U.S. Military Awards $80 Million Contract to Indicted Saudi Financier

What does it take to get a defense contract in the Bush Administration? After awarding a $300 million contract to a 22-year-old man, Efriam E. Diveroli, who sold defective arms to our Afghan allies, it has now been reported that the Defense Department has awarded an $80 million contract to indicted Saudi financier Gaith Pharaon. The level of sheer incompetence in such contracts is staggering.

The Defense Department gave Pharaon the contract as another federal agency, the Justice Department, is taking to prosecute him in connection with his alleged role at the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) (costing US tax payers $1.7 billion).

The FBI has put out alerts internationally to locate Pharaon, click here. While the FBI could not find him, he was apparently contracting openly with a sister agency.

For the full story, click here and here.

14 Responses to “U.S. Military Awards $80 Million Contract to Indicted Saudi Financier”


  1. 1 karina 1, June 5, 2008 at 2:21 am

    we should stop supporting the defence industry.

  2. 2 rafflaw 1, June 5, 2008 at 7:18 am

    Just one more crime of the Bush Administration. This support of a possible felon who just happens to be a Saudi it the norm for the Bush family. Their ties to the Saudi’s runs deep and obviously money talks to them. Even in National Security defense issues, the Bush Mantra is “Show me the money”!

  3. 3 badger 1, June 5, 2008 at 9:07 am

    The US Military contract is to supply jet fuel to American bases in Afghanistan was awarded to the Attock Refinery Ltd, a Pakistani-based refinery that may or MAY NOT BE owned by Gaith Pharaon. I hardly think you can blame the Military for not knowing the true ownership of the thousands of corporations, foreign & domestic, especially considering the fact the media is still not sure who owns this Pakistani corporation.

    I wonder if those that complain about the military inadvertantly having contracts with bad people ever bother to check on the ownership of the Indian, Pakistani, & Indonesian companies that make the cloths they wear & goods they use….because they would be surprised.

  4. 4 Hugh Gilpatric 1, June 5, 2008 at 9:23 am

    Badger:

    The difference is in scale. I can’t remember the last time I bought $80 million of clothes from a Laotian sweat shop. Oh yeah, I never have. And if I did, I’d look into the ownership and working conditions.

    The military has a duty to understand the ownership BEFORE they make a deal of this size.

  5. 5 badger 1, June 5, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Huhg writes: “The military has a duty to understand the ownership BEFORE they make a deal of this size.”

    The media saying someone owns a corporation doesn’t necessarily make it so. I rather doubt the voluminous corrections that never seem to make the paper’s front page would be interesting anyway; if the media even prints them in the first place.

    God Bless America.

  6. 6 Jill 1, June 5, 2008 at 10:14 am

    badger,

    What does “God bless America” mean to you in this context? How is Hugh’s point invalidated by what you said above?

    Thanks for clarifying.

    Jill

  7. 7 Jill 1, June 5, 2008 at 11:42 am

    This is only tangentially related but Blackwater just received a judgement in its favor to build it’s counterinsurgency training center in CA.

  8. 8 Hugh Gilpatric 1, June 5, 2008 at 11:43 am

    Badger:
    “The media saying someone owns a corporation doesn’t necessarily make it so.”

    Since when is the news media supposed to be the source of this information to the military? They can’t independently look into it? This is what happens when contracts are awarded on factors other than lowest price/highest value (you know, the bidding process, right?) and when you do not encourage (or allow) the contract negotiators to negotiate and ask pertinent questions of the potential vendor.

  9. 9 Hugh Gilpatric 1, June 5, 2008 at 11:45 am

    Badger:

    Never mind, I get your point. You don’t believe the story is true in the first place. What evidence do you require?

  10. 10 very concerned 1, June 5, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Now THIS is shocking.

  11. 11 rcampbell 1, June 5, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Hugh

    He only requires that the media stop exposing the ongoing and continual ineptitude and corruption of the current administration.

  12. 12 binx101 1, June 5, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    And in conclusion (my friends) this why we must bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

    It is the circular logic the dominates the neocon ilk, as perpetuated here by our colleague with the Mustelidae handle.

  13. 13 OhBoyObama.com 1, June 5, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    It is not incompetence. This was done on purpose.

  14. 14 Crispin 1, September 15, 2011 at 2:29 am

    Hey, superb blog. Nice design. I recently got carried out with cosmetic courses and wish to start-up my own personal website. I appreciate you for the fantastic posting!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Turley Tweets

Click here to follow the blog on Twitter.

SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL OPINION BLOG (2011)

SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)

blawg100_2008_winner9349c7

Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)

Categories

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 595 other followers