representation is calculated is very telling. Their willingness to suggest denying representation to those legally living in this country illustrates either a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, or more likely, a belief on their part that the vast majority of Americans could be whipped into such a frenzy of fear and hate that they would be willing entertain the notion of suspending one of their most basic rights.  

HR 4437/4312 “Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005” Sponsored by Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

The Sensenbrenner bill has now moved over to the Senate for review. This bill has been covered extensively in the liberal press and blogs.

The bill would:

• Increase security forces and surveillance along the border.
• Give the power to immigration officials within 100 miles of the border to expel without a hearing anyone believed to be a recently arrived illegal immigrant.
• Expand mandatory detention to apply to all non-citizens arriving at a port of entry or “along” the border.
• Limit the basic rights of immigrants to judicial review, even by the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus.
• Criminalize all violations of immigration law, even if the violation was unintentional or the result of processing delays
• Give additional powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review, potentially placing many non-citizens in a legal black hole that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.

 Additionally the bill would “broaden the immigrant-smuggling law so that people who assist or shield illegal immigrants would be subject to prosecution. Offenders, who might include priests, nurses or social workers, could face up to five years in prison. The proposal would also allow the authorities to seize some assets of those convicted of such a crime.”

Here is another bill that could not pass the constitutionality test. It raises serious questions in regards to the 5th (due process), 6th (speedy trial) 8th (cruel and unusual punishment) amendments along with the habeas corpus provisions of Article 1sec.9.  

ON THE STATE LEVEL

South Carolina

State Representative John Graham Altman sponsored a bill that would subject illegal immigrants to a mandatory five year prison sentence and the loss of their cash and cars for immigration violations.

Altman of Charleston says the message is South Carolina is not going to be a haven for illegal aliens.

Altman’s legislation is the latest from legislators around the nation who want tougher laws to curb illegal immigration.

Legislators in 21 states this year introduced more than 80 bills targeting illegal immigrants and their access to public services, including education and health care; let local police make immigration arrests or force government service agencies to report illegal immigrants.

In South Carolina alone, legislator’s proposals have included barring illegal immigrants from receiving workers’ compensation benefits and requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote or seeking help from public assistance programs.

Here we have another bill that obviously would not stand up to court review. The property rights guarantees of the 4th  and  5th amendment would prohibit any attempt to confiscate “cash and cars” from illegal immigrants. As with HR 698 this bills purpose is more political than practical and is intended to stir up anti-immigrant sentiments and provided talking points on the campaign trail rather than to actually test Constitutional boundaries or effect immigration restrictions.

Virginia

 

RICHMOND — A new Virginia law that bars illegal aliens from receiving state-funded benefits goes into effect tomorrow.

    The law restricts anybody without a Social Security number from receiving Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, and help from several other state and local programs.

    Supporters say the measure could save the state millions.

    “A lot of us were saying, instead of raising taxes, why don’t we start prioritizing where we’re spending our existing money,” said Delegate David B. Albo, Fairfax Republican, who sponsored the bill. “One of the things we found was the state was not checking for legal presence for Medicaid.”

    Activists who oppose the new law say it duplicates other state and federal statutes that already block illegal aliens from receiving government benefits. For example, federal law prohibits immigrants without green cards or work visas from receiving food stamps and assistance from similar programs.

    They also say the new law might confuse legal immigrants and keep them from applying for benefits to which they are entitled.

Here we have a bill that duplicates existing laws. Its sole purpose is to allow those who support it to enhance their anti-immigrant bona fides.

ON THE LOCAL LEVEL

Manassas’s War on Immigrants

WRITING FOR the Supreme Court, Justice Powell sensibly struck down a singularly ludicrous municipal attempt to define family living arrangements so strictly that it would criminalize a grandmother’s choice to live with her grandson. Now comes the city of Manassas with an equally outrageous zoning ordinance. Under the guise of upholding standards in its pristine neighborhoods, it would outlaw households consisting of a family’s cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. Quite aside from the law’s probable unconstitutionality, it is patently bigoted.

Like other suburban localities in this region, Manassas is undergoing a demographic shift as Hispanic immigrants, legal and undocumented, move into what were once relatively homogenous neighborhoods. Some of the immigrants share housing with their relatives to help out with the rent or mortgage — the sort of arrangement that the late Justice Powell, a proud Virginian, would recognize as part of the striving that constitutes the American dream. Some communities are welcoming, others less so; in Manassas, city officials decided that the best way to deal with the immigrants was to harass them.

In an act of Big Brotherish government intrusion, they changed a zoning law to redefine family units suitable for cohabitation — and to exclude uncles, aunts and others they deem as undesirables. To enforce their decree, Manassas authorities are sending inspectors into selected city households to interrogate hard-working people about the numbers and relationships of the inhabitants.

Ostensibly, the city’s purpose is to address problems of crowding, parking and garbage arising from overlarge households. But don’t be fooled. Large Anglo families whose grown, live-at-home children might all park on the street or overstuff the garbage bins have nothing to fear. Rather, city inspectors charged with enforcing the new law are responding to complaints, and the complaints are almost invariably about Hispanics households — not necessarily ones that are overcrowded. In the law’s conception and enforcement, there is blatant racial skewing. The idea in changing the law’s definition of a family was “to make sure these peripheral people start to be winnowed out,” Brian Smith, the city’s chief building official, told The Post.

All of these proposals seem to have a common thread running through them. They will most likely never pass judicial review yet they provided ammunition for Republicans to use against opponents. Just as the anti-gay campaign of 2004 or the quixotic Teri Schiavo fiasco provided talking points and red herrings to shield the Republicans from critical analysis of their policies, the anti-immigrant rhetoric starting to come out of the right-wing is intended to frame a debate that would not, and should not, exist in American political discourse if it was not for their efforts.

THE PROPAGANDA

One look at the rhetoric coming from the most rabid anti-immigrant Republicans not only shows how ready they are to demonize immigrants, but how far they are willing to go to instill  fear in general electorate. A quick survey of some of the “news headlines” featured on Tom Tancredo and Bay Buchanan’s Team America website gives a good idea as to the level the hate speech can reach in the demonization campaign:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have arrest 582 illegal gang members in July Better immigration law enforcement will help stop terrorism

After numerous instances of ICE not doing their job, they finally show some progress to protect us from illegal immigration.

Illegal aliens decapitate children

Mimi Quezada’s children and their 10-year-old male cousin Alexis Espejo Quezada were found butchered in their Northwest Baltimore apartment May 27, 2004,

Illegal aliens gaining access to weapons-of-mass-destruction facility

It has now been almost four years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But because the Bush administration has not made a priority of securing our border and enforcing the immigration laws within the United States itself, it has also failed in at least one instance to secure a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility on our own soil

More than 50 killed in London terrorist bombing with the numbers rising!

We must make a stand to secure our nation’s borders. Terrorist like those in London can illegally cross our borders by the THOUSANDS every day. We must do something before we have more terrorist attacks on our soil!

Illegal immigrants bringing tuberculosis, our children at risk

There are over one million illegal alien children attend K-12 schools across the United States. They are the sons and daughters of parents who escaped disease testing at our nation’s borders. Anyone of them could be among the 16,000 new cases of TB within our borders. What do all illegal aliens have in common? They do not want to be deported so they avoid checking into health clinics

Drug resistant tuberculosis on the rise due to “foreign born” population

A multidrug-resistant tuberculosis known as MDR-TB is persistent in California, primarily among its “foreign-born” population, and has serious financial implications for the state’s public-health system…

Weak borders vulnerable to nuclear smuggling

The federal government’s efforts to prevent terrorists from smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States are so poorly managed and reliant on ineffective equipment that the nation remains extremely vulnerable to a catastrophic attack, scientists and a government auditor warned a House committee on Tuesday…

When the American public is faced with the prospect of a horde of aliens ready to decapitate their children and spread tuberculosis while armed with weapons of mass destruction it will become the Republicans solemn duty to once again protect us from those who hate us for our freedom.

The time has come for Progressives to wake up and see the gathering storm before it is too late. Once the campaign to “Blame the Wetbacks” for all of America’s ills begins it will be nearly impossible to stop the racist juggernaut. Just as they did in 2004, the right wing will deflect all criticism of their failed policies and blame an easily demonized scapegoat. Last time it was the “gays” and their elitist (effeminate, “Frenchy”) allies who were destroying America, this time around it will be the immigrants who will be in the crosshairs if we don’t stop them before it begins.

Cross-posted at Migra Matters  

Sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)  the ‘Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005″ (H.R. 4437) was passed yesterday in a late-night vote of 239 to 182 with 38 Democrats voting for it.  The bill, which also incorporates the border security legislation approved by the Homeland Security Committee last month in H.R. 4312,  allows for some of the most far-reaching changes in US immigration policy in the past thirty years.

Not only are there many very troubling provisions in this bill, the ability to enforce it in any reasonably equitable way seems to be impossible given the current state of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.

The bill will:

• Increase security forces and surveillance along the border.
• Give the power to immigration officials within 100 miles of the border to expel without a hearing anyone believed to be a recently arrived illegal immigrant.  
• Expand mandatory detention to apply to all non-citizens arriving at a port of entry or “along” the border.
• Limit the basic rights of immigrants to judicial review, even by the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus.
• Criminalize all violations of immigration law, even if the violation was unintentional or the result of processing delays
• Give additional powers to detain non-citizens indefinitely without judicial review, potentially placing many non-citizens in a legal black hole that subjects them to a life sentence after having served a criminal sentence, or, in some cases, without ever having been convicted of a crime.

“Expedited Removal”: Deportation Without a Lawyer, Hearing, Or Court Review
Expedited removal under current immigration laws is applied to non-citizens arriving at airports with apparently improper documents, to un-documented non-citizens arriving by sea, and a few other narrow categories of non-citizens. Basically, if you show up at JFK without paperwork, you are put on the next plane back without having any sort of hearing or review.

H.R. 4312 will expand on the policy of “expedited removal,” and grant powers to even low-level immigration officers to remove individuals anywhere along the border. It would require the border patrol to pick up and deport,  without any administrative hearing, anyone within 100 miles of the border that an agent thinks is an undocumented immigrant who has been present less than 14 days. How the officers are to determine the legal status of the deportees is not addressed in the legislation.  The de facto result of this legislation is that anyone within 100 miles of the border (north or south) who is suspected of being here illegally could by deported without any sort of hearing or reviews.  

Mandatory Detention
Under current law, individuals who arrive without documents, including asylum-seekers, are subject to mandatory detention. Again this applies mainy to those arriving at airports or by sea. 60% of detainees are held in local jails under contract to the federal government, where they are generally not segregated from the criminal population even if they are asylum-seekers and others with no criminal record.

Under this new bill, the mandatory detention policy would be extended to all non-citizens who are detained at any port of entry or anywhere “along” the border for any reason.

“Illegal Presence” and “Aggravated Felonies,”
Section 203 of HR 4437 calls for the creation of a new federal crime of “illegal presence”.  As defined in the bill it includes any violation, even technical, of any immigration law or regulation. Even if the immigrant was to fall “out of status” unintentionally, or do to paperwork delays.  In essence, the bill makes every immigration violation, however minor, into a federal crime. As drafted, the bill also makes the new crime of “illegal presence” an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes. This classification would have the further effect of restricting ordinary undocumented immigrants (including those with pending applications) from many forms of administrative or judicial review. Those convicted of an “aggravated felony” would be subject to indefinite detention and/or expedited removal.

Indefinite Detention
Indefinite detention currently applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. Most often they come from countries without good relations with the United States.

HR 4437 would permit indefinite detention of an increased broad class of non-citizens, including

• those with a contagious disease,
• any non-citizen convicted of an “aggravated felony,” (see above)  
• non-citizens whose release would pose foreign policy problems
• non-citizens charged even with very minor immigration violations who, based on secret evidence, are deemed a national security risk.

The bill also includes provisions to “combat the hiring of illegal workers”
The bill calls for an employment eligibility verification system in which employers will check the Social Security numbers and alien identification numbers provided by employees against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records in order to weed out fraudulent numbers and ensure that their employees are not working in the U.S. illegally. The system is modified from a voluntary pilot program currently in use. The bill also increases civil and criminal penalties for knowingly hiring or employing an illegal worker.

THE FLY IN MR. SENSENBRENNER’S OINTMENT.

The problem with all of HR 4437 (outside of its unconstitutionality, racism, lack of judicial review and basic checks and balances) is that all of these new programs are predicated on the government having a reliable, accurate and easily accessible information management system to ensure that those who don’t “belong” here are kept out, while those who do belong are not penalized.

Currently immigrants can wait for months and sometimes years to have their paperwork handled. Often they will fall “out of status” for long periods of time while they wait for the government to process their paperwork. Work permits expire, TPS status expires, and immigrants must wait for their new cards to be processed.  Under 4437 all of these immigrants would automatically be subject to prosecution.

Then there is the problem of the computer systems and record keeping. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service, a branch of Homeland Security, has come under fire from outside analysts and government auditors for having one of the most ineffective data management systems in the entire government.

Thousands of airline passengers unexpectedly found themselves stranded in line at U.S. border checkpoints in August, after a Department of Homeland Security computer crashed.

The crash shuttered the government’s main immigration database in Virginia, affecting scores of border entry points. The shutdown highlights the computer problems that the Homeland Security Department is grappling with, as it struggles to reshuffle myriad functions once performed by the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Aging, incompatible systems and outdated processes have contributed to a backlog of approximately 1 million people waiting for a decision from the department’s Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau. Computer problems at its Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau caused a snafu in which student visa holders were jailed overnight or barred from entering the United States.

But the problems are not limited to a one time crash

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s systems have come in for particular criticism from outside analysts and government auditors, who say these are simply not up to the task of serving the public, especially when coupled with a continuing reliance on paper forms. In some cases, for instance, information typed into one computer must be manually retyped into a second or third.

“All filings are paper-based, which means that everything you submit has to be keyed into the computer, which of course opens up the additional possibility of error, slows the process down and prevents some processes from being automated,” said Crystal Williams, deputy director for programs at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

-snip-

One problem is that applications for different types of immigration status are saved in separate records. These aren’t interlinked, which means an application for a H1-B visa is not tied to the same person’s application for a green card–causing more paperwork and delays, until the two records can be matched by hand.

Other procedures are equally inefficient. “Heaven forbid if an attorney should change their address,” Williams said. “They have to send a change of address for every separate case they’ve got pending. (Once) I had between 500 and 1,000 cases pending at one time.”

MORE

Combining this ineffectual information system with the new draconian measures proposed in the Sensenbrenner bill is nothing short of an invitation for abuse. Although presented under the guise protecting America from terror, this bill has far more to do with a xenophobic attempt to stop the flow of immigrants from Mexico and points south than protecting the US from radical Islamists.

Any attempt to “fix” the immigration problem through tougher penalties for both immigrants and employers is not a solution given the current state of the immigration bureaucracy and laws. When the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can’t even process the paperwork it has, and guarantee the validity of an immigrants status, how can we even contemplate giving them more power over peoples live and livelihoods.

When this bill now moves on to the Senate we must keep careful watch. This is one of the most disastrous pieces of immigration legislation in years, and if the Republicans can get it through the upper house without major modifications, the results will be significant.

For more on H.R. 4437 see these diaries by:

Arminius

Eternal Hope

Cross-posted at Migra Matters

This week the Congress will take up, the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005” (HR 4437). The bill, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) passed through the Judiciary Committee on Dec. 8th with a party-line vote of 23-to-15.

Containing some of the most sweeping changes to US immigration policy in years, the bill has been opposed by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and numerous other organizations. One of the key provisions of the bill is the creation of a new federal crime of “”illegal presence” which has been broadly defined as “any violation, even technical, of an immigration law or regulation”. As drafted, the bill also classifies this new crime as an “aggravated felony”, a federal crime, for immigration purposes. In essence, the bill makes millions of undocumented immigrants already in this country into felons, leaving them subject to treatment as such.

While there are many who will argue that breaking the immigration laws of this country is a criminal act and those who do so should be treated as such, perhaps we need to examine just who some of these soon to be felons might be.

Back in the mid-eighties I was working as a night manager at a popular club out on Long Island. Along with overseeing the bar, booking bands and running the dining room, one of my duties was to train the new hires. One afternoon when I came in, I was informed that a new busboy would be starting that night and I needed to show him around and see if I could get him up to speed for the upcoming weekend. “Speak English?” I asked, “No, not really,” the owner replied. I told him I’d see what I could do.

From the moment I first saw Raul, I knew there was something different about him. First of all, he was at least ten years older than the average busboys we hired.  In his early thirties, with round, black glasses that look like those of Harry Potter, there was an air of seriousness to the man. As soon as he opened his mouth, it became obvious to me he was different; this was a man with a serious education.

While I spoke in my best restaurant Spanglish, he answered back in a form of Spanish I had heard before, years earlier in Miami. It was a formal, more “polite” style of speaking that flowed eloquently from the tongue and had a near musical cadence to it. It was the language I had heard from the Cuban refugees who had come to this country in the first wave of immigration. It was the language of men of means, from “good” families, who had gone to the best schools and lived the lives of gentry before Fidel and the revolution. As he spoke, it became evident that he was an unusual candidate for the job at hand. As the coversation went on, I became more self conscious of my own limited linguistic skills, suddenly aware of all the crudeness and slang in the Spanish I had picked up in the dishrooms and busrooms of restaurants I had worked in for years.

It turned out that he had been a professor of mathematics at the University of Santiago in Chile prior to coming here to pick up empty beer glasses and sweep up the cigarette butts of spoiled suburban kids with too much money and time on their hands. When Pinochet began to really crack down in the early eighties, one of the first places he unleashed his death squads was the University system, with it’s liberal thought and activism. Raul had tried numerous times to get to the US legally, but at that time getting Visas out of Chile was becoming next to impossible. Finally, as things became more dangerous, he had no choice, he could leave his family behind, sneak into the US and send them money to hopefully join him one day, or he could stay to leave his wife to someday dance the “cueca solo” like so many other Chilean women whose husbands disappeared in the killing fields of Pinochet’s regime.

He quickly learned English and tried to keep his mind active despite the tedium of the job. It wasn’t long before he learned to cook in order to make more money. During the off-hours before the rush he would sometimes read or discuss politics, but more often he would work on long equations, scribbling frantically as his mind raced, jotting down numbers and symbols that to my eye always looked like something from a movie about a mad professor or some other such mathematical wizard.

At one point a fellow manager, who had emigrated from France and knew his way around US immigration laws, and I convinced the owner to try to see if we could “sponsor” Raul and get him on the road to legalization. After months of filling out forms and working through the maze of immigration rules and regulations, we hit a brick wall. In order for Raul to continue in the process, he would need to go back to Chile for a period of time and then could re-enter the US legally. Going back to Chile was out of the question, not only would it put his life in jeopardy, but also the lives of those he had left behind. For now they were better off receiving the “remittances” he sent on a regular basis and praying that some day they could be reunited.

One for the great ironies of this story is that both Raul and I are both “second generation” immigrants. His grandfather had left Italy to make a better life in Chile just about the same time as my grandfather had left Copenhagen. In fact my grandfather first disembarked in the new world not at Ellis Island as so many others did, but instead in Buenos Aries. He thought it would be romantic to engage the life of a gaucho on the pampas. After a few years of backbreaking work, with little to show for it, the romance wore off and he headed for America to ply his given trade as a baker. Often, I would think about how our lives would have been different if our forbearers had made different choices standing on the docks of their respective countries trying to figure out what would be the best decision for their futures.

After a few years, Raul moved on. He went to the hotels and received a formal training in the “culinary arts”. Eventually he managed to bring his wife and children into the country. All along though, he lived in the shadows. No driver’s license, bank account, credit cards, or insurance, all things “we” take for granted.  Always living in fear, fear that he might be discovered, fear that the landlord could at any time kick him out, fear that a boss could just fire him on a whim, fear that he or his children might get sick and he would need to pay “out of pocket”. Most of all he feared getting caught, that one day a letter, a call, or worse an immigration agent, would inform him that his time in the US was going to come to an end.  

Over the years, we stayed in touch. As I moved from one job to the next we would often passed each other, me starting somewhere not long after he had just left and visa versa. Eventually I was lucky enough to opened my own restaurant, and one of my first thoughts was, “I wonder if Raul is looking for work”.

When I called him to see if he wanted to come and work with an old friend, the first thing he told me after saying yes was that now I could actually hire him legally. He had finally gotten his green card. “Congratulations, how’d that happen,” I asked. “I won an immigration lottery” he told me.

An immigration lottery…. think about that for a minute. Every year the immigration service draws a lottery and gives 50,000 immigrants and their families green cards. Not based upon need, talent, merit or circumstances, but based upon pure chance. Every year, perhaps a million people with no other way of achieving legal status put all their hopes and dreams for the future into something as random as a lottery. Imagine having everything in your life coming down to a single lottery number. What kind of job you would have, where you will live, what schools your kids will go to, all decided at random by lottery. I could think of no better metaphor for the dysfunctional nature of US immigration policy if I tried. 

Raul came and worked with me for a couple of years. In that time he waited and studied and on the first day he was eligible he went and took his test to become a US citizen.  He tried to go back to his “real” profession as a college professor, but since it was impossible to get his educational records from Chile, he eventually resigned himself to the fact that he would never be able to ply his true vocation in this country, and opened his own business and became quite successful.

So at this point you might ask, “What’s this all have to do with HR4437?”  Well think about it for a second. Here was a man that clearly deserved the opportunity to come to this country. He was the victim of a brutal regime that existed in large part because of US foreign policy decisions. He had an education and skills that are sorely needed in this country, yet despite all his efforts, this nation would not have him. The only reason he is here today, a citizen, owning his own business and providing jobs for “real” Americans is that he won a lottery. A LOTTERY….if that doesn’t help you understand just how inequitable US immigration policy is than nothing will.  

Today in the US there are anywhere from 7 to 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working in this country. Every one of them has a story, a familiy, a reason for being here, but most of all every one of them has value. The same value my grandfather had when he came, the same value your forbearers had when they came. I think that sometimes in the great debate about immigration and immigration policy that fact is sometimes lost. Although in many ways Raul is exceptional… he is not the exception.

So if this bill passes, and local police departments start turning over “felons” they’ve pulled over for traffic violations, or picked up of some other minor infraction like loitering, remember Raul…and think…under this new law he too would have been nothing more than an “aggravated felon”.

You can help by contacting:

The ACLU
Human Rights Watch
United Farm Workers
Civilrights.org
National Council of La Raza
humanrightsfirst.org

Cross Posted at: Migra Matters

Cross-posted at Political Cortex

Facing mounting opposition to the War at home and  Iraqi requests for a timetable for a draw-down of US forces, Pentagon and Administration officials have begun to float the idea that it might be time to start turning the debacle over to the Iraqis. Lately reports of both US and British troop reductions have appeared in the press. Iraqi President Talabani recently stated that British troops could leave by the end of 2006 and that the Iraqis should be ready to take over in the southern provinces around Basra by that time. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi has echoed the same sentiment in regards to US troops.

It would appear from these reports that the training of Iraqi forces has been far more successful then we had previously believed.

Perhaps, as has been par for the course with this administration, there’s something they have neglected to tell us.  

What could possibly have changed the situation on the ground so drastically?  In one word: Blackwater.

 
With talk of possibly cutting our forces by 50,000 to 60,000 by the end of next year, it’s interesting to note that Blackwater Security is in the mist of a massive recruiting campaign for what they call “a multi-phase, multi-year contract in Iraq”

In its October 2005 e-mail newsletter “Blackwater Tactical Weekly” (archived here), Blackwater listed job opportunities in Iraq for a number of positions ranging from trainers and Coordination Officers who would “serve as the primary liaison between Iraqi officials, Coalition Forces, and US Government officials.” to Project Managers with “15-20 years supervisory operational experience.”

A careful reading of the job descriptions and requirements reveals just how large this program might turn out to be. Blackwater is looking for:

 “highly qualified, subject matter experts for several overseas opportunities. Applicants for the following positions:

• Must be US Citizens
• Have a current security clearance
• Must have extensive experience in high-threat environments in such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan”

VIP Protection Trainers

Blackwater USA is looking for highly qualified, subject matter advisors and trainers to assist in the training of Iraqi security personnel. Individuals will be expected to liaison between Iraqi, Coalition, and US government officials. General Requirements:

• Must have a valid U. S. Passport
• Must be in good health and able to travel overseas
• Former/retired US Department of State diplomatic Security Services; or
• Former/retired US Secret Service or equivalent
• Must have a minimum of three (3) years of working high level, high threat, and overseas protection detail assignments

Training Department Head

Blackwater USA is seeking a highly qualified manager to oversee training being conducted in Iraq. This manager will be responsible for a wide spectrum of financial and logistic reporting as well ensure that the training is being conducted as required by the contract. This position will support a multi-phase, multi-year contract in Iraq. General Requirements:

• Must have a valid U. S. Passport
• Must be in good health and able to travel overseas
• Must have a minimum of three (3) years of working high level, high threat, and overseas protection detail assignments
• Must have experience in leading and managing a training cadre of highly specialized trainers and advisors

Coordination Officer

 The Coordination Officer will serve as the primary liaison between Iraqi officials, Coalition Forces, and US Government officials.  This individual will fill a key position that will be critical to the transition of management of training and camp programs to the Iraqi government. General Requirements:

• Must have a valid U. S. Passport
• Must be in good health and able to travel overseas
• Must have served in a leadership position for five (5) years as member of a military or police special operations · Must have excellent command of the Arabic Language
• Must have at least three years experience of working with both Military and Department of State in special police and protective service operations

Program Manager

An experienced Program Manager to oversee a complex and intensive training contract in Iraq. The Program Manager will be responsible for a large cadre of instructors, Iraqi students, and base support operations.

General Requirements:

• Must have 15-20 years supervisory operational experience and training in Military and/or Police special operations
• Must be in good physical health
• Availability to work overseas for extended periods of time

With extensive backgrounds in both the military and State Dept. required by some of these jobs it appears that Blackwater will be taking on a much more expanded roll in the “transition period”.  To my eye it appears that they will be setting up a quasi, shadow diplomatic corps, along with having a larger military presence in Iraq.  

The outsourcing and privatization of military functions has long been a cornerstone of the Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine. It now appears that they will be taking it one step further. As US troops are marched out the front door of Iraq to quell discontent at home and abroad, our new privately owned army will be sneaking through backdoor.

Update [2005-11-27 18:58:16 by Duke1676]:

This just in:

‘Trophy’ video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers

Daily Telegraph

A “trophy” video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

-snip-

The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on “route Irish”, a road that links the airport to Baghdad.

-snip-

In one of the videoed attacks, a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. In the last clip, a white civilian car is raked with machine gun fire as it approaches an unidentified security company vehicle. Bullets can be seen hitting the vehicle before it comes to a slow stop.

There are no clues as to the shooter but either a Scottish or Irish accent can be heard in at least one of the clips above Elvis Presley’s Mystery Train, the music which accompanies the video.

It looks like some of our worst fears are being confirmed.

( Additional research provided by The IraqFact Working Group:nydem25)

Cross-Posted from Political Cortex

It has become obvious that the opening salvos of the fight we have been waiting for have been fired. Over the last three years a huge on-line community has sprung up in large part as a reaction to the Bush Administrations push to war in Iraq. Although we have had many small victories in our quest to get the truth out to the American people, (the Downing Street Memo and  Jeff Gannon to mention two) I believe now comes the true test of our ability to shape opinion and policy.

As the polls show us, more Americans each day are questioning the validity of the Iraq War and the veracity of the claims made by this administration to justify it. In response to this growing discontent, the administration has launched a counteroffensive of misdirection and misinformation. As usual, their method is to attack the messenger rather than confront the message.  The attack on Rep. Murtha is only the latest example of this tactic.  

The general Republican defense seems to be that even to suggest that the administration might have misled the American people when making the case for war is a bold-faced lie, and making such a false accusation is nothing short treasonous.  We’ve seen the tactic used many times before, from Joe McCarthy to Richard Nixon, but this time there is something new in the equation: us.  

The amount of information and analysis on the subject of pre-war lies that’s been amassed over the last few years by progressive bloggers is mind-boggling.  The problem is that this information has for the most part remained within our own community, rarely making it out into the mainstream of American political debate.  Most of it now has been relegated to the  archives of  blogosphere ether. We need to find a way to share this knowledge with the American people as a whole. I believe it is time for the progressive blogosphere to come together to launch a powerful counteroffensive against the Republican smear campaign.  So here’s my plan…

We begin to speak with one voice.  We put “pie,” policy debates and framing differences behind us, we leave our egos at the door, and start to educate the public. I propose that we organize a campaign to get the truth out.  I’m not totally sure how to do it, and I’m sure others are far more qualified to lead it, but this is how I think it could work:

1. We get as many individual bloggers to agree to be part of the program. . . call it “The Project Truth Network” for argument’s sake.
2.  Through e-mails and blog postings we ask for bloggers who have researched and written on a specific topic in the past (the 16 words,  aluminum tubes,, the Downing Street Memo, etc.)  that demonstrated that the administration lied, to write a simple, short, e-mailable primer on the topic. KISS being the key criteria. No editorializing. . . just the facts. A simply understood recounting of the history.
3. A panel of some sort then goes through the submissions   and one submission is chosen to be put out across the network. The network could become a sort of an interent “AP wire” for the truth about the pre-war period. (it could be hosted at  Political Cortex since they have the capability for editing/ voting with their  “edit queue” system, where the voting and editing would be done by the community at large)
4.  The network is formed through an alliance of  individual blogs ( like Big Brass) that agree to post the story, and community boards that will post it under a communal name ( like ePluibus does)
5. With communication and commitment the amount of blogs that joined the network could be huge. If each blogger contacted those on his/her blogroll and those that link to them and asked them to join the network one story could possibly be published in thousands of blogs. (think of the google possibilities)
6. The story could then be disseminated through e-mail lists to even more people.

As I said, I am not an organizational wizard, but I think the idea has possibilities. Feel free to leave any suggestions, ideas, or feedback in the comments. (Or tell me I’m crazy for even thinking such a scheme could work)

If we could debunk the administration’s lies one by one and put that information out with a unified voice across the broad spectrum of progressive blogs, we could become a mighty weapon in the arsenal of truth

This has been cross-posted on the suggestion of the folks over at  Political Cortex , where the idea has received a positive reception.  If you’re interested in the idea, or just want to leave your two cents, please go over and leave a comment. The sign up is quick and painless so even if your not a member you can start right in without a waiting period. A Proposal for the Progressive Blogosphere

When they married in 1948 my parents like most of their generation, were New Deal Democrats. They were part of what would later be called “The Greatest Generation”, coming of age during the Great Depression and tested by war. Having seen a world with great deprivation and danger, they had a near religious belief in the power of Government to do great good. Their faith was well founded. They had seen first hand a Government that had literally fed the starving, brought light into darkness, educated the ignorant, gave power to the powerless, and defeated unimaginable evil. After a few years, the GI Bill allowed them to move from the crowded city to a small house in the suburbs and start a family. To them this country and its government were the embodiment of the shinning city on the hill.
Around this time their politics started to subtly change. The Cold War and its aura of fear had begun to permeate the American political landscape. In the early 1950’s the Republicans hit upon a strategy to defeat the powerful hold the Democratic Party had earned over the American public. They could play upon the public’s fear of communism and whip them into a frenzy of paranoia. While Joe McCarthy did his best to convince the public that there were communists behind every corner, Nixon mastered the tactic of red-baiting as he came to power. At the height of this period many lifelong Democrats began to see the Republicans as the only party that could keep them safe. Fear appeared to be an unbeatable political weapon, and my parents fell victims to it. By 1960 their faith in Liberal beliefs was shaken and soon a 4×6 poster of Richard Nixon hung in our front picture window.

For the next forty years, the Republican’s used fear to gain power. Goldwater preached a rabid form of anti-communism. Nixon’s “Silent Majority” and “Southern Strategy” played on fears of race, urban unrest, moral decay, change, and the growing youth movement. Reagan had us battling an “Evil Empire” that would require “Star Wars” technology to defeat. As long as they could maintain the level of fear at a fever pitch, they could maintain power.

Something interesting happened to my parents during this period. After nearly thirty years of being staunch Republicans, things began to change sometime during Reagan’s first term. They just got tired of being constantly told to be afraid. They no longer wanted to live in a state of perpetual fear.

The one problem with the politics of fear is that after a while people just can’t continue to live that way. The emotional investment that is required cannot be maintained over long periods of time. My parents had had enough with the paranoia politics of the Republican Party and eventually returned to their progressive roots. It was a long journey but by 1984 there was a Mondale sticker on their car bumper.

The current crop of Republican fear mongers now whip a new generation up with tales of unimaginable horror, dividing them along lines of religion, race and economics. We should never forget the lesson of my parents. During their lifetime, they witnessed Government during its greatest shining moment and its lowest point of cynicism. In the end they chose optimism over apprehension, compassion over hate, equality over injustice, and hope over fear.

It appears we are rapidly approaching the watershed moment for the Bush Administration. Not only are numerous top officials about to face serious questions about their actions, but the cornerstone on which Bush has built his Presidency will be tested and judged: his ability to judge character. From almost the start, Bush has run a “trust me” kind of Presidency. He has often led the American people to believe that he has an almost innate ability to discern the motivations and character of people simply by meeting them. He has pronounced foreign leaders “good men”, he has “looked into the hearts” of numerous appointees, and has generally asked the American people to trust him about his decisions. His nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is the most recent example of this pattern. But now a reckoning is about to occur. The American people are about to face a simple question that will determine Bush’s fate and legacy.

Do you believe that those members of the Bush administration who were responsible for the making decisions about war and peace considered the documents dealing with Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium in Niger to be genuine?

An examination of the documents shows that there is no “good” answer to that question for Bush.
One must remember that the veracity of these documents was questioned on more than one occasion. Ambassador Joseph Wilson was the first to raise serious doubts the Niger claims in early 2002. The following October, the CIA sent two memos to the White House warning that the Niger charges were not based on solid evidence. On Oct. 5th 2002, a memo addressed to Bush’s chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson and deputy national security adviser, Stephen J.Hadley and others, objected to a sentence that the White House had included in a draft of a speech the President was to give two days later in Cincinnati. The speech contained the claim that Saddam Hussein’s “regime has been caught attempting to purchase” uranium in Africa. The CIA memo noted that the amount was in dispute and that it was not clear the material “can be acquired from the source.” The CIA also pointed out that Iraq already had its own supply, 500 tons, of the “yellowcake” uranium ore it was accused of seeking.(1)

The following day a second memo was sent to Hadley and National Security Advisor Condollezza Rice in response to another draft of the speech, the memo included new CIA objections to the charge, saying there was “weakness in the evidence” and that the attempted purchase “was not particularly significant.” Before the speech, one last warning came when CIA director George Tenet called Hadley, requesting that the Africa allegation be removed. Although the Cincinnati speech did not contain the reference it did reappear in later speeches, the most notable being the 2003 State of the Union speech.

The history of the “sixteen words” and the Plame leak are now familiar to all at this point, but the documents themselves have not been widely disseminated by the US media. The Italian press did publish a copy, but most Americans have not had a chance to determine there authenticity for themselves. This will most likely change over the next weeks and months as the Plame case accelerates.

Even the most cursory examination will show the obvious flaws in the documents. The first glaring flaw shows up in the letterhead:

Note the crude “hand drawn” nature of the seal in the letterhead. Also of note are the handwritten notations of “urgent” and “confidential”. These are obviously not official documents of any government.

Of note on this document is the discrepancy with the date. The top posts a date of 30 Jul, 1999, yet in the body text it refers to the transaction taking place on  29 June 2000.

When these documents begin to circulate throughout the media over the coming weeks and months, the American people will be faced with a tough choice. They will view with their own eyes the documents on which the Bush administration based one of its crucial arguments for war. The claim that Saddam Hussein was capable of producing nuclear weapons, and the specter of those weapons falling into the hands of international terrorists. That ” America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud “. (2)

After careful examination people will be faced with one of two conclusions, neither of which will be very good for the President. Either his advisors were too ignorant to discern the obvious, that the documents were crude forgeries, or they knowing lied to the American people when they made their nuclear claims. Whether Bush knew he was lying when he made those claims is ultimately unimportant, the fact will remain that he “looked into the hearts” of his most trusted advisors and misjudged them. The men and women whom he thought were the brightest and most honest, turned out to be either liars or fools or both. So much for the “trust me” President

The Iraqi people have voted.  Despite turnout rates in some Sunni regions as high as 90% their attempts to block the adoption of the new constitution have failed.  President Bush congratulated the Iraqi people and praised the expected results. “This is a very positive day for the Iraqis and, as well, for world peace. Democracies are peaceful countries” he said. But we know better.

Do you know why?  Because in a strange way we’ve been there before. Democrats that is.  

Let’s play a little psychological parlour game of regression if you don’t mind. (I promise we won’t rehash that time your older brother made you eat the booger) We won’t go back far, only to a little less then a year ago. To the first Wednesday in November 2004.
The alarm goes off like it has a million times before. After a few groggy moments, half in a dream, half awake, you stumble from your bed. You’re exceptionally drained this morning, but you don’t really recall why. You just know you feel like shit. Coffee!!! I need coffee, you think.

You make your way to the kitchen, turn on the light, and start to put up a pot. Then it happens, an emptiness in the pit of your stomach, a feeling both anxious and foreboding.. something’s terribly wrong …you’re starting to wake up and you remember why you feel so shitty… Fuckin Bush.

How the fuck can this be. There were like a thousand of us at the polling place waiting to vote.  We waited for hours. I saw pictures on TV of lines stretching for blocks and blocks. We worked for months and months, organizing the vote, making calls, handing out flyers, registering voters. Nobody in their right mind could have voted for this guy. How can this be?.. How can this be?.

Remember that feeling? Remember how fucked up it was? How you hoped against hope that something would change in Ohio. How you just wanted to crawl in a hole. Maybe have a drink or ten. How you could have slithered into bed and never left for the rest of your life.

Good….now take that feeling ……. multiply it by….I don’t know…..maybe……a… gazillion.  

That’s how a Sunni feels right now.

Except that he or she lives in a place that’s fucked beyond belief.  People get blown to bits everyday. There’s no work, or prospect of getting any. Electricity and water are rare commodities. A foreign army roams your streets. Your fellow countrymen hate you. A corrupt government of your ancestral enemies runs your country, and the place is in total ruins. To top it off, the one and only natural resource your country has, the basis of your whole economy, has for all intents and purposes been given to your enemies.

On top of that, our Sunni friend lives in a country where average citizens are now armed to the teeth. Kids make bombs instead of playing with toys, and killing has become almost the national pastime. Shit blows up every day. That’s just the way it is

Now, I know the comparison leaves much to be desired, but given what we know of despair and disillusionment with a political system, will it really come as a shock when shit hits the fan, and Iraq turns into the biggest cluster-fuck we’ve ever seen, with even more violence and death. Will we really be surprised when each day more and more desperate Sunnis call for civil war?

Bush and his Republican friends and followers will be shocked. “How can this be?” They’ve got a new constitution and a squeaky clean democracy over there. How could there be millions of tera-ists, and so much turmoil?

While we will hopefully never know the horror of life in a hell-hole like Iraq, we as Democrats won’t be quite as shocked when the whole thing comes unglued.  We now know, thanks to Republican one party rule, what it’s like to not have a voice in your government, to have leaders who work against your best interests and those of your nation.  In that way we are like Sunnis, and can in some very small way understand their frustration and despair.  

I was going through my files looking for a link I had related to the Plame case when I came across a copy of Bush’s famous October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati just prior to the Congressional vote on Iraq. It was in this speech that Bush laid out his case for regime change and the need to use military force in Iraq. Something compelled me to re-read it…there was something about seeing these words again that sent a shiver down my spine.

To read these words three years later is mind numbing. It’s impossible to come to any other conclusion than that our President is either the biggest liar to ever walk the face of the earth, or he is of unbelievably limited mental capacity. Either way he should be removed from office immediately. After re-reading this speech I believe it would be impossible for anyone with a modicum of cognitive ability to come to any other conclusion. Almost every claim he made was false, and has been proven so over the course of time. And they are not just false, many of the claims in retrospect are downright absurd. Whether he knew they were false at the time is irrelevant. If he did ….he’s a liar,… if he didn’t, it proves that his incompetence is monumental and unforgivable.

So why don’t we take a little trip down memory lane and make a short stop in the bizarro world that is George W Bush.

(I’ve bolded and numbered the lies for easy reference)

Remarks by the President on IraqCincinnati Museum Center
Cincinnati Union TerminalCincinnati, Ohio October 7, 2002

8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I’m honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons (1). It is seeking nuclear weapons (2). It has given shelter and support to terrorism (3), and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? (4)

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action — why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone — because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do (5)– does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions. (6)

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. (7) Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. (8) Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -(9) – in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. (10) We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. (11) And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. (12) Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. (13)

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. (14) These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. (15) We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. (16) And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. (17) Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. (18) And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer — the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. (19) The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. (20) Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. (21) Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. (22)

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. (23) As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors (24). Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden. (25)

The world has also tried economic sanctions — and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities — only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people — and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. (26)

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. (27)

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country — and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. (28) And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. (29) It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations — mine and President Clinton’s — have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. (30) And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait — and that’s an option. In my view, it’s the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I’m convinced that is a hope against all evidence. (31) As Americans, we want peace — we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I’m not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. (32) The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.)

This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history’s course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. (33) The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, (34) just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin. (35)

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. (36) If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. (37)

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. (38) the resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance — his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I’m confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. (39) Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. (40) Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

A couple of us have been putting together a website for information about the war in Iraq. Our main focus has been to create a one-stop site for news, investigative reporting and most importantly the facts about the lies and  “misconceptions” that permeated the period leading up to the war.  We believe that as more people start to turn against the failed policies of the Bush cabal, a need for easily digested information is needed to keep the momentum going.

Although most of us have opposed this war from the start or shortly thereafter, many Americans are only as of late starting to see the folly in empire building Iraq has become. Our goal is to create an “Iraq War  101” for the newly converted and wavering  to go to in order to be brought up to speed on events and policies they missed the first time around. Along with that, we would love the site to become a jumping off point for further investigation.

Here’s the pitch…

We’ve been working on the site for a little over a month now and have got the basic format up and running, but we’ve reached the point where we could use some fellow contributors to help move the process along.  We could use the help of additional writers, researchers, and general input givers to get the site up to speed.  Our goal is to try to position ourselves so that when (and I stress the word WHEN) the mainstream Democratic Party starts to catch up with public sentiment on the war and begins to make it’s case against it ..we will be in a position to be a resource that can be used to facilitate the spread of information about the war and the lies that led up to it.  The fact that Rep. Conyers had to turn to the blog world back in June to help him put together a simple timeline of the events that led to war just goes to shows how behind on this topic our leaders really are.

Anyway….

If anyone is interested in helping in any way, or better yet …wishes to aid in this endeavor.. both the site link and my contact info are available in my profile here. If you’re so inclined, check out what we’ve got up so far ..see if it looks like something you’d be interested in working on and let me know..

General feedback on the site is more then welcome.. so feel free to tell us what you think of the site, the concept, the design, any input is welcome at this stage of devlopement.

PS: We realy do need the communities help on this so any type of feedback is welcome..positive or negative.

As per Cali Scribes’ suggestion:
Link available here: IraqFact