Reply With Quote
Yeah, about 5-7 years too late.
What took them so long.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/2...#ixzz0xe1MwdLSState Department details Blackwater violations of U.S. laws
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The company formerly known as Blackwater violated U.S. export control laws nearly 300 times, ranging from attempts to do business in Sudan while that country was under U.S. sanctions to training an Afghan border patrol official who was a native of Iran, the State Department said Monday.
The alleged violations were spelled out in do ents released Monday by the State Department as part of a $42 million settlement with Blackwater that will allow the company, now known as Xe Services LLC, to continue receiving U.S. government contracts.
The agreement appears to spell the end of a three-and-a-half-year, multi-agency federal probe into Xe Services' unauthorized exports of defense technologies and services. While elements of the case were presented to a federal grand jury, the company and its currently serving officers have avoided criminal prosecution.
The State Department said Monday that Xe Services' alleged violations, while widespread, "did not involve sensitive technologies or cause a known harm to national security." Additionally, it said, they took place while Xe "was providing services in support of U.S. government programs and military operations abroad."
Under the agreement with the U.S. government, the Moyock, N.C., company was levied a $42 million fine, but Xe is allowed to use $12 million of that to strengthen the company's export control compliance programs. Xe won't be barred from further U.S. government contracts, and a government policy of denying most of the firm's export control applications, in place since December 2008, will be lifted....
...Most of the 288 violations of export control laws cited in the do ent involve Blackwater providing unauthorized military or security training to foreign nationals or failing to vet adequately the backgrounds of those it was training. The concern is that U.S. enemies could benefit inadvertently from such training...
...Blackwater also violated firearms regulations on numerous occasions, the do ents allege. In one case, it diverted weapons intended for use in supporting U.S. military operations in Iraq to the company's private contracts in that country.
The company "did not fully cooperate" during the first 18 months of the State Department investigation, which began in February 2007, and made several false statements to the government that it later revised, the do ents said.
Story | Feds won't charge Blackwater in Sudan sanctions case
Story | Blackwater exec says U.S. government approved weapons
Story | Former Blackwater employees contest federal charges
Story | Blackwater indicted for violating federal firearms laws
Story | Iraq orders 200 current, former Blackwater employees to leave
Story | Iraqi father vows to pursue U.S. lawsuit against Blackwater
Story | Judge dismisses charges in Blackwater shooting of 17 Iraqis
Story | Blackwater likely to be fined millions in Iraq weapons case
Yeah, about 5-7 years too late.
What took them so long.
You seem to have missed the part where Xe is settling for a fixed sum to put all that in the past and continue being a contractor in good standing.
US govt is dependent on the murderous mercenaries (Repugs also got that ball rolling, too), so the govt "settles" with them.
Same as the govt "settling" with the Wall St bank that hid $40B in MBS exposure from investors, which is a crime. TBTF, TBTJ, so govt "settles".
FDA also "settles" with GSK after convicting GSK. Why? When convicted GSK could no long sell to the govt, denying people drugs, so GSK created a bull s company that existed only to confess to the crime.
Call me next time the police "settle" with a black or brown possessor of a couple ounces of mj.
ing America is ing rigged (and ed).
Not quite but that's better.
By a smidge.
Sounds like their business model is entirely reliant on being a government contractor.
Which makes you wonder why the military can't provide this service themselves...
Cheaper for work to be accomplished by "support contractors" because they don't have to worry about benefits or long-term employment (i.e. when the contract is up, the job is done).
There are still prohibitions for jobs that are "inherently government responsibilities", but that list of jobs dwindles by the day. Honestly, as someone who works in the defense acquisitions career field where the "support contractor" is common place, I think it's a disturbing trend.
Well, the problem is evident. Sure, they might provide the service for cheaper (and that's certainly debatable, I would like to see the numbers), but ultimately the company has a bunch of dubious side deals with very little, if any, oversight. I'm sure arms-trade is a highly profitable business.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
