DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on October 07, 2006, 10:21:12 AM
-
check this out in dailykos -
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/6/151223/489
Abramoff's clients operated strip joints servicing US forces in the Marianas where US labour laws did not apply.
Child prostitutes danced for and fucked the troops in the clubs.
Story traces connections between club owners, Abramoff and Hastert in a fight to block Clinton administration's efforts to extend the protection of US labour laws to the Marianas.
Incredible how a moral cesspool like the GOP has been able to make "Family Values" its trademark.
-
It is so little-known, so poorly covered in the press. Horrible situation.
This is all reminding me of the Gilded Age. Very Victorian.
-
So why didn't Clinton ban the servicemen from attending those clubs via an executive order? or as an direct order from the commander in chief?
When i was in the service, lots of clubs were declared off limits.
-
So why didn't Clinton ban the servicemen from attending those clubs via an executive order? or as an direct order from the commander in chief?
When i was in the service, lots of clubs were declared off limits.
Yup- It is , of course , that rascally Bill Clinton's fault that Repub perverts support child prostitution . I shoulda known!
-
I didn't see where you addressed my question.
Perhaps that is because you didn't.
Maybe you just don't have an answer.
-
I didn't see where you addressed my question.
Perhaps that is because you didn't.
Maybe you just don't have an answer.
Maybe it wasn't so much of an answer, but then yours wasn t so much of a question. It was just another cop out.You are great at those.
-
If it was that important to Democrats one would presume the head dem at the time would have taken care of the problem as he had the means to solve it.
Must not have been that important at the time.
-
More strawman bullshit from the right.
It's never the fault of the people who actively worked to break the law from the right, it is ALWAYS the fault of the people, who at the time on the left, didn't do some out-of-the-back-of-BT's-brain act.
-
Knute brought the subject up and was the one pointing out that Clinton had the means to resolve the problem and save the children.
Do you think it not appropriate to wonder why he didn't?
A simple executive order or a phonecall to DOD would have dried up the customer base.
-
What is the present status of these sleezey establishments?
-
Plane: there's plenty more where this came from. I typed in Child sex trade in Northern Marianas and got scads of results.
For Abramoff, Lawmaker Slandered Teen Sex Slave
By Paul Kiel - September 25, 2006, 2:56 PM
A Texas congressman is denying charges he slandered a foreign sex slave at the behest of Jack Abramoff. But documents obtained by TPMmuckraker contradict the Republican's claims.
In November of 1997, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) publicly questioned the credibility of a teenage girl's claims that she'd been the victim of the sex trade in the Northern Mariana Islands. The statement, which Rep. Hall entered into the Congressional Record, was prepared by Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist for the islands.
"he wanted to do nude dancing," Hall's statement said of the fifteen-year-old girl. She had earlier told federal investigators that she'd been forced to work for a local nightclub in a nightly live sex show. You can read the entirety of Hall's statement here.
Press accounts at the time detailed how the girl had been taken from her parents in the Phillippines, and forced to perform sex acts on stage and before video cameras at a Northern Marianas sex club. A 1998 Department of Labor report confirmed those reports.
Hall's challenger in Texas' 4th District, history professor Glenn Melancon, has made the episode a campaign issue. "When investigators discovered child prostitution and forced abortions on the Mariana Islands, Congressman Ralph Hall was paid for covering it up and publicly attacking one of the raped children," read postcards his campaign distributed to voters.
Hall has called the charge an "outright lie." His office did not respond to our request for comment on this story. But records show that Abramoff's staff contacted Hall's office fifteen times in the two months leading up to his statement in the Congressional Record.
Hall has also denied being paid for making the statement, but oddly enough has revealed that "[Tom] DeLay gave him money 10 years ago," according the to the district's local paper, The Herald Banner.
DeLay was Abramoff's closest ally in Congress with regard to the Marianas. But Federal Election Commission records do not show contributions to Hall from DeLay or his PAC during that period. The former Majority Leader was known for routing donations through third parties to hide their origin. Hall was a Democrat at the time he says he took DeLay's money -- he switched parties in 2004.
Hall visited the Marianas islands on an Abramoff-sponsored junket in 1997, according to emails. The CNMI government later reimbursed Abramoff. In this photograph from the Marianas Variety, Hall is shown during that trip:
By entering his statement into the Congressional Record, Hall made himself part of a public relations counter-offensive on behalf of CNMI, orchestrated by Abramoff and his lobbying team.
For months, activists and members of Congress pushed for labor reforms in the Northern Marianas, an American territory that was rife with cases of human rights abuses. The teenaged girl Hall attacked (referred to by lawyers and activists by her stage name, "Katrina," to protect her anonymity) was just one of those cases.
The billing records from Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates, show that Abramoff and his associates logged long hours helping CNMI dodge such charges. Hall's office worked closely with Abramoff's team to compose the lawmaker's statement on Katrina, according to those same records.
Hall has claimed he never met Abramoff, and "wouldn't recognize him if he saw him." But members of Abramoff's lobbying team contacted Hall's office fifteen times over the course of September and October in 1997, working closely with his office to counter efforts by House Resources Ranking Member Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to strengthen federal oversight of the islands' labor practices.
An Oct. 17, 1997 entry in the records shows that Lloyd Meeds, a member of Abramoff's lobbying team, discussed inserting the language about Katrina with Grace Warren, a staffer in Hall's office. "Telephone conference with G. Warren (Hall) regarding Katrina insert," reads the entry. Hall inserted the statement about Katrina into the Congressional Record a few weeks later.
As detailed in the findings of a Department of Labor investigation, Katrina was taken away from her parents in the Philippines at the age of fifteen to work at a nightclub in the Northern Marianas. Once there, she was forced to sell drinks, dance naked, and perform videotaped "sex acts on stage with customers." She and the other employees lived in barracks set up by the Philippino club owner until Katrina was able to run away and contact the Philippine Consulate. She was eventually given asylum in Hawaii, where she lives today.
Jeffrey Hughes contributed research to this story.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001591.php
-
Still not sure why Clinton gets a pass on this. Department of Labor falls under executive branch juridiction.
-
<<So why didn't Clinton ban the servicemen from attending those clubs via an executive order? or as an direct order from the commander in chief?
<<When i was in the service, lots of clubs were declared off limits. >>
That's kinda like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's thousands of servicemen stationed out in the middle of nowhere and suddenly they can't go to bars and get laid? Because some of the clubs employ underage hookers and dancers?
Surely the sensible solution is to apply American labour laws and give the club workers all the same protections Americans have themselves. The clubs could still operate, albeit less profitably, the soldiers could still have fun and the adult sex workers could still make a living.
Why should CLINTON have to shut down EVERYBODY'S entertainment and livelihood just because of the corruption of slime like Hastert and Abramoff? And furthermore, the issue is HASTERT. He's the guy under fire now. It's relevant to look at the guy's whole record. He was rotten and corrupt for YEARS, and the Republicans won't clean house. This, not Clinton, is the problem. Clinton's gone, remember?
-
Mikey,
Clubs being put off limits can be as specific as need be.
And the issue isn't Hastert. The issue was child sex workers. And Clinton had the means to put an end to it.
So why didn't he?
-
Hastert's a crook. Why bring up Clinton at all? He's gone and Hastert's not. Hastert has to go, and you want to roast Clinton? That's an obvious diversion. Meaningless. Even if I were to admit Clinton was at fault (which I certainly don't) where would it get you? You'd still be left with Hastert, a crook who took dirty money from Abramoff that came from child prostitution. Which Hastert did nothing to stop. As he did nothing to stop Foley. (Oh -- yeah; he told Foley to knock it off. BIG deal.)
-
So to helll with the Children. You have political fish to fry. Is that the gist of your position?
-
Your thinking is very, very confused. How would attacking Clinton at this point in time have ANY relation to protectinig the children? Clinton is out of office. Get it? Out of office. Nobody can save a single child by attacking Clinton.
Hastert, a slimy crook who failed to protect children in the Marianas, failed again to protect them in Washington DC, is STILL in a powerful position and still needs to be dealt with.
WHAT political fish am I frying when I ask that this miserable excuse for a human being be removed from power before still more occasions arise when children in need of protection are once again failed by Dennis Hastert? It is, I am afraid, YOU, who are pursuing political goals - - at the expense of "the children" - - by defending this creep so loyally, making sure that when other children need protection, they can be sure that once again Dennis Hastert will blow them off if the Party's interests require it. YOU are the one whose attitude is most closely approximated by "To hell with the children." Not me.
-
I don't see how my thinking is confused.
Your stated problem was the exploitation of child sex workers in Saipan.
The primary customers of these sex workers were US Military personnel.
My point was that this could have very easiliy been handled by the Executive Branch at the time.
My question was, why wasn't it? You tarnish Hastert by linking him to Abramoff directed PAC donations.
Who was bribing the Clinton Admin?
They apparently did not do all they could do to put a stop to it, and they had the power to do it.
-
"Forced Abortions & Sweatshops: A Look at Jack Abramoff's Ties to the South Pacific Island of Saipan & How Tom DeLay Became An Advocate for Sweatshop Factory Owners"
[]
BRIAN ROSS: Essentially what he accomplished was to stop legislation, which is easier to do than to get it through. He was able to block legislation that would have changed the labor and immigration laws in Saipan and made it illegal to have these kinds of contracts. You couldn't have a contract like that in Los Angeles or anyplace else of the United States where the flag flies. But you could in Saipan. That was the loophole they were trying to close under the Clinton administration.
And in fact, when people at the Department of Interior attempted to do that, DeLay actually tried to introduce a bill to cut off funding for that particular section of the Department of Interior, to stop them from essentially backing the workers’ claims. And it became an ugly situation on Capitol Hill. And DeLay and others, but DeLay in particular, were involved in blocking the legislation and making sure that that status quo continued on Saipan. []
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/04/1524256
__________________________________________
[]
'In the late 1990s, the Clinton adminstration wanted to apply US labor laws to the Marianas Islands, to prevent sweatshop labor and forced prostitution.
The businessmen on the islands wanted Tom DeLay to make sure no changes passed Congress. DeLay did.
Then Tom DeLay was House Majority Whip. Today DeLay is the House Majority Leader. '
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_05_16_conservative_con_tom_delay_denies_his_corruption.asp
Armey and DeLay, opposing a Clinton administration proposal to bring the Marianas under U.S. minimum wage and immigration laws, wrote a letter last year to Gov. Frolian Tenorio (the top Marianas official who was replaced last month by a relative, Pedro Tenorio). They assured Tenorio they would block any move to reform the Marianas' unique wage and immigration laws.
The administration's proposed changes, they wrote, "are counter to the principles of the Republican Party, and this Congress has no intention of voting on such legislation."wpe7.jpg (4011 bytes)
Given their clout in the majority party, Armey and DeLay have made good on that promise. An aide to U.S. Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat who has been active in exposing the truth about the Marianas, says he hasn't even been able to get a hearing scheduled on the matter.
The trips DeLay and the five senior Armey staff members have made to the islands have been on the Marianas government's tab, trips typically costing $4,000 to $6,000 per person. Most got rooms at the Hyatt Regency Saipan, a $250-to-$2,500-a-night luxury hotel that, as its Web site seductively notes, "lies on 14 acres of lush tropical garden, lagoons, and a magnificent beach," with amenities such as a championship golf course and snorkeling above coral reefs.
The Nation, which published an article last month appropriately titled "Congress' Beach Boys," pointed out that more than 70 congressional and party officials--mostly Republicans--have traveled to the island on these all-expenses-paid trips over the last two years, along with squadrons of conservative journalists and think-tank types. The magazine described the trips as a "lavishly funded public relations effort by the island's governor...Numerous junketeers have come back singing the praises of the [Marianas]."
Perhaps none more brazenly than DeLay.
Returning last month from his fact-finding trip, a mission on which he took his wife and daughter and got in two rounds of golf at the first-class Lao Loa Bay Golf Resort, DeLay blasted critics of what he called Saipan's "free market success." He went on to explain how he wants to use a set of Chinese-owned sweatshops on a far-off U.S. territory--factories manned by low-paid Chinese or Sri Lankan indentured servants living in squalor--as a model for Mexican labor camps here on the mainland.
He told a reporter for the Guam-based Pacific Daily News that the workers' barracks "by some U.S. standards could be criticized," but the garment factories he toured were air-conditioned and clean.
"I didn't see anyone sweating," DeLay said, reportedly with a laugh.
[]
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Armey/news2.html
Plus many, many other articles when you enter the words- Clinton tried to change labor laws Northern Marianas- into Google.
-
The question still remains as to why Clinton did not either issue an executive order addressing the matter or in his capacity as commander in chief declare offending clubs off limits. EIther one woud hve put the matter to rest.
He didn't.
Why?
-
The question still remains as to why Clinton did not either issue an executive order addressing the matter or in his capacity as commander in chief declare offending clubs off limits. EIther one woud hve put the matter to rest.
He didn't.
Why?
Mayhap he was busy fighting off Repub lunatics and trying to stop terrorism to think of it?
I know it's a dumb answer, but your trick question is dumber.
-
I fail to see why you would label my question as a trick.
And yeah that was a pretty dumb answer, but it was probably the best you had.
-
<<The question still remains as to why Clinton did not either issue an executive order addressing the matter or in his capacity as commander in chief declare offending clubs off limits. EIther one woud hve put the matter to rest.
<<He didn't.
<<Why?>>
I have no idea why he didn't. All I know is that he was trying to rectify the situation in the way that seemed best to him and he was blocked in his efforts by Hastert.
UNDOUBTEDLY, Dennis Hastert did not single-handedly create the moral cesspool that is better known as the United States of America, its government and its armed forces.
BUT: when push came to shove, Hastert failed to protect the exploited children of the Marianas sex trade as he failed to protect the pages. In the one case for financial gain, in the other for Party interests. He's an immoral piece of shit and he's a key leader of the Republican Party.
-
Again, Hastert is but one man in a body of 435 so he had no direct control over the Marianna's issue.
Clinton, as President, did.
Hastert may be scum of the earth for all i know, but this flimsy rap you are trying to lay on him, just doesn't cut it.
-
<<Again, Hastert is but one man in a body of 435 so he had no direct control over the Marianna's issue.>>
Gee. Abramoff must be a real dumb schmuck to get his clients to give all that dough to a nebbish like Hastert who couldn't do jackshit for them. You're absolutely right - - he IS only one man in a body of 435. What was I thinking? What was Abramoff thinking? It's too bad Abramoff couldn't have learned from you how Washington really works - - coulda saved himself and his clients a bundle.
-
It's too bad Abramoff couldn't have learned from you how Washington really works - - coulda saved himself and his clients a bundle.
Perhaps i should open up a consultancy.
The thing about lobbyists is they sell their access to politicians. One way to get access is to direct contributions to the politicians campaigns or favorite PAC. They can't guarantee results, nor should they.
On the other hand Clinton had his legacy to look after and what better legacy than ending child sex trade in at least one corner of the world.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool huh? " This from Paul Begala, Clinton Advisor.
-
So this situation is still going on ?
-
So this situation is still going on ?
Far as i can tell it is. Hard to be certain as google seems inundated with Mariana's links and Abramoff, mostly from left blogs and forums. Little mention of the UN or Clinton or Bush or the myriad other countries that have these same practices, like Thailand or Costa Rico or even the trade from the former Soviet Union.
This seems to be another in a long line of big noise campaigns, long on finger pointing and short on doing something for the kids.
-
So this situation is still going on ?
Far as i can tell it is. Hard to be certain as google seems inundated with Mariana's links and Abramoff, mostly from left blogs and forums. Little mention of the UN or Clinton or Bush or the myriad other countries that have these same practices, like Thailand or Costa Rico or even the trade from the former Soviet Union.
This seems to be another in a long line of big noise campaigns, long on finger pointing and short on doing something for the kids.
When the house is on fire it is not good to have a fight in the living room about whether the guy that poured the lighter fluid is more guilty than the guy that struck the match. Evacuate the building , put out the fire and then discuss the chicken and egg arguments.
If the President had the power to restrict the access to these clubs when the President Was Clinton , then the President must still have this power now that the President is Bush. How hard is it to bring to his attention the need?
I am not convinced that Hastert , Clinton or Bush can actually end prostitution anywhere , but if there was action in concert between the partys and the branches of government some effect on such severely egregious circumstances might be accomplished.
Might as well suggest this to the present President BT .
-
Might as well suggest this to the present President BT
Sure, why not.
But i suspect that the day after he signs the executive order we will see someone complaining that Bush is pandering to the religious right.
-
Hahahahaa!
Yes indeed , and measures that would truely shut down Prostitution might need to be so draconian that no one would like them.
But where there is evidence of Slave trade or underage enforced prostitution , it may be worthwile to discourage the practice somehow.
Local commanders can declare a bar off limits to service personell , they usely do this after a servicemember is harmed in it.
Would a Ship captain be justified in declareing a particular place off limits because he had reason to beleive that the sex workers were being exploited?
Well if severely exploited or endangered?
We could wind up with a military agency responsible for ensureing that brothels meet a minimal standard.
Perhaps issueing a monthly certificate?
The Imperial Japaneese Army had an office like that, they made certrain that there were brothels availible and handled the recruiting themselves.
Somewhere before we get there we should quit.
-
My hat's off to BT for his valiant efforts to re-focus the current debate on Hastert and turn it into one on - - who else but? - - CLINTON!!!
It's absolutely hilarious. The current issue is Hastert's failure to protect children.
Hastert's record on protection of children is obviously relevant to the current debate.
Hastert's failure to protect child prostitutes in the Marianas is clearly part of that record.
BT's answer to Hastert's prior record is: NO ANSWER. Don't deal with it There IS no prior record.
Focus instead on the surrounding circumstances: Who else might have failed to protect the child prostitutes of the Marianas? (Clinton. Clinton. Clinton.) Who do you think was fucking those child prostitutes anyways? (Clinton. Clinton. Clinton.) Who got the money those kids were making? (Clinton. Clinton. Clinton.) Who owned the bars they worked in? (Clinton. Clinton. Clinton.) Who stole them from their families and sold them to the bars? etc. How can we stop child prostitution now? How can we stop prostitution itself? Why is there sin in the world?
It's fascinating, but back to the topic of the debate, the object of the Marianas story in the first place: Hastert is a real piece of shit. He took money to lobby on behalf of the pimps of underage prostitutes in the Marianas and he hushed up the case of a sexual predator preying on young pages who were his responsibility to protect. You can't get any lower than that, and, yes, Fox "News" to the contrary, he IS a Republican.
-
Once again you get it wrong Mikey.
You just seem to be upset that i pointed out that the one man who could have done something in the late 90's when all this was going down, failed to act. And that man was Clinton
You presented the issue as one about children. The one man who could have protected them , didn't. And that man was Clinton
If you had presented the issue as one of the undue influence of lobbyist, i wouldn't have had nearly the opportunity to make my case. Fact is, you framed the issue incorrectly. And i can't be held accountable for your strategic mistakes.
-
<<Once again you get it wrong Mikey. >>
OK, BT. Shoot.
<<You just seem to be upset that i pointed out that the one man who could have done something in the late 90's when all this was going down, failed to act. And that man was Clinton>>
Uh, not really, BT. Recall that NOBODY was discussing "the late 90's when all this was going down," the topic that was under discussion was the more current one of Dennis Hastert and his failure then and now to take any measures to protect vulnerable children.
<<You presented the issue as one about children. >>
Well that's not even a half-truth. The issue was chidren AND more importantly, Hastert's failure to protect them. Alone, the issue of children would not even have arisen on this board, and did not arise, until Hastert manifested a desire to subordinate the protection of children to the interests of the Republican Party.
<<The one man who could have protected them , didn't. And that man was Clinton>>
If and when the more general debate ever opens in this pages as to which party and which politicians better protected the interests of children in America or in the world, we can discuss Clinton's alleged failures and everyone else's alleged failures too. (You won't win that debate either, quite frankly. Some people still remember the Reagan administration's attempts to classify Ketchup as a vegetable.)
<<If you had presented the issue as one of the undue influence of lobbyist, i wouldn't have had nearly the opportunity to make my case. >>
Why should I have framed the issue around lobbyists and their influence? Why should I have framed it around child protection in general, rather than on Hastert's failure to protect children now and in the past? The issue was what the issue was, but thanks for your attempts to make it something else - - anything else - - but the failure of a sitting Republican leader to put child protection ahead of Party interests?
<<Fact is, you framed the issue incorrectly.>>
Fact is, you keep avoiding the issue by any means possible. It's correctly framed alright, tightly around Hastert's head and neck, Hastert the sitting Republican leader, protected by all the other Republican leaders, and his egregious failures to protect children at risk, but for very obvious reasons you don't want to deal with it. Too bad, cuz it won't go away. The voters going to the polls in November will quite naturally want to know why Hastert is still in office and enjoying Republican support, not why Clinton didn't declare Marianas strip joints off limits in the 1990s.
<<And i can't be held accountable for your strategic mistakes. >>
Don't make me laugh, BT. You can't be held accountable for anythingl
-
The voters going to the polls in November will quite naturally want to know why Hastert is still in office and enjoying Republican support, not why Clinton didn't declare Marianas strip joints off limits in the 1990s.
I think the voters well know what is going on here and they understand that it is being blown out of proportion for political gain. My guess is that there is a point of no return on this and that voters will look at the records of their congressman and vote accordingly regardless of how much you want to try and bring down Hastert. The voters may decide they prefer their republican congressmen and are aware that the speakership cn change come january. They also know that voting for an alternative candidate brings them Pelosi and they might not be as comfortable with that notion as you suspect.
So in a way your focus on Hastert puts a spotlight on Pelosi and i don't think that is what your really want.
I suspect a GOP mole in the high lavels of DEM strategists.
-
<<I think the voters well know what is going on here and they understand that it is being blown out of proportion for political gain. >>
Yeah that's what I think too. Who really gives a shit about underage teenage boys being seduced by perverts three and four times their age, whom they come to Washington to serve as pages? The voters care about really IMPORTANT issues like stem cell research and banning gay marriage by Constitutional amendments, not that their kids might get fucked in the ass by perverts when they come to Washington as pages.
<<My guess is that there is a point of no return on this and that voters will look at the records of their congressman and vote accordingly regardless of how much you want to try and bring down Hastert. >>
Well, you just might be right there.
<<The voters may decide they prefer their republican congressmen and are aware that the speakership can change come january. They also know that voting for an alternative candidate brings them Pelosi and they might not be as comfortable with that notion as you suspect.
<<So in a way your focus on Hastert puts a spotlight on Pelosi and i don't think that is what your really want. >>
I was just having a little fun with you, BT. Personally I don't think the Republican core gives a shit about Hastert or the pages - - they've got an agenda that they're hell-bent on protecting and they won't get blown off course even if Hastert, Foley and a couple of pages were caught circle-jerking live on national TV. In a country where torture is accepted, habeas corpus is dead and lies are routine, who in hell is going to get all bent out of shape over the fate of one or two pages served up to the likes of Mark Foley?
<<I suspect a GOP mole in the high lavels of DEM strategists>>
Nah, just mark it down to unrealistically high expectations of the integrity of the American voter.
-
Who really gives a shit about underage teenage boys being seduced by perverts three and four times their age, whom they come to Washington to serve as pages?
Apparently not the Dems, when it was one of their Politicians, not just seducing, but actually having sex with them. Yea, who really cares? In fact, if this were a Dem, we'd be campaigning for his re-election vs running him out of the House.