Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

NSA: Lessons From Vice President-KBR Message Traffic

Consider: Report of Waste related to many contracts, and clueless SecDef in his failure to oversee these procurement efforts, and Congressoinal inaction. Senate Blocks review


This blogspot reviews the KBR FOIA related to Iraq and the contract award to Halliburton. When the lessons are applied to the Executive Branch we can understand the NSA-related activities: VP/Addington staffing actions and media messaging.

The problems started long ago. When Congress has concerns, DoD and DoJ attorneys try to weave a story and the paperwork after the fact. As with KBR, later we find out the truth: They all lied, and then put together a story many years after the dirty deed was done. They're doing the same in 2006 over the NSA issues.

Goal: This blogspot reviews the KBR FOIA; and shares the information that has been blacked out: Real names, hidden e-mail addresses, and actual assignments. Then we apply those lessons to the uncertainties over the NSA discovery and share with you a line of inquiry for discovery.

Suggested use: You may wish to keep this blogspot open as you review the FOIA in adobe, and see the redacted information in this blog.

Source: Click
* * *

Summary Comments

Here are some things we learned while reviewing the KBR FOIA, and did some digging into the details. As you can see, the FOIA is very valuable.

1. Fitzgerald. We judge the Fitzgerald "sealed indictment" is not US V. ____; but "Grand Jury v. _____" [Cheney hasn't testified, perhaps they have sealed an indictment against Cheney?] [Discussion ]

2. POTUS Using Prototypes in NSA/Rendition: We judge [1] NSA is using the contract support vehicles related to "prototypes" for domestic surveillance; [2] Eastern European detention centers are using civilian contractors, and deploying prototypes for interrogation/detention. [ Prototype lessons learned; Other documents NSA [Look for this address in mailing address logs; suit number/attn:code changes] DARPA] As we saw with Abu Ghraib, Addington and the VP convinced themselves that contractors would not be liable for war crimes/violations of Constitution. That is incorrect.

3. Constellation: Look for this in Addington's e-mail [From NSA: Click NSA GC or DoD and JAG, JAG2] Army Corps of Engr GC not admitted to DC, like Keifer. [ FEC]

4. Judiciary Cmte Subpoena: Save, forward this to Congressman Conyers: Click: Will be useful for subpoena lists, identifying DoD General Counsels [See page 20/104]; and JAG, JAG2]; Addington/VP POCs in DoD, and cross referencing the FOIA and e-mails related to Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and NSA.

5. ALERT, DSM-related: Evidence of the Iraq invasion Aug 2002-planning in Germany Image Source. MG Blackman name mentioned; see page 4/74 of the KBR, and notes below for identification of chief of staff; and relationship of unit with Teguba investigation [Abu Ghraib].

6. KBR Benchmark: When the VP/Army put together their plans in 2002, they had various guides. Yet, we find in 2006, that there were many things missing. The issue is: What benchmarks are appropriate to evaluate the bidding; and what should the general counsels have known about. Bingo: [ Click; for Judiciary: Note page 7/404, Chapter 2 Headings. . . Ref: 19/404; now we know why they botched Katrina and Iraq: Same crew can't read the same guide.]

7. KBR FOIA: Here is the IP for the Corp of Engineers Employee Center [ Sample IP NetBlock ]; you can use this to cross reference these e-mails, and Iraq-WMD-related issues with EOP IPs and other attorneys for Constellation. [Other ]

8. KBR FOIA: Need to make sure others have this information; Note: Scroll down to end in this blog [Ref 69/74] for the e-mail address and names to cross reference them with the blacked-out names in the FOIA. [ Sample Newsletter, Images, names page 2] [ Main Website ]

9. KBR FOIA: RIO Update, Commander SCHULTZ [ Ref Others]

10. Alleged fraud to Congress: Other related briefings to Congress: Lower right for the two briefings. [ Brownlee,dtd 18 JUNE 2002 Flowers, assuming same date, Flowers: "I am honored to be testifying before your committee today, along with the Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable Les Brownlee" ]

11. Funding: Here is the financial management guide, which comptrollers know to reference before spending money on illegal things: Illegal war, illegal surveillance, and illegal appropriations. [Click ]

12. Pentagon: If you want to have a FOIA of Pentagon circulars, to find other names, office activities, and facility notices to check on maintenance actions and construction inside the Pentagon [ Click ]

13. VP: The energy sites listing this URL are indirectly related to the hidden-Cheney Energy Commission [ Note the oil wells: Click ]

* * *

Overview: How to use the KBR FOIA for NSA Discovery

What's curious about the e-mail/information is the problem the staff had. Consider the big picture: The country had freely chosen a voluntary war; there was no real timeline or urgency; and they chose to violate the laws of war.

At the same time, they're stuck with an illusory deadline, and despite choosing to ignore the laws of war, the message traffic showed they were very concerned about public opinion, details in the contracts, and the legal issues.

That seems rather odd. If one were freely choosing to ignore the laws of war, why wouldn't they simply violate more laws, backdate documents, and otherwise proceed without the concerns in the e-mails?

The explanation is simple. By embarking on a voluntary war related to illusory timelines, there was a problem: Those who knew the war was illegal, or the contracting effort was not consistent with the regulations, stood (rightfully) in the way.

The only option the Army and Vice President had was to go around the people who were the exerts; but in doing so, they were stuck with still having to fill the squares. Not only did they have an illusory timeline with an agreement to violate the laws of war; they were so stupid that they didn't know how to proceed with the illegal war and properly do the paperwork, nor did they know how to adequately conduct the contract modifications retroactively, which the experts could have advised them.

What follows below is the helter-skelter message traffic related to non-experts attempting to back-fill the positions, and otherwise complete the contracting efforts without the experts.

The lessons apply to the NSA. As with he KBR issues, the Vice President and the staff were involved in the illegal activities, and using the same crew they were meddling to achieve outcomes, but they had to go around the show stoppers. As with KBR, the Vice President and staff inside DoJ ended up creating a mess of the NSA issue. Not only was the original effort hastily designed, those who were within the inner circle didn't have enough experience in the legal-technical issues to determine how to proceed once the activity surfaced in the NYT.

* * *

As you read the issues with the KBR, keep in the back of your mind the other similarities we've seen with the NSA-DoJ-FISA issues:

  • Poorly crafted legal arguments

  • Retroactive arguments to explain illegal decisions

  • Hastily passed memos

  • Decisions made without regard to the law

  • Denials and roadblocks to fact finding

  • Subsequent revelations of wrongdoing

  • And then it just keeps getting worse. . .

    * * *

    Big Picture

    As you read the briefing, emails and other documents keep the following in the back of your mind:

  • What information triggered what kinds of questions and follow-up discussion

  • What happened after the briefing

  • What specific action items were assigned

  • How were the issues resolved

  • Where are copies of the post-briefing action-item closeouts

  • Which contract Data Idem Descriptions would reference these meeting minutes, and action items

  • How do these kinds of briefings compare with the NSA-status briefings related to the DoJ-NSA-DoD stats reviews for the illegal, warrantless surveillance

    * * *

    Details on the KBR FOIA

    The e-mails are very explicit: The actual bidding process was not competitive.

    Compare the information to the state department planning slides; you'll see some interesting themes developing. This relates to the Downing Street Memo, and the DoD propaganda related to MI6 Mass appeal.

    Recall the SAIC-related PR-contracts, and the Lincoln Group.

    Recall the Army Contracting person who was demoted, despite the revelations we now have. She deserves a full re-instatement, plus back pay, and should be encouraged to provide information to the House Judiciary Committee for the investigations. Obviously, despite the overwhelming odds against her, she decided to do what had to be done: Tell the truth.

    There are attorneys in DoD who sanctioned the misconduct against her. They need to be targeted, and disbarred for being part of a conspiracy of unlawful intimidation.

    Need to look at e=mails from Addington to the DoD General Counsel, and what direction was given from VP office to have her targeted.

    * * *

    Notice all the language related to what should be in the "contracting file," despite Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR] requirements to the contrary. This means that not only was there a huge effort underway to circumvent the law, there were many people involved. This is a conspiracy.

  • How much money did Cheney get because of the benefits to KBR and Halliburton?

  • If this was "no big deal" why not tell the truth?

    * * *

    Important Format Note

    As you read below, you'll see various numbers like, 3/74 or 62/74. These correspond to the Adobe-page-numbers in the KBR FOIA release: Click

    When you open and scroll through the adobe file, and scroll up and down in this blog-spot, you'll be able to use this blog information as a kind of Rosetta stone to the hidden information in the KBR Adobe FOIA-file.

    The page number at the bottom of the Adobe File will read [ 3 of 74 ], which correspond to the numbers in this blogspot.

    * * *


    HQ02, SWD are associated with Army Corps [ Click ]

    ASAALT: Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

    * * *

    4/74 -- Letter is from Chief of Staff, had some changes in 2002-3.

    Recall that the Teguba investigation occurred, Teguba wrote, "24 January, 2004, I was directed by Lieutenant General David McKiernan, the commanding general, ARCENT/CFLCC, to conduct an investigation."

    Blocked name likely MGen Blackman, but could have been COL John L. Della Jacono.

    Here are the dates of assignment:

    John L. Della Jacono CofS (2002) [ Bio ]

    MG Blackman CofS (Oct 2002-2003) [ Ref ]

    COL John L. Della Jacono CofS (2003-2004)

    COL Richard P. McEvoy CofS (2004-2006) McEvoy Ref. McEvoy left in 2006, to be an advisor with the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq.

    * * *

    7/74 Matches the name in the follow-on briefing [ Click 5 of 60 Director of Civil Works and Management, Gary Loew, reported in the transcript as being physically in Iraq, on July 14, 2003.]

    Eileen Grant Ref

    * * *

    10/74 -- May 14, 2003 letter; briefing dated: _____ Flowers]

    10/73 -- Correspondence back and forth between Congress. Who in Congress relied on the (now confirmed) misrepresentations?

    Would Members of Congress, who might have otherwise not provided additional funding for the subsequent post-invasion-funding, not have provided that funding had these issues been known?

    Partial Answer:

    NRO discredited:
    "Contrary to Waxman's assertion, the work was done under a competitively awarded contract system known as the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP." [ Article that has to be rewritten, and Waxman given the chance to follow-upRef ]

    * * *

    * * *


    General Cheatham's e-mail:

    Phone: (202) 761-1333, or 5535

    Dpty Chief of Staff: COL Thomas C. Supler, same phone.

    * * *

    12/74: Note the following phone number does not match the e-mail listed on page 12.

    Mr. Arvel J. (AJ) Edens Jr.
    (703) 695-2183 (

    12/74: 761-5644 Number goes to Anthony Lakeeta, Chief, INTERAGENCY AFFAIRS BRANCH, usace Click

    * * *

    Too many similarities between this non-sense and the Downing Street Memo:

  • Same types of hurried memos

  • An assumption of "we can't do anything"

    1. Where was the IG?

    2. The IG, if faced with an urgent matter can provide messages to Congress. where is this memoranda related to IG reports on this issue?

    3. If SECDEF has shut down the audits into this, there has to be an exception file. Why not reporting as required under Title 50?

    4. Where do the SECDEF memoranda related to "you do not need to review this urgent matter"

    * * *

    Take a look at 20/74.

    Think about this:

  • Back in 2002, the planning had already started. What was KBR-Addington communication on the issues via VP?

  • How did KBR "just happen" to have a Contingency Plan, despite EOP saying, "We don't want war" and "All other options have to be exhausted." The only way that KBR would have such a contingency plan was if they'd started the work in 2002, well before everyone else knew what was going on. Where else is Cheney-Addington leaking information on planned illegal activities?

    "War imminent" is not the same as "imminent threat". This is a Geneva issue. More of the Addington twisting the words to justify "emergency actions". This sheds light on the DoJ-related non-sense in re domestic-targeting against RNC protestors; and the other NSA activities.

    * * *

    21/74 says "bridge to open competition" -- this means that this crew working sole source was asked to believe "there would others qualified."

    How was this going to happen if KBR was "in place"? It's impossible, it's a foot in the door. No likely other competition would ever occur.

    The contract terms and extension need to be compared with what she was later reporting, and told to change/basis for firing/demotion.

    * * *

    22/74 has a laundry list of things where the money was supposed to go. However, the Iraqis are telling us that they don’t have this stuff. DCAA is also reporting on the $8B of lost money.

    Are these "planned for"-items above and beyond what DCAA has already reported as falling through the cracks?

    * * *

    23/74 is your oil. "We're not there for oil." Someone planned to take care of the "what we're not there for"-mission.

    * * *

    24/74 Full and open competition mentioned. Why the change?

    25/74 Mentions review of proposals [plural] -- where are the others? Thought they said this was sole source. What's up with this?

    30/74 Are these sub contractors; or are they totally outside KBR?

    35/75: -- matches 60/74 $100M classified projects. Covert ops, NSA-support, decryption devices, Embassy support construction. Has NSA-CIA-DoD IG been able to review the audits?

    44/77 Is SEC DEF memoranda. Let's see the legal arguments which Addington used to justify this memoranda.

    * * *

    By page 51/74 it's clear the briefing is a duplicate, there are no pen markings.

    What was the basis to include the same briefing twice: Was someone hoping we'd compare some changes between the two versions?

    61/74 is your oil and RIO.

    62/74: 2420+ trucks, crews; how were they moved; what was their exit-entry point? [Why weren't these pre-positioned in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey? Did the US actually get charged for a full shipment, but they were pre-positioned because of 2002 planning? This isn't something KBR should get reimbursed for. Need a discussion on the stock funding for this, or whether its a bonafide delivery.]

    61/74: There's your "division counsel". [ Complete list of names at 69/74 below.] Get them answering questions about Geneva, laws of war, and misrepresentations.

    62/74 links us from DoD/Army Counsel to Addington/Cheney:

    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army George S. Dunlop
    703 695 1370 = , who gave $5,000 [Century Communications, Arlington, VA] for the Bush Inauguration.

    62/74 Jennifer Millerwise in VP office, salary $45000.

    [ New name: Jennifer Millerwise Dyke links us to Libby; Millerwise went to CIA Public Affairs in 2005, where NSA's Hayden is now director of CIA. ]

    We judge the Fitzgerald "sealed indictment" is not US V. ____; but "Grand Jury v. Bush/Cheney"

    Problem: Addington has no secretary.

    63/74 Carol A. Sanders, Rob Anderson indirectly linked to VP office. They're using remote wireless technology. [Who put the wifi in, and why wasn't this at Yearly Kos?]

    WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 SES List

    Sanders linked with the public discussion on Army Corps of Engineers, provided comments in 2004 as FBI expanded probe into Halliburton. [ Ref E-mail]

    63/74 Chief Counsel briefing, and the many e-mails. Those can be traced via IP, and set up a relationship matrix for other Army Counsels; and when JAGs were cut out of the picture; and how Contracting was bypassed.

    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army George S. Dunlop
    703 695 1370 =

    * * *

    VP PA to CIA, to spin for Hayden

    Note carefully the "after media"-analysis on page 63. This is based on their talking points. The messaging is designed to influence Congress, public opinion, and advance the executive branch agenda; lessons should be applied to what CIA PA is doing for Hayden in re NSA issues.

    64/74 shows us the effectiveness of the talking points, and their analysis.

    Note they were asserting things as "legal" -- same as the NSA-type stuff.

    You can presume NSA-EOP have done the same based on the post-NYT revelations.

    * * *

    Email messages contradict public statements

    Date: 9/23/2004

    64/74: Look at last line: "There was no contact with VP office". . . well!

    EXACT QUOTE: There was no contact whatsoever (with the VP office.)

    Note: Period is inside the parenthesis.

    Note: The date of this message/media analysis is from 2004, fully two years after the 2002 pre-planning.

    * * *

    65/74: [ Briefing EU-US Suppliers]: DPAS on 5/7; discussed in the e-mail]

    Title: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs), Attn: Mr. Gary Powell, 3330 Defense Pentagon, Room 3E1060, Washington, DC 20301–3330

    65/74: Retroactive permissions.

    65/74: Note the Congressional concerns raised in the second to last paragraph in re "urgent" and "emergency" issues. So there's been some reliance on this/ and the counsel e-mail indicate that they've got a problem they're trying to explain away like Addington did:

  • We got caught

  • Let's invent a story to explain it

  • We can retroactively do the paperwork

  • It may sound like non-sense, but the Congress is too stupid to ask tough questions; even if they do, we Control Congress.

    The conduct/pattern here is too cavalier, and similar to Addington. It's likely Addington has done the same thing within the DoJ AG and the FISA issues, plus the other areas related to:

  • Domestic surveillance

  • Use of National Guard to gather intelligence

  • Explain away posse comitatus concerns over Operation Falcon

  • Use the same approach in DHS in re the warrantless interrogations/pickups of American civilians [yes, they're widespread; they do this on the basis of the data mining programs of the financial records.]

    * * *

    Take a look at the last sentence in 65/74. Notice how detailed/emphatic the counsel is:

  • My intentions are

  • This is what I will do

  • This is who I'm going to talk to

    Sounds almost like a CYA-like memo.

  • What is the "pertinent information" -- was the scope appropriate given Geneva/DC Bar accreditation/and other training expected to be put into practice for an attorney?

  • How was it analyzed; was the result what would be expected of an attorney working procurement

  • What was the nature of the conversation with the boss?

    * * *

    66/74 Indemnity

    Same kind of issue has been brought up with NSA.

  • Was it appropriate?

  • Was it lawful?

  • Is it enforceable?

  • Is there are "private immunity" which is at odds with the requirements under Geneva, requirements on a detaining power?

    * * *

    66/74 Mary Wade with Halliburton on the language change.

    Note at bottom: "FAR" -- That means Federal Acquisition Regulation, meaning the counsel and KBR were aware of FAR; and their actions were made with full knowledge of what the FAR was.

    It's a separate matter whether the conduct was or was not legal.

    * * *

    68/74: We judge KBR was being used to field prototypes for land-battle systems and warfare. [ Prototype lessons learned; Other documents ]

    March 2003

    Steve Lake, SARDA, 703-681-1039, Prototypes

    International Insurance

    Garner Group, Classified project

    QUOTE: "In the opinion of our security officer an inquiry into the international insurance market on these risks is a security problem."

    - Why aren't they using in house analysts?

    - What indemnification issues under the state-level Directors Liability would come up, if they weren't willing to price the risks of the planned activity?

    - What work abounds do they have in place to get a credible pricing information without disclosing information?

    - what the problem with using another ruse? [why are they all of a sudden concerned about "telling a lie" (as a distraction to get the information they wanted) in order to do something?]

    -- Note the message was sent out Friday, they're talking a classified operation, and they don't expect the answer until "next week". Hmmm, what's VP's view on this delay; and is this how VP liked to run things, "Hay, whenever you get around to it. . ."

    Doesn't send a message of "hay this is urgent." If this was important, why not put together a team Friday night, get an answer, and send it out that same evening? This isn't adding up.

    * * *

    69/74: Lloyds

    FAX 214-767-2504 on the page goes to Eugene E. Kastanek, a Dallas, Texas real estate law lawyer, and cross references to this counsel list with the Army Corps of Engineers.

    This leads us to this archived page, with the following names: [ Transcript: GORDON SUMNER, Director of
    Contracting for Southwestern Division, ],, 469-487-7009 [ Ref ] [ Ref ] [ Ref ]

    1991 Kuwait Oil Company Contract [using these terms; but they were planning this in 2002; so what's up with this delay?]

    * * *

    73/74 subcontractors mentioned

    Counsel e-mail to Mary Wade, mentions "Gordon" -- who is this? [ Perhaps Transcript: GORDON SUMNER, Director of
    Contracting for Southwestern Division, ]

    You may assume the same kind of paper trail exists in re the NSA activities, DoJ attorneys, and the VP office.

    Qwest information confirms that DoJ knew they had a problem, and did nothing about an uncooperative contractor.

    * * *


    Name: Halliburton Atty, Chris Heinrich

    Chris Heinrich wrote in another internal memo. “There is not a law or a company policy that prohibits us from doing so, but we need to be sure about what kind of business he is starting and who he is aligned with. He must have a Kuwaiti sponsor or he cannot have a business. We need to have him fully disclose all the
    pertinent info regarding his business and then decide if we will allow him to bid on work.”24 10 of 32

    [Note 24] FROM: Internal emails from Robert Gatlin to Tom Crum,
    February 15, 2004 and April 10, 2004, with subject
    line: Resignation. Chris Heinrich memo dated April
    12, 2004, with subject line: RE: Resignation 29 of 32

    This isn't quite consistent with this version, which does not suggest that Heinrich resigned, but it was Gatlin who resigned:

    "Butch" Gatlin, the man in charge of procurement in Kuwait, has also left KBR. On Feb.15, 2004, Gatlin sent a terse letter to his bosses, which read: "This project has grown to such proportion and the issues and problems which have ensured (sic), I feel my leadership and management are ineffective (sic) and non-productive. I therefore request to tenure (sic) my resignation with this project, effectife (sic) immediately."

    On April 10, 2004, less than two months later Gatlin wrote to Tom Crum, re-iterating his resignation as a KBR employee, and simultaneously asking for work as a sub-contractor, causing a ripple of concern at the company.

    "I am generally pretty skeptical about doing business with a former employee," KBR lawyer Chris Heinrich wrote in another internal memo obtained by CorpWatch. "There is not a law or a company policy that prohibits us from doing so, but we need to be sure about what kind of business he is starting and who he is aligned with. He must have a Kuwaiti sponsor or he cannot have a business. We need to have him fully disclose all the pertinent info regarding his business and then decide if we will allow him to bid on work."Ref

    See 5/8/02 [ Lawsuit ] 906575923. 2004 ABA Presentation

    * * *

    SWD Southwestern Division of Army Corps of Engineers, Jeffrey Dorko commander [ BG Image Bio]

    SWG Galveston, TX 77553-1229, CESWG-PE-R [Regulatory Branch, 409-766-3930]

    SWT, US Army Engineer District PO Box 61 Tulsa, OK 74121-0061 Telephone: (918) 669-7201

    AKO Army Knowledge Online

    LOGCAP, Army Materiel Command.

    lists 5 contractors [Contract Summary]

    Halliburton Address in Contract Summary:

    Halliburton Energy Services
    Oilfield Service
    POC: Mike Jenrette
    4100 Clinton Drive
    Houston, TX 77020
    Phone: (713) 753-2505 Fax: (713) 676-3777

    * * *

    Addington, Cheney, and the creative-convenient "confusion" about applicability of Geneva to Civilian Contractors: See Note 114

    Geneva applies to people, regardless. Addington and Cheney have made another non-sense argument which Chris Heinrich appears to have endorsed, [apparent attitude of Halliburton, and Abu Ghraib] "Hay, we're not military, we can do what we want."

    * * *

    Notice: The Chief of Staff-Organization above is linked with Teguba Report at Abu Ghraib where there were civilian contractors working as interrogators.

    Under this (absurd) "legal theory," appears CIA is outsourcing its interrogation operations at the black sites in Eastern Europe to private contractors, former military personnel.