Jeremy Scahill - Blackwater

During his time at the Pentagon, Schmitz spoke publicly and passionately about the scourge of human trafficking, focusing in particular on sex trafficking—a pet issue of the Christian right and the Bush administration. In September 2004, Schmitz presented to the House Armed Services Committee a paper he wrote called “Inspecting Sex Slavery through the Fog of Moral Relativism.” 132In it, he declared, “Moral relativism is an enemy of the United States Constitution” and “The President of the United States has identified 21st Century sex slavery as ‘a special evil’ under ‘a moral law that stands above men and nations.’” Schmitz said, “Ostensible consent by the parties to immoral practices such as prostitution and sex slavery ought never to be an excuse for turning a blind eye,” concluding, “Even as we confront the new asymmetric enemies of the 21st Century, those of us who take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States (and similar principle-based legal authorities) should recognize, confront, and suppress sexual slavery and other ‘dissolute and immoral practices’ whenever and wherever they raise their ugly heads through the fog of moral relativism—‘so help [us] God.’” 133

But while Schmitz railed against moral relativism and sex slavery, he simultaneously was accused of failing to investigate serious allegations of human trafficking by Iraq contractors, including KBR, which had thirty-five thousand “third country nationals” working in Iraq. 134In a groundbreaking investigation, “Pipeline to Peril,” Cam Simpson of the Chicago Tribune documented how twelve Nepalese citizens were sent into Iraq in August 2004 and subsequently abducted and executed. 135The paper revealed how “some subcontractors and a chain of human brokers allegedly engaged in the same kinds of abuses routinely condemned by the State Department as human trafficking.” 136The Tribune also “found evidence that subcontractors and brokers routinely seized workers’ passports, deceived them about their safety or contract terms and, in at least one case, allegedly tried to force terrified men into Iraq under the threat of cutting off their food and water,” and that KBR and the military “allowed subcontractors to employ workers from countries that had banned the deployment of their citizens to Iraq, meaning thousands were trafficked through illicit channels.” 137

According to the Chicago Tribune : “Separate records also show that similar allegations had been raised in September 2004 with Joseph Schmitz, who was then the Department of Defense inspector general. Schmitz did not respond in any detail until nearly a year later, saying in an Aug. 25, 2005, letter to Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., that there was a ‘list of corrective measures’ ordered by coalition military officials in Iraq following ‘a preliminary inquiry’ into the allegations. The letter did not mention passport seizures or violations of U.S. laws against human trafficking, but said living conditions ‘required further attention’ and that officials were ‘monitoring the status of corrections’ purportedly under way.” 138Hardly the “moral relativist,” “special evil” condemnation, apparently reserved by Schmitz and his allies for more “immoral” crimes.

One of the greatest scandals involving Schmitz began in May 2003, when the Pentagon agreed to lease one hundred military tanker planes in a controversial deal with Boeing worth a whopping $30 billion. 139Almost immediately, the unusual arrangement—the largest such lease in U.S. history—was blasted by government watchdog groups as “wasteful corporate welfare,” as it boosted the struggling aerospace business. 140Republican Senator John McCain slammed the deal as “a textbook case of bad procurement policy and favoritism to a single defense contractor.” 141McCain alleged that analyses by the General Accounting Office showed that it would be exponentially cheaper for the government to modernize existing tankers, rather than leasing additional ones from Boeing at several times the cost. 142“I have never seen the security and fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government quite so nakedly subordinated to the interests of one defense manufacturer,” McCain said. 143In winning the controversial deal, Boeing reportedly had a string of powerful backers, among them House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a key ally of the White House and of senior White House aides Karl Rove and Andy Card. “What was unusual about Boeing’s lobbying was that it gained complete access to all divisions of government from the president down, to having the key leadership of the House and Senate and dozens of lawmakers pushing their wares on the deal,” said Keith Ashdown, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense. 144According to the Financial Times, “Boeing also invested $20 million last year in a defence-related venture capital fund run by Richard Perle… [who] co-authored an editorial in The Wall Street Journal in August supporting the deal. He did not disclose the Boeing investment.” 145

The contract was approved by President Bush’s chief weapons buyer at the Pentagon, Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge Jr., 146who just happened to be the former president of McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems, which later became part of Boeing. 147Aldridge approved the deal on his last day at the Pentagon before taking a job with weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. 148The deal would soon go down as “the most significant defense procurement mismanagement in contemporary history,” in the words of the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, Republican John Warner, 149resulting in a cancellation of the contract, amid widespread allegations of cronyism. Former Air Force procurement officer Darleen Druyun went to prison, as did a Boeing representative, while Air Force Secretary James Roche resigned. 150

Ultimately, the case ended up on Joseph Schmitz’s desk at the Pentagon for investigation. In June 2005, Schmitz released a 257-page report on the scandal, which critics charged concealed the possible role of senior White House officials in the deal—the report contained forty-five deletions of references to White House officials. 151In fact, Schmitz had actually given the report to the White House for review before its release, where it appeared to have been scrubbed of possibly damning information. 152In a letter to Schmitz, Republican Senator Grassley wrote, “By excluding pertinent evidence from the final report, certain potential targets were shielded from possible accountability.” Grassley added that Pentagon officials “may have been acting in response to guidance and advice from the senior White House officials, whose names were redacted from the final report on your orders; those officials are not held accountable.” 153

Schmitz did not include the comments of Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz because, Schmitz said, they hadn’t said anything “relevant.” If so, asserted the Washington Post editorial board, “investigators must not have asked the right questions. To offer just one example: Mr. Roche recounted that Mr. Rumsfeld called him in July 2003 to discuss his then-pending nomination to be secretary of the Army and ‘specifically stated that he did not want me to budge on the tanker lease proposal.’” 154In a transcript of Schmitz’s office’s interview with Rumsfeld, obtained by the Washington Post , investigators asked the Defense Secretary whether he had approved the Boeing tanker lease despite widespread violations of Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules. “I don’t remember approving it,” Rumsfeld said. “But I certainly don’t remember not approving it, if you will.” 155Investigators then asked Rumsfeld about the fact that in 2002 President Bush asked his Chief of Staff, Andy Card, to intervene in the Pentagon negotiations with Boeing (a major Bush contributor). “I have been told,” Rumsfeld said, “that discussions with the President are privileged, and with his immediate staff.” 156The Post said much of the rest of the discussion was blacked out on the transcript. None of Rumsfeld’s comments were included in Schmitz’s report. 157