Fast and Furious Afghanistan: More Illegal Weapons in The Hands of The Enemy?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So....there is a court ruling that dismisses his claim, based not on the merits of the case, but because of the time that had passed. Then, we have some forum where people claim the man is mentally unbalanced, and we are supposed to take that as the truth, but everything he says as false? Come on. If he's telling the truth, then they would attempt to discredit him, and claiming he was mentally ill would be one method that would be used. Now, let's move to the business about him filing a claim against another company. So what? So he's a guy that, if he sees a problem, he reports it. Just because he didn't get the result he wanted, that doesn't mean he wasn't correct in what he stated happened.

Things happen that should not all the time, and many are covered up successfully. Look at the Fast and Furious case here. Even knowing, as we do, that things happened that should not have, we still have no prosecutions, and no one is being held legally responsible. No; we see a massive cover-up, with everyone covering everyone else's rear end. More recently, we have the Benghazi attack. From the start, they knew that was a terrorist attack, and they knew that the location was left inadequately secured. Yet, after all these months, we still have no testimony from key people, and we still have no one taking any blame for what happened. No; instead, we are supposed to simply forget about it. There are many other such cases, which ATS has discussed, examined, and which most agree included some sort of cover-up.

So, just because no one is acting on this, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Some of what he's claiming is totally accurate. Not only would the military be in charge of civilian contractors, but weapons trafficking would fall TOTALLY under their control. That's according to my military husband, who has been deployed more than once. So, some CID paperwork claiming that they had no jurisdiction would be quite telling, indeed. If he's got that paperwork, showing them stating it isn't their responsibility, then that is proof they are lying.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Brotherman

 

Again let me make my possession very clear.

I do believe that individuals do provide some NATO issue weapons to insurgents for personal gain.

I do not however believe that any organisation is doing this, I do not believe that any PSC's are doing this as a means of corporate gain.

edit on 29-12-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Why not? Do we suddenly simply start trusting contractors, that makes insane amounts of money supplying weapons of war? I don't see this as unlikely at all. What those companies care about is profit. If they can make a conflict go on for a longer amount of time, then they make more money. Supplying weapons to both sides would make good business sense for them. There are plenty of unscrupulous people that would not care how many lives were lost, and that have no sense of morals or ethics. Why is it so hard to believe that a company might do something like this? Certainly, not every single person in said company, but some that can, and probably some very highly placed as well. I am more inclined to believe that people could do something corrupt than to believe that every accusation someone can't have investigated is false.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Now, let's move to the business about him filing a claim against another company. So what? So he's a guy that, if he sees a problem, he reports it. Just because he didn't get the result he wanted, that doesn't mean he wasn't correct in what he stated happened.

From the Court Judgement...

Mr Timmins was obviously a conscientious and diligent meat inspector and had every right to raise concerns about work practice which he observed so that these could be investigated and, if need be, resolved.

Unfortunately, he was unable or unwilling to provide additional details about the
allegations when requested by ASURE who then had to proceed to investigate the
claims without any further input from Mr Timmins.

If he were truly concerned about the allegations he made, why did he not provide enough detail for his claims to be investigated?

reply to post by Springer


You do know that Afghanistan is still a war zone.

I want to make something clear.

Nowhere in anything Ben has said or we have reported is there an allegation that Compass ISS was "selling weapons to the enemy", "involved in the distribution of weapons to the enemy", or knowingly, as a corporation, condoning any of these activities.

Nowhere.

That's not the implication at all.

The only allegation is that by virtue of their allowing these weapons on their site, against all the ISAF, NATO, UN and U.S.regulations, and Afghan law, and allowing the subcontractor's (a company owned by a local business person, and the record shows that many of the "local" PSCs were owned and operated by former "war lords" with vague or unknown loyalties) guards to deploy with them, sans any accounting of these weapons (who would log illegal weapons?), and apparently no background vetting of the "guards" deployed with them, per Ben's testimony, established an environment that makes it much easier for the enemy to get their hands on these illegal weapons.

THAT'S IT.

There is NO evidence the company, or anyone else was "selling" or "delivering" these weapons to the Taliban.


Springer...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

No nor do I work for any PSC.

The government actually has nothing to do with this, the OP is not claiming that the government are supplying the weapons or has anything meaningful to do with what happened to Mr. Timmons he is saying it’s the PSC.

What does a accusation like that have to do with anything.

I do not work for the government, do you?

I think the person who asked that question, has as much of a right as you do for defending the government and the private contractor in question, while trying to derail the OP by your persistance in trying to make the person who blew the whistle look like a nut job!!!

I can easily go back to posts where you did the same thing when evidence came out that the US government was supplying Al Qaeda with weapons in Syria, and as you are doing in this thread you did the same thing in that one! SO YES!!! I do believe that you are working an agenda here and not doing this for the sake of denying ignorance!

The OP, has a genuine question as to what is going on, and research is being done as we speak to dig further into it, yet you are sounding like a broken record by bringing up the same thing over and over again!! Saying it once, I can respect that, but you sir our blowing your cover..

Let me ask you this question in relation to the OP and your vindictiveness to derail the topic. "Do you believe that the government has used the "mental card" in the past to make whistleblowers look like their information can not be believed?"!

Please think about it before you go any further!

BTW, tell the folks at Langley I said hello!

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Now, let's move to the business about him filing a claim against another company. So what? So he's a guy that, if he sees a problem, he reports it. Just because he didn't get the result he wanted, that doesn't mean he wasn't correct in what he stated happened.

From the Court Judgement...

Mr Timmins was obviously a conscientious and diligent meat inspector and had every right to raise concerns about work practice which he observed so that these could be investigated and, if need be, resolved.

Unfortunately, he was unable or unwilling to provide additional details about the
allegations when requested by ASURE who then had to proceed to investigate the
claims without any further input from Mr Timmins.

If he were truly concerned about the allegations he made, why did he not provide enough detail for his claims to be investigated?

Fair question. It's possible that he wasn't able to obtain more evidence. It's also possible that he had it, and it was taken from him. Yes, it's also possible that he made something up. However, someone not being able to offer concrete proof isn't necessarily a sign that they are lying. How many personal stories have people posted here, that they cannot prove? I have shared things I can't prove, because there is no concrete proof. I can fully understand if someone is skeptical, because, frankly, if I had not been there, I might have a hard time believing some of it myself. I know, though, that those incidents are real. We all know that investigations can be tainted, too.

Try this possible scenario. Mr. Timmons accuses ASURE of having unsafe food handling procedures, or whatever the exact claim was. His case is presented, and he's unable to offer solid proof. So, an investigation is done. At this point, the company would know they were being investigated, and if there were unsafe practices, they could easily cover it up, or make corrections, so that nothing was found in the investigation. As a result, many would assume that Mr. Timmons was lying, for whatever reason.

I see that as a possibility, so I am willing to consider that he's being honest about this other issue. At the least, a very thorough investigation should be done. Weapons do go missing. Our military tends to destroy confiscated stuff, but I don't know what other countries do in those cases. It's common for the terrorists to use such weapons, too. Our military would be responsible for investigating such a claim, though. Whether we want to trust this man or not, it would be grossly negligent to not investigate his claims. Too many people die because of stolen weapons. I don't like hearing about this or that person lost, from units that are where we are stationed. Our people should not be coming home in body bags because of some greedy, unscrupulous company or individuals,or some careless inattention to a problem, and I want to know if they are guilty of what he's claiming. War is bad enough as it is, without that sort of thing happening.

I dont know if this has been posted in here or not yet there are so many links this is a pretty long document entitled Inquiry Into the Role and Oversight of Private Security Contractors in Afghanastan:


www.scribd.com...

PART TWO 52
4. Performance 70
a) EODT's Performance 70
b)Compass's Performance 71

This isn't from Compass-ISS this is from page 23:
SECR£'t'(U) U.S. Military reporting said that an Afghan military investigation into theAzizabadraid found that most of those killed "were associated with the insurgency."JO(U) Among those killed in the operation was Mr. White n, who was Mullah Sadeq'suncle and the host of the Taliban shura. At the time of the raid, Mr. White n was supplyingAnnorGroup with local men to work as anned guards under the company's Air Forcesubcontract at Shindand Airbase. Mr. White Uwas also being paid to provide security under aseparate AnnorGroup Mine Action (AGMA) contract with the United Nations in the area. JI Inaddition to White n. seven of his men who were employed under those contracts were alsokilled. J2 AnnorGroup unifonns were found on site after the raid. An Anny investigation of theoperation concluded that "[m]ost likely, some of the [anti-coalition militia] inAzizabad werealso security contractors for AnnorGroup."JJ(U) In addition to AnnorGroup uniforms, the post-operation search of the site revealed
In addition to AnnorGroup uniforms, the post-operation search of the site revealed"extensive stores of weapons, explosives, intelligence materials, and even an access badge to thenearby base."l" In one building, U.S. forces found anti-tank landmines,landminefuses, and ahand grenade. J3 In another, they found AK-47s, machine guns, 4,000 rounds of machine gunammunition, body annor, and other military equipment, along with more than $4,000 in cash. l6The initial military investigation stated that the operation "revealed finn evidence that theTaliban fighters planned to attack a nearby coalition forces base."J7 In fact, the U.S. MilitaryTeam Leader said there were "rudimentary sketches of what appeared to be Shindand Airfield"on the site. JS The Team Leader was aJanned by whal was uncovered at the site, saying"[n]obody should [have] sketches of Shindand Airfield and large numbers or a large quantity ofweapons and ammunition."l9 The Team Leader added thai there was "no reason" forpeople tohave anti-tank mines in their living areas, noting that "one of our [American]


This document is hard to follow I put this it gives an example of how this could be going down just food for thought this whole document gives you a really good picture of some of the more nefarious things you just have to dig for it


this is a better link of the same document
en.calameo.com...

reply to post by Springer


Well then you maybe should not have used the Fast & Furious comparison? That right there plays into making people form a conclusion does it not? None of your post on this warrant that comparison. I find this bit to scream this guy is lying. From post #3

Mr. L. and Mr. D.M. then came back a third time. They went through things again and confiscated my personal laptop and documents. At this time I had a discussion with Mr. L. that the laptop was my personal item and they were not taking it. Mr. L. told me that we can do it the easy way or the hard way. I requested to be taken to military police. Mr. L. advised me “this was a civilian post and we don't answer to the military and the police are not coming”.

But then we get this on post #6

Mr. D. informed Ben that an armed guard would be in the room with him and more armed guards would be placed outside the door and if Ben tried to leave "there would be consequences". In spite of this Ben decided to write up a report of all the events he had witnessed and endured while they were fresh in his mind on his personal computer since his company notebook computer, that held all of the original reports, had been confiscated by Mr. L. back at Camp Bastion.

So first his personal lap top is taken the he has it? He stated he was in a company compound and kept isolated, so why would they leave him a computer hmm?

Anyone who wants to learn more should tune into our radio show in about an hour or so, I'll be coming on to discuss this, you can "call" in and ask questions if you want. Click here for details atslive.abovetopsecret.com...

Springer...

en.calameo.com...

Page 72 3rd paragraph down into page 73 highlights that there is a history with compass and munitions and slimey employees all in the mix together. Everything from falsifying combat reports to lining pockets by jacking up ammo prices I would recommend this document it is related evidence for sure

reply to post by Springer


Do I just hit the listen live option when the broadcast starts?? or do I have to download join and install a bunch of craziness?

Ways to listen to ATS Live...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Brotherman


Assuming you have a media player on your computer (99.99% do) all you need to do is click and listen.

S...

Great post S&F.....Also cheers for reminding me why I actually come here!

www.sfgate.com...

I am still trying to find out who or why for any reason they would need rpgs if these are issued rpgs from isaf (which I did look into it and rpg is a weapon authorized to afghans) If they are issued I can speculate that they were stolen, but why risk stealing these if apparently there is a thriving market for arms in the country actually to me almost seems weapons are well in abundance and cheap. Why I was brought to this line of thinking is to try and understand the situation and then it dawned on me, after reading a recently declassified document (I have links for that in a previous post) that if they are hording them for later sale or use because they have in the past falsified combat reports to gain a financial perk for lower level employees, there is a documented history of this with Compass-iss. No matter how I look at it I keep being drawn to a small groups financial benefit and people turn a blind eye to it probably because of other misconduct that would draw attention to if investigated.

reply to post by Springer


Fascinating Read.

Diplomatic Immunity and an Exclusive in The New Yorker Magazine

may be just what the Dr. ordered.

Best to You,
S&F

reply to post by Springer


Afghanistan is all about Poppy Money and Drug Warlords who desire weapons to protect their interests. All the Afghan Leaders are involved and unfortunately...if you are a Drug Warlord that is willing to Kill Taliban then it seems a blind eye is cast your way as you get RPG's and other toys.

Split Infinity

Explanation: S&F! and Amigo!

To boil this all down and extract the most pure essence of this thread I guess what this is all about is ...

... A Conflict of Interest [wiki] ...

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.” Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests.

And I provide here an Australian legal definition ... (Sourced from ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DUTIES [lawsociety.com.au] Caution! PDF file ok.

A conflict of interest may be described also as a conflict of duties or a conflict between interests or as a conflict between interest and duty. All these ways of describing what is essentially the same thing pick up different aspects of the three main ways in which the problem can arise.

And how to fix ... Conflict of interest: Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests [wiki]

1: Removal.

2: Disclosure.

3: Recuse.

4: Third-Party Evaluations.

Personal Disclosure: I think its time for an Independant (No#4) Audit of these subcontracted international security services such as Compass-ISS ... who are no better than mercinaries who have entered into a Moral Hazard by following a Perverse Incentive for Blood Money!

reply to post by Springer

Nowhere in anything Ben has said or we have reported is there an allegation that Compass ISS was "selling weapons to the enemy", "involved in the distribution of weapons to the enemy", or knowingly, as a corporation, condoning any of these activities.
Nowhere.

That's not the implication at all.

Firstly thank you for clearing this up however you must understand that while Ben might not have been implying it your OP is most certainly implying it, the very first line of your OP is:

Do we have another situation similar to "Fast and Furious" happening in Afghanistan?

You then go on to say that:

While the mechanics are different, this time the people allowing, if not supplying , illegal RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) to be within easy grasp of the Taliban aren't agents of the U.S. Government, they're just being paid by the U.S. Government (and others) via the United Nations, N.A.T.O. and the ISAF through lucrative Private Security Contracts.

So yes it is strongly implied in you opening statements that it is possible in your own words that PSC’s may be “supplying” or “allowing” RPGs to fall within the grasp of the Taliban. There is a very clear comparisons made to “Fast and Furious” which as we all know does strongly imply that this is being knowingly done by members of the PSC.

Many of the debates that I have had with members on this thread have been about whether or not Compass ISS is knowingly providing weapons to insurgents, an allegation you acknowledge to be unfounded.

So now that we have established that this is a thread not about the supply of weapons to Afghan insurgents it comes down to two things, PSC’s, specifically Compass ISS providing RPGs and DSHKs for their employees and secondly it’s about what happened to Mr Timmons at the hands of his old employers.

To address the first point, Camp Bastion is located inside Helmand province it is considered to be the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. As I understanding Compass ISS was contracted to provide security to the trucks moving in an out of the camp. Now while illegal yes, it is reasonable that with such a dangerous job to do these guys are going to want some heavier fire power than a AK. If they get attacked and have to do their job, protect the convoys, they are going to want a DSHK for cover fire and if they come up against a pick-up with a heaving weapon on the back they will want to blow it up with a RPG. It makes sense for them to have these weapons even if they are illegal, all PSCs will be doing this.

Now then all it really boils down to is what happened to Mr Timmons who has been shown to be unreliable, he has tried to sue two previous employers including Compass ISS which suggests to me he has a serious conflict of interest. As I and other members have shown Mr Timmons is not a reliable whiteness for multiple reasons, his mental health, previous attempts to sue his former employers and an account form another contractor saying he “lost the plot” and a lack of any evidence to support any of what Mr. Timmons has said. Above all of that I also see that another member has also spotted a serous inconsistency in the statements he made to the OP regarding his laptop.

As such I think much of the OP can be dismissed or at the very least needs to be re-written with the “Fast and furious” claims taken out, and a more balanced view of Mr. Timmons taken.

This thread as a number of huge problems, and with all due respect you yourself springer if this thread has been posted by anyone else there would be more members pointing out the errors in it and it would have a heck of a lot less attention.