TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Today's Must Read

For all the allegations of fraud, waste and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, few U.S. individuals or companies have been hauled into court, placed under oath and forced to answer a lot of questions.

A story in today's Washington Post offers some insight as to why not.

There's a massive backlog of whistle-blower cases over at the Department of Justice. These are unique cases where regular citizen-whistleblowers are the plaintiffs (and share in the recovery when the cases are successful, which is supposed to encourage them come forward). The reason we don't hear much about them is because they are automatically placed under seal. Filed under the Civil War-era False Claims Act, not even the people filing them can talk about them.

In theory, this allows the government to conduct an investigation without tipping off the target of that investigation. The government has the option of joining the plaintiff in the case. But that veil of secrecy can also allow the government to drag its feet on an investigation, which the Post points out.

Critics argue that the delays are at least partly the result of foot-dragging by Justice and the federal agencies whose position it represents, especially in the touchy area of suppliers that may have overbilled the government for equipment, food and other items used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Justice lawyers have rejected about 19 cases involving contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, registering five settlements that resulted in $16 million, officials said. Government officials said this week that they are considering whether to dive into 32 more whistle-blower cases involving Iraq or the Middle East.

"It's just flatly absurd for us to be five years into this war" with so few public cases, said Alan Grayson, a whistle-blower lawyer in Florida who has criticized the Justice effort and who is running for Congress as a Democrat.

There was an oddly written report from the BBC a few weeks ago that appeared to be reffering to these cases, known as "Qui Tam" cases.

One case that did become public a few years ago was the case of Custer Battles, when we heard about soldiers unloading trunks full of $100 bills from C-130 cargo planes with no sign of any accounting system.

Typically these whistleblower cases take two to four years to become public. But there are a lot of challenges to investigating a legal claim in a war zone.

Whistle-blower lawyers say other factors can contribute to long delays, including the difficulty in investigating claims in war-torn areas and complications that arise when military officials contend that technology or other products at issue in the lawsuits are classified. In addition, Justice lawyers who handle civil cases often cannot proceed until authorities decide whether a case merits criminal prosecution, the lawyers said.

In an interview with TPMmuckraker few weeks ago, Robert Bauman, a former Department of Defense criminal investigator who now works as a consultant to people who file whistleblower cases, said there's a lot of cases still unresolved.

"They're still in the mill," Bauman said. "They will come out. I don't know how long it will be, but eventually, they'll come out."


9 Comments

| Leave a comment

We'll be cleaning up after this Bush administration for the next 25 years. I just hope the Dems are willing to pursue it!

Both the article and the posts view this too simplisticly. If you read the article, you can see that the Department continues to pursue and obtain significant monetary recoveries. Moreover, the individuals who are quoted slamming the Department are attorneys who represent individual relators who stand to gain 15-30% of any monies recovered by the Department, so of course they think these cases should move faster. And some of those attorneys represent individuals who have filed numerous whistleblower suits and are essentially professional litigants. The bulk of the qui tam cases that are filed contain little to no evidence of the frauds alleged. The cases being investigated are complex and it is extremely difficult to gather evidence for the Iraq fraud cases -- often there was significant turnover of the contracting officers, key witnesses are still in Iraq or are foreign nationals. To obtain evidence, the government must often rely upon treaty provisions with other countries, etc. And in the Custer Battles case, because the monies at issue were Iraqi funds, the court ultimately decided that the U.S. had no cause of action under the False Claims Act which was likely always viewed as a litigation risk by the Department and was a likely reason it chose not to intervene in the action.

user-pic

Pay no attention to this.
There's nothing here.
Just go about your way.
We're keeping you safe.

Oooga Booga!!!
Scary Scary!!!

Pay no attention to this.
There's nothing here.
Just go about your way.
We're keeping you safe...

user-pic

Hopefully when Edwards is AG he will pursue these allegations. That is when we find if his rhetoric is meaningful and true. This administration operates on "GI-GO." For sure there will be a couple Representatives screaaming for records and Finegold in the Senate. Depending on the party governor(R) Whitehouse would also make a great AG.

user-pic

Shouldn't the Office of Special Counsel be involved in this also, since it's supposed to protect the whistleblowers themselves? Is the OSC also part of the problem here? (You know, the OSC, led by Scott Bloch, under investigation by the FBI for doing exactly the opposite of what he's supposed to be doing...) I see no mention of the OSC in the Post article, so maybe I'm way off base. But I thought there should be a connection.

-- ARG

user-pic

There is ample evidence to suggest that the DOJ has been turned into a division of the RNC by the Permanent Republican Majority crowd, but I don't think this is necessarily part of that. It is only because Justice itself has become suspect with illegal hiring practices and bogus "vote fraud" indictments and so on that we raise eyebrows and wonder what's rotten in Denmark when articles like these appear.
But the backlog timeline is 10 years, not 8. The "typical" time of case resolution was 14 months in any event; now there an "unprecedented" number. There isn't much in the piece that indicates anything other than the standard inefficiency of a government arm.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, particularly with the guardian of the unitary executive Mukasey helming the operation. It just isn't in the article.

Obama should promise a "Whistle Blowers Immunity" package to help encourage people to tell about the FW&Abuses of the war-profiteering Bushies.

About 80 percent of the reason none of these cases got pursued is the Bush policy in all matters of oversight has been "don't ask, don't tell." The other 20 percent can be chalked up to bureaucratic incompetence. Of course, even if those percentages were reversed, the end result would be the same.

user-pic

Just a thought - are they waiting for the statute of limitations to run out on these so they can dismiss them? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the statute applies to federal whistle-blowing issues or not.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address