Great diary, Bob. I’ve missed some of Marcy’s diaries and I missed this nuggett. How could he be a party to such a fraud on the people and on his fellow seantors?

great diary bob. recommended

Thanks. But how much did they tell him? You know how much Cheney liked to compartmentalize. It is not unlikely that they misrepresented what the authorization was for.

Bob in HI

excellent, bob! I hadn’t noticed that gem … keep shining a spotlight on it for us. recommended.

Holding our public representatives accountable and subject to legal review / sanctions is critically important to effective governance. Corporate intervention and profit in activities previously limited to city, state and federal operations jeopardize the rule of law and provide a means by which personal profit considerations outweigh professional accountability that relies on them acting in the best public interest.

Domestic and international laws are ineffective in this area. The modern ways in which corporations operate make what little law exists ineffectual and outdated. Nations that increasingly rely on corporate entities and mercenary forces to fulfill governmental and military roles have been careful not to update legal definitions that might jeopardize the availability of such services- there is no law and all loophole where these corporations are concerned.

For example, many PMC’s (Private Military Corporations) are multinational in their operations so it is virtually impossible to link them to a single, individual government by whose laws and regulations their actions could be managed. PMC’s represent a corporate not individual presence in surveillance activities and wars / conflicts for which they are contracted. It is very difficult to clarify the qualifications or motivations of individual PMC employees- whether they be financial, adventure, or sympathy to the cause etc. Even the most ambitious regulatory schemes are rendered ineffectual given the flexibility and mobility of a PMC that can simply relocate operations to the most permissive and lucrative operational environment. There is a legal vacuum where these firms are concerned.

The Neutrality Act prohibits mercenary recruitment within the U.S. but does not speak to activities abroad. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) regulates uniformed personnel but not civilian contractors / personnel. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act was meant to extend UCMJ to contractors but is only applicable to contractors working directly for the DOD. Thus, PMC’s like CACI (implicated in the abuses at Abu Ghraib) that are under contract with the Department of Interior are not subject to existing legal mechanisms. There is a systemic failure to impose significant costs on corporations that would provide for an economic or legal sanctions where human rights violations are concerned.

There is also a limited licensing process under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation) and almost no follow-up processes once the license is granted. There is no requirement to inform Congress for contracts of less than $50 million. Powerful political and financial incentives to maintain the status quo make it almost impossible to overcome obstacles that would make it possible to guaranty PMC liability for misconduct.

The FOIA does not apply to the actions of private contractors who must only publish the terms of their contracts but who may deny release of any information they claim involves trade secrets or financial data. National security justifications also limit PMC transparency where sensitive sources, methods of operations, and capabilities are concerned. Claims of serious adverse impact on conducting U.S. foreign policy initiatives also serve to protect PMC groups from accountability measures.

Under the current operational model, human rights concerns are secondary to political and financial concerns. The failure to impose corporate criminal and financial liability makes it impossible to have any authority over their actions. Someone else has to deal with the aftermath of their mistakes and /or illegal activities. The prospects for bringing well-connected and financed PMC’s to justice are very slim.

The marketplace for privatized military and security functions is essentially unregulated. Escalating records of misconduct and abuses by corporations and their personnel make it imperative that this situation be addressed and rectified. Fundamental human rights and freedoms must not become a market commodity where they are viewed as simply a derivative of security functions. Fundamental and universal human rights cannot be allowed to be available only to those who can afford to pay as defined by a free market model.

Security functions must be brought back into the publicly regulated realm if we are to protect human rights, privacy, and freedom.

Looks like you need to write this up as a separate Oxdown post. Not sure why you put it in a comment on this thread.

Bob in HI

I see your point. As to why it is in this thread- I firmly believe that the issue you bring up points to the dangers inherent in corporate privatization of activities the government should be responsible and accountable for under the rule of law. Wiretapping and those who knew of it (senators, congressman, govt personnel et al) ties directly to the same kinds of issues outlined about the PMC’s in my comment. People in positions of power who stand to benefit personally and financially by not acting in the best interest of the public as regards things like wiretapping and PMC loopholes must not be allowed to support and perpetuate criminal activities through covert means.

Thanks for clarifying.

The implication seems to be that you think that Sen. Inouye is one of those “People in positions of power who stand to benefit personally and financially by not acting in the best interest of the public”. How do you think Inouye stands to benefit personally and financially in this regard?

Thanks,
Bob in HI

See this previous Oxdown diary- http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4297
regarding Inouye and funding of wiretap program etc. Also, it is important to note that Inouye was one of the 19 dems that voted to give immunity to the telecoms regarding wiretap programs.

Further, he & Ted Stevens (R-Alaska[crook delux]) have regularly partnered up.

“Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), ranking member and chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee respectively, each secured hundreds of millions of dollars in defense earmarks. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stevens secured $194 million while Inouye secured $203.6 million. The senators had given thousands of dollars to each other in political contributions and looked out for each others’ interests in the appropriations bill, The Hill reported. Inouye contributed $10,000 from his political action committee in 2007 to Stevens.

Usually majority members receive 60 percent of earmarks while the minority receives 40 percent, but Stevens and Inouye had split their earmark amounts almost equally. Although most earmark requests were trimmed as part of conference negotiations, Inouye’s and Stevens’ only received small adjustments. Additionally, both senators had sponsored the most earmarks by themselves without House co-sponsors.”

Thank you for referencing your diary on this subject; this additional information is quite relevant and helpful.

The alliance between Inouye and Stevens goes back to the time when both states first became states. They became best buddies then, even though they joined different parties.

Bob in HI

“Did he aid and abet the Bush Administration in what may be war crimes?”; yes.

All of those who were informed of the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ and didn’t speak out are certainly guilty of ‘abetting’ torture.

As Greenwald has been pointing out, the ‘establishment’ has been deadset against the prosecution of the ‘elite’; I say it goes back to Nixon.
“If a President does it , it isn’t illegal’.

What I should have stated in my original article was this cautionary note:
Inouye did not become chair of the Appropriations Committee (and its subcommittee on Defense) until 2006, when Democrats took control of the Senate. I should have checked to see who was chairman of those committees from 2001-2006.

Did this sign-off require just the chairman’s sig, or the sig of both chairman and ranking member?

Bob in HI

If Inouye was told, would he even remember it?

I have a great deal of respect for Inouye, but he is a good example of why we should have term limits in the Congress (and the courts).