Bush Declares National Emergency for Iraqi Oil

[Stravo]

Vympel you need to seperate the "big bad mega corporations" concept from the overall goal of keeping the money flowing in Iraq to rebuild the country. Bush wants to make sure that the tax payer here is not stuck with too big of a tab on this matter. Liens and judgments placed against the industry, drilling equipment, etc saps the available funds that would be used to rebuild, placing more of a burden on US taxpayers. Politically motivated, sure. Can be justified on a rational basis, yes.

The overall goal is simple, the immunity to the big bad mega corps is incidental.


This has NOTHING to do with the argument but just a piece of advice from someone who felt the same way as you do now while in Law School: when you represent these guys in the future you will find that they are not monolithic organizations of men in black suits cackling with glee and stuffing their pockets with cash. The corps are employed by human beings like you and I and many of them are simply trying to pay their kids' braces or dread the college years as I do. Its easy to put the big evil mask on them without having personally dealt with some of the officers of these companies.

[Iceberg]

Vympel you need to seperate the "big bad mega corporations" concept from the overall goal of keeping the money flowing in Iraq to rebuild the country. Bush wants to make sure that the tax payer here is not stuck with too big of a tab on this matter. Liens and judgments placed against the industry, drilling equipment, etc saps the available funds that would be used to rebuild, placing more of a burden on US taxpayers. Politically motivated, sure. Can be justified on a rational basis, yes.

The overall goal is simple, the immunity to the big bad mega corps is incidental.


This has NOTHING to do with the argument but just a piece of advice from someone who felt the same way as you do now while in Law School: when you represent these guys in the future you will find that they are not monolithic organizations of men in black suits cackling with glee and stuffing their pockets with cash. The corps are employed by human beings like you and I and many of them are simply trying to pay their kids' braces or dread the college years as I do. Its easy to put the big evil mask on them without having personally dealt with some of the officers of these companies.

How about if one of your relatives is an officer in one of these companies?

[BoredShirtless]

Vympel you need to seperate the "big bad mega corporations" concept from the overall goal of keeping the money flowing in Iraq to rebuild the country.

I think you're missing his point. These companies are big enough to go to court without the need to divert funds from Iraq. No company invests 100% of their available funds into one particular venture, that's business suicide.

Bush wants to make sure that the tax payer here is not stuck with too big of a tab on this matter. Liens and judgments placed against the industry, drilling equipment, etc saps the available funds that would be used to rebuild, placing more of a burden on US taxpayers.

Tax payers would not be burdened at all, unless you believe these companies can't construct and go to court at the same time.

Politically motivated, sure. Can be justified on a rational basis, yes.

Blanket immunity is irrational, it promotes corruption and I don't see the point.

This has NOTHING to do with the argument but just a piece of advice from someone who felt the same way as you do now while in Law School: when you represent these guys in the future you will find that they are not monolithic organizations of men in black suits cackling with glee and stuffing their pockets with cash. The corps are employed by human beings like you and I and many of them are simply trying to pay their kids' braces or dread the college years as I do. Its easy to put the big evil mask on them without having personally dealt with some of the officers of these companies.

I think you're leaping a bit here, Vympel wasn't saying they're evil, just that they don't deserve blanket immunity.

[Stravo]

Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and
Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest

By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation
Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section
301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
America, find that the threat of attachment or other
judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq,
Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests
therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial
instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or
related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests
therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq,
the restoration and maintenance of peace and security
in the country, and the development of political,
administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This
situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States and I hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized
pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment,
decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and
void, with respect to the following:

No where does it say immunity from prosecution or investigation nor does it restrict governmental agencies from fining corporations from wrong doing if they violate US regulatory laws in regards to their industry. In other words if the employers violate labor law by not paying their workers, or provide hazardous conditions they are LIABLE.

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

Attachments,liens, judgements against the FUND. No where does it mention the big bad oil companies.

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and
interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any
financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising
from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and
interests therein, in which any foreign country or a
national thereof has any interest, that are in the
United States, that hereafter come within the United
States, or that are or hereafter come within the
possession or control of United States persons.

Once again, the OIL, the Profit from the sale of oil, the oil drilling and refining equipment. hmm.....do I see a blanket immunity yet that states the companies can set up a private dutchie over there?


Sec. 2. (a) As of the effective date of this order,
Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, Executive
Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, and Executive Order
13290 of March 20, 2003, shall not apply to the
property and interests in property described in section
1 of this order.

(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the
continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations,
orders, licenses or other forms of administrative
action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore
or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or
13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA,
except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended
by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in
section 2(a) of this order.

In other words as I previously mentioned these companies are still liable under governmental regulation and codes. They can still be fined, sanctioned and punished as the regulatory code calls for. Oh yeah, those oil companies are just LIVING IT UP.


Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) The term ``person'' means an individual or
entity;
(b) The term ``entity'' means a partnership,
association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group,
subgroup, or other organization;
(c) The term ``United States person'' means any
United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity
organized under the laws of the United

[[Page 31932]]

States or any jurisdiction within the United States
(including foreign branches), or any person in the
United States;
(d) The term ``Iraqi petroleum and petroleum
products'' means any petroleum, petroleum products, or
natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-
origin oil inventories, wherever located; and

OIL, GAS, EQUIPMENT, suspiciously, the assertion that oil companies have been granted this magical immunity from any wrong doing is missing.

(e) The term ``Development Fund for Iraq'' means
the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the
books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator
of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for
the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held
for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the
name of the fund.

THE FUND - you know, what's paying for reconstruction.

Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such
actions, including the promulgation of rules and
regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the
President by IEEPA and the UNPA as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of
the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to
other officers and agencies of the United States
Government. All agencies of the United States
Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their statutory authority to carry out
the provisions of this order.

(b) Nothing contained in this order shall relieve a
person from any requirement to obtain a license or
other authorization in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.

OH, yet MORE things thee eeevvillll oil companies are NOT immune from

Sec. 5. This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party
against the United States, its departments, agencies,
entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other
person.

Sec. 6. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress
and published in the Federal Register.

My analysis shows this executive order protects the following from attcahments, liens and judgements:

The Fund
Oil
Oil Sales and profits
Oil equipment, drilling and refining

[BoredShirtless]

My analysis shows this executive order protects the following from attcahments, liens and judgements:

The Fund
Oil
Oil Sales and profits
Oil equipment, drilling and refining

My analysis of your analysis shows they are getting blanket immunity over all business activities relating to oil. You still haven't addressed:

• The companies are big enough to fight in court without drawing funds from their Iraqi operations [assuming a company doesn't fuck up too many times or fuck up very big, and if that where the case, why protect such inteptitude?]
• That this order promotes corruption. Cutting costs by not constructing oil refineries to standards for example.
• The burden for tax payers is supporting government property and personnel. Protect inept companies, and the government may infact have to stay longer due to the companies overall ineptitude, not because of time spent in court.

[Joe]

Red herring. Obviously Halliburton is qualified, no one is disputing that.

Then why the fuck are you acting like hiring a company to do a job it is qualified to do is some sort of corrupt bargain?

You're excusing this example of corruption by Appealing to Common Practise.

First of all, hiring the biggest, best company in the oil services business is not corrupt. And I'm not excusing this favoritism, I'm accepting it as reality. This is how politics works; JFK appointing his brother attorney general was favoritism, Robert Byrd pumping billions of dollars into his home state was favoritism, and George W. Bush treating certain businesses favorably is favoritism. The "spoils system" has been in place in American politics since the Jacksonian era.

And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.

Why?

Because it you want to shoot off your mouth about how Bush hiring a qualified company is just a sweet political deal, you better fucking be able to prove it. By naming someone as big, experienced, and qualified as Halliburton is for the job at hand.

[Joe]

Oh, and you people are aware that many of the companies involved in the reconstruction of Iraq are not oil companies, right? That they are given absolutely zilch in the area of legal protection by this executive order? If Bush is just trying to protect his corporate buddies (which is becoming more and more of an axiom among the extreme anti-Bush left), he sure is doing a shitty job.

[Drewcifer]

...naming someone as big, experienced, and qualified as Halliburton is for the job at hand.

There are only 2 or 3 companies in the world, including Haliburton, that are even capable of, much less qualified for, doing the nature of work and on the scale needed in Iraq, iirc.

[Crown]

...naming someone as big, experienced, and qualified as Halliburton is for the job at hand.

There are only 2 or 3 companies in the world, including Haliburton, that are even capable of, much less qualified for, doing the nature of work and on the scale needed in Iraq, iirc.

Then why not open up the bidding for more companies to help rebuild Iraq, under a clear mandate and each with a certain percentage of the job according to their abilities? Call me crazy, but I thought that a competitive market place is what we wanted to bring to Iraq.

Or would that open the un-savoury prospect of allowing non-US firms a slice of the pie?

[Drewcifer]

There are only 2 or 3 companies in the world, including Haliburton, that are even capable of, much less qualified for, doing the nature of work and on the scale needed in Iraq, iirc.

Then why not open up the bidding for more companies to help rebuild Iraq...

I believe that Haliburton is only handling the rebuilding of the infrastructure needed for oil production (which is a massive job, btw). I would guess that there are tens, if not hundreds. of companies/contractors that are or will be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. Civil engineers, mechanical engineers, financial consultants, etc.

Call me crazy, but I thought that a competitive market place is what we wanted to bring to Iraq.

Not yet. Eventually yes, but we need to get water and electricity back on, banks running, police in the streets, and hospitals open. Although much of Iraq is what most of us would consider a third-world country, the job of rebuilding Iraq is still incredible in scope.

Or would that open the un-savoury prospect of allowing non-US firms a slice of the pie?

We're still mad at the Russians and the French In all seriousnes though, Iraq is being planned as a US friendly nation, and having it chock full of US companies goes a long way to insure that.

I'm not crazy about all of this either, but it is the way it is.

[BoredShirtless]

Red herring. Obviously Halliburton is qualified, no one is disputing that.

Then why the fuck are you acting like hiring a company to do a job it is qualified to do is some sort of corrupt bargain?

Because there's a conflict of interest which corrupted the hiring process. The company formerly headed by your Vice President landed a very sweet, no-bid contract.

How do I know the hiring process was corrupted? The United States Army Corps of Engineers has or is planning to invite companies to bid for the work Halliburton got given on a silver platter. In other words, it was recognised that the hiring process was corrupted, which the Army is now trying to correct.

You're excusing this example of corruption by Appealing to Common Practise.

First of all, hiring the biggest, best company in the oil services business is not corrupt.

As long as the means which achieve the ends isn't corrupt, no.

And I'm not excusing this favoritism, I'm accepting it as reality. This is how politics works; JFK appointing his brother attorney general was favoritism, Robert Byrd pumping billions of dollars into his home state was favoritism, and George W. Bush treating certain businesses favorably is favoritism. The "spoils system" has been in place in American politics since the Jacksonian era.

Why do you accept corruption? Wouldn't you rather non-corrupt politicians governing your life?

And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.

Why?

Because it you want to shoot off your mouth about how Bush hiring a qualified company is just a sweet political deal, you better fucking be able to prove it. By naming someone as big, experienced, and qualified as Halliburton is for the job at hand.

From nytimes.com. The good stuff's at the end:

U.S. Gives Bechtel a Major Contract in Rebuilding Iraq

April 18, 2003
By ELIZABETH BECKER and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.






WASHINGTON, April 17 - The Bush administration awarded the
Bechtel Group of San Francisco the first major contract
today in a vast reconstruction plan for Iraq that assigns
no position of authority to the United Nations or Europe.

The contract, which was awarded by the United States Agency
for International Development, had set off a heated contest
among some of the nation's most politically connected
construction concerns.

The award will initially pay Bechtel, a closely held San
Francisco company that posted $11.6 billion in revenue last
year, $34.6 million and could go up to $680 million over 18
months.

But those amounts could be only a fraction of what it costs
to rebuild Iraq's airports, water and electric-power
systems, roads and railroads.

The reconstruction of Iraq, a task that experts have said
could cost $25 billion to $100 billion, is part of a broad
American-led effort to stabilize the country and set up a
new government.

The American taxpayer will pay the initial contract costs,
but Iraqi oil revenue is supposed to eventually pay for
much of the reconstruction.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government a week ago,
the Bush administration has effectively shut out the United
Nations from any postwar role in Iraq.

An American team led by retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner will
take over the civilian administration of Iraq until an
interim Iraqi authority is in place. The Iraqis will then
work with the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund, institutions in which the United States enjoys wide
influence, to reshape the country.

"We are in control on the ground and creating facts on the
ground," said a senior administration official who declined
to be identified. "Iraq will not be put under a U.N. flag.
The U.N. is not going to be a partner. And right now,
people don't have the stomach to make a theological fight
over this." The administration also opposes the return of
United Nations weapons inspectors, senior officials said.

Debate began yesterday at the United Nations on whether to
lift sanctions against Iraq, which would end the United
Nations' authority to oversee the sale of Iraqi oil, to buy
and distribute food, to inspect for weapons and to
safeguard the border with Kuwait.

European governments still hope to extract more influence
for the United Nations in shaping postwar Iraq, in part to
ensure greater involvement by countries and organizations
that are reluctant to work for a military occupation. And
some European companies are still hoping for a share of the
work, perhaps as subcontractors to Bechtel.

British companies are already upset at being cut out of the
most lucrative deals to rebuild postwar Iraq, and Prime
Minister Tony Blair urged Mr. Bush at a meeting earlier
this month in Northern Ireland to grant the United Nations
a wider role in reconstruction.

But Mr. Bush has held firm to having the United States play
the dominant role, suggesting in comments after the meeting
with Mr. Blair in Belfast that United Nations agencies may
assist with food, medicine and other needs and that a
United Nations special representative can provide political
advice.

Administration officials said it was important to give
contracts to American corporations, essentially
leapfrogging over international groups, as a way to
demonstrate to the Iraqi people that the United States is a
liberator bringing economic prosperity and democratic
institutions to their nation.

"We don't see the need for a U.N. operation at all - the
Iraqi interim authority will be the equivalent of a
civilian U.N. administration," said the senior
administration official.

As the administration sketches out its postwar Iraqi plans,
officials say that the World Bank eventually can act as the
neutral international body that will be the accountant for
oil revenues, replacing the United Nations, which has
overseen the oil-for-food program.

This would require the creation of an Iraqi authority that
is accepted by other nations and international
organizations, including the United Nations. It would also
mean lifting United Nations sanctions, as proposed by
President Bush on Wednesday, and unfreezing Iraqi assets.

Bechtel defeated a handful of other construction companies
today to win the contract.

The contract covers virtually all the major projects in
Iraq, including two international and three domestic
airports, ensuring potable water is available,
reconstructing electric power plants and building roads,
railroads, schools, hospitals and irrigation systems.

An initial priority is rebuilding Iraq's only deep-water
port, the harbor at Umm Qasr, where cargo is loaded on
ships that travel down a waterway in southern Iraq to the
Persian Gulf.

While administration officials say the bidding was based
solely on which companies were most qualified to do the
work and on the need for an expedited selection and
security clearances, the two-month process drew complaints
from Congressional Democrats, as well as British companies,
about secrecy and the decision to restrict bidding to a
handful of the largest United States construction
companies.

The finalists had come down to Bechtel, which rebuilt
Kuwaiti oil fields after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and a
bid from the Parsons Corporation, an employee-owned company
in Pasadena, Calif., which is one of Bechtel's largest
rivals and which performed extensive postwar reconstruction
work in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Parsons's bid included a major role as a subcontractor for
Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary, but
Halliburton never bid on the work as a prime contractor.
Other companies invited to bid included the Fluor
Corporation, the Louis Berger Group and Washington Group
International.

For the Bush administration, there could be a down side to
running Iraq on United States authority. Reconstruction is
estimated at $25 billion. The war has cost more than $20
billion so far, and Pentagon officials are projecting costs
of $2 billion a month through Sept. 30. There is also the
question of being seen as an occupying power with an agenda
closer to American than Iraqi interests.

Jean Marie Guehenno, the United Nations under secretary for
peacekeeping operations, said that no matter who was in
charge, "the problem is to create a system that is seen as
legitimate by Iraqis and the world."

"You have to be transparent and show you do not represent a
foreign national agenda," he said. Bush administration
officials have emphasized that foreign companies are
eligible to become subcontractors for the work in Iraq.
Earlier this week, the State Department called in diplomats
from Arab countries and informed them that this
construction contract would be announced this week and
encouraged them to begin preparing bids for the
subcontracting jobs.

Frances D. Cook, a former United States ambassador to Oman
who represents a consortium of Arab companies, said Bechtel
would be wise to consider awarding subcontracting work to
companies from the region.

"There is both a political usefulness and cultural
appropriateness to using Arab companies from countries that
helped us and want the jobs," said Ms. Cook. "It will help
our country the most and start to repair some of the
relationships in the region." A Bechtel spokesman said
tonight that there would be a "full and open competition on
an international basis" for subcontractors.

The contract is one of several that had drawn criticism
from lawmakers, including Representatives Henry A. Waxman
of California and John D. Dingell of Michigan, the ranking
Democrats on the Government Reform and Energy and Commerce
committees. The lawmakers had demanded an investigation by
the General Accounting Office into how the contracts were
awarded.

Now, the G.A.O. plans an even wider investigation than what
had been requested. It will include an overall review of
all matters relating to postwar reconstruction in Iraq,
said Jeff Nelligan, spokesman for the G.A.O. "We will not
be targeting any particular companies, but no company will
be off of our radar screen," Mr. Nelligan said.

Just this week, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
said it would send out for competitive bids on a new
contract to fight continuing oil field fires and rebuild
Iraqi oil fields, a job initially awarded to Halliburton in
a separate contract without seeking any other bids.
Halliburton is giant Texas company that had been run by
Vice President Dick Cheney until he quit to run for vice
president.

The Bush administration has denied that politics played any
role in the awarding of any contract for postwar Iraq. All
decisions have been made on the merits, administration
officials say.

"The White House hasn't made any decisions to exclude
countries or companies on awarding contracts," Michael
Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said
today.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because there's a conflict of interest which corrupted the hiring process. The company formerly headed by your Vice President landed a very sweet, no-bid contract.

How do I know the hiring process was corrupted? The United States Army Corps of Engineers has or is planning to invite companies to bid for the work Halliburton got given on a silver platter. In other words, it was recognised that the hiring process was corrupted, which the Army is now trying to correct.

It says no such thing. The fact that they're getting birds for additional work may simply mean the Corps is dissatisfied with the results so far. This also brings up another question, the process is being claimed as corrupted because Cheney worked for Halliburton. Yet the contracts are being awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the white house. Please provide proof that Cheney was in any way involved.

[BoredShirtless]

Because there's a conflict of interest which corrupted the hiring process. The company formerly headed by your Vice President landed a very sweet, no-bid contract.

How do I know the hiring process was corrupted? The United States Army Corps of Engineers has or is planning to invite companies to bid for the work Halliburton got given on a silver platter. In other words, it was recognised that the hiring process was corrupted, which the Army is now trying to correct.

It says no such thing. The fact that they're getting birds for additional work may simply mean the Corps is dissatisfied with the results so far.

Which proves the point that Halliburton isn't the only company qualified to do the job. So that being the case: why were they given a no-bid contract?

This also brings up another question, the process is being claimed as corrupted because Cheney worked for Halliburton.

That's a very top level way of looking at my claim, I explain it better in my post you quoted.

Yet the contracts are being awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the white house. Please provide proof that Cheney was in any way involved.

You're asking for direct evidence linking Cheney to the Army Corps of Engineers. Clearly I don't have that, no one would have that or this would be a much bigger scandal. I'm analysing what's available. I could be wrong, I could be right, take it or leave it.