SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us navy
A Navy Admiral’s Bribery Charges Are Just Part of a System of Corrupt Dealings
It’s great that our legal system is seeking to hold law breakers to account, but when will members of Congress who place shilling for special interests above crafting an effective defense policy face the music?
Jun 09, 2024
The indictment of four-star Navy Admiral Robert Burke on bribery charges late last month raised eyebrows about the extent of corruption in the Navy and beyond. The scheme was simple. Burke allegedly steered a $355,000 Pentagon contract to a small workforce training firm—described unhelpfully in the Justice Department’s description as “Company A." Less than a year later he took a job at Company A in exchange for a $500,000 annual salary and 100,000 stock options.
The Burke indictment comes on the heels of Washington Post writer Craig Whitlock’s illuminating book on the Fat Leonard Scandal, the biggest, most embarrassing corruption scheme in the history of the U.S. Navy. In the words of his publisher, Simon Schuster, Whitlock’s book reveals “how a charismatic Malaysian defense contractor bribed scores of high-ranking military officers, defrauded the U.S. Navy of tens of millions of dollars, and jeopardized our nation’s security.”
Obviously, the Navy needs to clean up its act, and, if found guilty, Burke should face consequences for his participation in a blatant case of old school corruption.
If skipping a serious conversation on the future nuclear policy of the United States to engage in pork barrel politics isn’t a case of blatant corruption and dereliction of duty, what is?
But this is just part of a pernicious system of corrupt dealings and profiteering in Pentagon procurement practices, and much of it is completely legal. It involves campaign contributions from major weapons contractors to key members of Congress with the most power to determine the size and shape of the Pentagon budget, and job blackmail, in which companies place facilities in as many congressional districts as possible and then stand ready to accuse members of cutting local jobs if they vote against a weapons program, no matter how misguided or dysfunctional it may be.
It also involves the revolving door, in which arms industry executives often do stints in top national security posts, even serving as secretary of defense, or, on the other side of the revolving door, when high ranking Pentagon and military officials go to work for weapons makers when they leave government service.
In fact, this is, by far, the most common path for retired senior military officers. As a Quincy Institute analysis found, over 80% of four-star generals and admirals that have retired in the last five years (26 of 32) went on to work in the arms sector. In short, most retiring four-stars, like Burke, go on to lucrative positions in the arms industry. Unlike Burke, they follow the rules, so this is all perfectly legal corruption.
The revolving door from the Pentagon is also spinning feverishly to foreign governments. A Washington Postinvestigation found that more than 500 former Pentagon personnel, including many high-ranking generals and admirals, have gone on to work for foreign governments known for political repression and human rights abuses, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Last, but certainly not least, there are the lobbyists. Last year alone, Pentagon contractors spent nearly $138 million on lobbying and had 905 lobbyists working on their behalf, according to OpenSecrets. That’s almost two lobbyists for every member of Congress, and more than 600 of them had gone through the revolving door—previously working at the Pentagon, Congress, or the Executive branch.
All of the above is about money and jobs, not crafting an effective defense strategy or buying weapons systems that are appropriate for carrying out that strategy. A case in point was a hearing last October to review a report on America’s strategic (meaning nuclear) posture from a congressional commission, almost all the members of which have financial ties to the arms industry.
First off, the commission co-chair who testified at the hearing was former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, a lifelong opponent of nuclear arms control who also did a stint as a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman, which makes nuclear bombers and land-based nuclear missiles. Surprise, surprise, Kyl recommended that Congress pony up more for nuclear weapons on top of the Pentagon’s current $2 trillion, three decades long nuclear weapons “modernization” program.
But surely the gathered members of the Senate Armed Services Committee would ask some tough questions before accepting the commission’s proposals for an accelerated nuclear buildup. Think again. The bulk of the questioners essentially touted nuclear-related missiles or facilities in their states and asked a variation on the penetrating question, “Shouldn’t we spend more on this wonderful weapon [or facility] in my state?”
What wasn’t mentioned at the hearing was the fact that defense contractors—including Northrop Grumman, which makes the nuclear weapons in question—are some of the top campaign contributors to members of the committee, according to OpenSecrets.
It fell to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to bring the discussion down to Earth by asking how much the commission’s ambitious plan would cost. With a straight face, Kyl said that the commission hadn’t calculated a cost, since the investments proposed were so urgently needed. This seems highly unlikely given that the United States already deploys over 1,700 nuclear warheads that can hit targets thousands of miles away, with thousands more in reserve.
But Kyl’s statement went largely unchallenged in the rush by members to flak for their local weapons of choice.
If skipping a serious conversation on the future nuclear policy of the United States to engage in pork barrel politics isn’t a case of blatant corruption and dereliction of duty, what is? If even a conversation that touches on the future of the planet can’t rouse money-conscious senators to engage in an actual debate, what will? And isn’t this dereliction of duty ultimately more dangerous than trading cash or a cushy job for doing the bidding of a weapons contractor?
It’s great that our legal system is seeking to hold participants in illegal schemes to account. But when will members of Congress who place shilling for special interests above crafting an effective defense policy face the music? If not soon, we can expect much of the tens or hundreds of billions of new money likely to be thrown at the Pentagon in the next few years to go to waste. If that’s not a scandal of the highest order, we don’t know what is.
Keep ReadingShow Less
75% of 104 Million Gallons of Fuel Removed from Hawaii’s Dangerous Red Hill Underground Storage Tanks
Over 7,000 local residents have filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Navy for injuries suffered due to the leak.
Nov 10, 2023
As of November 8, an estimated 79,768, 836gallons of fuel, or 75% of the 104,000,000 gallons stored in the 80-year-old massive leaking underground fuel tanks at Red Hill in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii has been removed.
Nearly two years ago, in late November 2021, a massive leak of fuel flowed directly into Oahu’s drinking aquifer. Approximately 93,000 persons living in 17 residential areas around Pearl Harbor naval base were affected. Many are suffering major health problems from exposure to the toxic water. Over 7,000 local residents have filed a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Navy for their injuries.
Where is the fuel going upon removal?
Potential receiving locations for the ten fuel ship tanker deliveries include:
- Campbell Industrial Park, West Oahu, Hawaii
- Point Loma, California
- Selby, California
- Vancouver, Washington
- Manchester, Washington
- Sasebo, Japan
- Subic Bay, Philippines
- Port of Singapore
- Darwin, Australia
According to the August 2023 report—titled Final Environmental Assessment / Overseas Environmental Assesment for Red Hill Defueling Relocation Plan—the quantity of fuel and number of deliveries to each location depends on DoD fuel inventory needs at the time of defueling.
Joint Task Force Red Hill has released data that showed that fuel removed from the tanks that flowed 3.5 miles down repaired pipes had been moved by commercial fuel tanker ships primarily to above-ground storage tanks at Energy Services, Campbell Industrial Park in West Oahu.
Here is a breakdown of the four weeks of defueling and where the fuel has gone:
October 16-20, Joint Task Force-Red Hill (JTF-RH) safely removed 16,299,594 gallons from the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility (RHBFSF) and completed transfer of fuel to the first tanker Empire State by gravity draining approximately 12 million gallons of F-24 fuel from tanks 2 and 6 at the RHBFSF, Oct. 18. The 12 million gallons were transported to Island Energy Services tanks at Campbell Industrial Park, in West Oahu. 4 million gallons went to the above-ground storage tanks at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to support training and operational requirements.
From October 19-21, 2023, 9.52 million gallons were relocated via pipeline to the Upper Tank Farm on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam for operational and training purposes.
October 23-27, JTF-RH completed transfer of approximately 8 million gallons of F24 from tanks 4 and 6 and nearly one million gallons of JP5 from tank 9 to above-ground storage tanks at JBPHH. Additionally, JTF-RH completed transfer of approximately 12 million gallons of F24 from tanks 3, 5, and 6 to tanker Empire State for transport to Island Energy Services at Campbell Industrial Park, West Oahu.
From October 26-28, JTF-RH completed the transfer of approximately 12 million gallons of JP5 from tanks 9 and 11 to merchant tanker Torm Thunder to be relocated to Subic Bay, Phillipines. Additionally, JTF-RH completed transfer of approximately 9.5 million gallons of F24 from tanks 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as well as approximately 2.3 million gallons of JP5 from tank 10 to tanker Empire State.
Data for the disposition of fuel from October 29-November 7 will be available on Friday, November 10.
Information Outreach Programs Continue
Several meetings for the public to be updated by the Joint Task Force Red Hill are conducted monthly. In November, 2023, the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee, the Commission on Water Resource Management and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply and the Community Representative Initiative will meet and receive briefings from relevant military and state agencies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What's the US Empire Doing Way Out in the Pacific Ocean Anyway?
There is no legal basis for the United States to control the large oceanic area that includes the compact states.
Sep 20, 2023
In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.
Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States.
“We control essentially the northern half of the Pacific between Hawaii and Philippines,” U.S. special envoy Joseph Yun told Congress in July.
For decades, the United States has overseen compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the compacts, the United States provides the three countries with economic assistance while it maintains powerful military controls over the islands and their waters.
One of these military controls, “the defense veto,” enables the United States to prevent the compact states from forging international agreements that could impede U.S. military priorities. Consequently, the compact states have never joined the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a nuclear-free zone in the region.
Another U.S. military control is “the right of strategic denial” by which U.S. officials assert that they can prevent other countries from accessing the compact states’ lands, waters, and airspace.
“The compacts do give us full defense authority and responsibility in those countries and provide our ability to strategically deny third country military access,” U.S. diplomat Jane Bocklage told Congress earlier this year.
By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states’ exclusive economic zones... U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific.
Although the compacts include language that permits the United States to foreclose access to the islands by third-party military forces, U.S. officials have broadly interpreted this language to mean that they can exclude third parties from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles around each island’s coastlines.
At a congressional hearing in July, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) asserted that strategic denial authority “allows us to deny access to any potential adversary in an area of the Pacific comparable in size to the continental United States.” An associate presented a map that portrayed the EEZs as one contiguous area under U.S. control. “It’s nearly as large as the continental United States,” Barrasso remarked.
Defense Department official Siddharth Mohandas agreed with the senator’s interpretation. He claimed that the United States maintains unfettered and exclusive access to the area. “We have the ability to deny foreign militaries access and the ability to operate in the exclusive economic zones of the Freely Associated States,” Mohandas said, referring to the compact states.
This interpretation of strategic denial is inconsistent with international law. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, all countries have the rights of navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic zones of other countries, as stipulated by Articles 58 and 87.
Most countries, including the compact states, are parties to the convention. The United States has never ratified the convention, but high-level U.S. officials have expressed their support for it.
“Although not yet a party to the treaty, the U.S. nevertheless observes the UN LOSC as reflective of customary international law and practice,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explains, referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
When U.S. officials say that they have a right to exclude third-party actors from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, they are making claims that are inconsistent with the UN Convention. There is no legal basis for the United States to prevent ships from other countries from peacefully traversing the compact states’ exclusive economic zones.
More than two decades ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) acknowledged in a major report that strategic denial does not extend to the compact states’ exclusive economic zones. According to the GAO report, strategic denial is limited to the 12-mile territorial waters that surround each island. Even within these smaller zones, the GAO noted, military vessels from other countries maintain the right of “innocent passage.”
“Statements by policymakers that indicate the United States has a right to deny military access to the islands and a vast area of the Pacific Ocean—a widely cited U.S. interest—overstate the breadth of this right, which only covers the individual islands and their 12-mile territorial waters,” the GAO explained.
A map included in the GAO report shows that strategic denial applies to small isolated areas rather than the much larger expanse of the Pacific Ocean that is often claimed by U.S. officials. A key implication of the GAO’s map is that the United States cannot legally exclude third parties from the vast oceanic area that surrounds the compact states.
In fact, U.S. officials have long taken the position that exclusive economic zones must remain open to navigation. Across the world, they have promoted “freedom of navigation,” which they have presented as the freedom of ships to sail the world’s oceans and waterways wherever the law allows, including in the exclusive economic zones of other countries.
When U.S. officials have sent warships through some of the world’s most contested waterways, such as the South and East China Seas, they have said that they are defending “freedom of navigation.” The presence of U.S. military forces has often created tensions, possibly even violating Article 88 of the U.N. Convention, which requires ships to have peaceful purposes, but U.S. officials have always insisted that these operations are consistent with international law.
“We’re committed to ensuring that every country can fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a speech in June. “Every country, large and small, must remain free to conduct lawful maritime activities.”
The U.S. mass media has often sided with the U.S. government’s position on freedom of navigation, especially as it concerns U.S. military operations in the exclusive economic zones of rival countries. In a July 2023 report about North Korean criticisms of U.S. military activities in North Korea’s exclusive economic zone, The New York Times indicated that North Korea has no legal basis for excluding U.S. military forces from the area.
“A country can claim the right to exploit marine resources in its so-called exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its 12 nautical-mile territorial waters,” The New York Times reported. “But it does not hold sovereignty over the zone’s surface and the airspace above it.”
When countries such as China and North Korea claim that they have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their exclusive economic zones, U.S. officials always disagree, insisting that these areas must remain open to freedom of navigation, particularly for U.S. warships.
Regarding coastal states such as China and North Korea, the U.S. position is that they “do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs,” according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. “The United States will continue to operate its military ships in the EEZs of other countries.”
By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, however, U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. If they were to use force to prevent a third party from accessing the vast expanse of waters around the compact states, then they would be violating the law and the very principles that they apply to other countries.
In short, U.S. officials have no legal basis for their claims to control the vast oceanic area that is home to the compact states, just as the GAO confirmed in its landmark report more than two decades ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular