Custer Battles rides again.

by Kagro X

Back in August, I wrote a diary at Daily Kos noting the "Iran-Contrafication of Iraq." The subject that day was the technicality that let one of the most disgusting and widely-reviled innocent and otherwise wonderful Iraq war profiteers -- contractor Custer Battles -- escape enjoy justice. Do you remember what it was?

The verdict reached $10 million because the law calls for triple damages, plus penalties fines and legal costs. But U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, in a ruling made public Friday, ruled that Custer Battles' accusers failed to prove that the U.S. government was ever defrauded. Any fraud that occurred was perpetrated instead against the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed shortly after the war to run Iraq during the occupation until an Iraqi government was established. Ellis ruled that the trial evidence failed to show that the U.S. government was the actual victim, even though U.S. taxpayers ultimately footed the bill.

That's right. If you defrauded American taxpayers through the cut-out of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- and let's face it, just about everyone did -- you're off the hook. Because although the CPA paid you with money provided by the American government, and was almost entirely staffed by the American government, and acted at the behest of the American government, technically speaking it wasn't the American government. So those bricks of taxpayer cash are yours to keep. Hooray for you! Even better, Judge Ellis recently threw out the remaining charges against Custer Battles.

Yesterday's ruling involved a second case brought under a federal whistle-blower statute by Robert Isakson, who worked for a Custer Battles subcontractor, and William D. Baldwin, who worked for Custer Battles. They alleged that the company failed to make good on a commitment to provide 138 people as part of its airport security contract. Instead, Alan Grayson, an attorney for Isakson and Baldwin, said Custer Battles moved airport personnel to other contracts and illegally double-billed for their work. Ellis, however, ruled that the contract didn't call for a specific number of security personnel, and he found that Custer Battles did not knowingly commit fraud.

Of course, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the contract didn't call for a specific number of security personnel. Why not? Well, according to former Army inspector general Col. Richard Ballard:

Custer Battles should not have charged the CPA for security services because they were not needed; the airport terminal had already been secured by about 21,000 allied troops.

Your tax dollars at work.

Comments

[tryggth]

T.S. Ellis III... clueless. Read some of his stuff here:

http://fas.org/sgp/jud/ (AIPAC case).

[Nan]

Infuriating! Thanks for the post.
Nan

[Nell]

It's disappointing to see this post perpetuate an idea that's too widespread already -- that the pallets of cash bricks flown in to Baghdad in summer 2003 were U.S. tax money. They were primarily the Iraqi peoples' money, the proceeds of the 'oil for food' program released to the CPA ostensibly to fund reconstruction.

There was also massive waste and fraud of U.S. tax money, after it was appropriated in the fall of 2003 (or early 2004?) -- the $20 billion for 'reconstruction' that was part of the famous $87 billion supplemental. But that money took a long time to be spent; late in 2004, only three or four billion of it had been put to use, and a quarter to third of that for security (private military).

But for the first nine or ten months of its existence, the CPA and the contractors who fed off it were throwing around the national resources of the Iraqi people -- the classic case of "other peoples' money".

Maybe the Waxman committee can put out some vivid charts and graphics. The scale and utter fecklessness of it, as Iraqis watched their power and water and streets fall deeper and deeper into ruin...

We have to answer to some court outside this country for the theft and destruction.

[brainsalad]

"[Custer Battles has] to answer to some court outside this country for the theft and destruction."

Then Custer Battles has little to fear. In what scenario would they find themselves obligated to answer to a forgein court? Certainly not in one where the expired provisional governent is found to be at fault for authorizing and overseeing Custer Battles' dubious activities. If the provisional authority in this and many other instances of egregious waste were found responsible, could they also conceivably be held to account? Which laws did they violate? Their own? Does the new Iraqi government have jurisdiction over crimes committed during the sovereignty of the provisional government? Does responsibility for legal action against the provisional government in fact fall upon the no-longer-extant provisional government?

I ask because this is an interesting problem. Quite very interesting - almost as if it were assiduously allowed to evolve.

[Nell]

When I say 'we' I don't mean Custer Battles. I mean the U.S. government, through the World Court. We stole Iraq's national wealth, and destroyed its economy and infrastructure.

Individual war criminals in our government, if we don't try them here, can be tried through the International Criminal Court. I'd hope we'd do the job ourselves, though.

[Nell]

For those who have satellite TV, the LinkTV channel will have a program on "Iraq's Missing Billions" on Saturday, March 3, covering both the oil money and the U.S. funds.

[herefast123]

Batteries Latitude D620 NT379 312-038 dell black laptop battery

[herefast123]

asus u5f battery

[herefast123]

hp presario x1100 battery