LAT: Contractor Argues U.S. Fraud Law Does Not Cover Iraqi Funds

[NoPasaran]

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Attorneys for a U.S.-based security company accused of setting up sham companies in a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme in Iraq are contending in court that the firm cannot be sued under a key federal anti-corruption law because the allegedly stolen money belonged to Iraqis, not Americans.

The potentially precedent-setting case could undercut fraud claims involving billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts that were issued by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and paid for with money belonging to the Iraqi people.

Arguments broke out in federal court Friday over two fundamental questions: whether the CPA, which had ruled occupied Iraq, can be considered a U.S. agency, and whether fraud involving Iraqi money can be subject to suits under the False Claims Act, considered one of the federal government's most important tools against fraud.

John Boese, an attorney for the security firm, Custer Battles, asked a judge to dismiss the case as "fatally defective."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-contractor19dec19.story

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. whether fraud involving Iraqi money can be subject to suits under the Fals

Ah ah ah..... watch out.... don't want to let all them bad people in the Oil for Food program off the hook now do we??

[0007]

2. Just the nation under ONE God



[drscm]

13. One Corrupt Administration under a Corrupt god.... eom

[MSgt213]

3. Remember Executive Order 13303 ("EO 13303")

On the surface it might not appear it applies, but who knows since no one investigated it much at the time.

In May, President Bush issued Executive Order 13303 ("EO 13303"). Previously little noticed, EO 13303 is now receiving scrutiny from watchdog groups. They fear that it may be used to limit the accountability of corporations doing business in Iraq.

Their fears are reasonable, as we will explain. In particular, it is possible the Executive Order will be used to cut off tort victims' ability to sue corporations working in Iraq.

And that's not the only problem with the Executive Order; there are two others. First, EO 13303 sets a terrible precedent for the abuse of the executive's power over private litigation in the context of national security. Second, it is yet another example of what Professor Sebok has described on this site as the Republican penchant for "sneaky tort reform."

What the Executive Order Says

EO 13303 is entitled, "Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest." It prohibits all judicial process -- including, but not limited to, "attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment" -- with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and all interests in Iraqi oil products.

The language describing the latter category -- interests in Iraqi oil products -- is very broad. It encompasses not only the oil and the interests, but also all "proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments . . .in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20031103_kelly.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Sounds like something Saddam would have liked... or am I just reading

too much into this?? heh heh heh.... they say, when you point your finger at someone else.... you have three fingers pointing back at you... how apropo.

[MSgt213]

6. I don't think you reading too much into. Thats a big problem today we

accept things as they appear to be and the media helps these crooks right along. You see so many examples of this crap you get kind of sensitized to it. Remember that hold time they were talking about Bush getting the Intel bill signed? Remember anyone in the media telling you what's in it or what any of it means? I don't think they could squeeze all that into 30 second sound bites so they didn't even bother. Same thing happen with this Executive Order Bush pulls a fast one. Mean while the media is off drooling at Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson. Larry King as expert after family member on about what was said in court and what it might mean.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. So if it is this obvious to us... what does it look like to all of the

other leader of the free world who have more than a C grade average? Leaders who whilst asleep could outdo our feckless leader?

They say that those who win the wars write the history but this is getting a tad ridiculous. These guys could not be more in your face with this what most probably consider criminal behavior.

If I don't like something or if I want to do something totally illegal I will just write something to cover it. They name roads after people who do like this... One Way.

[rucky]

5. that's the first thing I thought of as well n/t

[LynnTheDem]

8. I'm so ashamed of this country.

:(

[Mist]

9. So it's OK to steal if it's from Iraqis?

Love them xtian values! What fuckin' brass balls.

[kodi]

10. "yeah, we stole the money, but not from you!"

thank god we have a moral president in the white house.

[priller]

11. That "CPA is not a US agency" line has been promoted by BushCo

since the very beginning, solely for the purpose of limiting liability for contractors in Iraq. It's basically carte blanche for fraud and corruption.

[OnlyInAmerica]

12. They can't be serious

The company isn't even bothering to say "we didn't do it"? Their defense is "Well, yeah, we're guilty, but we can't be tried here because the money we stole belonged to Iraq"? The balls on these people! I say give them their wish and put them on trial in Mosul. Let the Iraqi people determine if they're guilty and, if so, decide on an appropriate punishment.

[TahitiNut]

14. Plundering and looting are war crimes.

Again, it's abundantly clear that the US is an outlaw nation, under a regime that recognizes no law above "might makes right."