Sex-trafficing co. gets Iraq police contract
So DynCorp got the contract (re-establish police, justice and prison functions in post conflict Iraq) and didn't even have to bid.
Why is DynCorp so nasty? Let's let CCR explain:
slightly more detailed info here: http://www.insightmag.com/news/415933.html
Now isn't that just grand? But, hey, let's just ignore it, right? I mean, it's not like sex trafficing is official company policy, so how can we blame the company, right?
I guess what I'm also wondering is who polices a foreign police force in occupied Iraq? Don't say the US military, because past events show that isn't going to happen.
Apparently collateral damage comes in a variety of flavors.
Why is DynCorp so nasty? Let's let CCR explain:
Quote:
In Bosnia, employees of the company were accused of operating a sex-slave ring of young women, keeping underaged girls as concubines, and videotaping a DynCorp supervise having sex with two girls. Although they were fired from their jobs, they were never prosecuted. [New York Times,10/13/02; Los Angeles Times, 4/14/02; Insight Magazine, 4/11/03] One of the whistle-blowers, Ben Johnston, said in an April 2002 Congressional testimony: ?DynCorp employees were living off post and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves. Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas.? [New York Times,10/13/02]
In Bosnia, employees of the company were accused of operating a sex-slave ring of young women, keeping underaged girls as concubines, and videotaping a DynCorp supervise having sex with two girls. Although they were fired from their jobs, they were never prosecuted. [New York Times,10/13/02; Los Angeles Times, 4/14/02; Insight Magazine, 4/11/03] One of the whistle-blowers, Ben Johnston, said in an April 2002 Congressional testimony: ?DynCorp employees were living off post and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves. Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas.? [New York Times,10/13/02]
slightly more detailed info here: http://www.insightmag.com/news/415933.html
Now isn't that just grand? But, hey, let's just ignore it, right? I mean, it's not like sex trafficing is official company policy, so how can we blame the company, right?
I guess what I'm also wondering is who polices a foreign police force in occupied Iraq? Don't say the US military, because past events show that isn't going to happen.
Apparently collateral damage comes in a variety of flavors.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Why is DynCorp so nasty? Let's let CCR explain:
What in the hell does John Fogerty have to do with ANY of this? Jeez...
(any of you youngsters, go look it up... )
See? I can be reasonable.
I totally agree on this. But I didn't hire the motherf***ers, so I can't fix it. If this is one of those dreaded "Bush/Cheney buddies" deals, then that sucks.
Originally posted by pscates
See? I can be reasonable.
And your comment about Ann Coulter shows you can be pretty damn funny, too. It gave me a good chuckle.
But is this comment an admission that you usually aren't reasonable? JK.
Anyway, this is just the way the world works, and a large part of the reason people don't like giving some government types (read: Bush admin) too much leeway in the use of military force.
How can folks say this whole operation is being conducted for the good of Iraqis when DynCorp is *given* (they did not bid) the contract to police the country? How many of these incidents does it take before folks wake up and smell the coffee?
As for not prosecuting them, where would they be held liable? I mean, did they break any U.S. laws if they were doing these things overseas?
Sorry if the link explains it, but I didn't read it yet.
You all realize you're using "guilt by association". That's wrong.
I'm right there with ya on this one. This sucks.
The current admin is guilty of giving a policing contract to a company that allows its employees to take advantage of the people it is supposed to protect.
Scott, the least you could do is actual pay attention to what is being said instead of just arguing with your fantasies.
Originally posted by pscates
I'm right there with ya on this one. This sucks.
For real. I would think that people that support this war for human rights reasons would be some of the biggest opponents, since we can basically bet this won't be prosecuted any other way.
Would you want to be under the control of this company, with no one to turn to if DynCorp employees repeat their behavior (which seems likely since they were never prosecuted, as far as I can tell).
Originally posted by giant
Guilt by association? Who's associated to whom? What the hell are you talking about?
The current admin is guilty of giving a policing contract to a company that allows its employees to take advantage of the people it is supposed to protect.
Scott, the least you could do is actual pay attention to what is being said instead of just arguing with your fantasies.
Just because some individuals did these things doesn't mean everyone in the company is guilty. Use your head. Oh wait I forgot who I was replying to. Use your typical knee jerk thoughtless reaction 'cause your incapable of anything else.
giant has made up his mind everyone. Stop posting now unless you agree.
Originally posted by Scott
Just because some individuals did these things doesn't mean everyone in the company is guilty.
Just like the taliban isn't responsible for what al-qaeda did. Hell, the taliban offered more prosecution than DynCorp or the US ever did for these people (considering that was none).
To say that DynCorp is not reponsible for dramatic actions of its employees is rediculous. And, yes, the US government (clinton admin at the time) is just as responsible for hiring them.
Worse yet, their actions are out in the open, and the Bush Admin is hiring a company to protect Iraqis when they know that that employees of that company take advantage of their position.
Note that DynCorp is a mercenary company.
That was kinda funny. Not as much as my Ann Coulter comment, but pretty good.
BTW, are those people still with the company (forgot from the article). I mean, Scott's got a point: the whole company can't be judged on some bad eggs (was everyone - particularly the worker bees and clock punchers - at Enron bad? No.).
But if those "bad eggs" are still there, at the top, and running things or setting the tone for the company, then yeah...that ain't cool.
Most companies I've worked for would be swell if you could just somehow rid the place of the top levels of detached, smarmy pinhead management.
The people in the trenches actually doing the work and making the company hum along are rarely the problem. 9 out of 10 times, it's incompetent bozo-osity at the top.
Originally posted by Scott
giant has made up his mind everyone. Stop posting now unless you agree.
I'm doing my best to remember when you last changed your mind about anything (or indeed moderated your tone.) And do you know, confound it, I can't. Crivens! Which makes your post sort of... I don't know, ironic. Or something.
You can't just say it's a few bad eggs since neither the company nor the US government ever prosercuted them. There is obviously a systematic acceptance.
You have to make a better case than that, or i will have to have my corner store shut down when an employee is busted for kiddie porn.
i need more data--what was the company's position the activities? Are those individuals still working for the company?
It certainly isn't GOOD, and it stinks...but w/o more info, I don't know what to say.
Originally posted by mrmister
You have to make a better case than that, or i will have to have my corner store shut down when an employee is busted for kiddie porn.
Bad analogy. That employee's offense had nothing to do with their job and they didn't abuse a position of power or directly harm others.
Why make an analogy at all? Say it as it is:
A group of mercenaries hired by the US to protect the people of an semi-occupied area use their position of power to take advantage of those people.
And now they are again being hired to do the same thing in Iraq.
Here's a little more info:
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/163052.html
As you can see, the problem is systematic and whistleblowers are fired for going against the company. It almost seems like it is company policy. That makes sense, though. People like this want to take care of their own.
And don't forget that they are mercenaries.
Originally posted by giant
Just like the taliban isn't responsible for what al-qaeda did. Hell, the taliban offered more prosecution than DynCorp or the US ever did for these people (considering that was none).
To say that DynCorp is not reponsible for dramatic actions of its employees is rediculous. And, yes, the US government (clinton admin at the time) is just as responsible for hiring them.
Worse yet, their actions are out in the open, and the Bush Admin is hiring a company to protect Iraqis when they know that that employees of that company take advantage of their position.
Note that DynCorp is a mercenary company.
You're ... not being logical. You'll make any argument to "prove" your preconceived point.
Originally posted by Scott
You're ... not being logical. You'll make any argument to "prove" your preconceived point.
What point is that? That we shouldn't hire a company that has a record of abusing its position of authority over civilians?
spotcatbug:
One, tiny, little, bright side: everybody will be watching DynCorp closely on this issue. Maybe that'll make them extra careful about how they treat the citizens.
Hopefully, but this is wholly dependent on how well it is reported.
DynCorp had a $15 million contract to hire and train police officers for duty in Bosnia at the time she reported such officers were paying for prostitutes and participating in sex-trafficking. Many of these were forced to resign under suspicion of illegal activity, but none have been prosecuted, as they also enjoy immunity from prosecution in Bosnia.
DynCorp has admitted it fired five employees for similar illegal activities prior to Johnston's charges.
so are they problem causers still there or not?
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/163052.html
You answer is pretty clearly in there. I think at one point it's summed up as the "company's culture ."
On another note:
What you have here is a Lord of the Flies mentality. Basically you've got a bunch of strong men who are raping and manipulating young girls who have been kidnapped from their homes. Who's the bad guy? Is it the guy who buys the girl to give her freedom, the one who kidnaps her and sells her or the one who liberates her and ends up having sex with her? And what does it mean when the U.S. steps up and says, 'We don't have any jurisdiction'? That's absurd.
Here's another interesting quote:
DynCorp leadership was 100 percent in bed with the mafia over there. I didn't get any results from talking to DynCorp officials, so I went to Army CID and I drove around with them, pointing out everyone's houses who owned women and weapons.