US taxpayers funding the pimping of eight year old boys as sex slaves in Afghanistan

Putting this in the Pit because the content is so horrific.

Story one (Houston Press). Story two (Guardian). Read the source: Wikileak’d diplomatic cable.

The company involved, DynCorp, has also had a prior brush with the child sex slave game in Bosnia.

Yeah, they sent me an e-mail a while ago offering me 150K to teach in Baghdad. They have a bad rep. I did not reply.

so much for a separation between church and state…

When in Rome…

So if a patent office file clerk (paid by the US government) goes downtown and hires a streetwalker, is it correct to say that US TAXPAYERS FUND PROSTITUTES?

I don’t think he means it as an accusation. More of a “look where your tax dollars are going!”

Anyway, if the clerk took funds from the office’s petty cash drawer to hire the streetwalker, yes. Presumably DynCorp used federal funds to pay for the party.

It’s about time our tax dollars went for something tangible!
Oh, so sweetly tangible . . .

Is Afghanistan full of Catholic priests?

Maybe the escorts were helping with his theory of relativity.


All snarkiness aside, my initial reaction to the OP was, “This is different from the western world…how?”

Like drugs, gambling, and adult prostitution, there’s always going to be sick people who will satisfy their obsessions by obtaining them from even sicker people. Move along, nothing to see here…

No it’s not, but the Houston Press story claims that the party was “partially thrown by DynCorp,” not DynCorp employees, and the party was thrown for Afghan police recruits. Presuming that’s true, I think it’s reasonable to assume that this party was put on as part of the company’s work with Afghani police, which is part of their contract with the US government. And the company would presumably bill the government for the expenses.

So, so far as I can see, it’s more analagous to the US Patent Office awarding a contract to the local madame, than a file clerk patronizing the same madame on his (or her) own time.

Yes, but I’ve read the linked cables and the articles, and neither really offers any evidence for that claim. Did I miss it?

I didn’t see any evidence either, as you could probably infer by from the qualifications in my statement. However, your earlier post implies that you think DynCorp employees paid for this party out of their own pocket. Did you read something that would suggest that was the case, or is there another reason you think that’s a more plausible scenario than the (admittedly unsupported) news report?

Because there are several types of government contracts. Cost-plus contracts and time-and-materials contracts both allow the contractor to bill the government for expenses they incur, but those expenses must be documented and detailed. I suppose they could falsify the actual expediture, but then why not simply falsify the expenses to begin with? It happens, of course, but that’s a level of fraud that simply doesn’t happen much. So my incredulity arises from the details that would have to happen in order for the basic accusation to be true.

Nothing in that link indicates that the company would bill the government, either.

Recently Doonesbury has had a running gag about a character who is in Afghanistan and is being offered “dancing boys.” I was wondering what this was referring to.

Wait, what? Why would anyone need to falsify expenditures? I was assuming that the whole “throwing a party for police recruits” was a completely kosher expenditure, except for the “providing underage boys for anal sex” part. If that’s true, then hiring some entertainment, like singers or dancers or whatever, would also be completely kosher, and passing along the expense to the governement would be completely kosher, again except for the underage boys & anal sex part. I don’t see what’s incredible about that.

I mean, assuming that the government was billed here (which, again, is admittedly unsupported) it doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily fraud at all, much less “a level of fraud that simply doesn’t happen much.”

Pull the other one, Bricker. Seriously, they threw a party for recruits necessary to fulfill their government contract. This in a company that relies on the US government for the vast bulk of their revenue. Whether they directly billed the taxpayer or not, who do you think paid the tab? Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?