Oil for Food Scandal: Cash x 2

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
Hussein used some of the money from the illegal kickbacks he received to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. IMO that's worse than building WMDs with it albeit less of a threat to the U.S. and / or our allies.

Families whose houses had been demolished by the Israelis. Since the family of a suicide bomber typically would lose everything they owned, Hussein gave them money to rebuild and refurnish. If the Israelis didn't use collective punishment, Hussein wouldn't have given those families money.

[Lefty Scaevola]

link on oil for food money going to sucided bomber rewards, and on frach bank being look at for money laudering in connection with the program.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/s_273762.html

[Arrian]

If the Israelis didn't use collective punishment, Hussein wouldn't have given those families money.

Maybe. I'm doubting it, though.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The article Lefty linked to:

NEW YORK -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail.

The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families up to $25,000 each, investigators told The Associated Press.

Documents prepared for a hearing today by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings.

Today's hearing, however, will focus on a French bank that handled most of the money for the program. An audit by a U.S. regulatory agency of a small sample of transactions out of the $60 billion U.N. escrow account managed by BNP-Paribas has raised serious questions concerning the bank's compliance with American money-laundering laws, investigators said.

"There are indications that the bank may have been noncompliant in administering the oil-for-food program,"

committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said. "If true, these possible banking lapses may have facilitated Saddam Hussein's manipulation and corruption of the program."

While acknowledging that U.S. regulators have raised routine issues with BNP on compliance with banking laws, a lawyer for BNP said Hyde's statement was unfair.

"No departure from any standard caused or contributed in any way to the abuse at the oil-for-food program," the bank's lead counsel, Robert S. Bennett, said. "There are simply no connections."

The humanitarian program let Iraq trade oil for food, medicine and other items. But investigators say Saddam made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue under the program.

More he said/she said stuff. Our government has far too much at stake here (a shot at discrediting France and the UN at once!) for me to just assume they're telling it straight, and not spinning their asses off (ditto the French bank).

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


So you're saying corruption at the highest levels of the UN and the French and Russian governments is no big deal because the US could've bribed them too?

I'm having a hard time thinking of much international diplomacy that doesn't involve bribes of some sort or another.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You need to follow the news more closely, Oerdin. The latest news is that Kofi Annan's own son is being investigated for corruption...

But nothing proved? Ok, you still have no case. Call me when you do.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Families whose houses had been demolished by the Israelis. Since the family of a suicide bomber typically would lose everything they owned, Hussein gave them money to rebuild and refurnish. If the Israelis didn't use collective punishment, Hussein wouldn't have given those families money.

It's hard to punish a dead man. You can make sure the man knows before he dies that his family won't get rich like the suicide bomber had hoped.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wow, this whole UNSCAM business just keeps getting better.

Dec. 1, 2004 — Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.

And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.

"Without that kind of middleman, the system would not work because the major oil companies did not want to deal with Iraq because there was a mandated kickback," said human rights investigator John Fawcett.

Another broker was New York oil trader Ben Pollner, head of Taurus Oil, who investigators say handled several billion dollars worth of the transactions now under investigation.

Pollner told ABC News he paid no bribes or kickbacks to the Iraqi regime.

Rich is still living in Switzerland and unavailable for comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=295926&page=1

Wow, who would've thought Marc Rich would be involved in this? Crazy. On the bright side, maybe we'll be able to get him on some new crimes to replace the ones Clinton pardoned him for...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Senator Coleman weighs in

OPED WSJ - Coleman calls for Kofi Annan to Resign

Kofi Annan Must Go

By NORM COLEMAN
December 1, 2004; Page A10

It's time for U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign.

Over the past seven months, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has conducted an exhaustive, bipartisan investigation into the scandal surrounding the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. That noble program was established by the U.N. to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, then languishing under Saddam Hussein's ironfisted rule, as well as the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.N. after the first Gulf War. While sanctions were designed to instigate the removal of Saddam from power, or at least render him impotent, the Oil-for-Food program was designed to support the Iraqi people with food and other humanitarian aid under the watchful eye of the U.N.


Our Investigative Subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the U.N., such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior U.N. officials, to exploit the program to his advantage. We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior U.N. official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N.

* * *
While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.

Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. The consequences of the U.N.'s ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid.

Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.

This systemic failure of the U.N. and Oil-for-Food is exacerbated by evidence that at least one senior U.N. official -- Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's hand-picked director of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food oversight agency -- reportedly received bribes from Saddam. According to documents from the Iraqi oil ministry that were obtained by us, Mr. Sevan received several allotments of oil under Oil-for-Food, each of which was worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

To make matters worse, the actions of Mr. Annan's own son have been called into question. Specifically, the U.N. recently admitted that Kojo Annan received more money than previously disclosed from a Swiss company named Cotecna, which was hired by the U.N. to monitor Iraq's imports under Oil-for-Food. Recently, there are growing, albeit unproven, allegations that Kofi Annan himself not only understands his son's role in this scandal -- but that he has been less than forthcoming in what he knew, and when he knew it.

As a former prosecutor, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Such revelations, however, cast a dark cloud over Mr. Annan's ability to address the U.N.'s quagmire. Mr. Annan has named the esteemed Paul Volcker to investigate Oil-for-Food-related allegations, but the latter's team is severely hamstrung in its efforts. His panel has no authority to compel the production of documents or testimony from anyone outside the U.N. Nor does it possess the power to punish those who fabricate information, alter evidence or omit material facts. It must rely entirely on the goodwill of the very people and entities it is investigating. We must also recognize that Mr. Volcker's effort is wholly funded by the U.N., at Mr. Annan's control. Moreover, Mr. Volcker must issue his final report directly to the secretary general, who will then decide what, if anything, is released to the public.

Therefore, while I have faith in Mr. Volcker's integrity and abilities, it is clear the U.N. simply cannot root out its own corruption while Mr. Annan is in charge: To get to the bottom of the murk, it's clear that there needs to be a change at the top. In addition, a scandal of this magnitude requires a truly independent examination to ensure complete transparency, and to restore the credibility of the U.N. To that end, I reiterate our request for access to internal U.N. documents, and for access to U.N. personnel who were involved in the Oil-for-Food program.

All of this adds up to one conclusion: It's time for Kofi Annan to step down. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less. If this widespread corruption had occurred in any legitimate organization around the world, its CEO would have been ousted long ago, in disgrace. Why is the U.N. different?

Sen. Coleman is chairman of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[Arrian]

Is any of the backup documentation for these claims by Senator Coleman available to the public (on the internet, even? ). Because like I said before, given the vested interest our government (particularly the Republicans in it) has in discrediting the UN and countries who opposed the war, in the absence of documented proof of UN complicity and/or gross negligence, I'm going to assume this is exaggeration/spin for political purposes.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is any of the backup documentation for these claims by Senator Coleman available to the public (on the internet, even? ). Because like I said before, given the vested interest our government (particularly the Republicans in it) has in discrediting the UN and countries who opposed the war, in the absence of documented proof of UN complicity and/or gross negligence, I'm going to assume this is exaggeration/spin for political purposes.

-Arrian

Your point is of course valid. We can only await the 'evidence' to be released in public record.

[Arrian]

I'm glad you see that. Now, having mentioned the reasons for being skeptical, I actually would not be surprised if the evidence *does* show gross negligence, and perhaps even more, by UN officials (Kofi's son, perhaps). I wouldn't be surprised if unscrupulous businessmen from many countries were indeed involved. And if so, I sincerely hope people end up in jail and/or lose power. That goes for Kofi if this really is as bad as the senator claims.

Of course, even if all that were the case, there still aren't any WMDs in Iraq 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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Agreed. Point of the matter was I wasn't fully convinced of the proposed rationale for war being WMD. That being said I am of the opinion voiced by Colin Powell, "You broke it, you bought it."

OTOH it does provide rationale as to reluctance of foreign states to help inititiate regime change as well as desire for continuing status quo.

[Arrian]

That was my PoV as well, although I was also deeply worried about the ability of this administration (and probably ANY administration) to do the necessary rebuilding after the war.

I would have been far happier if the justification for the war had never even mentioned WMDs. But then again, without that, was there really a case for the war being necessary?

-Arrian

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Arrian
That was my PoV as well, although I was also deeply worried about the ability of this administration (and probably ANY administration) to do the necessary rebuilding after the war.

I would have been far happier if the justification for the war had never even mentioned WMDs. But then again, without that, was there really a case for the war being necessary?

-Arrian

Why exactly are you talking about WMD's?