KBR/Halliburton = Military: shielded from liability, soldiers screwed

[boutons_deux]

Halliburton, KBR Burn Pit Suit Thrown Out by U.S. Judge

Halliburton Co. (HAL) and KBR Inc. are entitled to the same legal protection as U.S. armed forces when serving as military contractors, a judge ruled, dismissing claims over so-called burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.


U.S. District Judge Roger Titus threw out 57 consolidated lawsuits against the companies brought mainly by military personnel who claim they suffered damaging health effects from exposure to the contractors’ pits, where items including medical waste, paints and pesticides are burned in war zones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-28/halliburton-kbr-burn-pit-suit-thrown-out-by-u-s-judge.html

the imperial corporatocracy is untouchable, protected by the compliant judiciary, no matter how murderous, poisonous their activities.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm... strange ruling. I mean, I thought the whole point of hiring contractors was that you could sue them if they screwed up. It's not like the military can demote them. Hell, what's the point of a contract if a judge is just going to throw it out? Glad it's getting appealed.

[Wild Cobra]

No.

The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.

[BobaFett1]

Halliburton, KBR Burn Pit Suit Thrown Out by U.S. Judge

Halliburton Co. (HAL) and KBR Inc. are entitled to the same legal protection as U.S. armed forces when serving as military contractors, a judge ruled, dismissing claims over so-called burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.


U.S. District Judge Roger Titus threw out 57 consolidated lawsuits against the companies brought mainly by military personnel who claim they suffered damaging health effects from exposure to the contractors’ pits, where items including medical waste, paints and pesticides are burned in war zones.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-28/halliburton-kbr-burn-pit-suit-thrown-out-by-u-s-judge.html

the imperial corporatocracy is untouchable, protected by the compliant judiciary, no matter how murderous, poisonous their activities.





:rollin you always think man is trying to get you

[mouse]

No.

The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.

Halliburton is Military.

[Wild Cobra]

Halliburton is Military.
Not when it comes to making a claim of reducing the military forces.

[Winehole23]

No.

The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.gutted the military, or was only faking it? you can't really have it both ways.

[Wild Cobra]

gutted the military, or was only faking it? you can't really have it both ways.
I remember when I was in, the 5 year reduction of forces put in place by president Bush (41). My job was one that was eliminated, and replaced by civilian contract. It was a fixed station electronics technician job. This was understandable to do after the end of the cold war. There were also several divisions of combat forces dismantled. Much of the military was truly reduced, and some of it replaced by civilian contract. Now Clinton didn't reduce combat troops, or replace fixed location support units. He replaced the supply chain and food chain. This was his claim to fame. This is why we had so many supply problems and food related problems. I was aware of one location that the troops were not getting food resupplyment. The contractors wouldn't go to some areas in Iraq. One letter I read described the troops being rationed to one MRE a day, so they had food until they execrated a shipment to arrive. If I recall, they only had one meal a day for over three weeks. These contractors held out for six digit figures before returning to work. Would have never happened with a military supply chain.

Clinton's move didn't save shit. He was able to campaign on reducing the military forces. That's it. In the end, paying the contractors is more expensive.

[Winehole23]

privatization proved wasteful, essentially?

[Winehole23]

One letter I read described the troops being rationed to one MRE a day, so they had food until they execrated a shipment to arrive!

[Wild Cobra]

privatization proved wasteful, essentially?
When the truck drivers, supply handlers, and cooks get 6 digits in pay, sometimes more than $200k annual, what do you think?

[Winehole23]

Now Clinton didn't reduce combat troops, or replace fixed location support units. He replaced the supply chain and food chain. This was his claim to fame. This is why we had so many supply problems and food related problems.never heard it put quite that way.

btw, it's a way stronger defense of Clinton than I expected from you: the crappy contractors let everyone down.

[Wild Cobra]

never heard it put quite that way.

btw, it's a way stronger defense of Clinton than I expected from you: the crappy contractors let everyone down.
There should have never been contractors in the first place that could walk off such key jobs. If a military person walks off the job in wartime, they are a deserter.

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol outsourcing to deny certain benefits but they come back and bite in you in the ass

[boutons_deux]

No.

The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.

The vast privatization of Iraq/Afghanistan as a war profiteering project was done under dubya, dickhead, rummy

After collapse of the Soviet Empire, there should have been and was a "peace dividend" of military reduction, which is exactly what THE REPUGS are saying now their sequestration is "achieving" with military cuts post-Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Wild Cobra]

The vast privatization of Iraq/Afghanistan as a war profiteering project was done under dubya, dickhead, rummy

After collapse of the Soviet Empire, there should have been and was a "peace dividend" of military reduction, which is exactly what THE REPUGS are saying now their sequestration is "achieving" with military cuts post-Iraq/Afghanistan.
Bullshit. You don't know shit. Bush was forced to up the pay and types of contractors because of the contracts put in place under Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

Bullshit. You don't know shit. Bush was forced to up the pay and types of contractors because of the contracts put in place under Clinton.

Repugs "forced" to dump/waste tax payer $10Bs on war-profiteering contractors? :lol Your blind ideology makes you dumb as shit.

[BobaFett1]

Repugs "forced" to dump/waste tax payer $10Bs on war-profiteering contractors? :lol Your blind ideology makes you dumb as shit.\\


Man you are blinded. I feel sorry for you.

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot.

Look at when Halliburton replaced US military in key support jobs.

It was during the Clinton era.

[Wild Cobra]

You go to war with the military you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

[AFBlue]

Wow, that's stupid and shameful. But, it's per par tbh. Government contractors have held expansive influence since Clinton and continued with subsequent administrations under the (false) pretense that it was less expensive and easier to sever ties.

[LnGrrrR]

So back to the OP, does anyone else think these companies should be immune from prosecution?

[AFBlue]

Bullshit. You don't know shit. Bush was forced to up the pay and types of contractors because of the contracts put in place under Clinton.

I hate to say it, but there were no contracts from the Clinton era when we went into Iraq. All of the staging areas (e.g. Kuwait) and the country itself were under the LOGCAP contract; billions in support services.

No one administration is less culpable for the environment than another.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate to say it, but there were no contracts from the Clinton era when we went into Iraq. All of the staging areas (e.g. Kuwait) and the country itself were under the LOGCAP contract; billions in support services.

No one administration is less culpable for the environment than another.

It used to be contractors did not go into hostile areas. Staging areas, yes. I see you didn't look at the history of LOGCAP prior to making your post. That program was actually implemented in the 80's I think. Contracts changed as previous ones expired, and during the Desert Storm, contractors were delivering in the war zone.

That is absolute taboo in my book.

[AFBlue]

It used to be contractors did not go into hostile areas. Staging areas, yes. I see you didn't look at the history of LOGCAP prior to making your post. That program was actually implemented in the 80's I think. Contracts changed as previous ones expired, and during the Desert Storm, contractors were delivering in the war zone.

That is absolute taboo in my book.

I agree it's taboo, but my point was to say that the Bush administration was not free of guilt for using it expansively and wasting millions on sub-par performance.

By the way, I know the history of LOGCAP. The funding mechanism has been in-place since the 80's and we're now on our fourth iteration of it. My deployment overseas was specifically to monitor the support contracts we're referring to, so I'm very familiar with the contract type and the most recent contractors executing them.

[AFBlue]

WC: There's also this pretty damning evidence on the use of support contractors as a percentage of the overall budget in the first five years of Bush's presidency...

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2561&catid=44:legislation

[LnGrrrR]

I agree it's taboo, but my point was to say that the Bush administration was not free of guilt for using it expansively and wasting millions on sub-par performance.

By the way, I know the history of LOGCAP. The funding mechanism has been in-place since the 80's and we're now on our fourth iteration of it. My deployment overseas was specifically to monitor the support contracts we're referring to, so I'm very familiar with the contract type and the most recent contractors executing them.

Surely AFBlue, just because your job is actually about military contracts, doesn't mean you know more about them than WC.

[Wild Cobra]

WC: There's also this pretty damning evidence on the use of support contractors as a percentage of the overall budget in the first five years of Bush's presidency...

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2561&catid=44:legislation
Yes, yes, yes. This was already in place. You can't just rebuild a military equivalent overnight.

[Wild Cobra]

Surely AFBlue, just because your job is actually about military contracts, doesn't mean you know more about them than WC.
I know you meant to use blue.

If he in fact does what he said, he most certainly knows more than I in this regard, at least for present day. I saw the reduction at the end of the cold war. Then I saw the crippling farther reduction by Clinton, going past what was reasonable.

[Th'Pusher]

I know you meant to use blue.

If he in fact does what he said, he most certainly knows more than I in this regard, at least for present day. I saw the reduction at the end of the cold war. Then I saw the crippling farther reduction by Clinton, going past what was reasonable.

it all makes sense now. WC is a butthurt republican shill because a democrat outsourced his government job.

[AFBlue]

Yes, yes, yes. This was already in place. You can't just rebuild a military equivalent overnight.

This is purely anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth...

I supported a weapon system development program in which 95% of the engineering expertise was contracted out. The overall Program Manager was the only military or government civilian in the chain of command. Even the Chief Engineer and primary advisor to the PM was a contracted position. And my entire tenure was during the Bush administration. It could very well be that the levels were the same under Clinton, but they certainly didn't improve under Bush. It just goes to my original point...it's unacceptable and there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Expert]

I've talked it over with my peers and we've concluded that anything Wild Cobra has said is bullshit.

[DMX7]

No.

The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.

...and Bush.

[Wild Cobra]

it all makes sense now. WC is a butthurt republican shill because a democrat outsourced his government job.
No, My job was outsourced by Bush (41). I was part of his 5 year reduction in forces. My job tax fixed station communications repair. not tactical. My job was replaced by contractors, but under Bush.

[Wild Cobra]

...and Bush.
If you wish to make that claim, I will agree that it was helpful politically. Still, this was a natural draw-down after the wall fell.

Remember "The Wall?"

Bush (41) did not replace tactical positions with civilian contractor. That is the difference. Clinton replaced support positions that were required to go into battle zones with contractors. That is what my gripe is about.

[LnGrrrR]

WC I can tell you that Bush did the same thing, or at the least, didn't replace them. Lots of contractors at bases overseas perform things like food delivery, comm etc etc which are vital support functions. (And yes, comm is more important now than probably ever.)

(Oh and I figured you'd catch the meaning of my post without the obvious blue. :) )

[Wild Cobra]

WC I can tell you that Bush did the same thing, or at the least, didn't replace them. Lots of contractors at bases overseas perform things like food delivery, comm etc etc which are vital support functions. (And yes, comm is more important now than probably ever.)

(Oh and I figured you'd catch the meaning of my post without the obvious blue. :) )
But not behind the lines.

[Winehole23]

is there some reason the suppliers shouldn't come all the way to the camp? seems to me you recently complained they wouldn't, leaving the front lines in the lurch.

[Wild Cobra]

is there some reason the suppliers shouldn't come all the way to the camp? seems to me you recently complained they wouldn't, leaving the front lines in the lurch.
That's the problems.

When the Iraqi war first broke out, they had convoys of food and supplies sitting. Contract truckers walked off their jobs. Then these places had to up the money to get people who would drive this stuff in to the soldiers.

[LnGrrrR]

That's the problems.

When the Iraqi war first broke out, they had convoys of food and supplies sitting. Contract truckers walked off their jobs. Then these places had to up the money to get people who would drive this stuff in to the soldiers.

The same thing would happen though right now if the contractors went on strike overseas. Essentially, soldiers would either take over the kitchen/comm/other support duties, or we'd go hungry. And if there weren't enough soldiers, then what?

And if you're only talking about "outside the wire" type activities, there's quite alot of Blackwater (or whatever they're called now) companies that are doing jobs of that sort.

[DMX7]

But not behind the lines.

Am I missing something? Have you not heard of Blackwater (now Academi)?

[ElNono]

Surely AFBlue, just because your job is actually about military contracts, doesn't mean you know more about them than WC.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Am I missing something? Have you not heard of Blackwater (now Academi)?
I understand your point. You are missing some info. The supply truck drivers were not allowed to arm themselves, but were expected to travel in a war zone. Many walked off the jobs, and left several units in the field without a restocked food supply! It took some time to get all this worked out.

[Wild Cobra]

The same thing would happen though right now if the contractors went on strike overseas. Essentially, soldiers would either take over the kitchen/comm/other support duties, or we'd go hungry. And if there weren't enough soldiers, then what?

And if you're only talking about "outside the wire" type activities, there's quite alot of Blackwater (or whatever they're called now) companies that are doing jobs of that sort.
It's fucked up. Soldiers need to do such functions.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol
Is that called for?


Surely AFBlue, just because your job is actually about military contracts, doesn't mean you know more about them than WC.


I know you meant to use blue.

If he in fact does what he said, he most certainly knows more than I in this regard, at least for present day. I saw the reduction at the end of the cold war. Then I saw the crippling farther reduction by Clinton, going past what was reasonable.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, with the way health costs are going, they'd much rather hire a contractor than get stuck paying relatively cheap health care to a retiree.

[Winehole23]

t’s not every day that a scientist creates such intense drama on Capitol Hill.

But Dr. Steven S. Coughlin’s charges (http://veterans.house.gov/witness-testimony/dr-steven-s-coughlin) that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials hid, manipulated, and even lied about research pertaining to Gulf War Illness (GWI) and health problems plaguing Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are still causing fallout a month after his stunning testimony before a key House subcommittee.


“The implications of his testimony are profound,” declared Anthony Hardie, 45, a Gulf War veteran who serves on the congressionally appointed Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses (RAC).


Veterans and their advocates, as well as many in the scientific community, have long believed that the VA avoids responsibility for veterans’ care by downplaying or outright ignoring evidence linking wartime experiences—such as exposure to Agent Orange, chemical weapons, or toxic pollution—to veterans’ chronic medical issues back home.


Coughlin, a senior epidemiologist with the VA’s Office of Public Health (OPH), gave the VA’s critics what they say is a smoking gun: after conducting major surveys of 1991 Gulf War veterans and “New Generation” veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan, Coughlin told the committee he quit his post in December. He claims the VA is hiding important survey results about the health of veterans and that his colleagues watered-down analysis that might have shed light on whether recent vets got sick from open-air trash-burning pits (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-new-agent-orange/) on overseas bases.


He told the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on March 13 that millions of dollars are invested in veterans’ heath studies each year, yet “if the studies produce results that do not support [OPH’s] unwritten policy, they do not release them.” And “on the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/va-whistleblower-ignites-firestorm-over-vets-illnesses/