02-12-2004 20:14									#61
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: [SIZE=1] *snip* While I have little tolerance for corruption, this still strikes me as political misdirection (don't look over here at the war we fought on false pretenses! Look over HERE at the SCANDAL at the UNITED NATIONS! FOR SHAME!). -Arrian

That's why. I see this in the context of our government salivating over the prospect of discrediting the UN and/or France, Russia and anyone else they can come up with who surprise, surprise, didn't back the war. This is, after all, the IRAQI oil-for-food program we're discussing.

-Arrian

	02-12-2004 20:16									#62
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The Republicans are, yes. Most people seem to know the UN couldn't really control Saddam's smuggling.

Of course. They only took thier cut.

	02-12-2004 20:23									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Probe: Oil-for-Food Money Went to Palestinian Bombers' Families Wednesday, November 17, 2004 WASHINGTON — Money from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (search) helped pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, the House Committee on International Relations is expected to reveal Wednesday during a hearing on corruption in the Iraqi relief program. Investigators working for Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the panel, are expected to say they have traced funds from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's (search)kickback scheme through a Jordanian bank and into the hands of families of bombers who attacked Israeli citizens. It has long been established that Saddam paid bounties of $15,000 to $25,000 to the Palestinian families of the murderers. Hyde's committee will reveal at the hearing that some of the reward money was deposited from illegal profits Saddam made by demanding 10 percent kickbacks on all the contracts of companies that did business with the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. Those funds were then deposited with other Iraqi money, such as Jordanian Oil-for-Food oil payments, into the Central Bank of Iraq account in the Rafidain Bank (search) in Amman, Jordan. The funds were then transferred to another account in the bank controlled by Iraq's ambassador to Jordan Sabah Yaseen (search). It was from Yaseen's account that Saddam's officials would cut and hand out checks to the homicide bombers' families, Hyde's investigators are expected to say. Corruption Spreads Outward As congressional inquiries continue into the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food program, more evidence has come to light revealing how Saddam was able to funnel more than $21 billion away from the food and medicine program into the pockets of criminals. "In essence, the Hussein regime created a system of kickbacks, as we have heard today, skimming schemes and smuggling operations to bilk the international sanctions regime of all its potential value and profits," Juan Carlos Zarate, an assistant secretary at the Treasury Department, told lawmakers on Monday. "He used the implements of the state, the Central Bank, commercial enterprises and his diplomatic and intelligence assets to help skirt international restrictions. In some cases, he used this system to attempt to procure weapons and other banned goods, all in an effort to fortify his regime," Zarate said. According to U.S. officials, the former Iraqi leader spread billions of dollars around the globe, particularly targeting France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (search). While diplomats from those three nations deny they were bought off, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) says he doesn't believe they were, Saddam's oil voucher scheme was aimed at ending sanctions, and a CIA report revealed that Saddam was very generous to his friends and supporters. According to U.S. investigators, Saddam was able to set up a system of rewarding sympathizers and supporters with pieces of paper that entitled them to sell allocations of Iraqi oil to real oil companies at an instant profit, sometimes earning in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars. Saddam allegedly even personally picked the lucky recipients as a reward for their support. Witnesses at the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (search) told lawmakers Monday that Saddam got away with the scam because the Security Council made the mistake of letting him pick the buyers and sellers of Iraq's oil, which in effect let Saddam nearly completely control the relief program. Subcommittee chairman Norm Coleman of Minnesota suggested that a lot of businesspeople wanted to play ball with Saddam, and cited the case of a well-known multinational corporation, Weir Group (search), which sells oil equipment. That company did $80 million worth of business under the Oil-for-Food program but Coleman said the company inflated one big contract by 30 percent and admitted it knew the extra money was going to Saddam. In another example, the Al Bashier Trading Company (search) was apparently run directly by Saddam's regime, say officials. In that situation, Saddam made money by selling items to himself. Al Bashier allegedly secretly took the Oil-for-Food money to buy weapons. In a different situation, Saddam also ran Corsin Financial Ltd. (search), a front company whose money is now missing. Saddam presumably grabbed the money and used it to pay for his palaces, bolster his corrupt regime and go on a weapons-buying spree. United Nations Keeps a Tight Lip In essence, say investigators, Saddam relied on a sophisticated worldwide financial network of both legitimate and shell companies to earn billions in illegal profits. One official who allegedly received such a voucher was the Oil-for-Food program's former director, Benon Sevan (search). He has denied the allegation, but the Senate panel wants to pull him in to discuss the accusations. At the hearing, Charles Duelfer (search), who now heads the weapons inspections team in Iraq, told Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the investigations subcommittee, that he believes Sevan likely did get the vouchers. "The Iraqis firmly believe that," Duelfer said. "I would conclude with high confidence from the data that the Iraqis provided, from all we saw, that that happened." Annan has promised Sevan will cooperate with the U.N.'s own investigation, but it's not clear what Sevan would do if subpoenaed by the Senate, and he could claim diplomatic immunity to avoid testifying or even meeting with senators. Coleman's subcommittee has also wanted to meet with U.N. officials to discuss their Oil-for-Food audits. But the U.N.'s chief in-house investigator, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (search), has refused to disclose information to any Senate panels, saying that to do so now would hurt his investigative efforts. Volcker claims that "partial and premature disclosures of sensitive internal documents or demands for congressional appearances of U.N. employees will be damaging to the pursuit of investigative leads, chill participation of those called upon to cooperate, and risk misleading, prejudicial and unfair impressions on institutional, personal and member-state behavior."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138759,00.html

	02-12-2004 20:25									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The UN took a cut?

Interestingly enough, most of the problems seem to have been caused because private companies were given so many of the responsibilities of managing this whole project, as opposed to having expensive yet strict public controls on the whole deal. IN essence, the running of this program was outsourced to the private sector..for shame on the UN! It bears the fault of the actions of private interests it allowed to run the thing! I mean, with its vast and secure budget, the UN or some other quasi public agency accountable to member states should have done it

	02-12-2004 20:29									#65
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Arrian That's why. I see this in the context of our government salivating over the prospect of discrediting the UN and/or France, Russia and anyone else they can come up with who surprise, surprise, didn't back the war. This is, after all, the IRAQI oil-for-food program we're discussing. -Arrian

I still think you're out of context, trying to supplant a "payback's a *****" theory where obviously there was wrongdoing on the part of someone either in the UN or working under the UN's guidelines.

	02-12-2004 20:29									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: According to U.S. officials, the former Iraqi leader spread billions of dollars around the globe, particularly targeting France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (search). While diplomats from those three nations deny they were bought off, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) says he doesn't believe they were, Saddam's oil voucher scheme was aimed at ending sanctions, and a CIA report revealed that Saddam was very generous to his friends and supporters.

He said, she said. This needs some sort of independent review. Who has no interest in this? Finland. No, wait, they're evil. Sweden?

Or maybe we will have to place some trust in this Volker guy.

-Arrian

	02-12-2004 20:33									#67
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Harry Tuttle I still think you're out of context, trying to supplant a "payback's a *****" theory where obviously there was wrongdoing on the part of someone either in the UN or working under the UN's guidelines.

Like I said to Ogie, I'm sure there was corruption, and I hope it is dealt with. But I remain very wary of the politics behind all of this.

As the article DD posted even points out, much of the problem stems from the SC's decision to allow Saddam a great deal of control over the program. That, and unscrupulous business practices.

That's something that should be well documented so that it can be avoided in the future in an such similar programs.

But also contained in DD's article is the reason for my waryness - the allegations that France, Russia and others didn't support the war because they were paid off.

-Arrian

	02-12-2004 20:36									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

They were pushing for sanctions to be ended because they were payed off and they would have been able make even more money once they were gone. They didn't support the war because of clumsy diplomacy.

	02-12-2004 20:38									#69
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Arrian But also contained in DD's article is the reason for my waryness - the allegations that France, Russia and others didn't support the war because they were paid off. -Arrian

Well you should be wary of course, the connection that's trying to be made is aimed at, as you said, the ones who opposed the war. But, you have to keep in mind that these countries are always the major players with Iraq, having deals with the country thoughout the last three decades. I think the investigation and allegations are warranted by the maxim "where there's smoke, there's fire."

	02-12-2004 20:41									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They were pushing for sanctions to be ended because they were payed off and they would have been able make even more money once they were gone. They didn't support the war because of clumsy diplomacy.

Or perhaps they supported an end to sanctions so they could start making money again and get debts paid.

Unless evidence of a pay-off is shown, all there is is speculation.

	02-12-2004 20:44									#71
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Investigation warranted? Absolutely! The conclusions are what I'm being cautious about.

All the parties have an interest in this thing. Our people (interested in discrediting UN, France, Russia, China, and multilateralism in general) say one thing. The UN (interested in protecting itself) says not so. France, Russia, etc (interested in containing the US & protecting their image) will also deny.

Which is why the actual documented proof is key, and an independent investigation would be nice...

-Arrian

	02-12-2004 20:58									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

what? get the UK to study it?

	02-12-2004 21:16									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I suggested Sweden, actually (after considering and rejecting the evil, evil Finns).

-Arrian

	02-12-2004 22:15									#74
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Investigation warranted? Absolutely! The conclusions are what I'm being cautious about. All the parties have an interest in this thing. Our people (interested in discrediting UN, France, Russia, China, and multilateralism in general) say one thing. The UN (interested in protecting itself) says not so. France, Russia, etc (interested in containing the US & protecting their image) will also deny. Which is why the actual documented proof is key, and an independent investigation would be nice... -Arrian

Agreed however the allegations in the Sen. Coleman WSJ OPED article argue obstructionism on the part of UN and Annan impeding ability for investigation.


In actuality I would hand it over to the Germans. They were on record against the Iraq war but to date have not been implicated in claims of malfeasance. Since they took an anti US stance wrt Iraq war they reasonably can't be considered as having a vested interest in supporting US "he said" claims.

	02-12-2004 22:20									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They didn't support the war because of clumsy diplomacy.

You didn't support the war either.

	02-12-2004 23:11									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I didn't support the war because I decided I didn't care if Iraq had WMD or not. The UN, et al can not make that claim.

	02-12-2004 23:13									#77
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the fact that DD ends so many of his posts with a smilie is scandalous, although I'm not sure why, yet . . . .

	03-12-2004 01:06									#80
	Remove this text

Remember George Galloway, the anti-war MP who was accused of having cut shady deals with Saddam, based on the 'documents' found in the oil ministry?

Well, he's won his libel case against the Telegraph, leaving the right-wing newspaper with a hefty legal bill and no right to appeal.

The Link

	03-12-2004 03:25									#81
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Norm Coleslaw rears his ugly carpet-bagging, Bush-loving head.

	03-12-2004 08:31									#82
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Remember George Galloway, the anti-war MP who was accused of having cut shady deals with Saddam, based on the 'documents' found in the oil ministry? Well, he's won his libel case against the Telegraph, leaving the right-wing newspaper with a hefty legal bill and no right to appeal. The Link

Yeah, the Telegraph claimed they had clear proof that Galloway was bribed with money from the oil-for-food programme. That libel will cost them 1.5 million pounds in damages and legal fees.

As for this so-called scandal, the U.S. government has no credibility. They have overwhelming evidence of a scandal just like they had overwhelming evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Any U.S. investigation of the UN is tainted from the start.

	03-12-2004 09:07									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

From what I understand, libel laws in Britain aren't the same as in the U.S. The Telegraph could've been telling the truth and still been slapped with libel.

	03-12-2004 09:24									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In a statement issued by the Telegraph after the verdict, the paper's executive editor Neil Darbyshire said:
"It has never been the Daily Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true. These documents were published by us because their contents raised very important questions at a crucial stage in the war against Iraq."

"The Daily Telegraph did not and would not perform a detailed investigation into their contents. Newspapers have neither the power nor the resources to carry out such an investigation in a war torn country.

	03-12-2004 09:35									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yep, sounds like it wouldn't have been libel in the U.S.

	03-12-2004 09:37									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why?

	03-12-2004 09:40									#87
	Suffering from ads?

It's extremely hard to prove libel in the United States, especially for a public figure of Galloway's stature. The information has to be presented as true, not actually be true and be presented with actual malice towards the person being libelled...

	03-12-2004 09:45									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The judge ruled that the Telegraph showed malice by surrounding the reports in a "blizzard" of comment and inferences.

The fact that the Telegraph did not even attempt to confirm the validity of the documents is even more damming.

The allegation the Galloway was bribed with Oil-for-Food money is simply unfounded.

	03-12-2004 09:46									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The judge ruled that the Telegraph showed malice by surrounding the reports in a "blizzard" of comment and inferences.

Wouldn't matter in the States. The New York Times does stuff like this all the time...

edit: Sully agrees with me, apparently...

quote: GALLOWAY: Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway's ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven't been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge's view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges: Mr Justice Eady said Mr Galloway was not given sufficient opportunity to refute the claims in the Telegraph that he had received up to £375,000 a year from Saddam. The judge noted that Mr Galloway had a 35-minute conversation with Andrew Sparrow, the paper's Westminster correspondent, but was not sent the documents or told that the Telegraph was intending to publish a story. "Although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on the afternoon of April 21, he was not given the opportunity of reading the Iraqi documents beforehand; nor were they read to him," said the judge. "He did not, therefore, have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published." Such a judgment wouldn't stand a chance in an American court - but then Britain's libel laws are far tougher than America's; and there's far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here's the Telegraph's official response. It's deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

Don't know whether to be ecstatic or depressed. Will probably swing suddenly and violently between the two emotions, in honor of my new ally...

	03-12-2004 10:09									#90
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh, and before anyone comes to complain, Sully is a Brit who lives in the US (I imagine someone complaining about the whole freedom of speech in the UK v. the US comment).

On the rest.. let's wait until all the facts are out. I sit with Arrian on this so far. Who knows what is right and wrong.