It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judicial Watch gets "100 pg" Haliburton "NO Bid" Documents

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
And before anyone goes on a tirade that JW is a liberal activist group. Let's remember they went after Bill Clinton hard. And not only that the front page has documents on Jesse Jackson. So it's nonpartisan.

This is the power of the Freedom of Information act and it pretty much consistently states what Progressives have said for so long. The Cheney pundits and Cheney Lied for the Haliburton carving up Iraq.

Our 5 time deferment VP has alot of explaining to do. Who will hold him accountable?
Will the news report it? God, people need to wake up and see we need a SERIOUS investigation. Just sickening

from JW watch:


www.judicialwatch.org...

Newly Released Documents Raise Questions Regarding Involvement of Vice President’s Office

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the Department of the Army, per order of U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, has released to Judicial Watch approximately 100 pages of documents which detail the multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract awarded in 2003 by the Army to Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton Co. One document uncovered by Judicial Watch suggests the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) may have publicly lied regarding the involvement of the Vice President’s office in awarding the contract.

In an email dated April 22, 2003, Carol Sanders of the USACE, writes, “Mr. Robert Andersen, Chief Counsel, USACE, participated in a 60 Minutes interview today in New York regarding the sole source award of the oil response contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root….Mr. Andersen…was able to make many of the points we had planned.” Sanders subsequently provided sound bites from the interview, including, “There was no contact whatsoever (with the VP office).”

This directly contradicts another email uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2004. The email, dated March 5, 2003, sent by an official of the Army Corps of Engineers whose name was redacted, stated, “We anticipate no issue [with the KBR deal] since the action has been coordinated w VP’s office.”

judicialwatch.org...


[edit on 16-6-2006 by MRGERBIK]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The date on these documents are damaging. It was so far away from about Liberation and Democracy. It was all about profits and contracts from the first push on. Not a surprise to the progressives though.

Look at the maps,People. I still can't believe people are apologists for Haliburton. People realize this doesn't look good for the U.S. once this gets to internation media, right?
And if they get a hold of anymore documents? It will only be more damaging.



Serious question:

Can redaction be removed? I saw it on one website where succefuflly they had removed some of the blacked out redaction.





[edit on 16-6-2006 by MRGERBIK]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
It depends on how the text was redacted.

If it was done digitally, then it's quite easy to remove.

If it was a marker on the physical paper, before the documents were scanned, it's much more complicated.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It depends on how the text was redacted.

If it was done digitally, then it's quite easy to remove.

If it was a marker on the physical paper, before the documents were scanned, it's much more complicated.


Hmm this reminds me of the Gary Mckinnon phone numbers redacted that he called.
And they were able to lift the I.P.'s and phone numbers.

Maybe someone at ATS can see if they can reveal anything?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It depends on how the text was redacted.

If it was done digitally, then it's quite easy to remove.

If it was a marker on the physical paper, before the documents were scanned, it's much more complicated.


Hmm this reminds me of the Gary Mckinnon phone numbers redacted that he called.
And they were able to lift the I.P.'s and phone numbers.

Maybe someone at ATS can see if they can reveal anything?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Does anyone have that Harry Truman quote handy -- you know, the one where he called war profiteers "traitors?"




top topics
 
0

log in

join