Punishment of Whistleblowers in Iraq

Well, if you feel like you're living in a country run by a corrupt cabal, this article isn't going to make you feel any better. Sample:

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

Whistleblowers on Fraud Facing Penalties

By DEBORAH HASTINGS Associated Press 08.24.07, 3:16 PM ET

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

"It was a Wal-Mart for guns," he says. "It was all illegal and everyone knew it."

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics "reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants."

Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

"If you do it, you will be destroyed," said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

"Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, `Should I do this?' And my answer is no. If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything," Weaver said.

They have been fired or demoted, shunned by colleagues, and denied government support in whistleblower lawsuits filed against contracting firms.

"The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know," said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. "But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, 'Don't blow the whistle or we'll make your life hell.'

"It's heartbreaking," Daley said. "There is an even greater need for whistleblowers now. But they are made into public martyrs. It's a disgrace. Their lives get ruined."

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse knows this only too well. As the highest-ranking civilian contracting officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she testified before a congressional committee in 2005 that she found widespread fraud in multibillion-dollar rebuilding contracts awarded to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Soon after, Greenhouse was demoted. She now sits in a tiny cubicle in a different department with very little to do and no decision-making authority, at the end of an otherwise exemplary 20-year career.

People she has known for years no longer speak to her.

"It's just amazing how we say we want to remove fraud from our government, then we gag people who are just trying to stand up and do the right thing," she says.

In her demotion, her supervisors said she was performing poorly. "They just wanted to get rid of me," she says softly. The Army Corps of Engineers denies her claims.

"You just don't have happy endings," said Weaver. "She was a wonderful example of a federal employee. They just completely creamed her. In the end, no one followed up, no one cared."

But Greenhouse regrets nothing. "I have the courage to say what needs to be said. I paid the price," she says.

Then there is Robert Isakson, who filed a whistleblower suit against contractor Custer Battles in 2004, alleging the company - with which he was briefly associated - bilked the U.S. government out of tens of millions of dollars by filing fake invoices and padding other bills for reconstruction work.

He and his co-plaintiff, William Baldwin, a former employee fired by the firm, doggedly pursued the suit for two years, gathering evidence on their own and flying overseas to obtain more information from witnesses. Eventually, a federal jury agreed with them and awarded a $10 million judgment against the now-defunct firm, which had denied all wrongdoing.

It was the first civil verdict for Iraq reconstruction fraud.

But in 2006, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III overturned the jury award. He said Isakson and Baldwin failed to prove that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupier of Iraq for 14 months, was part of the U.S. government.

Not a single Iraq whistleblower suit has gone to trial since.

"It's a sad, heartbreaking comment on the system," said Isakson, a former FBI agent who owns an international contracting company based in Alabama. "I tried to help the government, and the government didn't seem to care."

One way to blow the whistle is to file a "qui tam" lawsuit (taken from the Latin phrase "he who sues for the king, as well as for himself") under the federal False Claims Act.

Signed by Abraham Lincoln in response to military contractors selling defective products to the Union Army, the act allows private citizens to sue on the government's behalf.

The government has the option to sign on, with all plaintiffs receiving a percentage of monetary damages, which are tripled in these suits.

It can be a straightforward and effective way to recoup federal funds lost to fraud. In the past, the Justice Department has joined several such cases and won. They included instances of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling, and padded invoices from domestic contractors.

But the government has not joined a single quit tam suit alleging Iraq reconstruction abuse, estimated in the tens of millions. At least a dozen have been filed since 2004.

"It taints these cases," said attorney Alan Grayson, who filed the Custer Battles suit and several others like it. "If the government won't sign on, then it can't be a very good case - that's the effect it has on judges."

The Justice Department declined comment.

Most of the lawsuits are brought by former employees of giant firms. Some plaintiffs have testified before members of Congress, providing examples of fraud they say they witnessed and the retaliation they experienced after speaking up.

Julie McBride testified last year that as a "morale, welfare and recreation coordinator" at Camp Fallujah, she saw KBR exaggerate costs by double- and triple-counting the number of soldiers who used recreational facilities.

She also said the company took supplies destined for a Super Bowl party for U.S. troops and instead used them to stage a celebration for themselves.

"After I voiced my concerns about what I believed to be accounting fraud, Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion," she told the committee. "My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country."

Halliburton and KBR denied her testimony.

She also has filed a whistleblower suit. The Justice Department has said it would not join the action. But last month, a federal judge refused a motion by KBR to dismiss the lawsuit.

Donald Vance, the contractor and Navy veteran detained in Iraq after he blew the whistle on his company's weapons sales, says he has stopped talking to the federal government.

Navy Capt. John Fleming, a spokesman for U.S. detention operations in Iraq, confirmed the detentions but said he could provide no further details because of the lawsuit.

According to their suit, Vance and Ertel gathered photographs and documents, which Vance fed to Chicago FBI agent Travis Carlisle for six months beginning in October 2005. Carlisle, reached by phone at Chicago's FBI field office, declined comment. An agency spokesman also would not comment.

The Iraqi company has since disbanded, according the suit.

Vance said things went terribly wrong in April 2006, when he and Ertel were stripped of their security passes and confined to the company compound.

Panicking, Vance said, he called the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where hostage experts got on the phone and told him "you're about to be kidnapped. Lock yourself in a room with all the weapons you can get your hands on.'"

The military sent a Special Forces team to rescue them, Vance said, and the two men showed the soldiers where the weapons caches were stored. At the embassy, the men were debriefed and allowed to sleep for a few hours. "I thought I was among friends," Vance said.

The men said they were cuffed and hooded and driven to Camp Cropper, where Vance was held for nearly three months and his colleague for a little more than a month. Eventually, their jailers said they were being held as security internees because their employer was suspected of selling weapons to terrorists and insurgents, the lawsuit said.

The prisoners said they repeatedly told interrogators to contact Carlisle in Chicago. "One set of interrogators told us that Travis Carlisle doesn't exist. Then some others would say, 'He says he doesn't know who you are,'" Vance said.

Released first was Ertel, who has returned to work in Iraq for a different company. Vance said he has never learned why he was held longer. His own interrogations, he said, seemed focused on why he reported his information to someone outside Iraq.

And then one day, without explanation, he was released.

"They drove me to Baghdad International Airport and dumped me," he said.

When he got home, he decided to never call the FBI again. He called a lawyer, instead.

"There's an unspoken rule in Baghdad," he said. "Don't snitch on people and don't burn bridges."

For doing both, Vance said, he paid with 97 days of his life.

One word: Disgusting.

Why am I not surprised.

One could almost say they are being encouraged to be whistleblowers by the law and then singled out and put in their place....so the government/corporation can now run its business as usual.

Isn't it pretty well-known that there's a considerble correlation between corruption and the state of the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

.....

But the government has not joined a single quit tam suit alleging Iraq reconstruction abuse, estimated in the tens of millions. At least a dozen have been filed since 2004.

"It taints these cases," said attorney Alan Grayson, who filed the Custer Battles suit and several others like it. "If the government won't sign on, then it can't be a very good case - that's the effect it has on judges."

The Justice Department declined comment.

---

That's just disturbing.... A system were the corruption got a silent approval from the goverment.

Wow... it's worse than I thought... :creep: :hide:

Sickinging, on a more constructive note how can we stop this. Unless if we convince Bush and Co. to agree to stop theirs no use passing a law to prohibit it since they'll just inorge it. Perhasp a federal anti corruption branch?

This is really depressing. Whistleblowers in the corporate world don't fair too well either. There is no incentive to do the right thing anymore - or so it seems. :shame:

...tin-foil hat, my :daisy:.

Disgusting and depressing. I would indeed like to see what folks who defend this administration can come up with this time, to excuse their actions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Sickinging, on a more constructive note how can we stop this. Unless if we convince Bush and Co. to agree to stop theirs no use passing a law to prohibit it since they'll just inorge it. Perhasp a federal anti corruption branch?

---

Sadly, DoH, I don't think there's anything we can do under the current administration. An anti-corruption branch would duplicate work already supposed to be done by the F.B.I., and any special law put into place could easily be ignored.

As the article demonstrates, a complete anti-corruption apparatus exists, both legally and administratively. But there's nothing we can do when it is being subverted from top to bottom.

Breaks my heart, though, to see the most courageous and moral people being smacked down the hardest. It's perverse, in the deepest sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Sickinging, on a more constructive note how can we stop this. Unless if we convince Bush and Co. to agree to stop theirs no use passing a law to prohibit it since they'll just inorge it. Perhasp a federal anti corruption branch?

---

I agree, something serious needs to be done. But I don't think this is just a Bush thing. I think all of our problems aren't just Bush's fault. The whole entire government is to blame. So what should we do? Well first off we need to unite as a country, and stop the whole Democrats vs. Republicans thing. As I already stated it's not just the Bush admin's fault, just take a look at all the current candidates and the ones Bush ran against. They are all just as bad if not worse. Once we are united we need to stand up together and tell the government we are sick and tired of all their :daisy:. We need to support the whistleblowers who try and report corruption. Once that happens maybe they will get it through their thick skulls that we want leaders, not rulers. Maybe they will realize that their propaganda and fancy speeches aren't fooling anyone. That is what I think needs to be done.

They also seem to get very little publicity.
Wonder why they don't contact a non profit org or a nongov watchdog instead of the FBI or another gov org.
Louder screams tend to get heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

They also seem to get very little publicity.
Wonder why they don't contact a non profit org or a nongov watchdog instead of the FBI or another gov org.
Louder screams tend to get heard.

---

I suspect that this is because they are dealing with issues that have substantial national security implications. To go to a NGO or suchlike would mean that the whistleblower really was breaking the law.

Going through the accepted channel (which appears to be the FBI) is their only real recourse.

Wouldn't whistleblowing in itself be considered borderline lawbreaking already, since you are giving away secrets, albeit to another government organization which might not have the clearance for the information you are leaking?
In fact, the first story presented didn't have any such implications as far as I can tell.

Also, seeing the fate of other whistleblowers and how little is done against said companies/organizations, wouldn't one want to have some backup, regardless of the "national security" implications? You are likely to get the tarred and feathered anyway, according to the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Wouldn't whistleblowing in itself be considered borderline lawbreaking already, since you are giving away secrets, albeit to another government organization which might not have the clearance for the information you are leaking?
In fact, the first story presented didn't have any such implications as far as I can tell.

---

I thought supplying weapons to the enemy would have been a capital offense. I'm pretty sure treason is one of the worst offences around and nothing protects anyone from the consequences. So I don't think whistleblowing in this event would be unlawful.

Quote:

---

about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

---

Land mines and rocket launchers, the perfect IED and anti-(light)-armour... just right for attacking patrols.

If this is true, those supplying the weapons should be hanging from a rope. I'm against capital punishment for person vs person crimes, for those against the state hang away.

I see no problem with these arms sales. If you sell arms to the enemy, they can blow stuff up, thereby allowing you to give out contracts to favorites. Selling the arms themselves will stimulate the arms market, making things even better!!!

Oh, and if the distributor meets an unfortunate end... well it's not his family is going to claim it. :wizard:

Three words... Chain of Command.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Three words... Chain of Command.:yes:

---

You mean if your superior officers are illegally trading guns you should tell....your superior officers? :laugh4:

Ok, might not apply to this case, but if you try to help and get imprisoned for taking a shortcut to the guys responsible, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? Maybe next time an accident happens I won't call 911 but tell my parents instead, chain of command, ya know.:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

He's a civilian contractor. He called the FBI. He wound up in a military prison. Just a little :daisy: up for sure, but this article doesn't really list sources, and it there are always two sides to a story.

---

Well with the Vance story as it originally broke was that acting on information recieved the military had smashed an insurgents arms supply operation , then a good while later it was reported that the feds and the family of the man were annoyed that the military were still holding the person that was the source , then it was reported that the military was saying it was the feds fault for not giving them enough informtion and they would review the detention and take appropriate action as neccesary .
So while you are right that the article doesn't provide much source wise , the story has been extensively covered before with lots of source material and official statements from all parties invloved , so there are more than two sides to every story and they have been pretty well covered .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

.
So while you are right that the article doesn't provide much source wise , the story has been extensively covered before with lots of source material and official statements from all parties invloved , so there are more than two sides to every story and they have been pretty well covered .

---

Typical Tribesy... Will want everyone to take his "word for it" and demand everyone to write a novel to back up their claims, but then takes this as if it was the gospel. I wish i could clown you because you'd be a great and entertaining pet.:whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Just a little ****** up for sure, but this article doesn't really list sources, and it there are always two sides to a story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So while you are right that the article doesn't provide much source wise

---

Um, what are you two talking about? The reporter names names, contacts everyone she possibly can for comment, and didn't rely on even a single anonymous source. The reporting is fine, and sourced responsibly.

It's not her fault if large swathes of our government's activities have become a black hole of information.

Quote:

---

Um, what are you two talking about? The reporter names names, contacts everyone she possibly can for comment, and didn't rely on even a single anonymous source. The reporting is fine, and sourced responsibly.

---

Not on the Vance case it doesn't , it names names and organisations, but for the main players it says they coudn't get a comment from them , if they couldn't get a comments regarding the law suit then they could have published their earlier comments about the detention for the benefit of those with short memories .

I remember this case being covered in spats now for a while. Unfortunately, I don't snip out every little article in every little periodical and newspaper I ever read so I can't prove that the story of Vance hasn't been NewRepubliced.

Sometimes I wish people would just listen, or read -- just for a second, a teensie weensie second -- something that doesn't go well in their little bowl of abstract politico soup. But no, block it all out. Cover the eyes. Not there. It's like that for most of the country methinks.

The Vance case, as presented, actually does not at all fit with the gist of the article. Which is interesting, because it is the central example which is used to give the article its oomph. The truth is, however, that the Vance is not an example of vindictive crushing of whistleblowers, but rather a routine **** up involving detention in a military facility.

If you read carefully, it becomes clear that the company which Vance worked for was not left alone. On the contrary, it was crushed and all of its employees and associates-- those that could be found, anyway-- were similarly detained and interrogated. I would not be surprised if some of them were still in Cropper today.

In the end, Vance and Ertel were working for a company which was providing arms to the insurgents, and this was what mattered-- the finer details were easy enough to ignore. The only thing unordinary about the case is that the pair were Americans-- in terms of Iraqi nationals, there are plenty who are currently detained with little concrete justification. That's how come we can afford to release 50 of them a day during Ramadan.

Quote:

---

If you read carefully, it becomes clear that the company which Vance worked for was not left alone
.

---

Sorry Del , but despite moderator warnings that gets a :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and just to be sure :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , it was not left alone ...whooopeeeee:birthday2:
It wAs not left alone ...because....??????? hmmmm..hard one that isn't it ...

So now , this ....errrrrr..company like....errrr...... that was dealing arms that was set up under the errrrr......auspices of the temporary administration like ..and maps and suchlike for The Iraq..dealt with a certain number of armaments , and got caught out when someone blew the whistle:yes: .......hard isn't it eh:yes:
It gets really hard when you consider the amount of arms sales by this company and compare them with the sales from other companies that were left alone..even harder when you consider the value of the other companies contracts and the sheer amount of both existing Iraqi weaponry and imported weaponry that is being dealt .

So now , incase I misread "alone ", the comany is not being left alone , it is one of many companies so it can hardly be called alone ...but there is a seeming lack of action against the other armsdealers that don't have whistleblowers .

Anyhow to expand it further ......
Iran is complaining about dodgy arms deals between American run organisations and anti Iranian (government ) terrorist groups .
OK if they had said it was Israeli arms deals with terrorists then at least America could say that they had complained about the terrorist support but were unable to act(which they did) ....but now they say they cannot have been responsible because the terrorists have Soviet era arms...irrefutable evidence from america isn't it...:yes:
Well apart from it being the same line they used with Osamas mates in Afghanistan and the fact that they siezed in Iraq and then impoted from the former yugoslavia huge amounts of soviet era arms that somehow cannot be accounted for .

Hey maybe I am out on a limb , but can anyone show that the limb is the wrong branch ?

We can observe a flurry of smilies, yet you do not disagree with the quoted post, so perhaps that was just you sploojing all over the screen like a true master debater.

Quote:

---

We can observe a flurry of smilies, yet you do not disagree with the quoted post, so perhaps that was just you sploojing all over the screen like a true master debater.

---

Thats the point Del , the quoted post I took from you does not deal with the issue , it does not even scratch the surface of the issue , if you want to debate the issue then go ahead .

So the issue is dodgy arms deals in Iraq and people highlighting dodgy arms deals getting a rough ride from the government that supposedly doesn't like dodgy arms deals in Iraq , though apparently it does dodgy arms deals in Iraq itself .
Are you up for it ? or is it too complicated for you to debate ?
I suspect the latter hence the :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: response to your earlier post .

But hey , benefit of the doubt and all that , some simple starter questions .
1 Is the US , US appointed contractors or US approved contractors doing large arms deals in Iraq ?
2Are some of these arms ending up being sold to terrorists ?
3Do they persecute people who expose this fact ?


Then follow with...
ADoes the US deny that it is involved in arming terrorists?
BDoes it agree that its "allies" are involved ?
CDoes it offer an explanation that recent history would suggest is false?

Simple questions eh , can you answer any of them with the word "no" .

Hm, oh cripes, you mean the American government is arming insurgents in Iraq?

As if, maybe, we wanted to destabalize the country so it was weak and splintered?

Oh, jeez.. they're on to us..

Zaknafien, I don't see any evidence that the U.S. is deliberately creating chaos. Don't ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence, intransigence and hubris.

Except the SF teams that drive around posing as Sunni or Shia insurgents and shoot at civilians and set bombs only to be arrested by Iraqi police before being broken out of prison with tanks :)