# Iraq contractor Custer Battles sued for fraud. Defense: CPA never existed! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479 "2005-03-01T20:27:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/1 "2005-03-01T20:27:50Z")
Here’s a strange case indeed: Custer Battles, one of many private companies working as a contractor on Iraq’s reconstruction, has been accused recently of targeting and brutalizing Iraqi civilians. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/:](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/:) > [@](#): > > There are new allegations that heavily armed private security contractors in Iraq are brutalizing Iraqi civilians. In an exclusive interview, four former security contractors told NBC News that they watched as innocent Iraqi civilians were fired upon, and one crushed by a truck. The contractors worked for an American company paid by U.S. taxpayers. The Army is looking into the allegations. > > \ > > They worked for an American company named Custer Battles, hired by the Pentagon to conduct dangerous missions guarding supply convoys. They were so upset by what they saw, three quit after only one or two missions. > > “What we saw, I know the American population wouldn’t stand for,” says Craun. > > They claim heavily armed security operators on Custer Battles’ missions — among them poorly trained young Kurds, who have historical resentments against other Iraqis — terrorized civilians, shooting indiscriminately as they ran for cover, smashing into and shooting up cars. That’s enough to give one pause, but now there’s a new development: Two former employees are suing Custer Battles on behalf of the U.S. government. They charge that CB defrauded the U.S. government of millions, filing inflated claims for non-existent services. Surprisingly, the government is showing no interest in recovering its money. Stranger still is Custer Battles’ defense: The False Claims Act does not apply, and the U.S. government has no jurisdiction here, because it was Iraqi money, and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbursed it, never had any legal existence! From an interview with the litigants on the _Democracy Now_ radio show, 3/1/05, [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/1521200:](http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/1521200:) > [@](#): > > AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what the former employees are charging? > > ALAN GRAYSON: Certainly. The allegations are that this company committed any kind of fraud that they could imagine over the course of working for the Coalition Provisional Authority and as subcontractors under U.S. contract. For instance, they set up Cayman Islands subsidiaries and subsidiaries of subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands. Then they manufactured out of thin air invoices from these subsidiaries and handed them in under their prime and materials contracts, which basically operated like expense accounts, and they handed in these vouchers that they had created themselves, said that they were from their independent companies which were, in fact, subsidiaries, and they received millions and millions of dollars of reimbursement from the government. > > \ > > PRATAP CHATTERJEE: Well, basically, Custer Battles – and maybe Alan can even explain, although this is the case made by the company, so maybe I’ll represent the company for a moment if I may, Alan, and then you can tell me what’s wrong with this – but Custer Battles is saying, well, the False Claims Act does not apply. The U.S. government has no jurisdiction over this money, because, a) this is Iraqi money, and b) the C.P.A., they didn’t even really exist, and therefore, it is not a legitimate U.S. agency that should be giving out this money. And so, in fact, I think Judge Ellis has asked the U.S. government to tell him whether or not this agency existed, and there’s some dispute. The Congressional Research Service, there’s a woman by the name of Elaine Halchin who’s an expert there who has been unable to decide whether or not the C.P.A., whether Paul Bremer’s organization actually existed. It does not appear to have been created under 1483, the resolution of the United Nations Security Council – or I can’t remember the Security Council or the General Assembly – on May 22, 2003, or if it was created by this thing called National Presidential – I forget what it’s called exactly. It’s a special directive of the President. It’s National Security Presidential Directive. However, this is a Presidential Directive that’s never been published, so we don’t know. And Alan, in fact, aren’t you waiting to hear as to whether, from the federal government, as to whether or not the C.P.A. even existed? > > ALAN GRAYSON: Well, in fact, the one thing the federal government has agreed to do grudgingly in our case is to file a brief on April 1, April Fool’s Day, about whether, in fact, the False Claims Act applies to C.P.A.-type contracts. But in our mind, it’s not a realistic argument that the Senates are making here. This company was doing security work in a war zone under U.S. Military supervision. In fact, they were doing the same kind of work that the U.S. Military was doing in the same place at the same time. They were paid entirely, entirely with U.S. Treasury funds. The first $4 million they received was in cash, in bricks of $100,000, that’s 1,000 $100 bills that came directly from the U.S. Mint. And after that, they were paid with U.S. Treasury checks with a Statue of Liberty on them, and with wire transfers from Federal Reserve accounts in New York that were U.S. Treasury accounts. > > AMY GOODMAN: Now, Alan Grayson, why isn’t the U.S. government helping in this? I mean, it’s about getting money back. It’s about fraud against the U.S. government. > > ALAN GRAYSON: Well, there’s no good explanation. There’s no good answer to that question. In fact, the U.S. government should be helping, and they’re not. The Bush Administration has done nothing up to this point to get this money back. In fact, it was almost a year before they even cut off the flow of new contracts to this contractor. And to this day, Custer Battles is still performing security work in Iraq. In fact, they’re responsible for the security involved in the training of Iraqi army personnel right now. In fact, this corrupt contractor, who the government knew on October 18 of 2003, had already stolen $6 million from the government. Right to this day, the U.S. government is still stuffing money in their pockets. > > AMY GOODMAN: Pratap Chatterjee. > > PRATAP CHATTERJEE: Amy, it’s amazing. There’s an employee of Custer Battles who took $12 million in cash of the company, put it on a plane – I kid you not, it’s called the Flying Carpet – and took it to Beirut for safe keeping. So we’re talking – we have pictures, you know, of and testimony from the people who paid them at the C.P.A. There’s a man by the name of Frank Willis, worked for the U.S. government – well, for the Coalition Provisional Authority, really – and he has provided us with a picture of $2 million in cash that he was handing over. He said there was so much money, they were playing football with it. > > \ > > AMY GOODMAN: So what is this going to come to now? The U.S. government has been putting off saying whether, in fact, the Coalition Provisional Authority that they set up exists at all? Is this one of the stumbling blocks right now, Alan Grayson? > > ALAN GRAYSON: Well, in fact, you have to understand how reluctant the government has been to do this. It’s only as a result of the hearing, as a result of the fact that Senator Grassley, a republican, the number three republican in the Senate, sent a letter to the Attorney General saying, ‘What the heck is going on here?’ And a result of 325 newspaper articles they saw from the hearing, and perhaps the result of the fact that four former Custer Battles employees were featured on NBC the day after the hearing, and one of them is quoted as saying, “I don’t want any part of an organization that deliberately murders children and innocent civilians.” As a result of all that, on the last possible day that they could do so, the government grudgingly agreed to submit a brief to the court explaining not why this money could be recovered, but whether it could be recovered, and doing so on the last possible day, April 1. Sometimes "WTF?! :eek: " doesn’t begin to cover it. Issues for debate: 1. Is there any merit to CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government? 2. Why is the government itself not aggressively pursuing this claim? It’s their (our) money, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/2 "2005-03-01T21:07:41Z")
Whether or not the CPA was established is an academic question, but Congress established, by law, an Inspector General for the CPA. In addition, the CPA issued binding declarations that created laws for Iraq. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/3 "2005-03-01T21:16:40Z")
Utter hijack, but “Custer Battles” is an awful name for a company supplying armed contractors? Isn’t that a bit like “Titanic Shipping” or “Hindenburg Aeronautics”? If you didn’t like to a real news source, I’d almost think this was satire based on that alone. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/4 "2005-03-01T22:11:47Z")
There’s a couple reasons the government hasn’t opined yet on whether it wants to join the suit. For one, it’s almost always late to the game in False Claims Act and other _qui tam_ suits – frankly, they’re just not very good at it and never has been. The bigger one is that the CPA is indeed somewhat difficult to categorize in terms of whether the US has jurisdiction in a suit like this. If Custer Battles were contracting directly with the military, it’s a no-brainer (at least to that narrow question) – the US would have jurisdiction. If they had contracted with the recently-elected Iraqi transitional government, it’s also a no-brainer – the US would not. That would be the case even if the fraud were committed to get “our” money, because once we give it to Iraq it’s not “ours” anymore. Same if, say, Israel wanted to recover money from Lockheed Martin for overcharging for fighter jets or whatever. We give money to Israel and they buy American fighters, but if Israel thinks LMT overcharged them that’s between them and the company. The CPA was kind of neither fish nor fowl. The US clearly created it, but once created was it a US government agency or was it Iraqi? Assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations against Custer Battle are correct, I think the _ideal_ situation would be if the Iraqi transitional government, as successor to the CPA, could take action to recover any improperly obtained funds. But as with so much in wartime, ideal in this case may also turn out to be idealistic. Given the circumstances, added to the fact that there are about a million other, more important consequences to the US making a determination of its view of CPA’s status, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that the government asked for some more time to think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/5 "2005-03-01T22:45:00Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Utter hijack, but “Custer Battles” is an awful name for a company supplying armed contractors? Well, it’s named for two people. Michael Battles and Scott Custer. But they pronounce it “Throat Warbler Mangrove.” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/6 "2005-03-01T22:45:45Z")
Did the extraterratoriality bill, initiative, exec order or whatever not make it onto paper? There doesn’t seem to be much recent [mention of it:](http://www.occupationwatch.org/print_article.php?&id=4827) > [@](#): > > Local prosecution could have been an option — if Iraq had a functioning judiciary, which it doesn’t — but last year, U.S. administrator Paul Bremer issued an order protecting contractors from precisely that. > > An extraterratoriality law that would have made civilian contractees subject to U.S. domestic law sits stalled on Solicitor-General John Ashcroft’s desk. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/7 "2005-03-02T02:52:09Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > Utter hijack, but “Custer Battles” is an awful name for a company supplying armed contractors? Isn’t that a bit like “Titanic Shipping” or “Hindenburg Aeronautics”? Or “Coalition of the Willing”? That’s not a name for a military alliance, that’s a name for a curiously highbrow porn film! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/8 "2005-03-02T10:18:16Z")
Ah yes, the CPA and its dubious origins. Back when the CPA was running Iraq, a number of lefty bloggers were asking the same question - exactly what legal authorization does the CPA have? Nobody was able to come up with a definitive answer; the trail did seem to point to that secret Presidential authorization that nobody got to see. Yet there it was, clearly acting on behalf of the US government. The UN certified the US’ authority as occupiers; the CPA was clearly operating under that grant as the agent of the US Executive Branch, with funding from Congress. Whether anyone can find a piece of paper saying it had the legal authority to do what it did is beside the point; it was acting in every way as the agent of the Bush Administration in running the ‘reconstruction’ of Iraq. But the Bush Administration’s reluctance to try to recover money from US contractors in Iraq doesn’t surprise me one bit. These are their buddies, and they can get away with not cracking down on them. Politics is the art of the possible, and the Bushies have created a brave new world in which a great deal is possible that didn’t used to be. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/9 "2005-03-02T11:39:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Ah yes, the CPA and its dubious origins. Back when the CPA was running Iraq, a number of lefty bloggers were asking the same question - exactly what legal authorization does the CPA have? Nobody was able to come up with a definitive answer; the trail did seem to point to that secret Presidential authorization that nobody got to see. > > Yet there it was, clearly acting on behalf of the US government. The UN certified the US’ authority as occupiers; the CPA was clearly operating under that grant as the agent of the US Executive Branch, with funding from Congress. Whether anyone can find a piece of paper saying it had the legal authority to do what it did is beside the point; it was acting in every way as the agent of the Bush Administration in running the ‘reconstruction’ of Iraq. > > But the Bush Administration’s reluctance to try to recover money from US contractors in Iraq doesn’t surprise me one bit. These are their buddies, and they can get away with not cracking down on them. Politics is the art of the possible, and the Bushies have created a brave new world in which a great deal is possible that didn’t used to be. Yes - note the howls of outrage from the fiscal conservatives here. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/10 "2005-03-02T18:32:12Z")
So, did Paul Bremmer really exist? Because he did always appear just too ludicrous to be an actual person… ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/11 "2005-03-02T20:31:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why is the government itself not aggressively pursuing this claim? [Look at the puppy!](http://www.galleryone.com/images/kate/weiss%20-%20chocolate%20lab%20puppy.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/12 "2005-03-03T03:43:02Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > [Look at the puppy!](http://www.galleryone.com/images/kate/weiss%20-%20chocolate%20lab%20puppy.jpg) Well, Bush & Co. are no amateurs when it comes to screwing the pooch . . . 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/13 "2005-03-06T16:58:50Z")
Update, from _Mother Jones_ Magazine, 2/25/05 [http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/02/custer\_battles.html:](http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/02/custer_battles.html:) > [@](#): > > Also testifying at [an oversight hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee] was Attorney Alan Grayson, who represents two former employees of Custer Battles, a private firm hired to provide security in Iraq. Grayson’s clients have charged that the company defrauded the CPA of millions of dollars during its time in Iraq. Custer Battles has been accused of, among other things, charging the CPA for security detail at airports that weren’t even running flights. Former employees also allege that members of the firm have fired on Iraqi civilians. > > Grayson and his colleagues have unearthed so much dirt on Custer Battles that it’s hard to believe the case is still pending. The company’s own documents reveal that Custer Battles forged invoices. (The documents are available online at Taxpayers against Fraud.) One of the former employees Grayson is defending is a former FBI agent who refused to take part in a scam. Grayson claims his client was then held at gunpoint by other employees, stripped of his weapons and security ID, and left on the streets of Baghdad. Originally, both of Grayson’s clients planned to testify before the Senate, but then sent e-mails to the Committee explaining that they could not. When questioned as to why his clients did not appear, Grayson explained that they are both receiving death threats—one of the employees recently discovered that there is a $50,000 bounty on his head. > > The employees also reportedly fear retaliation from the Bush administration, as they are still both government contractors and worry that the White House may cut off contracts for their current employers. That may sound odd—why would the administration retaliate against anyone who exposed fraud against the U.S. government?—but there may be more to the story here. As it turns out, one of the cofounders of Custer Battles, Mike Battles, is pretty well known in Republican circles (he ran for Congress back in 2002, where he managed to get fined by the FEC for “misstatement of financial activities”). His partner, Scott Custer once stated, in an interview with two federal agents, “Battles is very active in the Republican Party and speaks to individuals he knows at the White House almost daily.” > > \ > > Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Sponseller had told Grayson that the DoJ declined to get involved because the White House had decided that cheating the CPA was not the same as cheating the U.S. government. This seems to be pretty bizarre reasoning considering that, back in November 2003, President Bush signed an "executive order declaring the CPA “an entity of the United States government.” Still, Custer Battles is taking full advantage of the administration’s reticence, claiming that the company is not subject to U.S. law because the CPA was effectively a sovereign entity. Grayson countered, “In the law, nobody could argue that the CPA was a sovereign state. All they’ve done is basically concoct this argument so that they can change the subject.” He added, “The only thing that makes it possible for them to do that and get away with it is the fact that the government hasn’t weighed in to try and get the money back.” > > \ > > Unfortunately, these cases won’t move along until the U.S. government starts to take action. The Democratic Policy Committee has been virtually alone in hammering on the issue, and it has no subpoena power and no ability to enforce oversight. As Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) remarked at the hearing, "The sad part about all this [is that] we shouldn’t be holding this hearing. This should be done by committees having jurisdiction to do oversight of these government operations. Indeed, one person who should be doing something is Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. Recently Davis claimed promised to hold more hearings on the use of reconstruction funds in Iraq, saying, “If there’s something wrong, we will go after it vigorously.” Yet his committee has yet to take action, and Davis has actually sponsored legislation to prevent controls on oversight and accounting for private contractors. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/14 "2005-03-06T17:27:33Z")
So sad; the Democrats so weakened themselves, they can’t go all Giuliani-like when it comes to fraud on part of Republican bigwigs. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/15 "2005-03-06T18:39:27Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > So sad; the Democrats so weakened themselves, they can’t go all Giuliani-like when it comes to fraud on part of Republican bigwigs. 😕 Eh? Do you mean the Dems have “weakened themselves” by losing control of both houses of Congress, or that they have somehow forfeited their own credibility WRT fraud? ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/16 "2005-03-07T10:49:49Z")
I, for one, would like to welcome the USA to the long standing Sub-American tradition of Republican (banana variety) goverment. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/17 "2005-03-07T11:46:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 Eh? Do you mean the Dems have “weakened themselves” by losing control of both houses of Congress, or that they have somehow forfeited their own credibility WRT fraud? Oh you sweet little innocent. 😉 You really thought that this might somehow not turn out to be the Democrat’s fault? Bless. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/18 "2005-03-07T12:16:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Update, from _Mother Jones_ Magazine, 2/25/05 [http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/02/custer\_battles.html:](http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/02/custer_battles.html:) I suggest a “confused” smiley would be more appropriate. What, in that article, relates to “CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government?” As you framed the OP, that was the key question: if the CPA had no legal existence as a US government agency, then all the rest of the allegations, whether they involve forged invoices, the torture of puppies, or little girls’ dollies being stolen and burned, are not US crimes. Your OP’s second question for debate is dependent on your first. If the CPA was not a US government agency, then it really wasn’t our money - it was money lawfully given to the CPA, who then, apparently, wasted it. So apart from **manhattan** ’s cogent analysis of the situation, there has been precious little intelligent commentary in this thread on that question. The Mother Jones article does claim that, “back in November 2003,” the President signed an executive order declaring the CPA an entity of the United States government. Unfortunately for them, [the only executive order](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/) signed in November 2003 establishes the Presidential Management Fellows Program, which is intended to attract stars from academic world to public service. Perhaps Mother Jones believes that the President planned to send a bunch of PhDs over to govern Iraq. Also fascinating that the two sources running hard with this story are “Mother Jones” and “Democratic Underground.” No bias there. But hey - the truth is the truth, bias or no. What evidence is there to support a charge, under the law, that the CPA was a government agency? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/19 "2005-03-07T13:47:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I suggest a “confused” smiley would be more appropriate. > > What, in that article, relates to “CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government?” > > As you framed the OP, that was the key question: if the CPA had no legal existence as a US government agency, then all the rest of the allegations, whether they involve forged invoices, the torture of puppies, or little girls’ dollies being stolen and burned, are not US crimes. > > Your OP’s second question for debate is dependent on your first. If the CPA was not a US government agency, then it really wasn’t our money - it was money lawfully given to the CPA, who then, apparently, wasted it. > > So apart from **manhattan** ’s cogent analysis of the situation, there has been precious little intelligent commentary in this thread on that question. > > The Mother Jones article does claim that, “back in November 2003,” the President signed an executive order declaring the CPA an entity of the United States government. Unfortunately for them, [the only executive order](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/) signed in November 2003 establishes the Presidential Management Fellows Program, which is intended to attract stars from academic world to public service. Perhaps Mother Jones believes that the President planned to send a bunch of PhDs over to govern Iraq. > > Also fascinating that the two sources running hard with this story are “Mother Jones” and “Democratic Underground.” No bias there. > > But hey - the truth is the truth, bias or no. What evidence is there to support a charge, under the law, that the CPA was a government agency? Well who’s baby is it? Are you seriously contending the CPA was not a US Govt agency set up by the Bush regime? Maybe a particularly large tooth fairy deposited it in Iraq? Are you seriously arguing that if an agency is set up without legal authority it can steal or misuse what it likes with no right of opposition? Is there nothing apologists can’t explain away? No outrage, no regret, just legalistic pinhead dancing. I think this is the moment when I truly realised how morally bankrupt conservatism really is. But that depends I suppose, on the meaning of the word ‘is’. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479/20 "2005-03-07T14:29:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What, in that article, relates to “CB’s legal defenses, to wit, that the CPA never existed, and the money they’re accused of stealing was not property of the U.S. government?” Seventh paragraph in the article, fourth in the excerpt. > [@Bricker](#): > > As you framed the OP, that was the key question: if the CPA had no legal existence as a US government agency, then all the rest of the allegations, whether they involve forged invoices, the torture of puppies, or little girls’ dollies being stolen and burned, are not US crimes. > > Your OP’s second question for debate is dependent on your first. If the CPA was not a US government agency, then it really wasn’t our money - it was money lawfully given to the CPA, who then, apparently, wasted it. :rolleyes: You are missing, or deliberately obfuscating, the point. Regardless of whether the courts decide this case falls under U.S. **jurisdiction,** it is definitely U.S. **business,** being a case of somebody defrauding our government of public monies – still money out of your pocket and mine, even if it passed through the hands of the CPA – an organization essentially created by the Administration and staffed by presidential appointees. I mean, who gave Paul Bremer his job? > [@Bricker](#): > > What evidence is there to support a charge, under the law, that the CPA was a government agency? If you’re unclear about what the CPA was and what was its relationship to the U.S. government, you’re not alone. **Congress** is unclear. From a report of the Congressional Research Service, 4/29/04 – [Foreign Press Centers - United States Department of State](http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/32338.pdf#search='coalition%20provisional%20authority') (PDF file): > [@](#): > > It is unclear whether CPA is a federal agency. Competing, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, explanations for how it was established contribute to the uncertainty about its status. The lack of an authoritative and unambiguous statement about how this organization was established, by whom, and under what authority leaves open many questions, particularly in the areas of oversight and accountability. Some executive branch documents support the notion that it was created by the President, possibly as the result of a National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD). (This document, if it exists, has not been made available to the public.) The other possibility is that the authority was created by, or pursuant to, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003). > > Given that its organizational status is uncertain, an examination of selected features of CPA might be instructive in assessing what type of organization it is. The authority is closely aligned with the Department of Defense (DOD): the Under Secretary of Defense has designated the Secretary of the Army as executive agent for CPA. Other significant features of the authority include its Office of Inspector General (OIG), which is expected to work closely with the DOD and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Offices of Inspector General; the extent of its procurement activities; its regulatory authority; and its Program Review Board. But legalities aside, the CPA undoubtedly was, in effect, both a creation and an instrument of the Bush Administration. If its status is nebulous – and that nebulosity is now costing the U.S. taxpayers money obtained by fraud and making it impossible to recover it – that’s nobody’s fault but the Admin’s, is it? They’re the ones who built this Chinese wall. And you seem to be saying, **Bricker,** that so long as the wall holds, we have no business bitching about where our money went. Horseshit. “A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.” – Will Rogers [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-contractor-custer-battles-sued-for-fraud-defense-cpa-never-existed/292479.md?page=2)