Has it occurred to anyone reading this article that "Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires employers to pay 'prevailing wages' for labor used to fulfill government contract" and "waived the requirement for contractors rebuilding the Gulf Coast to provide valid I-9 employment eligibility forms completed by their workers" with this explicit agenda of mistreatment in mind? Why else would these actions have been so immediately necessary? How much more proof do we need that this administration makes up THE rules as they go along and then twists them to fit their delusions? We all knew Halliburton was going to take charge, so it's no coincidence that the pieces fit together to continue lining the pockets of the Bush administration. I thank Salon for putting this story out there, but those who really need to read it and understand the parallels will most likely never see it.

I have thought about it and I agree, jeffrey, it's not strictly slavery. But what do you make of this line in the article? "The [Bush] administration also waived the requirement for contractors rebuilding the Gulf Coast to provide valid I-9 employment eligibility forms completed by their workers." Do you think this is a tacit approval of KBR's hiring of undocumented or illegally-working people? I do.

I doubt that any of these legal aliens would have come here, bused by the subcontractors, if they were promised no pay for weeks of work and under conditions we wouldn't accept for field horses.

I also generally agree with you, jeffrey, that "the left loves one of these groups" at least in the sense of "loves" meaning "cares for the humanity of." But, of course, regarding whether they should be doing work here, labor unions are quoted in the article as stating their opposition to the contracts no one's apparently allowed to see (that's gotta be illegal; no, wait, it's a "national security" issue, never mind, it's OK!). For all we know, these contracts say explicitly, "Go ahead and abuse anyone working for you! Bring in Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, whoever!"

Interesting how Senators Mary Landrieu and Carl Levin, who oppose the subcontractors' use of undocumented workers, have "D"s next to their names. I think it means they're Democrats, probably on "the left."

I don't like to tag an entire group of people as "the right," but based on the Bush Administration's and the Republican Senate and House leaders' intentional ignorance on this issue, jeffrey, would it be fair to say that the right "loves one of these groups" as well, the "corporate thieves"? After all, who can point to any DHS prosecution of any of these companies? But no, I'll be fair and say it's only the Republican Party, not the right, that loves corporate thieves.

And what's this? It also appears, based on this article, that the Bush Administration "loves" (though not in the human-rights sense) illegal aliens if all it can do, and this is after a Democratic Senator complains, a lot, is arrest 10 people for questionable documentation! 10!

Not one of these workers were forced into servitude - the actual meaning of slavery - they may have been ripped off - which is what this sounds like, but slavery? I guess that sells papers. One of the problems of being undocumented (illegal), is that it's easy to exploit that status. What we really have here is one group of criminals (corporate thieves), ripping off another group of criminals (illegal aliens). While I know the left loves one of these groups, they're both criminals and both should be dealt with under the law.

The article states "The job brokers find workers by placing ads in Spanish-language newspapers like La Subasta and El Dia in Houston; the ads typically promise room, board and pay in the range of $1,200 a week." If vendors are really willing to pay this kind of money PLUS room and board, they would have American citizens from every part of the country flocking to take these jobs if the word was put out. What exactly is going on here?

Typical of the US government to attack the people working illegally while it ignores the companies that, and the people in charge of such companies who, abuse and enslave these people.

This tragedy hits upon so many issues crucial to the 2006 elections.

But more important, this story shows that we desperately need to ensure that the US government stops giving money to companies that abuse and enslave these people.