Author Topic: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption  (Read 3975 times)

BryanP

  • friendly hermit
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,808
Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« on: August 25, 2007, 06:50:46 AM »
Apparently blowing the whistle on corrupt practices is still a bad idea if you value your livelihood.  Or in the case of our government, your freedom.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070824/contractor_whistleblowers.html?.v=1

 AP
Whistleblowers on Fraud Facing Penalties
Friday August 24, 3:16 pm ET
By Deborah Hastings, AP National Writer
Those Who Blow Whistle on Contractor Fraud in Iraq Face Penalties

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

ADVERTISEMENT
There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers -- all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

"It was a Wal-Mart for guns," he says. "It was all illegal and everyone knew it."

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics "reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants."

Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

"If you do it, you will be destroyed," said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

"Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, `Should I do this?' And my answer is no. If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything," Weaver said.

They have been fired or demoted, shunned by colleagues, and denied government support in whistleblower lawsuits filed against contracting firms.

"The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know," said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. "But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, 'Don't blow the whistle or we'll make your life hell.'

"It's heartbreaking," Daley said. "There is an even greater need for whistleblowers now. But they are made into public martyrs. It's a disgrace. Their lives get ruined."

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse knows this only too well. As the highest-ranking civilian contracting officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she testified before a congressional committee in 2005 that she found widespread fraud in multibillion-dollar rebuilding contracts awarded to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Soon after, Greenhouse was demoted. She now sits in a tiny cubicle in a different department with very little to do and no decision-making authority, at the end of an otherwise exemplary 20-year career.

People she has known for years no longer speak to her.

"It's just amazing how we say we want to remove fraud from our government, then we gag people who are just trying to stand up and do the right thing," she says.

In her demotion, her supervisors said she was performing poorly. "They just wanted to get rid of me," she says softly. The Army Corps of Engineers denies her claims.

"You just don't have happy endings," said Weaver. "She was a wonderful example of a federal employee. They just completely creamed her. In the end, no one followed up, no one cared."

But Greenhouse regrets nothing. "I have the courage to say what needs to be said. I paid the price," she says.

Then there is Robert Isakson, who filed a whistleblower suit against contractor Custer Battles in 2004, alleging the company -- with which he was briefly associated -- bilked the U.S. government out of tens of millions of dollars by filing fake invoices and padding other bills for reconstruction work.

He and his co-plaintiff, William Baldwin, a former employee fired by the firm, doggedly pursued the suit for two years, gathering evidence on their own and flying overseas to obtain more information from witnesses. Eventually, a federal jury agreed with them and awarded a $10 million judgment against the now-defunct firm, which had denied all wrongdoing.

It was the first civil verdict for Iraq reconstruction fraud.

But in 2006, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III overturned the jury award. He said Isakson and Baldwin failed to prove that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupier of Iraq for 14 months, was part of the U.S. government.

Not a single Iraq whistleblower suit has gone to trial since.

"It's a sad, heartbreaking comment on the system," said Isakson, a former FBI agent who owns an international contracting company based in Alabama. "I tried to help the government, and the government didn't seem to care."

One way to blow the whistle is to file a "qui tam" lawsuit (taken from the Latin phrase "he who sues for the king, as well as for himself") under the federal False Claims Act.

Signed by Abraham Lincoln in response to military contractors selling defective products to the Union Army, the act allows private citizens to sue on the government's behalf.

The government has the option to sign on, with all plaintiffs receiving a percentage of monetary damages, which are tripled in these suits.

It can be a straightforward and effective way to recoup federal funds lost to fraud. In the past, the Justice Department has joined several such cases and won. They included instances of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling, and padded invoices from domestic contractors.

But the government has not joined a single quit tam suit alleging Iraq reconstruction abuse, estimated in the tens of millions. At least a dozen have been filed since 2004.

"It taints these cases," said attorney Alan Grayson, who filed the Custer Battles suit and several others like it. "If the government won't sign on, then it can't be a very good case -- that's the effect it has on judges."

The Justice Department declined comment.

Most of the lawsuits are brought by former employees of giant firms. Some plaintiffs have testified before members of Congress, providing examples of fraud they say they witnessed and the retaliation they experienced after speaking up.

Julie McBride testified last year that as a "morale, welfare and recreation coordinator" at Camp Fallujah, she saw KBR exaggerate costs by double- and triple-counting the number of soldiers who used recreational facilities.

She also said the company took supplies destined for a Super Bowl party for U.S. troops and instead used them to stage a celebration for themselves.

"After I voiced my concerns about what I believed to be accounting fraud, Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion," she told the committee. "My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country."

Halliburton and KBR denied her testimony.

She also has filed a whistleblower suit. The Justice Department has said it would not join the action. But last month, a federal judge refused a motion by KBR to dismiss the lawsuit.

Donald Vance, the contractor and Navy veteran detained in Iraq after he blew the whistle on his company's weapons sales, says he has stopped talking to the federal government.

Navy Capt. John Fleming, a spokesman for U.S. detention operations in Iraq, confirmed the detentions but said he could provide no further details because of the lawsuit.

According to their suit, Vance and Ertel gathered photographs and documents, which Vance fed to Chicago FBI agent Travis Carlisle for six months beginning in October 2005. Carlisle, reached by phone at Chicago's FBI field office, declined comment. An agency spokesman also would not comment.

The Iraqi company has since disbanded, according the suit.

Vance said things went terribly wrong in April 2006, when he and Ertel were stripped of their security passes and confined to the company compound.

Panicking, Vance said, he called the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where hostage experts got on the phone and told him "you're about to be kidnapped. Lock yourself in a room with all the weapons you can get your hands on.'"

The military sent a Special Forces team to rescue them, Vance said, and the two men showed the soldiers where the weapons caches were stored. At the embassy, the men were debriefed and allowed to sleep for a few hours. "I thought I was among friends," Vance said.

The men said they were cuffed and hooded and driven to Camp Cropper, where Vance was held for nearly three months and his colleague for a little more than a month. Eventually, their jailers said they were being held as security internees because their employer was suspected of selling weapons to terrorists and insurgents, the lawsuit said.

The prisoners said they repeatedly told interrogators to contact Carlisle in Chicago. "One set of interrogators told us that Travis Carlisle doesn't exist. Then some others would say, 'He says he doesn't know who you are,'" Vance said.

Released first was Ertel, who has returned to work in Iraq for a different company. Vance said he has never learned why he was held longer. His own interrogations, he said, seemed focused on why he reported his information to someone outside Iraq.

And then one day, without explanation, he was released.

"They drove me to Baghdad International Airport and dumped me," he said.

When he got home, he decided to never call the FBI again. He called a lawyer, instead.

"There's an unspoken rule in Baghdad," he said. "Don't snitch on people and don't burn bridges."

For doing both, Vance said, he paid with 97 days of his life.
"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2007, 07:54:39 AM »
This is not new. From back in 2005:

Iraq is becoming 'free fraud' zone
Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

A former senior advisor to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq until the election of an interim Iraq government last January, says that the US government's refusal to prosecute US firms accused of corruption in Iraq is turning the country into a " free fraud zone."

Newsweek reported earlier this week that Frank Willis compared Iraq to the "wild west," and that with only $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion that the US government set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq having been spent, the lack of action on the part of the government means "the corruption will only get worse."

    More than US money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam [Hussein]. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars.

In late March, the New Standard reported, the annual Global Corruption Report issued by the "corruption watchdog," Transparency International (TI), heavily criticized the US for "mismanaging" Iraq's oil revenues and "for using faulty procedures for awarding reconstruction contracts."

    The report also criticizes efforts to rapidly privatize Iraqi assets and industries as a means of reducing the country's debt. TI warns that unless immediate corrective measures are taken, Iraq's reconstruction could become 'the biggest corruption scandal in history.'

The BBC reported that a UN report that came out in January also criticized the US as being a " poor role model" in "keeping corruption at bay."

The Christian Science Monitor reported on other allegations of corrpution in Iraq leveled against companies, including a "report by special inspector Stuart Bowen [which] found that $8.8 billion dollars had been disbursed from Iraqi oil revenue by US administrators to Iraqi ministries without proper accounting."

Meanwhile the Washington Post reported recently that both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations had long known that monies used in the in the UN oil-for-food program were lining the pockets of Saddam Hussein, and did little to stop it.

CNN reported in February that "unclassified State Department documents sent to congressional committees with oversight of US foreign policy" show that the US actually condoned Jordan and Turkey breaking the UN sanctions against Iraq.

    Rep. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, one of five panels probing the oil-for-food program, told CNN the United States was 'complicit in undermining' the UN sanctions on Iraq.

    'How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the UN when they're responsible for 15 percent maybe of the ill-gotten gains, and we were part and complicit of him getting 85 percent of the money?" Menendez asked.

One of the corruption cases that has drawn the most attention has been the attempts by two former employees of Custer Battles, a "private security company that was one of the highest-profile firms operating in Iraq" to sue the company on behalf of the US government. The whistler-blowers allege that the company and founders Mike Battles and Scott Custer, set up "shell companies in the Cayman Islands to falsely bill the government on two Iraq contracts."

The Washington Post reported last Friday that the Justice Department gave "strong support" to the men suing the company, "concluding that the company can be held liable for allegedly defrauding authorities in Iraq of tens of millions of dollars." Twice before the US governmment had declined to participate in the case when asked to do so by lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The judge, however, had asked the Justice Department "Does federal fraud law apply when the contract was administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq for a year after the US invasion?"

Newsweek reported that lawyers for Custer Battles, and until last week, the Bush administration, had argued the CPA was an "international authority" and thus US laws could not be used.

    It [the US government] has argued privately that the occupation government, known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, was a multinational institution, not an arm of the US government. So the US government was not technically defrauded. Lawyers for the whistle-blowers point out, however, that President George W. Bush signed a 2003 law authorizing $18.7 billion to go to US authorities in Iraq, including the CPA, 'as an entity of the United States government.' And several contracts with Custer Battles refer to the other party as 'the United States of America.'

Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes in the Los Angeles Times, the heavy use of contractors by the Bush administration not only lead to corruption problems, but is impeding the US military's progress in Iraq.

    Peter W. Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of 'Corporate Warriors,' estimates that there are 20,000 to 30,000 civilians in Iraq performing traditional military functions, from maintaining weapons systems to guarding supply convoys. If you add foreigners involved in reconstruction and oil work, the total soars to 50,000 to 75,000.

    To put this into perspective: All of Washington's allies combined account for 23,000 troops in Iraq. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Singer quips that "President George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing' might thus be more aptly described as the 'coalition of the billing.' "

And the corruption problems go far beyond US contractors and other international firms. Reuters reported in March that one of the biggest problems facing the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq is the corruption rampant in many Iraq government departments.

Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, head of the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), an agency set up by the CPA to fight fraud committed by Iraqis, said that he faces many obstacles to fighting corruption in Iraq, including pressure from government officials to not work so hard.

    Our work is new in Iraq and being an observer is not welcomed by many. We were asked many times by the government via official letters or phone calls not to speak to the media or not to speak to ministers. There were too many cases of 'Don't...'.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html


Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2007, 08:02:05 AM »
And more:

Follow the Money
Watchdogs are warning that corruption in Iraq is out of control. But will the United States join efforts to clamp down on it?


'Fraud-free zone': Willis (center) in Iraq with two CPA colleagues, preparing to pay a contractor in 2003

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

April 4 issue - By many accounts, Custer Battles was a nightmare contractor in Iraq. The company's two principals, Mike Battles and Scott Custer, overcharged occupation authorities by millions of dollars, according to a complaint from two former employees. The firm double-billed for salaries and repainted the Iraqi Airways forklifts they found at Baghdad airportwhich Custer Battles was contracted to securethen leased them back to the U.S. government, the complaint says. In the fall of 2004, Deputy General Counsel Steven Shaw of the Air Force asked that the firm be banned from future U.S. contracts, saying Custer Battles had also "created sham companies, whereby [it] fraudulently increased profits by inflating its claimed costs." An Army inspector general, Col. Richard Ballard, concluded as early as November 2003 that the security outfit was incompetent and refused to obey Joint Task Force 7 orders: "What we saw horrified us," Ballard wrote to his superiors in an e-mail obtained by NEWSWEEK.

Yet when the two whistle-blowers sued Custer Battles on behalf of the U.S. governmentunder a U.S. law intended to punish war profiteering and fraudthe Bush administration declined to take part. "The government has not lifted a finger to get back the $50 million Custer Battles defrauded it of," says Alan Grayson, a lawyer for the two whistle-blowers, Pete Baldwin and Robert Isakson. In recent months the judge in the case, T. S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Virginia, has twice invited the Justice Department to join the lawsuit without response. Even an administration ally, Sen. Charles Grassley, demanded to know in a Feb. 17 letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales why the government wasn't backing up the lawsuit. Because this is a "seminal" casethe first to be unsealed against an Iraq contractor"billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake" based on the precedent it could set, the Iowa Republican said.

Why hasn't the administration joined the case? It has argued privately that the occupation government, known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, was a multinational institution, not an arm of the U.S. government. So the U.S. government was not technically defrauded. Lawyers for the whistle-blowers point out, however, that President George W. Bush signed a 2003 law authorizing $18.7 billion to go to U.S. authorities in Iraq, including the CPA, "as an entity of the United States government." And several contracts with Custer Battles refer to the other party as "the United States of America." Pressure has been building on the administration to join the caseor at least to file a brief saying publicly if it believes defrauding the CPA is the same as defrauding the United States. The judge's latest deadline for that brief is this Friday. But a Justice Department spokesman said last week the government "could" still refuse to take part. "I'll bet you $50 they will not show up," says Richard Sauber, a lawyer for Custer Battles, which is still operating in Iraq. (He also rejects the charges of fraud and incompetence.)

The administration's reluctance to prosecute has turned the Iraq occupation into a "free-fraud zone," says former CPA senior adviser Franklin Willis. After the fall of Baghdad, there was no Iraqi law because Saddam Hussein's regime was dead. But if no U.S. law applied either, then everything was permissible, says Willis. The former CPA official compares Iraq to the "Wild West," saying he delivered one $2 million payment to Custer Battles in bricks of cash. ("We called Mike Battles in and said, 'Bring a bag'," Willis told Congress in February.) Willis and other critics worry that with just $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion spent so far, the U.S. legal stance will open the door to much more fraud in the future. "If urgent steps are not taken, Iraq ... will become the biggest corruption scandal in history," warned the anti-corruption group Transparency International in a recent report. Grassley adds that if the government decides the False Claims Act doesn't apply to Iraq, "any recovery for fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars ... would be prohibited."

More than U.S. money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars. On Jan. 30, the former CPA's own inspector general, Stuart Bowen, concluded that occupation authorities accounted poorly for $8.8 billion in these Iraqi funds. "The CPA did not implement adequate financial controls," Bowen said. U.S. officials argue that it was impossible, in a war environment, to have such controls. Yet now the Bush administration is either ignoring or stalling inquiries into the use of these Iraqi oil funds, according to reports by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, and others.

In one case, the Pentagon's own Defense Contract Audit Agency found that the leading U.S. contractor in Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary KBR, overcharged Iraq occupation authorities by $108 million for a task order to deliver fuel. Yet the Pentagon permitted KBR to redactor black outalmost all negative references to the company in this Oct. 8, 2004, audit. These included any mention of the $108 million in alleged overcharges and the audit's clear conclusion that KBR's price-supporting data were "not adequate." The Defense Department then forwarded this censored version to a U.N. monitoring board that Washington had agreed to under U.N. Resolution 1483. Normally, an audited company is allowed to censor its proprietary or personal information, but "these redactions went beyond anything U.S. law would allow," says Tom Susman, a Washington expert. Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall insists that the company had the right to make such redactions because the audit was "predecisional" and "represented only one side of the case." Hall also denies the company overcharged.

The U.N. audit team, called the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, is angry over these heavily censored reports, officials tell NEWSWEEK. The board last fall asked that a special auditor be hired. But the Pentagon has yet to award that contract after six months of delays. A Pentagon spokeswoman says the U.N. audit team "agreed that the [KBR] information provided was responsive to their request." A U.N. spokesman says this is untrue.

The administration's seemingly detached approach to these cases could have other implications. NEWSWEEK has learned that federal prosecutors plan to indict several U.S. contractors in Iraq on criminal charges but that these could be undercut if the court rules in the Custer Battles case that the CPA was not a U.S. government arm. "If you make the CPA a U.S. entity, you open the door to all sorts of liability claims. But if it's not a U.S. entity, then you can't parade these people through the court," says Jim Mitchell of the CPA inspector general's office. And that could mean Custer Battles and other companies will ultimately answer to no one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306162/site/newsweek/page/0/

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2007, 08:08:50 AM »
A federal audit found widespread fraud and corruption:

Federal audit rips Iraqi reconstruction work
Says many tasks assigned to U.S. construction giant were never completed
   
By Aram Roston
Investigative Unit Producer
NBC News Investigative Unit
Updated: 5:05 p.m. PT July 25, 2007

U.S. construction giant Bechtel National Inc. arrived in Iraq in 2003, on the heels of U.S. troops, with a fat contract awarded by the U.S. Agency for International Development to rebuild the country.

Then in 2004 the company won a second contract, worth a potential $1.8 billion. Wearing white construction helmets labeled "Bechtel," the company's construction supervisors oversaw work on hospitals, schools and bridges, and tried to get the water flowing and the electricity turned on.

A new federal audit released Wednesday, however, found that a big chunk of Bechtel's reconstruction work for USAID, the federal agency that issued the contract, was never achieved on the second contract. Auditors checked the 24 jobs Bechtel was supposed to complete.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"Ten did not achieve their original objectives," the auditors found. In another three projects, "we were either unable to determine what the original objectives were or the achievements were unclear."

The cost to American taxpayers for unfinished efforts was high: the U.S. government approved a total of $180 million dollars in payments for Bechtels ten allegedly unfinished projects. They include a $24 million water treatment plant in Baghdad's impoverished Sadr City, a $26 million children's hospital in Basra and a $4 million Baghdad landfill that was never built

"The Bechtel audit is emblematic of the reconstruction problems in Iraq," said Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, whose office conducted the audit.

Mark Tokala, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, characterized the audit's findings of unfinished projects as "a success rate of less than 42 percent."

'Limited' oversight
USAID also was cited in the audit for its "limited" oversight of Bechtel's work.

The audit said "USAID had only two people directly involved in the contract administration of the Phase II contract  the administrative contracting officer and the cognizant technical officer."

In addition, USAID had little time to check Bechtel's invoices, the auditors said, since the agency "had agreed in its contract with Bechtel to review and pay Bechtel's vouchers within 10 days of submittal." Indeed, auditors found that in one case Bechtel was paid within two days of submitting an $11 million voucher, giving USAID almost no time to check the bills that the company was submitting.

Another issue was that a large chunk of the federal funds didn't go to work directly on projects but on "support costs," like fees and security. The audit found that only 59 percent actually went to construction, with the rest paid to Bechtel for security and fees.

The Bechtel contract was called the "Phase II Iraq Reconstruction Contract." While it was supposed to have a ceiling of $1.8 billion, it ended up less than that as jobs were cancelled and reassigned. The actual costs came to about $1.3 billion.

Bechtel, USAID disagree with findings
USAID disagreed with many of the findings in the report. Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told NBC News that "there is almost nothing in the audit that is critical of Bechtel's performance."

Marshall added that often when the original objectives were not achieved, that was because of decisions made by USAID  not Bechtel. "It is unfair to consider that a critique of Bechtel's work," he said.

Frederick Barton, who examines reconstruction for Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said in an interview that the government may not have been honestly appraising the chances for success from the beginning.

"It just sort of galls you," he said. "At the very least someone should have said, we are going to throw money at the problem and fifty percent may not get done. The U.S. government pretended they would be able to complete these things, but someone must have known. It's a big shell game," Barton said, "but its an expensive shell game."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19962288/

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2007, 09:23:15 AM »
Riley,

What is the meaning of the picture you posted?  I thought it was common for contractors to pay nationals in cash, which means they normally, legally, have such stacks of cash on hand. 

Forgive me if I didn't read all of what you posted. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2007, 09:58:51 AM »
While I do not doubt that there is widespread corruption and fraud, I fail to see what the photo is for either, other than to evoke an emotional response.

I do sincerely hope that whoever is behind the fraud is caught and punished to the fullest extent possible, regardless (notice I didn't say irregardless) of who they are or their postition. I am so dreadfully sick of corruption, no matter where it is.
Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2007, 10:36:39 AM »
Quote
What is the meaning of the picture you posted?
 

I've edited the post to include the picture's caption, and the rest of the article, from the link. The guy in the middle is Franklin Willis, former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA-the U.S. established interim 'government' in Iraq).

Quote
I thought it was common for contractors to pay nationals in cash, which means they normally, legally, have such stacks of cash on hand.

These are not 'contractors paying nationals'.  This ts the CPA-a United States entity-paying contractors in cash.  No records, invoices, no receipts, no nada. 

Quote
I do sincerely hope that whoever is behind the fraud is caught and punished to the fullest extent possible, regardless (notice I didn't say irregardless) of who they are or their postition.


This administration won't let that happen. See the last paragraph in the article:

"The administration's seemingly detached approach to these cases could have other implications. NEWSWEEK has learned that federal prosecutors plan to indict several U.S. contractors in Iraq on criminal charges but that these could be undercut if the court rules in the Custer Battles case that the CPA was not a U.S. government arm. "If you make the CPA a U.S. entity, you open the door to all sorts of liability claims. But if it's not a U.S. entity, then you can't parade these people through the court," says Jim Mitchell of the CPA inspector general's office. And that could mean Custer Battles and other companies will ultimately answer to no one."

Instead of prosecuting the criminals, the administration is more interested in punishing whistleblowers.



drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2007, 10:39:28 AM »
Corruption will only destabilized an already tough situation. I hope the military is able to see that they need to stamp out corruption as ruthlessly as the terrorists themselves.

Drew
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2007, 10:52:05 AM »
Quote
Corruption will only destabilized an already tough situation. I hope the military is able to see that they need to stamp out corruption as ruthlessly as the terrorists themselves.

This is not corruption on the part of the Iraqis; this is corruption and fraud on the part of U.S. contractors.
This is happening at a much higher level than the U.S. military, and they can do nothing about it.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2007, 11:38:52 AM »
Ya mean there's corruption in big government contracts?  Say it isn't so!!

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2007, 12:29:28 PM »
Quote
Ya mean there's corruption in big government contracts?  Say it isn't so!!
<-----------smacks forehead.  Of course.  How silly of me.  Why should there be any difference between us and Mexico?  Or us and any other crapola middle eastern, African or South American country where money talks and bs walks?  It's all about the bottom line, bay-beee.  Stuff those pockets with that cash.  It's the American way, after all.  It didn't used to be, but we've abandoned most of the founding principles of this country in favor of corporatism and greed.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2007, 06:12:11 PM »
"It didn't used to be this way?"  What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing?

Pal, it has always been this way.  Corruption and graft are an inseparable part of ANY government project.  In fact, it's an inseparable part of any government.  It has been this way since the dawn of time. 

The only way to avoid government corruption is to keep government out of the process.  'Course, that'll never happen in a war. 

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2007, 06:49:13 PM »
Quote
The only way to avoid government corruption is to keep government out of the process.  'Course, that'll never happen in a war.
<----------smacks forehead again.  Of course, government is the root of all evil.  The corporations need to run things.  Wait, they are!  That's what this Iraq war is about, dontcha know.

BryanP

  • friendly hermit
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,808
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2007, 04:28:02 AM »
The corruption isn't the issue for me.  I expect that.  Silly me, I expect those in higher authority to punish the perpetrators of said corruption, not those who report it to them.
"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,932
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2007, 05:22:12 AM »
ah, but the problem is that by reporting said corruption, they're exposing the fact that government and corporations are both complicit in the corruption.  Therefore embarassing those responsible for it, and of course, we can't have that.
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2007, 05:26:55 AM »
1.  This crap has gone on since the beginning of time.
2.  We're not going to stop it.
3.  That doesn't make it right.  Sad
Zeke

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2007, 06:08:17 AM »
1.  This crap has gone on since the beginning of time.
2.  We're not going to stop it.
3.  That doesn't make it right.  Sad
Exactly.

Sergeant Bob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,861
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2007, 06:50:05 AM »
I didn't notice where anyone said it was right. Just that it wasn't new or surprising. I think we're all basically in agreement that it sucks and I don't think it matters who is responsible. They should all be in jail.
I know, thats not likely to happen though. Maybe some low level lackeys will be sacrificed just for show, but the ones who are really responsible will be insulated.
Personally, I do not understand how a bunch of people demanding a bigger govt can call themselves anarchist.
I meet lots of folks like this, claim to be anarchist but really they're just liberals with pierced genitals. - gunsmith

I already have canned butter, buying more. Canned blueberries, some pancake making dry goods and the end of the world is gonna be delicious.  -French G

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2007, 08:55:53 AM »
1.  This crap has gone on since the beginning of time.
2.  We're not going to stop it.
3.  That doesn't make it right.  Sad
Exactly.


Yes, but this corruption means that the Iraq war is bad.  Doesn't it? 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2007, 02:41:13 PM »
1.  This crap has gone on since the beginning of time.
2.  We're not going to stop it.
3.  That doesn't make it right.  Sad
Exactly.


Yes, but this corruption means that the Iraq war is bad.  Doesn't it? 
What?  You need a reason for thinking the war in Iraq is bad?

That's just weird.

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2007, 07:20:20 PM »
1.  This crap has gone on since the beginning of time.
2.  We're not going to stop it.
3.  That doesn't make it right.  Sad
Exactly.


Yes, but this corruption means that the Iraq war is bad.  Doesn't it? 
What?  You need a reason for thinking the war in Iraq is bad?

That's just weird.

Well, to choose just this one is weird, since there are so MANY superior arguments.
Zeke

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2007, 08:55:53 PM »
There are many superior arguments against the war.  You should try them sometime.  Tongue
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2007, 05:00:22 AM »
There are many superior arguments against the war.  You should try them sometime.  Tongue

Is a single scapegoat, with fixed intent, worth the effort?  Smiley
Zeke

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2007, 05:03:54 AM »
Quote
There are many superior arguments against the war.

Ron Paul and others made a number of them (practical, military, diplomatic, constitutional, economic and moral) back in 2002.  Now you can add two more- corruption and failure.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Whistleblowers on Iraq Corruption
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2007, 06:28:54 AM »
If the possibility of corruption were reason not to do something, then nothing would ever get done.  Ever. 

Likewise, if the possibility of failure was reason not to try, then nothing would ever be attempted.  What a miserable world that would be.

If you could suspend basic human nature, then maybe things could be different.  Gimme a call when you figure out how to do that.