How Washington Works?

I recently watched the judiciary subcommittee hearing regarding the U.S. Patriot Act. In a totally predictable display of disrespect for those testifying (including amongst others... representatives from Amnesty International, the Arab American League...) the chair of the committee decided to cut short the testimonies and said that prison conditions at good ol' Gitmo as well as the status of those held at other Federal detention facilites were not appropriate for the committee consideration and had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

He adjourned the meeting and promptly had the microphones cut off so those that stayed to ask questions and hear answers could not be heard. Heaven forbid that we learn anything. I have been reading hearings of past judiciary subcommittees and have often wondered why, when such important issues are being considered (prison privatization, for example) non-partisan scholars, criminologists, and activits are not testifying on the panels.

I have learned that people are chosen to testify in a couple of ways. First, they are invited, based on who is in the know or making headlines. Second, you can request to testify. Making sure of course that you promote yourself and your work as "in the know." Given the behavior of the committee chair on Friday, I'm wondering if it would even make a difference, but I still feel the need to promote active participation in the hearings by reaching out to scholars who are not motivated by religious ideology or right wing ideology, activists and others.

So, we could reach out to people whose voices should be heard, but I have to wonder if this would really make a difference if the heads of these committees just decide to uct the microphones are arbitrarily stop hearings? Any thoughts?