DoD IG Issues Favorable Public Comments About DoD Contractors Implicated In War Crimes

DoD IG Editorializing on DoD Contractors Without Going Through OSD PA

DoD contractors implicated with war crimes have received favorable reviews from DOD IG, calling into question whether the OIG office can independently audit service 5100.77 program.

Once DOD IG concludes that Geneva violations have occurred, there is no basis for DOD IG to suggest that contractors supporting that illegal activity have fully met their legal obligations.

Once OIG appears to have a favorable bias to contractors allegedly complicit with war crimes, it is unlikely under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards OIG will appropriately recognize indicators of fraud; much less appropriately apply the Statement on Accounting Standards to appropriately increase audit scope to more effecitlvey review internal controls.

DOD IG needs to explain:

A. How it determines whether there has or has not been Geneva violations;

B. The criteria it uses to open a 5100.77 review;

C. How contractors supporting illegal Presidential programs and war crimes can be found to be fully accomplishing all missions;

D. Why there is no negative comment about firms, contractors, and NGOs who have provided direct support to DOD to implement illegal warfare; and

E. The method used to ensure there is a fire wall between [a] personnel who issue public statements on contractors implicated with war crimes; and [b] personnel who are assigend to monitor independent reports, audits, and risk indicators related to OIG requirements to increase audit scope.

Please provide an explanation why DOD IG has not issued any Title 50 exception reports; nor provided in writing any comments to the President or SecDef relate to concerns that known Title 50 violations were not being enforced in re Geneva violations.

* * *

It's not appropriate for the OIG to issue statements relying on the media. OIG should be issuing statements based on OIG observations.

whether a DoD contractor is or is not reported to have done an adequate job is meaningless. DoD IG's job is to ensure personnel are not publicly commenting on the adequacy of a given contractor to do or not do specific work.

OIG should focus its efforts on whether the Department of Defense can or cannot effectively mange those contractors.

___ What review is done on Defense Agency Ethics Officials to ensure they set the standard in the DOD IG office; how are their public communications monitored; what training do the provide peers in OSD; where are samples of their trianing reports used to report findings and develop lesson plans to meet OSD objectives?

___ How much trainng does do OSD Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) get in the laws of war, 5100.77, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation series related to the A-76 language for contracts?

___ When did the DAEO last receive training at Ft. Belvoir on the FAR, 5100.77, and the A-76 contract efforts?

___ What method is used to ensure the lessons learned at Ft. Belvoir are incorproated as appropriate into DoD IG audit reviews, checklists, and indicators to sceen and manage incoming information on the Defense Hotline for tips related to allegations of fraud, war cries, or other illegal activity?

___ Why is the Department of Defense inspector General issuing public comments about the adequacy of public contract services provided, but not relying on direct evidence?

___ What is the OIG policy in re commenting on public contractors?

___ Is there a reason that the Department of Defense is using resources to provide media contacts with assessments about specific contractors?

___ What is the basis for the OIG policy which is directing US DoD inspector Generals to rely on media reports as the basis for the OIG to issue comments, feedback, and assessments about particular DoD contractors?

___ What is the reason the DOD IG is not enforcing the appropriate resource technology use guidelines?

___ Does the inspector General have an explanation for why staff counsel assigned to OIG have issued for public consumption assessments linked with the DOD IG office related to specific contractor performance?

___ Why isn't the Fee Determining Official being permitted to make independent judgments, outside DOD IG comment, whether a particular contractor is or is not fully performing their job?

___ Why are questions, comments, or DOD IG views on specific contractors not forwarded to OSD public affairs office?

___ Is there a reason that DoD IG personnel are making their personal views known?

___ Is there a reason that DOD IG personnel have used official resources to provide public information related to specific contractors performance?

___ Why is DOD IG providing public information related to the status, effectives, and ability of specific contractors to do a specific job?

___ Why isn't DoD IG forwarding all requests for information to the DOD Public Affairs Office?

___ Is there a reason that DOD IG is not providing DOD Public Affairs with the lead role in commenting in public about the effectiveness of contractors?

___ Why should anyone believe that DoD IG can audit alleged war crimes when DOD IG has issued public statements assertion that the contractors involved with those alleged Geneva violations an illegal acts were meeting all legal requirements?

___ How can a contractor possibly get a "seal of approval from DOD IG", yet the underlying combat operations, Geneva violations and other illegal activities in violation the laws of war are not considered?

___ How does DOD IG explain the disconnected between [a] DoD IG requirement to evaluate whether DOD is or is not fully implementing the 5100.77 Laws of War program, barring illegal warfare; yet [b] assertions that DoD contractors supporting that illegal activity were meeting all performance standards?