posted
I heard about this NPR and now I found a Forbes article
quote: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.
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 (nyse: WMT - news - people ) 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."
I honestly don't know what to add to this.
I keep seeing our government failing to do simple, obvious things to succeed in Iraq and I don't have any good reason why. To me, the people who stand up against considerable threat and pressure to blow the whistle on corruption are the sort of courageous "I care about America and the effort in Iraq" types that we should be encouraging, not, you know, torturing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that article. I don't know what to think, except that if it's true, something is very, very wrong.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Business as usual in the Bush Administration.
Of course now we can expect the major media outlets to do a thorough investigation of this calamity and demand explanations from the press secretary and the president on how such injustices were allowed, and how millions of weapons for the Iraqi army have fallen into enemy hands, and how millions of dollars in cash have gone unaccounted for. Yes, I expect this to happen any day. And of course the Democrats will hold hearings on it as well to find out what happened. Better yet, the Republicans in Congress will demand answers to why the war they insist so much on fighting is being mishandled by their boss.
I at least thought a group like the FBI would have long time grunts who wouldn't be beholden to political interests and would put safety above hushing something up. That is disappointing. From the President, it's just business as usual.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that story and it makes me mad as hell. Those guys were screwed for trying to do the right thing.
quote: "If you do it [whistle-blow], 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.
What Professor Weaver says happens to whistle-blowers is awful, and bad enough. But to imprison a whistle-blower for 3 months without charges is just pure evil. It also illustrates why shredding habeas corpus is a stupid idea. I know, they were in Iraq, but my point stands.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm writing my Senators with a list of issues that I want them to use as necessary conditions for the Attorney General nominee. A full DoJ investigation of this issue is going to be near the top of the list. Under Alberto Gonzales, the DoJ declined to investigate or to sign on to these suits against some of the Republican party's big contributors. I wish I could find that shocking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a good idea--it ties in the upcoming AG confirmation hearings with a specific issue or issues. Is writing a letter the best way to deal with an issue like this with Congresspeople? Do letters have more of an impact than emails? I don't know if it's worth contacting my 2 Republican Senators from Georgia, I guess instead I'll write Sen. Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee.
quote: U.S. shows little support? 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. [cut civil war historical origins of qui tam suits--Morbo]
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.”
posted
To be honest, I rather doubt either letters or emails have any effect, but I think, if they did, letters would be taken more seriously.
I'm trying to push Arlen "Speak courageously, say all the right things, and then cave almost immediately." Spectre (R. PA) into actually following through with any of the things he's said. So far, not so much, but I'm hoping he'll actually man up for the AG confirmation hearings. Otherwise, he'll never get my vote again.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My list so far (in no particular order): Review the qualifications of all people hired because of their ideological basis, especially the Civil Rights division.
Torture and wiretapping.
This.
Reduce the allowable contacts between the White House and DoJ to a number below 20.
Do people have anything else I should add?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for posting this Mr S, Americans running that Shield Group Security CO should be tried for treason IMO. That pisses me off if what those men say is true.
Staunch republicans in the FBI and CIA have both told me they have no idea what the Dept of Homeland Security does. I think it should investigate and punish corruption in our government to be quite honest.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I'm not sure, but I think you might need to read the article again. Shield Group Security Co. was an Iraqi company that has since broken up. Also, the men were imprisionsed by the U.S. government.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, that's a good list, it has the worst recent abuses of law. You could add "investigate abuses of the Patriot Act." And maybe "investigate selective voter fraud indictments" But you don't want too many topics, it will lose impact.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I'm not sure, but I think you might need to read the article again. Shield Group Security Co. was an Iraqi company that has since broken up. Also, the men were imprisionsed by the U.S. government.
I understand that it was Iraqi owned, but that does not mean there were not foreigners involved in it. Perhaps not. I would not at ALL be surprised if contractors were found to be selling their wares to middle men who do business with insurgents.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay. Well considering that the U.S. government detained and used "unconventional interrogation techniques" on these two men seemingly in retaliation from them blowing the whistle on this company, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm wondering, as a supporter of the Iraq War and those carrying it out, do you feel any responsibility for this?
edit: More importantly, are you going to do anything about it?
posted
There's something that bugs me about Vance's story. I agree that he was treated absolutely reprehensibly, and that the U.S. government and military take blame in that. But it also occurs to me that what may have occurred is that his own company got wind of the fact that he was preparing to make their malfeasance public, and trumped up a terrorism accusation against him to discredit him and make his whistleblowing impossible by his removal. Then the local forces, acting in an atmosphere of high-alert paranoia, stepped in and treated him like they'd treat any other suspected insurgent, failing to take his background into consideration. If that's the case, then the usual fog-of-war incompetence is in high gear, but the government wasn't necessarily directly trying to protect a company's fraud and wrongdoing.
EDIT to ADD: I'm not saying that this necessarily is what happened; just that I can envision a scenario wherein, at least in one case, the persecution of a whistleblower was a side-effect, not an intent.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Writing to Leahy if you aren't from his state will do nothing, he probably won't even see the note, as most Congressional offices make you establish residency before you can really write to them.
I think emails and letters are treated equally, it's not the 50's anymore, and I do think they have weight, but they have to come in enormous numbers, especially for a senator, to really move him one way or the other. I've seen Senator Levin from Michigan move a couple times before because of voter outcry.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think emails and letters are treated equally, it's not the 50's anymore, and I do think they have weight, but they have to come in enormous numbers, especially for a senator, to really move him one way or the other.
This is not true according to the legislators that I have heard discuss it (in local public forums). A letter is still counted more strongly than an e-mail, because there is more effort involved. A very indivicualized e-mail is "weighted" more than one that appears to have been copied and forwarded, but an actual letter or fax still has more weight.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then the local forces, acting in an atmosphere of high-alert paranoia, stepped in and treated him like they'd treat any other suspected insurgent, failing to take his background into consideration. If that's the case, then the usual fog-of-war incompetence is in high gear, but the government wasn't necessarily directly trying to protect a company's fraud and wrongdoing.
The difficulty I have with this is that they were definitely in contact with people from the FBI. Even assuming that the guards at the military detention center didn't get in touch with the FBI agents, wouldn't these agents do some sort of follow up?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the (conflicting) opinions on email vs snail mail.
Sterling, that scenario might be plausible except for the fact that Vance had repeated prior contact over months with a US-based FBI agent, who apparently did nothing or was prevented at a higher level from doing anything about Vance's imprisonment.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm wondering, as a supporter of the Iraq War and those carrying it out, do you feel any responsibility for this?
edit: More importantly, are you going to do anything about it?
I feel responsible for it insofar that I knew that these sorts of things could and probably would happen, and weighed them in my decision to support the war. That does not mean I don't find them reprehensible.
I am going to read more into this case and other situations, and decide where to go from there.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know how much things have changed in the supposed intelligence shake-up post 9/11, but isn't the FBI's jurisdiction more in the national, rather than extranational? I can imagine the investigation of a US-based company being in their purview even while treatment of a prisoner in Iraq was something the CIA would consider their territory.
I can even, theoretically, imagine an FBI informant falling off the map and the contact agent not knowing what had happened to them...
All of this is pure speculation, of course.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, letters are weighted much more strongly. According to the congressional staffers I have talked to, they are much less likely to forward an email than to forward a letter.
And if they forward the email, it'll frequently be as a printout, where a letter will look much better, presentation-wise. A lot of congresspeople don't use email (I suspect less out of technical issues and more out of time issues).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who writes letters both likely went through more effort, and is more likely to write letters to other people (notably newspapers). Also, things don't get past the screeners just for their content; they're often chosen to be representative of categories of letters received, or because they might generally be of interest to the congressperson. If you're choosing a representative example, you might as well choose one that looks nice instead of just being a printout, and things that are more personal are also more likely to be of interest in a general sense, ignoring the content.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that's silly. I understand it, but I think it's silly. Writing to your congressman is part of democracy, and last I checked, the Constitution didn't say anything about what sort of letterhead you had to use.
Can the letter be typed on a computer? Or does it need to be handwritten?
dkw -
How does a letter or especially a fax have less of an apperance of being copied and forwarded than email? Aren't they all the same thing as far as content goes? The only thing that changes is the method of transmission.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same reason why you should make an effort to produce a nice resume on good paper; it makes a difference.
And e-mail is easier to fake; thousands of e-mails from "concerned citizens" could be from one peeved guy with a bot. Most of the decency complaints to the FCC over the past few years were found to be from a much smaller number of people than were represented.
But the truth of the matter is that appearance matters. May not be fair, but it is true.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A written letter is always better for reasons of presentation alone. It shows effort and initiative, plus you had to get a stamp and go to the post office. What you have to say was important enough that you were willing to go out of your way to contact someone about it. Plus, as has been stated, it looks nicer. And anyone who has ever gone job-hunting knows the value of good appearances.
I tend to think a typed letter is better, unless you have immaculate penmanship (which I really do not have), but there should always be a signature in ink by your name.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The presentation argument I get, the effort argument is senseless. The next time I go on a date, should I walk over to her house instead of drive? It would show a lot more effort and I guess therefore I'd be rewarded for the time I put in?
It's silly. Why should I go out of my way when I don't have to? It's a stupid hoop to make someone jump through. The presentation argument though I understand, I may not agree with it, but it is how things are done.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You aren't being rewarded because of your effort, you're being paid attention to because of your effort, in large part because it indicates further likely effort -- if the politician gets on your good side, you'll probably do things with the effort you're willing to put out that help them.
Taking meaningless effort probably shouldn't matter, but the difference in effort between a letter and an email is a difference in effort that does matter in indicating the dedication of the person to writing on the topic.
And if you think meaningful effort doesn't matter in relationships, you have an interesting view of the world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I understand why it is the way it is, I'm saying it shouldn't be.
Your democratic rights shouldn't be tied to the type of stationary you use. I could put 10 times as much effort and thought into an email as into a letter, but because I didn't use paper and a stamp I'm shorted? My problem is the difference between physical and mental effort. Some idiot could write a thoughtless comment or even a one sentence comment and so long as it is wrapped up nicely it gets seen, but someone could also spend a half hour or longer coming up with a long, well thought out comment on a major issue, with a reasoned response and supporting information. But if it comes in an email, you might as well not send it at all.
If you think there should be prerequisites for communication with your elected officials, you have an interesting view of your own.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a large part of letters being weighted more heavily than e-mails lately is the use of mass e-mails by various grassroots (and astroturf roots, for that matter) organizations. Many groups make it very easy to send e-mails that amount to [boilerplate] [personal message, if can be bothered] [signature].
Someone who sends such a message may care, but they still seem more like one of 10,000 other e-mailers, rather than the letter writer, who might just be one of 10,000 they haven't heard from. And unlike someone who tapped a couple of keys or pressed a couple of buttons, the letter writer showed a willingness to put pen to paper, stamp to envelope, and go to the mailbox... Which, in some states, is all that is necessary to cast a ballot.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the letter writer showed a willingness to put pen to paper, stamp to envelope, and go to the mailbox
That's something a 10 year old could do. What does it say about the effort actually put into what is IN the envelope? Besides, those same groups can send out mass amounts of letters.
If those groups send out mass emails, they likely have to find fake addresses then, as I know the websites for my Congressmen make you establish residency or they don't even read it. I'd suspect the effort to do that is equal to that of someone who slaps a stamp on an envelope and sends it in.
If we can make it easier for constituents to contact their representatives, we should do so. The guy who tapped a couple keys and pressed a couple of buttons (like the print button on his computer) before slapping a stamp on an envelope and licking it (oooh, look at all that effort!) shouldn't get rewarded while the other guy who just wants to be heard is left in the dust. It's stupid, and it isn't how things SHOULD be done.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyn, I'm not sure if you uderstand fully what is going on.
I am upset about something, so I take 10 minutes to write an E-Mail and that's it.
But to take time to print off that letter, and find an envelope, not to mention going to the cost of the printing and stamping. Basically, the amount of effort and expense an individual goes through is a rough estimate about how upset they are about the subject.
More important and more upset would be driving to Washington DC, making an appointment with the Legislative Staff, and seeing them in person.
In other words, democratically speaking, everyone's voice is heard, but the way to make your emphasis felt is to work harder at it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm disagreeing in that I don't think it should work that way. What about the people who can't afford to drive to DC to talk to their Congressperson in person? On the bright side they are probably too poor to afford a computer and the internet, which leaves them right in the middle with letter writing, if they can find the address.
The amount of effort and expense to buy an envelope and a stamp is what, a dollar? All I have to do is pay a dollar and that's it? Can't I just send a dollar directly to my congressperson with my email over the internet and be done with it? The internet by the way costs a lot more than a stamp and an envelope, so if you want to go about figuring out cost and effort monetarily, the internet beats out snail mail by quite a bit.
An extra two minutes of effort and dollar of money can buy you a voice? Is there really an appreciable difference that makes that sort of entrance fee worthwhile?
Democratically speaking, you have to do more to be heard, that's not democratic, that's a teeny tiny version of poll taxes and literacy tests.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I perfectly agree that a well-written e-mail ought to be considered with greater seriousness than a mass-mailing. But the fact of the matter is, most elected representatives probably get hundreds if not thousands of correspondences a week, and most of those are handled by staff. It's easy to weed boilerplate e-mails down to a categorizable number; physical mail demands more attention at both ends. Even then, it's no guarantee that the people at the other end are actually paying much attention.
And it remains the case that if you can afford a lobbyist who can buy the right people lunch, you're far more likely to get that attention.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
