War profiteering, Dem-style

[theHandpuppet]

After reading this article yesterday I must admit I am thoroughly disillusioned and dismayed. There have been many discussions here over the past two days regarding private military corporations working in Iraq and elsewhere, and there seems to be no end to the greed for blood money in Washington, even from our own party.

So... after reading this article, someone please reassure me that Sen. Daschle's votes on Iraq issues are NOT influenced by the fact that his wife is a lobbyist for one of these outfits. :(

From...

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-23/cover.html

(excerpt)

The firms also maintain platoons of Washington lobbyists to help keep government contracts headed their way. In 2001, according to the most recent federal disclosure forms, 10 private military companies spent more than $32 million on lobbying. DynCorp retained two lobbying firms that year to successfully block a bill that would have forced federal agencies to justify private contracts on cost-saving grounds. MPRI's parent company, L-3 Communications, had more than a dozen lobbyists working on its behalf, including Linda Daschle, wife of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Last year L-3 won $1.7 billion in Defense Department contracts.

[MrSoundAndVision]

1. hahaha...oh dear.

Surprised?

[theHandpuppet]

2. I suppose not...

Just very disappointed. And to be honest, we can't really keep pointing fingers at BushCorp's interests in the likes of Halliburton, Brown & Root et al unless we are willing to take a good hard look at who among the Dems also have their fingers shoved in the pie.

The fact that Linda Daschle is a lobbyist for one these corporate military firms presents all manner of conflicts of interest, since it is the Congress who approves the money for these contracts, and MPRI is hip-deep in them from Columbia to Iraq.

[toddzilla]

3. this is why..

i call myself progressive rather than democrat.

[theHandpuppet]

4. Yep, I don't blame you

... and the silence around here about this subject speaks volumes.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. Don't worry about it, just get Kerrey elected

and then these other issues that compromise and corrupt the systesm will get taken care of.

Yeah sure they will. I'll just not bother holding my breath while I wait for it.

[revcarol]

17. Have you seen his statement of his Iraq policy?

He wants to internationalize troops in Iraq. and on the second page...something like...we can't expect them to do this for nothing, so they will get part of the contracts...(posted by 'MurikanDemocrat from the site)

So we have only PARTIAL American war profiteering, and PARTIAL international war profiteering...

Now there, don't you feel better?:evilgrin:

[theHandpuppet]

18. But... but... revcarol

They hate us for our FREEDOM!

Didn't you get the memo?

[bobbyboucher]

16. It's Nader's fault, it's Nader's fault.

If it wasn't for Nader....

[m-jean03]

5. OT / anyone catch this?

From the article, yet another good and honestly named organization on the right:
"International Peace Operations Association" -- it's an advocacy group for the "security companies".:eyes: :puke:

[Mari333]

7. Noam Chomsky always said, our leaders are hand picked

in the USA. Corporations own them. We all know that. Now, lets put their feet to the fire on both sides.
Makes me remember what my dad told me. Class has nothing to do with how much money you have, Class is how you treat other people.

[Bill Wade]

9. I think Chomsky endorsed Kerry, relunctantly.

I believe he basically said Kerry was the lesser evil between him and Bush. And he's absolutely right. There isn't a big difference between the two. There are differences, but they both represent the business elite.

[Eric J in MN]

6. The US Senate voted against war-profiteering witht he $87 billion in the

The US Senate voted against war-profiteering with the $87 billion in the version of the bill it sent to Conference Committee.

Because the US House of Rep. didn't outlaw war-profiteering, that was dropped.

It's not a coincidence that the House of Rep. has a bigger Republican majority.

[theHandpuppet]

10. Anyone have the number of that bill...

I'd like to see how the members of the Senate voted.

[Eric J in MN]

19. The final Sentate bill for the $87 billion was by secret voice-vote (nt)

nt

[theHandpuppet]

20. Thanks anyway...

... for checking. It's pretty obvious that when it gets right down to it, we don't know what the hell is going on behind the closed doors in DC. Where the hell did someone misplace the truth, anyway? I'm having a helluva time finding some -- from either party.

[Eric J in MN]

21. If it were up to me, there wouldn't be such a thing as secret voice-votes.

nt

[theHandpuppet]

11. More on MPRI...

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg15643.html
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/08/05/DailyInsight/Private.Armies-258576.shtml
http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/mpri.htm

[theHandpuppet]

12. And I wonder how many Dems voted for this...

US retaliates over war crime immunity demand

By Bill Vann
5 July 2003

In a further bid to place US officials and military personnel beyond the reach of war crimes prosecution, the Bush administration cut off military aid to about 35 countries that failed to meet a June 30 deadline for signing bilateral immunity agreements.

Washington had demanded such deals with all the countries that have signed on to the International Criminal Court (ICC), using the threat of the aid cutoff to impose its will on foreign powers that are considered US allies. At least 90 have reportedly resisted the US blackmail effort. The Bush administration claims that 51 nations have signed immunity agreements, seven of them “secretly.”

<snipping>

The American Servicemen’s Protection Act of 2002, a measure passed by Congress, mandated the aid cutoff. The measure includes what some have dubbed the “Hague invasion clause,” a section that authorizes the US military to use “every possible means” to free any US citizen jailed on the orders of the ICC, which is based in The Hague.

The US action only underscores in the crudest possible fashion that the only form of international justice Washington will permit is that of the victor against the vanquished, of the major imperialist powers against the impoverished and oppressed nations.

This principle is already incorporated in the treaty governing the ICC’s jurisdiction, which allows any country to try its own citizens if they are accused of war crimes and reserves ICC proceedings for those cases in which a defendant’s country is unwilling or unable to do so. Even if a US official or military officer were accused of war crimes before the tribunal, the case would immediately be referred to the American courts.

<snipping>

Actually, the immunity deals sought by Washington protect not only uniformed soldiers and government officials, but all US citizens as well as foreign contractors working for the Pentagon or other US agencies. Presumably, any American mercenary engaged in war crimes in another country would be immune from prosecution, as would any foreign mercenary working under the direction of US military or intelligence.

More at...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/icc-j05_prn.shtml

[FDRrocks]

13. Not surprised.

Knew it all along. America needs to come into the modern world and abandon the two party system.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

14. Kick. There's more than just neocons working against justice. n/t

[JanMichael]

15. Yet another reason that I'm glad I went Socialist.

Sorry but I just can't take this shit anymore.

If y'all can then fine, I can't.