In fact, it's a pattern. What's wrong with this picture (emphasis added):
By DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The security firms insist their employees are governed by internal conduct rules and by use-of-force protocols established by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq for 14 months following the invasion.
But many soldiers on the ground — who earn in a year what private guards can earn in just one month — say their private counterparts should answer to a higher authority, just as they do. More than 60 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been court-martialed on murder-related charges involving Iraqi citizens.<...>
Since then, Blackwater profits have soared. And it has become the focus of numerous contractor controversies in Iraq, including the May 30 shooting death of an Iraqi deemed to be driving too close to a Blackwater security detail.
"The shooting of that Iraqi driver has intensified tensions," Schakowsky said. "The Iraqis are very angry."
Company spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell, in an e-mail to The Associated Press, said the shooting was justified. "Based on incident reports and witness accounts, the Blackwater professional acted lawfully and appropriately," she wrote. There was no response to AP inquiries seeking further details.
Other alleged shootings involving private contractors include:
_ An incident in which a supervisor for a Virginia-based security company said he was "going to kill somebody today" and then shot at Iraqi civilians for amusement, possibly killing one, according to two employees.
moreWhile Blackwater corruption is in focus, Congress needs to pass theHonest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act. It was introduced last year by Senators Dorgan, Kerry and Leahy:
Rick Jacobs
Bio
We are so used to being in the opposition that our minds bend when we can support those in power. While little noticed by the blogs or the main stream media, real leadership shined through Thursday morning in Washington when Senator Byron Dorgan, Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee, backed by Senators John Kerry and Patrick Leahy, followed through on his commitment to rein in contracting fraud and abuse that has been the hallmark of the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton outsourcing of their private war in Iraq.
At Thursday's press conference, Senator Dorgan announced introduction of the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006.
The bill follows months of hearings led by the DPC when the Republican controlled Senate patently refused even to hear that Halliburton, Blackwater, CACI, Titan and others were raping the taxpayers of this country while making an ill-planned invasion into a full-fledged disaster, assuring that the only real winners in Iraq would be those companies that had sufficiently close ties to the White House to earn them a free ride in a war that leads us daily closer to the brink.
In introducing the bill, Senators Dorgan and Kerry each referred to Brave New Films' "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," as one of the key elements in demonstrating the outrageous abuses that these and other firms committed in Iraq. The key provisions:
moreIt was reintroduced in February 2007:
Punishes War Profiteers – Sec. 101 establishes penalties of up to 20 years in prison and at least $1 million in fines for war profiteering. This provision is largely modeled on anti-profiteering legislation by Senator Leahy. Note that the penalties would apply to fraud by contractors in any place where the United States engages in military action – regardless of whether the fraud is against the United States or “the entity having jurisdiction over the place where the military action takes place.” So fraud against the Coalition Provisional Authority would have been covered by this provision.
Cracks Down on Big Corporate Cheaters – Sec. 102 restores a Clinton Administration rule on suspension and debarment, which prohibited awarding federal contracts to companies that exhibited a pattern of overcharging the government or failing to comply with the law, including tax, labor, environmental, antitrust, and consumer protection laws. The Bush Administration repealed this rule in March 2001, one of its first actions upon taking office.
Requires Full Disclosure of Contract Abuses- Sec. 103 provides for greater transparency in contracting. Specifically, this section would require agencies to provide to the chairman and ranking member of committees of jurisdiction a list of all agency audit reports that have found contractor misconduct. It would also require creation of a website listing (1) any instances where a major contractor has been fined or found guilty of misconduct, and (2) information on all sole source contracts in excess of $2 million.
Forces Real Contract Competition – Secs. 201 and 202 would prohibit the awarding of umbrella contracts over $100 million on a “sole source” basis, so that such contracts would be jointly awarded to at least two companies, which would then compete with each other, under the umbrella contract, for all purchase orders worth more than $1 million. The provision would preclude a multi-billion dollar, sole source award like Halliburton’s LOGCAP contract, forcing some real price competition. Agencies would have waiver authority in cases where only a sole source contract was feasible, but would have to justify a waiver in writing and notify Congress.
Bans Corporate Cronyism in Contracting – Sec. 211 requires that federal agencies conduct contract oversight, rather than paying contractors with conflicts of interest to oversee one another. (On March 10, 2004, the Pentagon awarded $129 million worth of oversight work to major Iraq contractors – essentially asking them to oversee each other. Some of the companies tasked with overseeing each other had huge conflicts of interest, like Parsons and Fluor, which had a $2.6 billion joint venture in Kazakhstan.) A Dorgan-Wyden amendment to the FY 2005 Defense Authorization bill prohibited the outsourcing of oversight, and was signed into law – but the Pentagon took the position that it had not outsourced oversight, but rather functions relating to oversight. Sec. 211 restates the prohibition on outsourcing of oversight, and clarifies that specific activities relating to oversight, including “services that involve or relate to the evaluation of another contractor’s performance,” could not be outsourced to companies that have a conflict of interest.
Eliminates Conflicts of Interest for Federal Contracting Employees - Sec. 212 closes the perverse loophole that allows federal contracting officials to work as representatives for companies to whom they awarded contracts. Federal law currently prohibits federal contracting officials from being hired as employees, directors, or consultants of companies to whom they awarded contracts - but the law does not prohibit them from being hired as representatives. Sec. 212 would make it clear that procurement officials could not be employed by contractors in any capacity, including as representatives, within two years of leaving their government positions.
Ends Cronyism in Key Government Positions - Sec. 301 stops unqualified political appointees like David Safavian and Michael Brown from holding key jobs relating to (1) federal contracting or (2) public safety. It specifies that political appointees for such positions must have relevant professional credentials, a record of accomplishment, and specific expertise in the field in question. Also, the nominee cannot have been a representative for any client having business before the agency in question in the previous two years. The provision explicitly lists certain jobs that this restriction would apply to, including the head of procurement at OMB and the director of FEMA, but would extend to all political appointments in the fields of federal contracting and public safety. This provision is modeled on the Waxman Anti-Cronyism Legislation in the 109th Congress.
Strengthens Whistleblower Protections - Among other provisions, Sec. 302 makes it more difficult for federal agencies to retaliate against whistleblowers. Currently, only the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is allowed to review whistleblower retaliation cases; Sec. 302 would allow other federal courts to consider such cases. The bill would also create a mechanism to ensure that whistleblowers are able to come forward to Congress with classified information, in a way that protects both the whistleblower and the classified information.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
