FBI investigates Halliburton contracts - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 10-28-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

FBI probes how Halliburton won contracts
October 29, 2004 - 8:24AM

The FBI has begun investigating whether the US Defence Department improperly awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co, seeking an interview with a top Army contracting officer and collecting documents from several government offices.

The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into allegations Halliburton overcharged US taxpayers for fuel in Iraq.

It elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favouritism to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

FBI agents this week sought permission to interview Bunnatine Greenhouse, the US Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer who went public last weekend with allegations that her agency unfairly awarded KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars for work in Iraq.

Asked about documents obtained by The Associated Press, Greenhouse's lawyers said their client would cooperate but wanted whistleblower protection from Pentagon retaliation.

"I think it (the FBI interview request) underscores the seriousness of the misconduct, and it also demonstrates how courageous Ms Greenhouse was for stepping forward," said Stephen Kohn, one of her lawyers.

"The initiation of an FBI investigation into criminal misconduct will help restore public confidence," Kohn said.

"The Army must aggressively protect Ms Greenhouse from the retaliation she will encounter as a result of blowing the whistle on this misconduct."

FBI agents also recently began collecting documents from Army offices in Texas and elsewhere to examine how and why Halliburton got the no-bid work.

"The Corps is absolutely cooperating with the FBI, and it has been an ongoing effort," said Army Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders.

"Our role is to cooperate. It's a public contract and public funds. We've been providing them information for quite a while."

Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said the company was cooperating with various investigations, but she dismissed the latest revelation as election politics. She noted Congress' auditing arm, the Government Accountability Office, found the company's no-bid work in Iraq was legal.

"The old allegations have once again been recycled, this time one week before the election," Hall said.

"The GAO said earlier this year that the contract was properly awarded because Halliburton was the only contractor that could do the work.

"We look forward to the end of the election, because no matter who is elected president, Halliburton is proud to serve the troops just as we have for the past 60 years for both Democrat and Republican administrations," she said.

Democrats have tried hard to make Halliburton an election-year issue.

Senator Frank Altenberg, a Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee who has been investigating Halliburton's contracts, said his office was told the FBI recently sought documents from various government offices. The requests focused on how and why Halliburton got the Iraq contracts.

"This multi-billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton was suspicious from day one, and now our worst suspicions are confirmed," Altenberg said.

"The FBI doesn't get involved unless there are possible criminal violations."

In a formal whistleblower complaint filed last week, Greenhouse alleged the award of contracts without competition to KBR put at risk "the integrity of the federal contracting program as it relates to a major defence contractor."

The contracts were to restore Iraq's oil industry.

Among the evidence cited in the complaint was an internal 2003 Pentagon email that says the Iraq contract "has been coordinated" with Cheney's White House office.

The vice president, who continues to receive deferred compensation from when he was Halliburton's chief executive in the late 1990s, has steadfastly maintained he has played no role in the selection of his former company for federal business.

The Army last week referred Greenhouse's allegations to the Defence Department's inspector-general. Documents show FBI agents from Illinois asked Tuesday to interview Greenhouse. Her lawyers declined to discuss the contacts.

© 2004 AP

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...992267266.html

Leaving the whole issue of WhiteHouse/Halliburton links aside for one moment, do you think Greenhouse has a political agenda or is "blowing the whistle" because she thinks it's the right thing to go?

With regards to the topic at hand, I think we'll end up with two different sets of opinions that closely resemble those of the Democratic party and the Administration. I guess there's no surprise there.

Mr Mephisto

onetime2 · 10-30-2004, 10:42 AM

An investigation is just that, an investigation. Speaking of it as if there was absolutely criminal wrongdoing involved is ridiculous. Criminal wrongdoing is only proved when they go to trial and convict the accused. Or should that be ignored in this case because it looks bad for the President?

As far as her motivations to be a whistleblower, there're plenty of reasons that she may have chosen to go that route besides not being able to stand by while such behavior goes on. It may not be about politics at all. Whistleblowers can be rewarded with fame and fortune. Politics is but one possibility.

I choose to wait for the results of an investigation before making decisions or accusations. But then that's just me.

Rekna · 10-30-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Criminal wrongdoing is only proved when they go to trial and convict the accused.

Tell this to the guys in Guantonimo

flstf · 10-30-2004, 11:11 AM

The timing of this announcement (and whistle blowing) is ridiculous coming right before the election. Of course this is politically motivated. Politics as usual from the major parties. Whether there is any improper awarding of contracts or not won't be known until after the election if at all. The purpose here is to do political damage to one side on the eve of the election so they won't have a chance to respond or have to spend the last few days defending themselves.

onetime2 · 10-30-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Tell this to the guys in Guantonimo

Nice strawman but this one isn't even worth the match to start the fire.

The_wall · 10-30-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

An investigation is just that, an investigation. Speaking of it as if there was absolutely criminal wrongdoing involved is ridiculous. Criminal wrongdoing is only proved when they go to trial and convict the accused. Or should that be ignored in this case because it looks bad for the President?

While this is true, we have pretty good reason to jump to conclusions about this, seeing as how theres a whole connection between the vice pres. and Haliburton, and until they are proven not guilty I am going to be very suspicious of halliburton

Rekna · 10-30-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Nice strawman but this one isn't even worth the match to start the fire.

Not a strawman just another example of hypocracy. It is ok to assume people are guilty until it affects you.

onetime2 · 10-30-2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Not a strawman just another example of hypocracy. It is ok to assume people are guilty until it affects you.

It is, in fact, a classic example of a strawman. You point to a situation unrelated to the one being discussed and imply they are the same.

Being found armed in a warzone or living side by side with enemy combatants is hardly the same as contracts being awarded to Haliburton.

Your last comment is confusing. What exactly are you trying to say? Personally, I do not think it's ok to assume people guilty ever. I guess you disagree?

If you'd like to discuss those being held in Gitmo, perhaps another thread is in order.

onetime2 · 10-30-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_wall

While this is true, we have pretty good reason to jump to conclusions about this, seeing as how theres a whole connection between the vice pres. and Haliburton, and until they are proven not guilty I am going to be very suspicious of halliburton

Being suspicious of and believing they are guilty until proven innocent are two very different concepts. Logic says the former is advisable. The Constitution says the latter is not.

gerbilking · 10-30-2004, 07:14 PM

Looking at this from across the Pacific, I have to say that it is pretty damn suspicious looking that these contracts didn't even go out to tender, and as for those detained in Gitmo, they are being treated as 100% guilty until proven innocent. As onetime2 says, that's pretty unconstitutional.

djtestudo · 10-30-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerbilking

Looking at this from across the Pacific, I have to say that it is pretty damn suspicious looking that these contracts didn't even go out to tender, and as for those detained in Gitmo, they are being treated as 100% guilty until proven innocent. As onetime2 says, that's pretty unconstitutional.

Seems to me that they are being treated as 100% prisoners of war, but that's just my opinion since, you know, we are fighting them and everything...

As for the thread topic, I don't mind an investigation since Cheney does have connections to Halliburton. I am a little suspicious about the timing, though.

onetime2 · 10-30-2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerbilking

Looking at this from across the Pacific, I have to say that it is pretty damn suspicious looking that these contracts didn't even go out to tender, and as for those detained in Gitmo, they are being treated as 100% guilty until proven innocent. As onetime2 says, that's pretty unconstitutional.

Contracts not going out to bid is not that uncommon, especially in war time. In many cases there just isn't time to go through a bidding process and there are times when there is absolutely no one else that can do the job. Not saying that these are the cases here but it's something to be aware of.

In terms of the detainees at Gitmo, it's an unfortunate legal chasm right now. I am sure there are some being held that are innocent and I'm sure there are some who are guilty as hell who will be released (as some who have been released have already gone back to leading terror cells). The simple fact is that there is no clear precedent for how enemy combatants without allegiance to a "state" should be treated. Do they fall under the Geneva Conventions? Do they have the same rights guaranteed to American citizens? Are they saboteurs? Are they spies? In some respects those being held could fall into any one or all of the above categories.

Through legal challenges and time the process will be defined. It's distressing that things can't move more quickly but the stakes are extremely high and we certainly can not take short cuts in releasing people who may turn out to be the next Bin Laden.

santafe5000 · 10-30-2004, 07:41 PM

If you had a job to be done that required quick action from your contractor. Would you choose one that you knew had the experience in performing that job, or someone that had no experience at all, and hope for the best? Halliburton has been doing these military contracts for a long time, so they had the leg up on getting the job done. That is not saying tho that there were not some overcharges. That is what the IG's office in DoD is for. Make em prove they did what they are billing for.

bling · 10-30-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

In terms of the detainees at Gitmo, it's an unfortunate legal chasm right now. I am sure there are some being held that are innocent and I'm sure there are some who are guilty as hell who will be released (as some who have been released have already gone back to leading terror cells). The simple fact is that there is no clear precedent for how enemy combatants without allegiance to a "state" should be treated. Do they fall under the Geneva Conventions? Do they have the same rights guaranteed to American citizens? Are they saboteurs? Are they spies? In some respects those being held could fall into any one or all of the above categories.

Through legal challenges and time the process will be defined. It's distressing that things can't move more quickly but the stakes are extremely high and we certainly can not take short cuts in releasing people who may turn out to be the next Bin Laden.

I understand this to be rather off topic, but I felt the need to address this.

The situation with the type of prisoners we have in Gitmo may indeed need to be dealt with based on a different view of rights than that afforded by the Geneva Convention (my personal opinion is that the same principles of the Geneva Convention should apply), but it is an entirely incorrect position to treat those prisoners in ways that specifically go against the Geneva Convention _before_ it has been determiined that that is the correct method of treating those prisoners. In other words - yes, it is a gray area. The administration has choosen the morally bankrupt path of blackness (disregard for human rights) as they are clearly under the impression that the white (Geneva Convention mandate) does not apply. To take this position is reprehensible.

Further, the belief that it is ok to hold hundreds of innocent people prisoner for almost 3 years due to there possibly being a handful of guilty in their midst is equally reprehensible.

guthmund · 10-30-2004, 09:00 PM

"Strawman"

Is this the word of the day? The phrase du jour? Did I miss the memo?

An investigation is just an investigation. You could assume that the FBI must have something of note or have a pretty good feeling if they're going to start an investigation concerning the defense department. On the other hand, I would expect to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so, I extend the same expectations to them.

Now, I can say that and almost totally believe that. However, I've come to trust my instincts when it comes to stuff like this. After all if it looks and smells like bullshit, well, you get the picture.

As for Greenhouse. I find it hard that anybody, especially in this politically charged up bubble that is the United States, doesn't have an agenda to push. This guy works in Washington. He's at least aware of the great game being played and probably dabbled in it a bit as well himself. There are no true altruists.

quicksteal · 10-30-2004, 10:40 PM

Halliburton got $2.5 billion in no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo. The fact that they got more money from a different administration in a larger conflict is not surprising, but the problem with getting that much money is that people forget the value of money. I'm not sure if this was Halliburton, but there was one company that spent millions of dollars for their workers to shack up in a 5-star hotel, rather than having them stay at the 3-star hotel that had been rented out for the workers to live in. It's that kind of crap that infuriates me--the complete waste of money because there's so much of it in the government, they forget what $100,000 means to a normal family. That's more than most families make in a year, and the government spends that much like it's nothing.

10-30-2004, 10:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	An investigation is just that, an investigation. Speaking of it as if there was absolutely criminal wrongdoing involved is ridiculous. Criminal wrongdoing is only proved when they go to trial and convict the accused. Or should that be ignored in this case because it looks bad for the President? As far as her motivations to be a whistleblower, there're plenty of reasons that she may have chosen to go that route besides not being able to stand by while such behavior goes on. It may not be about politics at all. Whistleblowers can be rewarded with fame and fortune. Politics is but one possibility. I choose to wait for the results of an investigation before making decisions or accusations. But then that's just me. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-30-2004, 07:41 PM	#13 (permalink)
santafe5000 EVIL! Location: Southwest of nowhere	If you had a job to be done that required quick action from your contractor. Would you choose one that you knew had the experience in performing that job, or someone that had no experience at all, and hope for the best? Halliburton has been doing these military contracts for a long time, so they had the leg up on getting the job done. That is not saying tho that there were not some overcharges. That is what the IG's office in DoD is for. Make em prove they did what they are billing for. __________________ When all else fails, QUIT.

10-30-2004, 09:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	"Strawman" Is this the word of the day? The phrase du jour? Did I miss the memo? An investigation is just an investigation. You could assume that the FBI must have something of note or have a pretty good feeling if they're going to start an investigation concerning the defense department. On the other hand, I would expect to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so, I extend the same expectations to them. Now, I can say that and almost totally believe that. However, I've come to trust my instincts when it comes to stuff like this. After all if it looks and smells like bullshit, well, you get the picture. As for Greenhouse. I find it hard that anybody, especially in this politically charged up bubble that is the United States, doesn't have an agenda to push. This guy works in Washington. He's at least aware of the great game being played and probably dabbled in it a bit as well himself. There are no true altruists. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

10-30-2004, 11:11 AM	#4 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	The timing of this announcement (and whistle blowing) is ridiculous coming right before the election. Of course this is politically motivated. Politics as usual from the major parties. Whether there is any improper awarding of contracts or not won't be known until after the election if at all. The purpose here is to do political damage to one side on the eve of the election so they won't have a chance to respond or have to spend the last few days defending themselves.

10-30-2004, 07:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
gerbilking Upright	Looking at this from across the Pacific, I have to say that it is pretty damn suspicious looking that these contracts didn't even go out to tender, and as for those detained in Gitmo, they are being treated as 100% guilty until proven innocent. As onetime2 says, that's pretty unconstitutional.

10-30-2004, 10:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	Halliburton got $2.5 billion in no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration for work in Kosovo. The fact that they got more money from a different administration in a larger conflict is not surprising, but the problem with getting that much money is that people forget the value of money. I'm not sure if this was Halliburton, but there was one company that spent millions of dollars for their workers to shack up in a 5-star hotel, rather than having them stay at the 3-star hotel that had been rented out for the workers to live in. It's that kind of crap that infuriates me--the complete waste of money because there's so much of it in the government, they forget what $100,000 means to a normal family. That's more than most families make in a year, and the government spends that much like it's nothing.