War Profiteering: Deeper In Crap

Sent to me this morning. I don't know where to find the 'Federal Register' or Executive Orders but I think the info is correct and unexpurgated.

According to the May 28, 2003 Federal Register, Bush signed Executive Order 13303 which states:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products [...]

The executive order is worded to make it seem as though all Iraqi oil revenues are going into the Development Fund for Iraq. But that's not what it says. (a) and (b) are independent. If any oil company goes in to pump Iraqi oil, no organization can sue to have the revenues go to a just cause. The executive order says that oil companies may pump Iraqi oil without fear of lawsuits.

And who are the oil companies, and how much of the proceeds go to the Development Fund, and who is in control of the Development Fund, and why will you never hear these questions being asked at your local pub?



* edited topic title for 'extra feeling' *

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]
*edited topic title for 'extra feeling inside T&C'

[edit on 2-5-2005 by dbates]

www.archives.gov...

13303 is not listed

That is very interesting.

What would it mean if it's not listed? That it's bogus/doesn't exist, or that it has been selected not to be available for public viewing?????

I found the whole Executive Order here, after a circumlocutional search around a difficult-to-navigate site.

frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov...


I AM TOLD THAT THIS LINK IS DEAD.

SEE POST FURTHER BELOW, SEPTEMBER 2003... IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MASSIVE CORRUPTION INHERENT IN SOME OF THE BUSH EXECUTIVE ORDERS IS IN PART SUBVERTED BY SHIFTING THE PUBLIC RECORD OF THEM AROUND LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTRE....

[Edited on 23-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

The Carlyle Group

C for capitalism

Jun 26th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The secretive Carlyle Group gives capitalism a bad name.

ON the day Osama bin Laden's men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya's move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defence spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group's investments in defence companies.

The Carlyle Group is a godsend for conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the world is run by, and on behalf of, a shadowy network of wealthy men. Sure enough, it was not long before Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat member of Congress, pointed a finger at Carlyle, noting in an interview that “persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war” and that, despite “numerous warnings”, they did not alert the “people of New York who were needlessly murdered”. “What”, she asked, “do they have to hide?”

You need not be a conspiracy theorist, though, to be concerned about what lies behind Carlyle's success. Can a firm that is so deeply embedded in the iron triangle where industry, government and the military converge be good for democracy? Carlyle arguably takes to a new level the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower feared might “endanger our liberties or democratic process”. What red-blooded capitalist can truly admire a firm built, to a significant degree, on cronyism; surely, this sort of access capitalism is for ghastly places like Russia, China or Africa, not the land of the free market?

Named after the luxurious New York hotel favoured by the firm's founders, Carlyle even got started by exploiting a tax loophole, a legitimate capitalistic activity, if not an honourable one. This particular loophole bizarrely allowed profitable American firms to enjoy a large tax break by buying the losses incurred by Eskimo-owned companies in Alaska. In 1987, this opportunity brought together a flamboyant dealmaker, Stephen Norris, who left Carlyle in 1995, with David Rubenstein, a former aide to President Carter and still the brains behind the firm.

After this initial success, though, the going got tougher. Carlyle missed out on several attractive deals while completing some duff ones, including buying a stake in Caterair International, a company that later collapsed under the weight of its junk-bond financing. Still, it did introduce them to a man who became well worth knowing: George W. Bush, a director of Caterair.

Carlyle really only took off after it hired Frank Carlucci, a former secretary of defence and deputy director of the CIA, in 1989. Mr Carlucci was able to open doors in Washington that had hitherto been closed to the firm, allowing it to participate in many lucrative deals.

Although Dan Briody's book is useful reading for anybody interested in American politics today, it tells Carlyle's story in the style of a Tom Clancy or John Grisham novel. This is rather a shame. Instead of expanding in an unrelenting tone of shocked disapproval, the author could have offered a serious view on a number of difficult questions.

For instance, if privatisation can increase the efficiency of the notoriously inefficient defence sector, how should the inherent political and security risks best be managed? Given that the rewards for success in the private sector so far exceed those for public service, how can talented people be persuaded to enter public service without their former private-sector activities becoming a source of suspicion?

While some former presidents are happy to play golf, others may feel they can still earn a decent living. What rules should govern the commercial activities of former President Bush; or, for that matter, former British prime minister, John Major; or former South Korean prime minister, Park Tae-joon—all of whom have taken the Carlyle nickel? Mr Bush senior receives private intelligence briefings that are not available to ordinary investors. Does his inside knowledge of, and possible influence over, the administration's political strategy towards, say, North Korea and Saudi Arabia directly benefit Carlyle? If so, does that constitute an unacceptable conflict of interest?

Perhaps there would be less reason to worry about Carlyle if there were rival clubs of ex-political heavyweights competing within the iron triangle. Alas, this firm seems to be an aspiring monopolist, hoovering up former public officials from across the political divide and, increasingly, from across the world. It is becoming more ambitious in Europe, and keenly eyeing China. Perhaps there would be less reason to worry if Carlyle's activities were more open—but as a private equity firm, it has largely escaped America's recent efforts to improve the governance and transparency of companies, which is unfortunate. At a time when America is aggressively promoting democracy and capitalism abroad, including by military means, it would be helpful if its politicians and businesses were regarded as cleaner than clean. Shrouded in secrecy, Carlyle calls capitalism into question.

Earlier today I had an interesting discussion with Leveller, who considered that the Iraq Oil industry isn't for sale in the "Billionaire Garage Sale" of state assets being conducted.

This analysis (EarthRigts International) sheds some other light on EO 13303, which is what this thread was initiated with:



President Bush has issued an Executive Order, so far completely unreported, that purports to grant broad legal immunity to oil companies operating in Iraq. The Order is, on its face, outrageous, and should be investigated.

Executive Order 13303, issued on May 22, 2003, claims to be essential to Iraqi reconstruction efforts. A cursory reading of the Order indicates that its real purpose is to protect oil companies by giving virtual impunity for any activities undertaken relating to Iraqi oil.

This Order, with broad language that seems to sweep aside federal statutes, including the Alien Tort Claims Act, has received no public attention. It has been brought to light by a researcher with the Sustainable Energy and Environment Network (SEEN).

Under this Order, an oil company complicit in human rights violations, or one that causes environmental damage, would be immune from lawsuits. The language of the Executive Order is so broad that it might as well have been written by lawyers for Halliburton, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco.

In 13303, President Bush declares a national emergency as the basis for protecting the Development Fund for Iraq (an entity intended to fund reconstruction efforts with oil proceeds, overseen by an international board including World Bank officials) as well as all Iraqi petroleum, petroleum products, “interests”, proceeds, and contracts related to Iraqi petroleum. Claiming that interference with Iraqi petroleum, petroleum products, and “interests therein” jeopardizes reconstruction efforts in Iraq, EO 13303 offers a wide range of protections to certain persons, entities and assets associated with the Iraqi oil industry. The document is apparently intended as a sweeping grant of immunity to individuals, corporations, agencies and others involved in Iraqi oil sales, marketing, or other oil-related activities.

The Order provides protection at both the front end—the activities that generate the oil—as well as the back—the profits and proceeds that ensue. U.S. companies engaged in petroleum-related work in Iraq are purportedly given broad immunity from suits for environmental damage, workplace harms, contractual disputes, and numerous other wrongs. For example, a U.S. oil company benefiting from human rights abuses, no matter how egregious, apparently falls within the Order’s immunity from suit. Similarly, the Order purports to protect any assets derived from Iraqi oil from judgment, garnishment, or any other seizure in U.S. courts. For example, if a corporate entity or an individual engages in criminal activity in the U.S., its assets traceable to Iraqi oil are protected by this order. The list of situations in which a person or corporation could get away with, if not murder, then at least millions, is endless.

The title of the EO, “Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest,” is a sham. This EO may be about Iraq, but it’s also about the oil industry exclusively. (Remember the Administration has claimed that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil?) There is nothing at all about protecting humanitarian organizations, communications, computer or electrical companies, or other industries that are critical to Iraq’s reconstruction.

Ok, located...

For Springer especially.

And for any disbelievers as to how bad this gets.

Here is the current address for EO 13303 on the federal Register, as a PDF document:

a257.g.akamaitech.net...

I've seen this before.

A while back a group of U.S. POWs from the first Gulf war sued the government of Iraq for emotional duress, winning a multi-billion dollar judgment. The judgment was uncollectible until Gulf War II, when this same group of people sued the U.S. Government to get their money released either from Iraqi assets or from the development fund. EO 13303 was going to prevent them from collecting the money, among other things.

Capitalism is only despised by socialists.

Corruption is despised by people with ethics.

Crony capitalism at its extreme has always been associated with the bursting of bubbles and the misery of entire national economies following the 'POP!'

No exception for the dying Bush admin. People will be paying for their corruption and lack of strategic planning for years and years and years to come.

I saw some reading last night of the actual charged out rate for physical consumibles, and educational programs, as approved for the crony companies involved in reconstructing Iraq. It is disgusting beyond all measure.


www.motherjones.com...


October 2, 2003

Only the Cronies

In his Tuesday column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman socked it to the White House for its cronyism in doling out Iraq reconstruction contracts to industry pals. He said the reconstruction of Iraq has become a windfall for the old-boys club, and a disaster in the making for Iraqis:

"Cronyism is an important factor in the Iraqi debacle. It's not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be. The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: By treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq's recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The cost of the occupation is exploding, and military experts warn that our army is dangerously overcommitted. Yet officials are still allowing Iraqi reconstruction to languish, and the disaffection of the Iraqi public to grow, while they steer choice contracts to their friends. What makes you think they will ever change their ways?"

The same day Krugman's column appeared, Michael Scherer of Mother Jones, and Douglas Jehl of the New York Times broke the news that lobbyists with close ties to the White House are well established in Baghdad, connecting Western businesses with the American and Iraqi power brokers overseeing the reconstruction. Having left the Bush administration just weeks before the war in Iraq, Joe Allbaugh, Bush's former campaign manager, and director, until March, of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, set up a lobbying firm in Baghdad, called New Bridges Strategies. As Scherer writes, "The firm has already attracted companies looking to sell Iraq everything from new phone lines to catering services." .....

....As the Washington Post reports, Congressman Henry Waxman of California recently sent a letter the White House budget director accusing the administration of favoring American companies over their inexpensive Iraqi counterparts. Waxman writes, "requesting huge dollar amounts for complex projects that will be awarded to well-connected U.S. contractors operating at expensive premiums." As the Senate opened their first day of debate on Wednesday, some were skeptical as to whether the G.O.P. will be able to deliver Bush's request in the full amount.

Even before the war began, critics of the Bush administration have long expressed alarm that Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, which stands to make about $2 billion in Iraq, and other White House officials are so closely tied to companies making big bucks in Iraq. San Francisco's anti-war activists targeted the politically-connected Bechtel Group before the war, suspecting the company stood to gain from any military campaign. Well, guess what? Bechtel is doing very nicely in postwar Iraq, having quickly secured an initial $680 million reconstruction contract, recently topped up with an additional $300m.

Calls for reform are getting louder. On Wednesday, the New York Times editorial board followed Krugman's lead:

"The real problem is that without strong legislative safeguards and oversight, billions of taxpayer dollars are sure to be wasted through insufficiently competitive contracts to politically connected firms like Halliburton and Bechtel. That has largely been the pattern until now. Congress also needs to make sure that reconstruction programs do not fritter away their resources by relying on expensive American workers and supervisors when qualified, reliable and currently unemployed Iraqis could easily do the work.
Unless Congress puts an end to this kind of profiteering, American taxpayers are almost certain to be saddled with much higher long-term reconstruction costs. The rebuilding of Iraq's shattered public services and vital infrastructure, already behind schedule, will be subjected to further dangerous delays. As the elections approach, Mr. Bush will find himself facing even louder demands than he's now getting from the conservative right and the liberal left to cut the nation's financial and military losses. Bowing to these pressures could have disastrous results. The faster Iraq's economy and society are restored, the sooner American troops can safely return home without leaving behind a new breeding ground for terrorism."

what's wrong with socialists? not all principles of socialism are bad.

I love capitalism.

I hate crony capitalism - at the governmental level it's just corruption of the worst order, by people who should be incarcerated and have all their assets seized and stripped from them and their families.

I'll agree with you there MA

crony capitolism just replaces the old aristocracy/feudalistic template of society imho

agreed 100%....

Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which defends its pricing as fair, has a contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild Iraq's oil sector. This has included importing gasoline products which are in short supply to the oil-rich nation.

"Millions of Americans want to help Iraqis but they don't want to be fleeced (by Halliburton)," Representative Henry Waxman of California, told a news conference in Washington on Wednesday.

Waxman said army documents showed that as of 18 September, the US had paid Halliburton $300 million to import about 190 million gallons (719 million litres) of gasoline into Iraq.

Accurate figure

Halliburton billed the government an average price of $1.59 per gallon (3.7 litres), excluding the company's fee of 2%-7%, said Waxman.

He said the average wholesale cost of gasoline during that period in the Middle East was about 71 cents a gallon, a figure an oil industry source told Reuters was accurate. That meant Halliburton was charging more than 90 cents a gallon to transport fuel into Iraq from Kuwait.

"When we checked with independent experts to see if this fee was reasonable, they were stunned," said Waxman, adding a reasonable transport cost would be 10 to 25 cents per gallon, especially as the US military was providing security.

"The overcharging by Halliburton is so extreme that one expert privately called it highway robbery"

A Halliburton spokeswoman defended the pricing as fair and said KBR had to transport gasoline through a "hostile environment" into Baghdad.


english.aljazeera.net...




Given the publisher of this info, I would REALLY like to see a disproof or rebuttal of the pricing information.

Not because it's Al Jazeera quoting Waxman, but because I really would like to know what price Iraq is actually being charged for gasoline by the Halliburton subsidiary.

This is price gouging and war profiteering of the worst order, unless the figures are untrue.

My gawd, that's criminal. While we both know it will not stop there, as Iraq is an untapped resource for those with greed as their motive, but what will the consequences be when the Iraqi people really get pissed off when their economy is worse than it was under saddam?
For god's sake, we are pillaging a country we just invaded.

Peace,
BG

Communism (socialism),is a reaction to out of control Capitalism.
Can U see where the US is headed?.
This is just something that is becoming more apparent to me.
MHO,so there.

It has been coming up more often the last month or so,the term "peak oil".
We done passed the cheap oil phase,and it is downhill from here.
I'm sure there are those who know this besides you and me, if you who have the power to take control of what's left,you have control of the world since everyone is addicted to oil.
Just snatch the oil that's left and write some laws to make yourself immune to any complaints that may arise,and charge any price you want until it is gone.
I guess that would make it easy to have first poke at any "alternative energy sources" too,since those with the oil will have endless money to suppress or develope new technologies for when the oil does run out.
Hmmmm.

Postwar Contracting Called Uncoordinated

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003; Page A23

Despite the Bush administration's pledge of transparency in granting and monitoring billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the system is beset by "almost incomprehensible confusion," an independent Washington watchdog group reported yesterday.

No single agency coordinates the contracts, and the federal officials in charge have been reluctant or unable to deliver complete information about deals large and small, the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity said.

The criticism came as part of a report in which the center concluded that private firms that were awarded contracts totaling $8 billion had contributed significantly to President Bush's election campaign and had stocked their staffs and governing boards with well-connected former federal officials.

The political connections of the largest contractors -- particularly Halliburton Co., formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, and its Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. subsidiary -- have been reported previously. The center's report represents the broadest and most detailed exploration of the issue.

Announcing the results, Charles Lewis, director of the center, told reporters that there is a "stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan." He alleged "obfuscation and stonewalling" by the Bush administration, a charge that echoes criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress.



www.washingtonpost.com...

(Sorry if the link doesn't work... but the Washington Post is worth subscribing to if you want a middle-ground newspaper)

[Edited on 31-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]