Showing posts with label Booz Allen Hamilton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Booz Allen Hamilton. Show all posts

August 10, 2008

Pentagon opens new spy shop: Tom Burghardt

by Tom Burghardt
Global Research, August 10, 2008
Antifascist Calling

Back in April, Antifascist Calling reported on the proposed shut-down of the Pentagon’s controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) office that illegally spied on the antiwar movement.

That office was officially “disestablished” August 4 by the Department of Defense (DoD). Simultaneously, it “activated” the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC) “under the direction of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

DCHC will “combine CIFA resources and responsibilities with longstanding DIA CI and HUMINT capabilities.” DCHC director Army Maj. Gen. Theodore Nicholas says that “the realignment of CIFA’s functions and resources into DIA strengthens the close historical and operational relationship between counterintelligence and HUMINT.”

According to the Associated Press, DIA’s new office will engage in what it calls “offensive counterintelligence” to identify what terrorist operatives or foreign intelligence officers are up to and thwart their activities.

The DoD stresses that

“CIFA’s designation as a law enforcement activity did not transfer to DIA. The new center will have no law enforcement function.” I
n other words unlike CIFA, if we’re to believe the Defense Department, DCHC will not spy on Americans’ or subvert their constitutionally-protected rights of free speech and assembly. But unlike DCHC’s classified budget, talk is cheap and the devil is in the details which are few and far between.

CIFA: mired in cronyism, scandal and corruption

The brainchild of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, CIFA was mired in cronyism, scandal and corruption.

Indeed, disgraced Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA), now a convicted felon cooling his heels in a federal penitentiary, was caught in a cash-and-hookers-for-contracts scandal along with Mitchell Wade, the notorious ex-chairman of MZM Inc. Cunningham, a member of the House Appropriations and Intelligence Committees, chaired the subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence that had authority over CIFA operations. Like any good congressman dedicated to “fighting the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” Cunningham showered MZM with some $16 million in dubious “earmarks” for contracts with CIFA before being run to ground.

One MZM deal would have allegedly provided the Pentagon office with a data-mining and storage system, the usual suite of “tools” for illegal spy operations we’ve come to expect from the Bush regime. The problem was, MZM’s “product” was useless and was never installed.

According to U.S. News & World Report, Wade’s shady dealings extended deep into CIFA’s dark heart. Wade enjoyed a “special” relationship with a company named Gray Hawk Systems Inc. The firm, according to investigative journalist Chitra Ragavan, “obtained several lucrative and questionable contracts from CIFA, which it then shared with MZM.”

To sweeten the grift, “three senior CIFA officials with influence over the contracting process left the agency and joined Gray Hawk,” according to Ragavan. With knowledgeable insiders in place, Wade was then able to “craft earmarks for Cunningham,” who then inserted them into appropriations bills worth tens of millions of dollars. After that, Cunningham was able to pressure “Pentagon officials to award the contracts to Gray Hawk and MZM.”

Pretty neat trick, eh? Unfortunately for Wade, his extracurricular activities earned him an eight year sentence in federal prison like his buddy, the “Dukester.”Gray Hawk was purchased in 2005 for $100 million by ManTech International Corp. in an “all cash acquisition,” according to Washington Technology. Approximately 90% of the firm’s employees hold security clearances which, as we’ve previously described, are marketable commodities. No charges were ever brought against Gray Hawk or its corporate officers.

But wait, there’s more!Before the smoke cleared, Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, the CIA’s Executive Director, former Iran-Contra operative and close confidant of both ex-CIA Director Porter Goss and convicted fraudster Brent Wilkes, the former CEO of ADCS Inc., was indicted in 2007 on charges of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. On February 19, 2008, Foggo’s poker-playing pal Wilkes was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for his role as Mitchell Wade’s “subcontractor” in CIFA shenanigans, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

However, the execution of a search warrant on a top CIA official by San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in May 2006, proved too much for the Bush administration and their close political allies in the Republican party. In addition to Cunningham, Wade, Foggo and Wilkes, Lam’s net now was closing around several other congressmen involved in CIFA sleaze.

Indeed Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonazales’ Chief of Staff, was enmeshed in the scandal over fired U.S. Attorneys by the Bush regime. When the Justice Dept. learned of the Foggo search warrant, the very next day Sampson wrote an e-mail to his political masters stating the need to discuss “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” Shortly thereafter, Lam was forced to resign and became one of the first victims of the “Attorneygate” scandal that eventually led to Gonzales’ forced resignation as U.S. Attorney General.

Foggo’s 2007 indictment was superseded when the CIA’s former No. 3 was indicted on new charges filed May 20, 2008 by federal prosecutors. The new indictment charged Foggo with accepting tens of thousands of dollars in “gratuities” and “sexual companionship” (the hookers in “hookergate”) in exchange for helping Wilkes secure plum government contracts. His trial is currently pending.

Small world…of crony capitalist grifting on a grand scale!

CIFA targets the antiwar movement

But the “hookergate” scandal was the least of CIFA’s problems. The office was caught red-handed spying on Americans when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained documents detailing the Pentagon’s illegal domestic spying operation.

Multiple news reports beginning in late 2005 revealed that CIFA, with 400 full-time DoD workers and 900 “outsourced” contractor employees and a classified budget, had been authorized to track “potential terrorist threats” against DoD through reports known as Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON).

As it turned out, “nonvalidated” TALON reports were maintained in a huge database that compiled information on antiwar activists who organized demonstrations and vigils near U.S. military bases. Even when supposed “threats” were designated “not credible,” the office retained the files nonetheless.

Examples of TALON reports were subsequently published by The National Security Archive on their website. According to Archive analyst Jeffrey Richelson,

There were approximately four dozen reports concerning anti-war meetings or protests, including reports that remained in the database long after it was concluded that the targets were unrelated to any threat. Among the meetings that attracted the attention of military counterintelligence authorities were a large anti-war protest in Los Angeles in March 2005, a planned protest against military recruiters in Boston in December 2004, a planned demonstration outside the gates of the Fort Collins, Colorado, military base, and a planned protest at McDonald’s National Salute to America’s Heroes–a military air and sea show in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It was concluded that the Ft. Lauderdale protest was not a credible threat and a column in the database noted that it was a “US group exercising constitutional rights.” (”The Pentagon’s Counterspies,” The National Security Archive, September 17, 2007)

The TALON database was shut down in September and future “threat reports” would now “be funneled to an FBI database known as Guardian,” Wired reported last August. Guardian and its related e-Guardian database will be available for sharing “certain unclassified information” with state and local law enforcement officers. “Once sharing agreements are signed,” according to SourceWatch, “police chiefs and sheriffs will be able to query local terrorism threats and also submit terrorism information to the FBI through e-Guradian.”

However, “in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements,” even though CIFA is now closed, DoD “will maintain a record copy of the collected data,” SourceWatch revealed. In other words TALON reports, including data illegally collected on antiwar activists, will continue to exist somewhere deep in the bowels of the Defense Department.

The ties that bind (and pay handsomely in the process!)

Though CIFA is gone, the DoD’s new office will retain many of the characteristics of its predecessor, including DIA’s reliance on outsourced contracts to private defense and security firms. According to a July 22, 2008 Memorandum from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England obtained by Cryptome,

On August 3, 2008, all DoD CIFA CI missions, responsibilities, functions, and authorities as well as all associated resources including all personnel, support contracts and contractors, and appropriate records and archives shall transition in place to DIA. Personnel transfer notifications, as appropriate and required, shall be accomplished in advance of the August 3, 2008, transfer from DoD CIFA to DIA. [emphasis added]

Major CIFA contractors included QinetiQ, a British-owned defense and intelligence firm based in Mclean, Virginia. Investigative journalist Tim Shorrock reported in January for CorpWatch that QinetiQ’s “Mission Solutions Group, formerly Analex Corporation, had just signed a five-year, $30 million contract to provide a range of unspecified ’security services’.” Interestingly enough, Cambone became a QinetiQ vice president when he left the Pentagon and CIFA signed the QinetiQ deal a scant two months after he was hired. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

CIFA’s brief included a Directorate of Field Activities, tasked with “preserving the most critical defense assets;” the Counterintelligence and Law Enforcement Center, designated as the office to “identify and assess threats;” and Behavioral Sciences, the office that provided “a team of renowned forensic psychologists [who] are engaged in risk assessments of the Guantanamo Bay detainees,” according to Shorrock.

Will the CIFA shut-down and the transference of its intelligence brief to DIA mean that a privatized military-surveillance complex is now a relic of the corrupt Bush regime? Hardly. According to estimates, some 30-40% of DIA personnel are outsourced contractors themselves.

Indeed, Washington Technology reported that “the Defense Intelligence Agency is planning a billion-dollar contract for information technology and services.” According to the brief report, the contract “to be known as the Solutions for Information Technology Enterprise, will be open to Defense Department intelligence agencies, the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines Corps as well as non-DOD agencies involved in intelligence.” (emphasis added)

Back in April, the publication reported that eight giant multinational defense and security firms “won prime contracts” from DIA “for military intelligence analysis services.” The companies included BAE Systems Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., CACI International Inc., Concurrent Technologies Corp., L-3 Communications Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., Science Applications International Corp. and SRA International Inc. In other words, the usual suspects!

Interestingly enough, two items that appeared last week in the federal insider and high-tech defense industry press paint DIA “partner” Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in a less than favorable light, to say the least!

The first item was an August 5 piece in Washington Technology, that detailed how the Department of Homeland Security had to “suspend a procurement” for the upcoming TopOff 5 (Top Officials) “national disaster drill to investigate improprieties in the contracting process.” According to Alice Lipowicz,

…lawmakers said a contractor who apparently wrote parts of FEMA’s request for proposals for the Topoff 5 contract might also be a bidder on the contract. If so, that would present an unfair competitive advantage due to an organizational conflict of interest, and possibly other ethics infractions. The senators also said FEMA officials did not recognize the potential conflict nor approve a mitigation strategy, such as firewalls, that would have mitigated it.

The contractor has not been named, but sources identified it as SAIC, which confirmed it submitted a bid for the Topoff 5 work. (”FEMA Suspends TopOff, SAIC Drops out of Competition,” Washington Technology, August 5, 2008)

The second item appeared the very next day, when Federal Times revealed that SAIC had been found guilty of violating the False Claims Act “and ordered the company to pay the government $6 million in damages.” Elsie Castelli reports,

SAIC failed to disclose conflicts of interest that could have biased the company’s work assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the jury found. SAIC was hired by the agency to help it develop a rule to govern the recycling of radioactive waste from nuclear facilities. The jury ruled the company concealed its relationships with private firms that would benefit from the rule, and made 77 false statements and claims to obtain payment on two NRC contracts in the 1990s. (”SAIC Found Guilty of False Claims Act Violations,” Federal Times, August 6, 2008)

The second case is far more serious since “companies found liable” for submitting false claims “are subject to suspension or debarment,” Federal Times reports.

SAIC, No. 5 on Washington Technology’sTop 100 List” of Federal prime contractors, clocked in with $4,919,829,998, more than two thirds of which were defense and security related. “No such actions have been taken against SAIC, according to the government’s Excluded Parties List, which tracks suspensions and debarments,” according to Federal Times.

Would anyone care to wager whether or not the San Diego-based defense and security giant will be suspended or debarred from future government contracts? I didn’t think so.

While the Defense Department claims that the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center will “have no law enforcement function,” the question remains: with a massive domestic intelligence apparatus aimed like a Borg death-ray at America’s democratic Republic, where has the Pentagon’s “law enforcement function” been transferred?

According to investigative journalist Erin Rosa’s report in The Colorado Independent, “the military will…be sharing intelligence information and providing support through U.S. Northern Command, (NORTHCOM) a unit stationed at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs that was created in 2002 for homeland defense missions,” during the upcoming Democratic National Convention later this month in Denver.

The more things change…

© Copyright Tom Burghardt, Antifascist Calling, 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUR20080810&articleId=9784

see

Pentagon To Test Unclassified Alternative to Talon

Secretive Pentagon Spy Unit: Closed or Outsourced?

Burghardt-Tom


June 14, 2008

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Over the Counter Intelligence

Over the Counter Intelligence
Posted by Philip Mattera on June 13th, 2008

Tim Shorrock, a veteran investigative journalist and a longtime subscriber to the Dirt Diggers Digest, has just come out with a book called Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. Shorrock describes how an activity that used to be handled by spooks on the federal payroll has been steadily transformed into a $50 billion Intelligence-Industrial Complex. 

Thanks to the contracting scandals surrounding Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, the public learned of the extent to which the Pentagon has turned over routine functions to private military companies. The outrageous behavior of Blackwater has highlighted the use of mercenaries to protect U.S. diplomats and other VIPs in Iraq.

Shorrock shines a light on another group of corporations that are carrying out a more sensitive function that most people have no idea is being handed over to the private sector. Careful readers of the revelations concerning abuses at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq would have learned that interrogators alleged to have abused detainees included civilians employed by a company called CACI. But that is only the tip of a lucrative iceberg, Shorrock shows.

For example, he writes, more than half the people working at the super-secret National Counterterrorism Center in Virginia are employees of companies such as Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC ), BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. The Center’s terrorist database is maintained by The Analysis Corporation, which subcontracted collection activities to CACI.

Since 9/11, Shorrock says, the Central Intelligence Agency has been spending 50-60 percent of its budget (or about $2.5 billion a year) on contractors—both individuals and companies. At the CIA and its sister spook agencies: “Tasks that are now outsourced include running spy networks out of embassies, intelligence analysis, signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection, covert operations, and the interrogation of enemy prisoners.”

Shorrock devotes an entire chapter to Booz Allen Hamilton, known to most people as a management consultant for large corporations but which pioneered the intelligence outsourcing industry (though it recently agreed to sell its federal business to the Carlyle Group). When Mike McConnell, a former Booz Allen executive, was named by President Bush as Director of National Intelligence, it was the first time, Shorrock notes, that a contractor was put in charge of the country’s entire spy apparatus.

Spies for Hire has much more to offer that cannot be adequately summarized here. I recommend that you read it in full. But let me let also note that profiles of some of the intelligence contractors discussed by Shorrock—such as CACI and ManTech International—can be found on the Crocodyl wiki to which I contribute. Also note that the updated edition of Jeremy Scahill’s valuable book Blackwater , recently issued in paperback, has a discussion (p.453 forward) on the mercenary company’s move into another form of privatized intelligence—a product called Total Intelligence Solutions that is designed to bring “CIA-style” services to Fortune 500 companies.

http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/60

Dirt Diggers Digest is written by Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, an affiliate of Good Jobs First.

See also feature articles by Tim Shorrock on CorpWatch.org:

Domestic Spying, Inc.

QinetiQ Goes Kinetic: Top Rumsfeld Aide Wins Contracts From Spy Office He Set Up 

Carlyle Group May Buy CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton





WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Corps who are abusing on US/Canadian and other Citizens: Part 1

 Company Profiles 

 Boeing 

 Blackwater USA 

 Lockheed Martin 

 Northrop Grumman 

 General Dynamics 

 Raytheon 

 United Technologies 

 Halliburton 

General Electric 

Science Applications International Corporation 

 CSC/ DynCorp



Chemicals
From toxic waste to the unpronounceables on your food labels, chemicals are all around and within us. Here you will find CorpWatch coverage of the range of issues involving chemicals, including pesiticides, the widespread use of petrochemicals, health and environmental impacts, and the role of chemicals in bioengineered agriculture.


Construction
Building (or rebuilding) things is a lucrative business to be in, especially in an era when lots of things are being blown up. Construction is a mega-industry with players raking in money for huge projects, from Bechtel's Big Dig to Kellogg Brown & Root's military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are the small, mob-connected firms building at ground zero in New York, and even the bin Laden family, who largely built modern Saudia Arabia and Dubai. The companies who build dams, roads, schools, hospitals and military installations are a major economic and political force.

Energy
Those who own, extract, process, and sell the fossil fuels on which modern culture is (often regrettably) based make up perhaps the single most powerful industry in the world. While energy policy in the United States is made behind closed doors with oil barons, wars are fought in the Middle East over oil & gas, and geopolitics in South America is revolutionized on the power of vast oil reserves.


Food and Agriculture
The industrial food chain is complex - and highly profitable for those who control it. In India, ancient traditional grains have been patented by multinationals, while drought- and pest-resistant strains of food crops are engineered in laboratories and planted in massive monocultures worldwide. Harsh pesticides and herbicides have become the rule instead of the exception. GMO soybeans are crowding out the Amazon rainforests; meanwhile, massively subsidized, nutritionally-challenged corn finds its way into almost every aspect of the American diet, especially fast food. The corporations (Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, McDonald's, etc) behind what we eat exert power in their best interest, rather than in ours. What's good for their bottom line is not necessarily good for our waistlines, our coastlines, our treelines ...


Financial Services, Insurance and Banking 
Banks, investment firms, insurance companies are integral to the operation of every industry we cover. They are the nervous and circulatory systems of the corporate world. In a world where everything - even a human life - can be assigned a monetary value; where limitless money and great risk intersect, lies opportunity for greed, corruption, and fraud. 


Manufacturing
Perhaps the most outsourced industry in the world, manufacturing covers everything from textiles to automobiles to construction to electronics and everything in between. Since international trade is largely centered on the exchange of manufactured goods, issues of globalization swirl around these corporations. Here you'll find coverage of labor and sweatshops, the environment, trade agreements, and the overarching impacts of "offshoring" the manufacture of the goods the developed world consumes.


Media & Entertainment
A very few corporations control most of the messages we receive each day, from billboards to newspapers, to radio, film and television. CorpWatch covers not only the effect of media consolidation, but also the wizards behind the curtains in advertising, public relations, and the mainstream news media.


Natural Resources
It is a mark of modern civilization that we now buy and sell what nature provides for free. Trees, water, minerals, open land - these are profit opportunities for those who can turn them into timber, dams, bottled water, diamond rings, or condominium complexes. For issues directly relating to oil, gas, and coal, see also Energy.


Pharmaceuticals
The cost of prescription drugs has never been higher, and pharmaceutical companies have never spent more persuading consumers that they need drugs they've never heard of for illnesses they didn't know they had. Drug companies are also spending millions defending patents and persuading the FDA to approve new drugs ever faster. Meanwhile, developing countries go without desperately needed drugs because pharmaceutical companies fear that lowering prices for the neediest is a slippery slope. Big Pharma says high prices fund research and innovation.


Retail & Mega-Stores
Big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Asda and Home Depot have squeezed out small businesses all around the world, driving down wages and quality of life where they do business, all in the name of low prices. They are the largest, slowest-moving easy targets, smaller (and yet still massive) retail chains like Starbucks, Forever 21, Abercrombie & Fitch, the Gap and others have also drawn fire for sweatshop abuses, labor violations, and other questionable corporate behavior.


Technology & Telecommunications
Technology has seeped into nearly every aspect of modern life, from the food we eat to the ways we communicate. Consequently, telecommunications and technology corporations have gained huge power over the past two decades. Cable companies bicker with telephone monopolies over the internet; customer support for ubiquitous laptop computers is offshored from Silicon Valley to Bangalore; obsolete electronics pile up in developing world landfills, exposing children to toxic metals; and multinationals tinker with the technology of nature to make a tomato that doesn't spoil on a grocery shelf. Ubiquity, especially when it melds into the background of daily life, is perhaps the most powerful tool of corporate power.


Tobacco
The executives of Big Tobacco have stopped insisting that tobacco is not addictive, but have not stopped making a killing from the deadly addictive quality of their product. The steady demand, particularly in the developing world where regulation doesn't reach, breeds a booming business in smuggling, as well as aggressive marketing schemes targeting the poor, minorities, and children. International treaties and successful lawsuits have helped to slow the malignant spread of tobacco in the United States and other developed nations, but the industry remains one of the largest and most influential in national and international politics. 


Tourism & Real Estate
Tourism fuels some of the biggest development worldwide. Cruise ship operators are under fire for dumping waste in the oceans and exhaust into the skies; ski resorts an golf courses scar the land and pollute waterways. Tourism is a multibillion-dollar industry that frequently puts luxury ahead of the environment, respect for indigenous cultures, and sensitivity to land use issues. Real estate, some of it fueled by tourism, but also by the expansion of business, runs up against many of the other issues we cover - water use, land use, and the use of political influence to muscle into desirable locations, often with tax-breaks as a bonus. With real-estate the latest boom (or perhaps more appropriately "bubble") industry, issues associated with development - such as suburban sprawl - have become more immediate. 


 Transportation
Planes, trains, and automobiles ... almost every industry we cover requires a means of getting its goods from point A to point B. It could be your wintertime Granny Smith apple, shipped from Chile; or your iPod, made of parts flown in from China and assembled in California until it is trucked to your city, or flown back to your country. The gasoline in your car (which perhaps came from Detroit, Japan, Korea, or Germany) may be from Venezuela or Iraq. Almost everything you buy is better traveled than you could ever hope to be. And that translates into major profit for the corporations that own the means of transport.


War & Disaster Profiteering
CorpWatch looks at the intertwined relationship between private industry, the US Armed Forces and federal policy makers. We look at the domestic and foreign impacts of this dangerous complex.

Domestic Spying, Inc.Industries

by Tim Shorrock , Special to CorpWatch 
November 27th, 2007

A new intelligence institution to be inaugurated soon by the Bush administration will allow government spying agencies to conduct broad surveillance and reconnaissance inside the United States for the first time. Under a proposal being reviewed by Congress, a National Applications Office (NAO) will be established to coordinate how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and domestic law enforcement and rescue agencies use imagery and communications intelligence picked up by U.S. spy satellites. If the plan goes forward, the NAO will create the legal mechanism for an unprecedented degree of domestic intelligence gathering that would make the U.S. one of the world's most closely monitored nations. Until now, domestic use of electronic intelligence from spy satellites was limited to scientific agencies with no responsibility for national security or law enforcement. 

The intelligence-sharing system to be managed by the NAO will rely heavily on private contractors including Boeing, BAE Systems, L-3 Communications and Science Applications International Corporation ( SAIC ). These companies already provide technology and personnel to U.S. agencies involved in foreign intelligence, and the NAO greatly expands their markets. Indeed, at an intelligence conference in San Antonio, Texas, last month, the titans of the industry were actively lobbying intelligence officials to buy products specifically designed for domestic surveillance.

More on this link .. 

Top 100 military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq

May 19, 2008

Books of Note: Spies for Hire - Booz Hamilton Allen & outsourced intelligence


A daily TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, airing on over 700 stations, pioneering the largest community media collaboration in the U.S.

Spies for Hire: Carlyle Group to Become Owner of “One of America’s Largest Private Intelligence Armies”

The secretive investment fund the Carlyle Group is in the process of buying part of Booz Allen Hamiliton, the major military and intelligence contractor. We speak with investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, author of the new book Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Tim Shorrock, investigative journalist and author of the new book Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.

AMY GOODMAN: The Carlyle Group is one of the world’s largest and most secretive investment funds. Nicknamed the Ex-President’s Club, Carlyle’s employees have included both President Bush, H.W. and George W. Bush, former British Prime Minister John Major, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci. Amidst growing public scrutiny over its dealings, the company has recently scaled back its holdings in military contractors and its links to controversial political figures.

But that appears to be changing. On Friday, the intelligence firm Booz Allen Hamilton said it would sell its government-oriented unit to Carlyle Group for $2.5 billion. Booz Allen has been a major figure in the privatization of government intelligence. Current National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell was Booz Allen’s director of defense programs before his appointment last year. Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterror programs, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. The Carlyle-Booz Allen deal awaits shareholder and regulator approval.

Tim Shorrock is the author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. In a new article for CorpWatch, Shorrock says Carlyle’s purchase of Booz Allen would lead to its “re-[emergence] as the owner of one of America’s largest private intelligence armies.” Tim Shorrock joins us now from Washington, D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Tim.

TIM SHORROCK: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, start off by talking about the significance of Carlyle buying, if it’s approved, Booz Allen’s government unit.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, as you said before, as you said earlier, Carlyle has kind of scaled down its defense investments in recent years, but this is a major plunge back into it. Booz Allen Hamilton is one of the largest intelligence contractors in America and also plays a very strategic role, I would say, in US intelligence as an adviser to agencies such as the National Security Agency. And it also advises all the key combat commands of the United States military and other key agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. And they don’t just provide technology. They provide, you know, all kinds of expertise and all kinds of management, consulting to these agencies, you know, help them decide how to spend their money down the road. And they have many, many people on staff who have played very senior roles in intelligence.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Michael McConnell and his journey from Booz Allen to National Intelligence?

TIM SHORROCK: Well, McConnell began as an intelligence officer in the US Navy. He became well known to Americans when he was the intelligence adviser to Colin Powell during the first Gulf War. And then after that, he was appointed to be director of the National Security Agency at the very tail end of the first Bush administration. He ran the National Security Agency, which of course does eavesdropping and surveillance on telephone calls and emails all over the world, including in the United States. He ran the NSA for a few years, and then he went directly to Booz Allen, where he became the director—he was a vice president of Booz Allen, he was a director of their military intelligence programs.

The important thing for readers—for listeners to know about the military intelligence is that the Pentagon controls about 85 percent of the entire intelligence budget. And so, when we’re talking about military intelligence, we’re talking about a huge swathe of intelligence. And so, in that position, he advised the NSA, he advised many of the other agencies. And so, he played a very important role in intelligence. And I would say that people like McConnell, when they’re in the private sector playing this kind of consulting role to the agencies, they might as well be called an intelligence official with a proviso that they are working for the private sector. So then, as you also mentioned, during his time at Booz Allen, they played an important advisory role in many important Bush’s administration programs, such as Admiral Poindexter’s program, which was designed to, you know, collect all kinds of information on American citizens to root out—to allegedly root out terrorism here.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, can you lay out what you call the intelligence-industrial complex?

TIM SHORROCK: Well, in my book Spies for Hire, I describe this intelligence-industrial complex as a $50 billion industry, and I base that on what our intelligence budget is now and figures I’ve gotten on the percentage of money that’s actually spent on contracts. It’s about 70 percent of our entire intelligence budget goes to private contracts.

So this complex is about—I would say about a hundred companies. There’s many more, but, you know, a hundred companies that really play important roles have major contracts. And they range in size from Lockheed Martin and companies like Northrop Grumman, big defense contractors that we usually associate with, you know, building planes or big ships are very involved in intelligence at all levels, to small companies like Spectel, which is a little company in Virginia that employs about 200 or 300 people with high-level security clearances who go and work for the CIA and other agencies and missions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

You also have companies like Booz Allen, which are more like consulting companies that have millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts with the agencies. Booz Allen, I might add, also not only has contracts with the various agencies, but as well as with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. So they’re advising our intelligence leaders on, you know, what kind of technology to buy, all aspects of intelligence.

AMY GOODMAN: As you say, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, is the first contractor in US history to take the leading role in the US intelligence community.

TIM SHORROCK: That’s right. And that’s a pretty important fact for people to know. I mean, in the past, leaders of the intelligence—there’s only been, you know, two directors of National Intelligence under the intelligence, so-called, reform bill that passed in 2004. The first one was an ambassador, Negroponte, and then McConnell took over. But never in the past has there been someone gone straight from the private sector to running US intelligence. They always come out of the—in the past, it was always the Director of Central Intelligence was the director of all intelligence, was the President’s primary adviser on intelligence. So here, you have somebody who spent, you know, over a decade as a very high-level private consultant running intelligence operations for profit being the President’s primary adviser on intelligence.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, start naming names. Talk about the US corporations, the multinational companies that are involved in the intelligence-industrial complex.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, like I said, there’s a lot of companies that people recognize, because they’re big defense contractors, and they’ve grown—like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, BEA Systems of Britain, for example—they’ve grown in intelligence by—often by buying smaller companies and putting together intelligence units of their own.

There’s also companies like—at sort of the middle level, I call them, companies like CACI International (CACI), which as listeners know is—was one of the contractors involved in the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. They’re a very, very important intelligence contractor, and they operate at all levels of all the agencies, from the CIA to the NSA to many military intelligence agencies.

There’s other companies here in Washington. There’s one called Mantec International, for example, that does a lot of work for the National Security Agency, particularly in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where they’re out actually on the frontlines, you know, tracking enemy weapons systems and listening in on conversations between insurgent groups and helping the US military track people down.

So, it covers a very wide range of companies. And probably most of these companies, very few people know about them.

We talked at the top of the hour about Carlyle buying Booz Allen. Carlyle, in 2003, bought a company called QinetiQ, which is spelled with a Q. It’s a British company. And QinetiQ used to be the defense intelligence research group or research unit of the British military, and it was privatized in the early part of the Bush administration. The Carlysle Group bought it, pumped hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital into it, and it was—already had contracts—QinetiQ already had contracts with the Pentagon, various defense agencies here. But with Carlyle’s money, they really advanced into the intelligence market. And with that capital, QinetiQ bought five or six medium- sized intelligence companies and really expanded into the intelligence-industrial complex.

And that’s sort of typical of the way companies expand. They buy companies primarily for the contracts they hold with intelligence agencies. So Carlyle did it with QinetiQ. Then they sold their holdings, made about a half-a-billion-dollar profit off of it. And then, they’ve obviously been looking around and decided Booz Allen would make a very profitable investment. And I’m sure over the next few years we will see a fair amount of expansion from Booz Allen, as Carlyle pumps in more capital and they buy other companies and grow even larger.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Tim Shorrock, investigative journalist. His new book is out; it’s called Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. We’ll come back to this conversation in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue our conversation with Tim Shorrock. Spies for Hire is his book, The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. Tim, finishing up on Carlyle taking over Booz Allen, if approved, of course Carlyle gained great notoriety after the September 11th attacks. They were having their big meeting in Washington at the Hay-Adams, and their big investors—some of their big investors—were the bin Laden family, not Osama bin Laden, but bin Laden—other bin Laden brothers. And in the end, you know, there were the Bushes, there were James Baker, and there were the bin Ladens. They were forced to sell out, is that right?

TIM SHORROCK: Yeah, they—after that news appeared—I think it was first reported in the Wall Street Journal—they quickly asked the bin Laden family to withdraw their investment, which they did. But they have a lot of investment from—I mean, you know, Carlyle is a private equity fund, and what they do is they get investments from very large investment funds, many of them overseas. Many American pension funds controlled by US unions, such as the Service Employees International Union, have very large investments in Carlyle. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, for example, actually owns five percent of the Carlyle Group. So they’re well connected to various facets of American capital. And, yes, the bin Ladens pulled out. Lately, they’ve had investment from a large government investment fund in Abu Dhabi. But a lot of these people, as you mentioned earlier, like George Bush, Sr. and James Baker, have withdrawn, but they still employ many, many people who have come from high-level positions within government and clearly have analyzed what the markets are and what potential profit there is in a company like Booz Allen.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about—what does it mean when private companies are working with the CIA, in terms of the top-secret information that they have? You begin your prologue with a man named John Humphrey, a former CIA officer. Talk about what he said.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, I was at an intelligence conference, and this man from—he was from CACI International—was speaking about sort of the general experience of contractors, and he was saying how difficult it was to be in a position like in Abu Ghraib, when you’re a contractor and you have the government asking you to do things and the rules are unclear. And he was expressing some real discomfort about a contractor being in that role.

And I was rather stunned, because I had never heard anyone from CACI express any remorse or any second thoughts about what had happened at Abu Ghraib. Their CEO—his name is Jack London—went on a huge media offensive, which they’re still on. They just published a little pamphlet about their—you know, how badly they were treated during the Abu Ghraib scandal. But the fact is, you know, you have contractors like this that create a profit center out of interrogating enemy prisoners. They create a profit center out of interrogating prisoners in Guantanamo.

When did this begin to be part of American capitalism, when you have very sensitive operations like this—in some cases, operations we shouldn’t even be doing—become profit centers? I think this is an extremely dangerous trend. And lately, there’s been some attempts in Congress—right now, there’s an attempt in Congress to have some legislation that would keep contractors out of this area of interrogation, keep them out of the area of renditions, where they’re flying people, capturing people in places like Syria or, you know, in Italy and flying them to places where they can be tortured by other governments. There’s been private corporations involved in that, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: And you point out chain of command issues, where you will have one of these private contractors telling soldiers what to do.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, that’s exactly, apparently, what happened in Abu Ghraib. And the problem is, you know—there’s been a lot of testimony, and there’s been a really good film, was made about—that included shots from Abu Ghraib and interviews with prisoners, and there’s now a lawsuit that’s been filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights against CACI International for its role there.

But from what we do know from testimony at some of the trials of the lower-level people that were at Abu Ghraib that were eventually convicted for their role in the abuse is that, in fact, some of the worst practices there were endorsed and pushed by some of these contractors, they claim in the trials and some of the other testimony, from people from CACI International. For example, introducing the use of attack dogs to frighten and terrorize prisoners there, that was actually in part introduced by individuals from this company.

And, you know, we know the people at the top, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Cambone and others who wanted to step up the practices there at Abu Ghraib, they’ve never—they’ve always escaped responsibility, and so did the companies. And this problem of like, where is the legal responsibility when they break the law, is still yet to be clarified.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, you write about a report that was suppressed last year, official information about the scope of intelligence outsourcing. Can you talk about what happened?

TIM SHORROCK: Well, when I started writing this book and researching this book, I was sort of drawing on figures I had done. I did an article for Mother Jones a few years ago where I had estimated, based on interviews with quite a few people here in Washington, that the total outsourcing in intelligence was about 50 percent; about half the budget at that time, I thought, I estimated, was being spent on contracts. And by 2006 or so, I was looking for some firm figures, 2007.

And finally, the Office of Director of National Intelligence actually commissioned an internal study. They ordered all the agencies, all the sixteen agencies of the intelligence community, to provide them with figures about how much contracting went on in their specific agencies, what the major companies were, the percentage, the breakdown of the work force between contractors and government employees. And they put this report together. There was a lot of press reports in the New York Times, LA Times, other places that were following this, where people were expecting, and it seemed like they were going to actually release sort of the basic—you know, the top figures of this, so the American people and Congress would get a good idea of the extent of contacting.

But when the time came to release this report, Admiral McConnell, who of course had come from one of the major contractors and had knowledge of and contacts with all the companies that were involved, they decided not to put it out. And so, I think the report was released to certain members of Congress who have access to highly classified material, but it was not released in general in Congress and certainly not to the American people.

But the figure that I got about a year ago—I got a leaked document that was an unclassified document that was a pie chart that showed 70 percent—that’s seven-o percent—of our intelligence budget money going into the hands of private contractors. So the fact is that, you know, the American people aren’t told this by the American government, and many people in Congress have no idea of the extent of contracting, and it’s supposed to be their job to provide oversight to our intelligence community. And when you have—they don’t even have knowledge of what’s going on with 70 percent of the budget. That makes oversight a little bit of a joke.

AMY GOODMAN: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ordering a study of contracting with the sixteen agencies that make up the community, when it came time to release, the office said no? They refused to make it public?

TIM SHORROCK: That’s right. They said this information would help America’s enemies. It would—you know, it would basically—would help—you know, I guess they were talking about al-Qaeda. If al-Qaeda or somebody like that knew that, you know, 50 percent of the CIA was outsourced, that would help them in some way. But that’s all—you know, you can figure a lot of this stuff out from public information. I talked to a lot of people and got some pretty firm estimates.

Some of the agencies, to their credit, do provide a breakdown. For example, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which provides intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, told me that 35 percent of their workforce is private-sector contractors. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which provides imagery, satellite—secret satellite imagery and mapping to military units and also to national intelligence agencies, their workforce is 50 percent contractors. The National Reconnaissance Office, which is one of our most secret agencies and controls all military spy satellites, their contracted workforce is 95 percent, so it’s a huge proportion of their workforce.

AMY GOODMAN: And you have some other astounding figures. At least half to 75 percent of people at NSA headquarters—the NSA, National Security Agency, many times larger than the CIA—are contractors, 50 to 75 percent contractors working in the private sector.

TIM SHORROCK: Right. The NSA was one of the agencies that basically refused to talk on any level to me about this, but that’s what I’ve been able to gather from talking to people who actually work for—people employed by companies that are contracted to the NSA.

But what your listeners need to understand is that a lot of these contractors actually work in these buildings. So the National Security Agency is up—just up the road from here in Fort Meade, Maryland. They have a huge black building where they all work. And so, many of the people actually working inside that building are contractors working for Booz Allen Hamilton or Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics Information Systems. All the companies we’ve talked about, they’re actually sitting there doing this classified work.

And the NSA has been a real sort of pioneer in the use of outsourced intelligence. They went into it really heavily in the late 1990s and started expanding their contractor base from a few hundred companies, now where it’s, you know, literally in the thousands. And so, that means that, you know, we know the NSA tracks and listens to our conversations, listens to literally millions and millions of conversations, cell phones, email communications overseas, as well. And so, that analysis, a lot of that analysis, is being carried out by private-sector companies with people with high-level security clearances.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we end, Tim, I wanted to go to a piece you’ve just broken in Salon.com called “Blacklisted by the Bush Government.” Explain.

TIM SHORROCK: Well, this is a story about how NSA surveillance can have a domestic impact. I write about an Islamic charity that was based in Saudi Arabia that was under investigation, that has been under investigation by the US government for ties to terrorism. They had a fairly large chapter that they invested in in Oregon, in Ashland, Oregon. This was in the late 1990s, where they became affiliated. And so, my story is about the effects of this investigation on this Oregon chapter, which, based on the reporting I did, there are no—there are no—there’s no evidence of connections to terrorism. Yet, by declaring them specially designated global terrorists, they were able to shut the organization down and basically drive it out of business with no evidentiary hearing, no ability by these people to challenge the evidence, which is all classified. All the important evidence is classified. I find it a severe distortion of our justice system and very alarming.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the players involved? Talk about the Saudi sports star.

TIM SHORROCK: Oh, Soliman Al-Buthe is one of the key figures in this story, and he was—the charity was called the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. And the man I talk—I went to Saudi Arabia to interview him, he was an adviser to them, and he helped set up Al-Haramain in Oregon. He’s now an environmental figure. He’s a government official in the city of Riyadh, where basically his job is inspecting all restaurants, you know, for health problems. And so, he’s called a specially designated global terrorist, as well, and he’s called that by the UN because the US designated him as such. He also has not been able to see any classified evidence. The US says he’s a terrorist. But I think—you know, last year, the US embassy in Riyadh invited him to a function, and which they rescinded after it was reported in the Portland Oregonian.

But a lot of people like that that I met in Saudi Arabia, they’re called—they’ve been accused of being terrorist supporters in some way by the United States, but they operate there freely and they seem to have a lot of love for the United States. So when I met this man Soliman, he loves to watch the Lakers. He has his TV all the time to Chris Matthews of MSNBC. And it was kind of humorous to think of him as a terrorist. But I think the problem is, the organization itself in some of the countries that it operated in, according to US intelligence, did provide money and supplies to some Jihad groups overseas. But the issue is, the actual evidence can never be seen, and so we have to trust—we’re supposed to trust the US government’s judgment on this. And I think in the—

AMY GOODMAN: And you begin your piece with this conversation that he, in Saudi Arabia, is having with his lawyers in the United States, and he’s trying to figure out how to pay them. And, well, then you tell the story of what happens and who’s listening.

TIM SHORROCK: Right. Well, the significance of the Al-Haramain case is that this man, Soliman Al-Buthe, that I interviewed was on the phone with two of his lawyers here in the United States in March 2004, at a period when the NSA surveillance program was being questioned by the Justice Department. His conversation was monitored by the National Security Agency without a warrant. The only reason the Al-Haramain lawyers found out about it was they were given a document by accident by the Treasury Department, which does these investigations of global terrorists and puts the financial screws on them. They accidentally gave them an NSA document, highly classified document, that showed they were under surveillance.

On the basis of that document, they have sued the National Security Agency for warrantless—for violating FISA, violating the 1978 law that regulates foreign intelligence by the NSA. And that lawsuit is the only lawsuit still in play in which the NSA warrantless program of the Bush administration might be found illegal by a federal judge in a federal court.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, I want to thank you very much for being with us, investigative journalist, author of the new book Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.


March 15, 2008

SIGIR UPDATE; on the Arms profiteers ..

Revealed: Top officials in Iraq contract fraud

Released on 14/03/2008

Revealed: Top officials in Iraq contract fraud

Iraq investigator Stuart Bowen (left) has released his report into Robert Stein (right), the official who compromised reconstruction and defrauded the US taxpayer of millions. As John Allen reports, it makes for sober reading.

Successful pursuit of the Bloom-Stein conspiracy, the first major fraud prosecution in Iraq, has been reported to the US Senate by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, Jr.

This was the outcome of collaboration among several US law enforcement agencies including the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service who together formed ‘Spitfire’ a nickname for the Special Investigative Task Force on Iraq Reconstruction.

Prosecution was initiated after a SIGIR audit revealed a criminal conspiracy in Hilla, Iraq, involving tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent contracts, bribes and kickbacks. This led to nine individuals, including US Army officers and high-ranking civil servants, being indicted. Four have been convicted and others are going to trial.

Presenting the facts to the US Senate Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Bowen’s report said that Robert Stein, the former Coalition Provisional Authority’s (CPA) comptroller and funding officer in Hilla, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, possession of machine guns, and being ‘a felon in possession of a firearm’. The conspiracy is estimated to have defrauded the CPA of more than US$8.6 million.

Stein was sentenced in January 2007 to nine years in prison and three years of supervised release. He was ordered to pay US$3.6 million in restitution and forfeit $3.6 million in assets.

In 2006 construction contractor Philip Bloom pleaded guilty to defrauding the CPA. Bloom admitted that along with Robert Stein and numerous public officials, including several high-ranking (Lieutenant Colonel) US Army officers, he had conspired to rig bids for federally-funded contracts awarded by CPA-South Central Region.

The effect of the conspiracy was that all of the contracts were awarded to Bloom, to a value exceeding US$8.6 million. He admitted paying Stein and other public officials over $2 million from proceeds of the fraudulently awarded contracts and stealing at least $2 million from the CPA.

Bloom was sentenced to 46 months in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $3.6 million in restitution and forfeit $3.6 million in assets.

Later that year, an employee of a government contractor in Iraq pleaded guilty to a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He offered a bribe ($60,000, according to Court filings) to an Iraqi police officer for his assistance in procuring approximately 1,000 armoured vests and other equipment for approximately $1 million.

The accused was sentenced to three years in prison, two years of supervised release and 250 hours of community service.

A Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army Reserve pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering in connection with the Bloom-Stein scheme. This operation was used to launder over $300,000 through various bank accounts.

Last year the officer was sentenced to 21 months in prison followed by three years supervised release. He was ordered also to forfeit $144,500, equivalent to the cash payments he received from Bloom for his money laundering services.

A master sergeant in the US Air Force working for the Department of Defense received a 12 months and one day prison sentence for accepting illegal bribes from Bloom in exchange for furnishing him with sensitive contract information prior to awards.

Trials for three other men caught up in the Bloom-Stein conspiracy are understood to be in progress and pending for two more.

Commenting on the situation in Iraq, Mr. Bowen’s report said that corruption remains endemic. “Unless checked, it is doubtful that many US funded reconstruction efforts will be able to achieve their intended purpose.”

see also:

A summary of the Bloom/Stein Conspiracy

  1. ^ Contractor Pleads Guilty In Case Involving Bribery, Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme In Al-Hillah, Iraq, United States Department of Justice, April 18, 2006
  2. ^ FORMER COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY OFFICIAL AND CONTRACTOR ARRESTED IN CASE INVOLVING FRAUD AND MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEME IN IRAQ, United States Department of Justice, November 17, 2005
  3. ^ Philip Bloom arrested in Iraq reconstruction deals scandal, Bucharest Daily News, December 16, 2005
  4. ^ A Summary of the Bloom/ Stein Conspiracy, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, October 30, 2006

And on the one that has "got away" .. JAMES WOOLSEY ..

James Woolsey

Former CIA director James Woolsey was an outspoken proponent of regime change in Iraq, even before 9/11. And since the Iraq war began, he and his wife Suzanne have done pretty well. Woolsey is a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor called “the shadow intelligence community” by one former CIA deputy director.

In addition to serving on the board of Fluor, one of the largest Iraq reconstruction contractors, Suzanne Woolsey also works as a trustee at the Institute for Defense Analysis, a nonprofit corporation paid to do analytical and strategic research for top Pentagon officials.

For Mr. Woolsey, the war was the ultimate pay-off for years of anti-Saddam advocacy. In addition to being a member of the neoconservative cabal known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), he was also appointed by Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld to the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board, as well as advisory boards for the Navy and CIA.

Woolsey was also a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a private group founded to build support for the war in 2002 by former Lockheed Martin vice president Robert Jackson, another PNAC member who also wrote the Republican Party foreign policy platform in 2000.

Woolsey and the CLI lobbied members of Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which allocated nearly $100 million to Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraq National Congress (INC), for whom Woolsey was a paid adviser. Right after 9/11, Woolsey went off to Europe, returning with an unnamed source’s dubious claim that he had observed a meeting between Mohammed Atta, the lead 9/11 skyjacker, and an Iraqi agent in Prague.

As soon as the occupation began, Woolsey turned his attention to helping businesses get in on the action, becoming a featured speaker at related contractor and investor gatherings.

In addition to working for Booz Allen, he is a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a Carlyle-like investment strategies firm, and has connections to Global Options, a risk management consulting firm headed by Neil Livingstone, with whom Woolsey serves on the Defense Policy Board.

Besides Woolsey and Livingstone, seven other members of the 30-member Defense Policy Board selected by Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld have stood to benefit financially from the war, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Multinational Monitor Contributing Editor Charlie Cray is Director of the Center for Corporate Policy.

March 12, 2008

Yes ,read this whole thing .. Carlyle and Booz Allen Hamilton

Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton

by Tim Shorrock , Special to CorpWatch
March 8th, 2008


Cartoon by Khalil Bendib

The Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity funds, may soon acquire the $2 billion government contracting business of consulting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the biggest suppliers of technology and personnel to the U.S. government’s spy agencies. Carlyle manages more than $75 billion in assets and has bought and sold a long string of military contractors since the early 1990s. But in recent years it has significantly reduced its investments in that industry. If it goes ahead with the widely reported plan to buy Booz Allen, it will re-emerge as the owner of one of America’s largest private intelligence armies.

Reports of a potential Carlyle acquisition of Booz Allen’s government unit began circulating among U.S. military contractors in December 2007, after Booz Allen’s senior partners and board members – a group of 300 vice presidents who own the privately-held firm – gathered at company headquarters in McLean, Virginia, for an extraordinary two-day meeting.

According to a December 15 letter to Booz Allen employees from CEO Ralph W. Shrader that was released by the firm, the vice presidents signed off on a “new strategic direction” that would involve separating the company’s commercial and government units and operating them as separate companies. That was widely seen, both inside and outside the company, as a sign that a sale of one or both of the units was imminent. Shrader said the company hoped to come to a resolution of the issues involved by March 31, 2008.

In January 2008, major newspapers – each quoting unnamed people close to the situation – reported that discussions between Booz Allen and Carlyle about the sale of the government unit were underway. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal will be “centered on Booz Allen’s influence in defense and intelligence contracting. If an agreement is reached the sale price will likely be around $2 billion.”

Christopher Ullman, Carlyle’s chief spokesman, could neither confirm nor deny that a deal was in the works, and declined to comment to CorpWatch about the reports. Because of Carlyle’s long experience in the defense sector, he added, such companies “would be a priority for us when the price is right and it’s the right fit for us.” George Farrar, a Booz Allen spokesman, said his company “has refused to discuss particulars of any ongoing discussions” and would not comment beyond what Shrader wrote in his December 15 missive to Booz Allen’s workforce.

Who Is Booz Allen Hamilton?

In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton, a privately held company based in McLean, Virginia, had a global staff of 18,000 and annual revenues of $3.7 billion. Its work for U.S. government agencies accounts for more than 50 percent of its business. Notably Booz Allen is a key adviser and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency (NSA), and – as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense and most of the Pentagon’s combatant commands.

Shadow Intelligence Agency

Booz Allen prides itself on the long-term personal relationships it has forged between its personnel and their government clients. “We stay for a lifetime,” Mark J. Gerencser, the senior vice president in charge of Booz Allen’s government contracting division, remarked in 2006. A quick study of their biographies posted on Booz Allen’s Website suggests that this is indeed true – the senior management have shuttled back and forth between the company and the government for their entire lives.

As the director of Booz Allen’s U.S. government business, for example, Gerencser serves in “several broad-based roles,” including “representing industry” to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which manage the Pentagon’s vast intelligence operations. He is also a member of Booz Allen’s leadership team that sets the strategic direction of the company, and has run many of the war games staged by Booz Allen for its government clients.

Just below him in the company’s intelligence hierarchy is Ken Wiegand, another senior vice president. Weigand came to Booz Allen in 1983 after working for a decade in Air Force intelligence, and now leads the firm’s work for national intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the Department of Homeland Security. His specialty, the Website says, includes imagery intelligence operations, which are managed by the NGA, one of Booz Allen’s most important clients.

Senior vice president Joseph W. Mahaffee, a veteran of naval intelligence, is the leader of Booz Allen’s Maryland procurement office business, which puts him in charge of the company’s contracts with the NSA in Fort Meade. He focuses on “meeting the Information Assurance mission objectives” of the NSA with various technology services, including systems engineering, software development and “advanced telecommunications analysis.”

Another key Booz Allen figure at the NSA is Marty Hill, who came to the company after a 35-year career in signals intelligence and electronic warfare and previously served as an expert on “information operations capabilities and policy” for Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. He leads of team of 1,200 professionals engaged in all aspects of “signals intelligence” including technical analysis, systems development and operations.

Vice President Pamela Lentz is a former cryptology officer with the Navy and once worked as a program manager for TRW, one of the nation’s oldest intelligence contractors (it is now owned by Northrop Grumman). She is Booz Allen’s “client service officer” for the DIA and other military intelligence markets, which includes intelligence units within the Navy, Air Force, Army, the unified combatant commands and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Among other tasks, Lentz manages a 120-person Booz Allen team that supports the NRO, the Pentagon agency that manages the nation’s military spy satellites. She also runs a task force that supports human intelligence collection efforts at the DIA.

Vice President Laurene Gallo, a former intelligence analyst at the NSA, leads a Booz Allen “intelligence research and analysis” team that support several agencies, including the CIA, the DNI and the National Counterterrrorism Center. Vice President Richard Wilhelm, whose job at Booz Allen is to work with the CIA and the ODNI, came to the company after a long career in U.S. intelligence that included stints directing the Joint Intelligence Center for Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and the NSA’s first director of information warfare.

Vice President William Wansley, a former Army intelligence officer, leads a team of experts in “strategic and business planning” who support the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, the part of the CIA that conducts covert operations and recruits foreign spies, as well as the DNI. Another vice president Robert W. Noonan, a retired Army lieutenant general who once served as the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence and the commanding general of the U.S. Army’s Intelligence and Security Command, is in charge of expanding Booz Allen’s military intelligence business within all the armed services, the combatant commands, the DIA and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

It is each of these vice presidents who are poised to personally profit from a corporate takeover by the Carlyle Group.

On its website, Booz Allen describes its intelligence work as part of its broader expertise in information technology. “Whether dealing with homeland security, peacekeeping operations, or the battlefield, success depend on the ability to collect, safeguard, store, distribute, fuse, and share information – on getting the right information to the right place at the right time,” it says. “Our security professionals work in partnership with clients to develop capabilities … for protecting information and networks against cyber and physical threats.”

That has not always been the case: Booz Allen Hamilton was founded as a management consultancy in 1914 in Chicago by three businessmen whose surnames gave the firm its name. In 1940, after more than three decades of giving advice to top ranking companies in America’s manufacturing and service economy, such as Montgomery Ward, Goodyear Tire and the Illinois State Railroad, Booz Allen started working for the U.S. military, where its clients included the Army, the Navy, and, after the war, the Air Force and the Pentagon.

Its initial contracts with the Navy in 1940 set the pace for its military work: as a management consultant, Booz Allen helped the Navy restructure for World War II and permeated its ranks with contractors (“Each Navy bureau had a Booz rep,” Investors Daily reported in a 2005 profile of the firm). That relationship served as a template for Booz Allen’s later work in intelligence and national security where its personnel worked inside government agencies alongside public employees.

Since the late-1990s, Booz Allen has forged a particularly close relationship with the NSA, the spy agency that monitors global telephone, e-mail and Internet traffic for the U.S. military and political leaders, which hired Booz Allen as its chief outside consultant on Project Groundbreaker. This $4 billion project outsourced the NSA’s internal communications and networking systems to a consortium led by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and the IT subsidiary of Northrop Grumman.

Today, among the many services Booz Allen provides to intelligence agencies, according to its Website, are war-gaming – simulated drills in which military and intelligence officials test their response to potential threats like terrorist attacks – as well as data-mining and analysis of imagery and intelligence picked up by U.S. spy satellites, the design of cryptographic, or code-breaking, systems (an NSA specialty) and “outsourcing/privatization strategy and planning.” The company’s 2007 annual report spells out several other areas of expertise, including “all source analysis,” an intelligence specialty managed by the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that draws on public sources of information, such as foreign newspapers and textbooks, to add texture to data gathered by spies and electronic surveillance.

According to the company’s annual report, Booz Allen is also working on one of the most important spy initiatives launched in recent years: the Cryptographic Modernization Program. Air Force General John C. Koziol, the commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, described this program as an attempt to combine a variety of intelligence technologies to pick up tell-tale signs of chemicals and other substances – into a single electronic package that can be used by combat and special operations commanders to track the enemy.

Booz Allen is a full partner in the project, according to General Koziol, an idea that has been “fully endorsed” by the Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the nation’s spy chief – himself a Booz Allen alumnus (see box).

Revolving Door

To carry out its tasks at the intelligence agencies, Booz Allen has hired a dazzling array of former national security officials and foot-soldiers. In 2002, Information Week reported that Booz Allen had more than 1,000 former intelligence officers on its payroll. In 2007, as this reporter was researching a chapter about Booz Allen for his forthcoming book, he asked the company if it could confirm that number or provide a more accurate one, and received an e-mail reply from spokesman George Farrar: “It is certainly possible, but as a privately held corporation we consider that information to be proprietary and do not disclose.”

Buried deep on the company's Web site, however, a much larger number is confirmed in an explanation of a Booz Allen information technology contract with the DIA, which carries out intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It stated that the Booz Allen team “employs more than 10,000 TS/SCI cleared personnel.” TS/SCI stands for top secret-sensitive compartmented intelligence, one of the highest possible security ratings, which would make Booz Allen one of the largest employers of cleared personnel in the United States.

Many of these former intelligence officers at Booz Allen, do the same jobs as they did for the government. For example, Keith Hall, a Booz Allen vice president initially worked in Army intelligence and on one of the congressional intelligence committees. In the early 1990s, he was hired by the CIA to manage budgets and policy development for then-Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates. During that time, he played an instrumental role in creating the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which was later renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. During the Clinton administration, Hall was named Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for space programs and, simultaneously, director of the NRO, the agency that manages the nation’s military satellite program.

Now, as a Booz Allen executive, Hall leads a “strategic intelligence initiative” that integrates the company’s extensive contracting activities for the NRO and the NGA. Recently, one of his most important tasks involved chairing a 2005 homeland security study group that recommended a major expansion of information and data-sharing between U.S. spy agencies that work outside the country and domestic law enforcement, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). “The study’s findings have become a road map for the government in making decisions related to critical information sharing in support of homeland security,” Booz Allen boasts in its 2007 annual report. (See our article, Domestic Spying, Inc.)

Who is the Carlyle Group?

The Carlyle Group is a private equity fund – a group of financial advisers that invests large sums of money from pension funds, large corporations, wealthy individuals and foreign banks into privately held companies in many different industries, and then run those companies until the market is right to sell them at a substantial profit. During the early years of the George W. Bush administration, it gained attention – and some notoriety – because of the large number of former high-ranking political figures it had attracted as advisers and managers. They included former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of State James Baker and former British Prime Minister John Major.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, Carlyle was in the news again when newspapers revealed that Osama Bin Laden’s family in Saudi Arabia – which owns one of the world’s largest construction companies – held a stake in the fund. The stake was quickly liquidated after the news broke.

Until the recent slowdown in the financial markets, the private equity industry, with over $160 billion under its control, was widely seen as one of the most important drivers of the global economy, pumping venture capital into high-tech startups and buy-out capital into corporate reorganizations worldwide. They are extremely active in Britain, where more than 20 percent of the private sector workforce is employed by companies that are, or have been, the targets of private equity investments. Business magazines credit them with breaking up some of America’s worst-run conglomerates and bringing competition to Japan’s highly regulated and incestuous banking industry.

“Private equity funds now wield much of the transformational power at the heart of the capitalist system,” The Economist magazine recently observed. In addition to Carlyle, which has more than $75 billion under management, industry leaders include the Blackstone Group ($30 billion), Bain Capital ($27 billion), Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. ($26 billion) and Texas Pacific Group ($20 billion).

Carlyle, the largest of the funds, is best-known for owning large military contractors and aerospace contractors, such as United Defense Industries, the maker of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other weapons systems, which it sold to BAE Systems in 2004, and Vought Aircraft Industries, a major producer of structural assemblies for commercial, military and business aircraft, which it still holds. Other military contractors that have gone through Carlyle’s hands include EG&G, LTV Aerospace and Magnavox Electronic Systems.

During the 1990s, when it made most of these acquisitions, the fund was led by former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, who served during the Carter administration as deputy director of the CIA. During his tenure, Carlyle bought and sold nearly a dozen companies active in the intelligence industry. They include BDM International, an influential company that, during the 1990s, provided some of the U.S. Army’s first contract interpreters and, through a subsidiary known as Vinnell Corporation, once trained the Saudi National Guard. It was eventually sold to Northrop Grumman and is now part of that company’s huge intelligence division.

U.S. Investigative Service, which Carlyle bought in 1996 and sold in 2007, is the largest provider of security investigations for employees and contractors hired by the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and other agencies, and in recent months has been training Iraqi police commandoes under contract to the Pentagon. (See CorpWatch coverage of USIS.)

Another spectacular acquisition was QinetiQ, the privatized arm of Britain’s military research corporation. It was acquired by Carlyle in 2003, sold in 2007, and recently emerged as one of the premiere U.S. intelligence contractors – after netting a $470 million profit for Carlyle. (See our article “QinetiQ goes Kinetic”.)

Carlyle, however, has divested itself of most of its military holdings. “In our current U.S. portfolio, there’s none,” Carlyle’s Ullman told CorpWatch. Today, most of its investments are concentrated in commercial industries, such as real estate and banking. During a few months’ span in 2006, for instance, Carlyle did a “manufacturing deal, an education deal, a consumer products deal, and buildings deal, and a financial services deal,” according to an account in the Washingtonian magazine. Its holdings are extensive and pervasive: every time you rent a car from Hertz, catch a quick breakfast at Dunkin’ Donuts or get ice-cream at Baskin-Robbins, you’re sending money to Carlyle.

A $2 billion acquisition of Booz Allen’s contracting business would therefore put Carlyle back in the big leagues of military contractors.
Other key executives who came to Booz Allen from the spy agencies include R. James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA, who was hired in 2003 to run Booz Allen’s “global resilience” division, which advises corporations on security issues, and Joan A. Dempsey, a career U.S. intelligence official and a former top aide to former CIA Director George Tenet, who was hired in 2005 as a Booz Allen vice president with responsibility to advise the DNI and other key intelligence agencies. (See box for list of other key corporate figures that previously worked in government intelligence agencies.)

It is these senior managers who would most likely benefit from a sale to Carlyle.

Unlike many of its competitors in the intelligence industry, Booz Allen is a privately held company whose shares are owned by its 300 vice presidents of whom “approximately 80 are in government support,” Booz Allen’s Farrar told CorpWatch. For these vice presidents, Carlyle’s infusion of capital, and its $2 billion buyout of their shares, will make them very rich men and women indeed. After all, $2 billion divided by 80 is $25 million; even if Booz Allen’s shares were divided equally, which is unlikely, that’s an astounding windfall for any executive.

Booz Allen CEO Ralph Shrader

The man most responsible for Booz Allen’s growth as an intelligence contractor is Ralph Shrader, who has been running the company as chairman and CEO since 1998. Shrader, an electrical engineer by training, came to Booz Allen in 1974 after serving at senior management levels of two prominent telecommunications companies – Western Union, where he was national director of advanced systems planning, and RCA, where he served in the company’s government communications system division. These positions prepared him well for his later work at Booz Allen as a consultant to the telecommunications industry. According to his official biography, he “led major assignments” for the industry as a Booz Allen consultant and was deeply involved in the company’s “landmark work for AT&T” when that company was broken up by the government.

In those assignments, Shrader may have been exposed to the telecommunications industry’s close ties to U.S. intelligence. During the years he worked for Western Union and RCA, those companies, along with ITT World Communications, were part of a secret surveillance program known as Minaret in which telecommunication companies, with the concurrence of a handful of high-ranking executives, handed over to the NSA information on all incoming and outgoing U.S. telephone calls and telegrams – an early version of the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program launched by the Bush administration after the September 11th attacks. Minaret, and the involvement of the private companies in NSA spying, was exposed by the congressional committees investigating intelligence abuse in the mid-1970s, and was the inspiration behind the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which set the rules – including the important requirement for warrants – for domestic surveillance of telephone traffic.

None of this is alluded to in Booz Allen’s official literature, of course; but Shrader, upon his appointment as CEO in 1998, mentioned in a rare press interview (with the Financial Times) that the most relevant background for his new position of chief executive was his experience working for telecommunications clients and doing classified military work for the U.S. government – “something of a Booz specialty,” the FT pointed out.

Booz Allen adds on its website that Shrader, as CEO, has also “led important programs for the U.S. National Communications System and the Defense Information Systems Agency,” two of the most important classified intelligence networks in use by the federal government. Under Shrader, Booz Allen also became the NSA’s most important outside consultant, culminating in its advisory role in Project Groundbreaker. That project, which awarded its first contracts in the summer of 2001, put Booz Allen in a prime position to capture NSA and other intelligence work in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, when intelligence budgets, and NSA surveillance, increased substantially.

“War on Terror” Contracts


After September 11th, 2001, by Booz Allen’s own account, the firm helped the government reshape its spying capabilities to match the new era of counterinsurgencies and terrorist threats. “The nature of intelligence changed dramatically in the wake of 9/11,” Christopher Ling, a Booz Allen vice president, explains in the company’s most recent annual report. “An entire analytic production system geared to detect large-scale cold war adversarial capabilities was suddenly required to transform.” At Booz Allen, he added, “We are finding innovative ways to integrate intelligence and operations, enabled by advanced visualization and data management capabilities, which has allowed us to pioneer tactics, techniques, and procedures.”

In addition to serving as a prime contractor on Admiral John Poindexter’s controversial Total Information Awareness project (see box), Booz Allen was active on both the military and economic fronts on the “war on terror.” For the Pentagon, it helped develop the “blue force” tracking system that allows soldiers and commanders in Iraq and other battlegrounds the ability to electronically identify friendly troops. And in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Booz Allen sponsored and organized several conferences aimed at helping U.S. corporations secure contracts in occupied Baghdad, with former CIA director Woolsey, one of the most ardent backers of the war, as a keynote speaker.

Michael McConnell

Booz Allen Hamilton’s most illustrious alumnus is Michael McConnell, the current Director of National Intelligence, the top spy job in the country, who epitomizes the term revolving door, spinning from government job to industry and back again.

McConnell was a senior Pentagon official during George Bush Senior’s administration and the first Gulf War, where he worked for Dick Cheney, then the Secretary of Defense, as the chief intelligence adviser to General Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cheney was so impressed with McConnell’s work during the war that he appointed him to head the NSA in 1993 (he later intervened personally to convince McConnell to take the DNI job in 2007).

McConnell subsequently spent more than 10 years as a Booz Allen senior vice president in charge of the company’s extensive contracts in military intelligence and information operations for the Pentagon. In that job, his official biography states, McConnell provided intelligence support to "the U.S. Unified Combatant Commanders, the Director of National Intelligence Agencies, and the Military Service Intelligence Directors." That made him a close colleague of not only Donald Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon from 2001 to 2007, but of Vice President Cheney, who has served President Bush as a kind of intelligence godfather since the earliest days of the administration.

As Booz Allen’s chief intelligence liaison to the Pentagon, McConnell was at the center of action, both before and after the September 11 attacks. During the first six years of the Bush administration, Booz Allen’s contracts with the U.S. government rose dramatically, from $626,000 in 2000 to $1.6 billion in 2006. McConnell and his staff at Booz Allen were deeply involved in some of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterrorism programs. They included the Pentagon’s infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme run by former Navy Admiral John Poindexter, which was an attempt to collect information on potential terrorists in America from phone records, credit card receipts and other databases. (Congress cancelled the program over civil liberties concerns, but much of the work was transferred to the NSA, where Booz Allen continued to receive the contracts.)

In 2002, when the CIA launched a financial intelligence project to track terrorist financing with the secret cooperation of SWIFT, the Brussels-based international banking consortium, Booz Allen won a contract to serve as an “outside” auditor of the project.

In January 2007, McConnell resigned from Booz Allen after he was appointed by President George W. Bush to his current job. He now oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, and thus much of Booz Allen’s government business. (See this reporter's 2007 Salon article.)

Under Shrader’s leadership, Booz Allen played an instrumental role after September 11th in proselytizing for a greater corporate role in national and homeland security. This was important, the Booz Allen CEO said at a CEO summit he organized in 2002, because “business leaders cannot opt out of geopolitics and leave the job of security solely to government and the military.”

Deepening the corporate alliance with the Bush administration and its war on terror also had significant advantages for Booz Allen and its fellow corporations: on one hand, it drastically increased their contracts with military and intelligence agencies; and on the other, homeland security provided a convenient excuse for reducing government oversight and regulation. These dual interests were spelled out in unusual detail in 2004 by Richard Wilhelm, a former CIA and NSA officer who once served as national security adviser to former Vice President Al Gore and now leads Booz Allen’s business with the CIA and the Office of the DNI.

Speaking to a conference on information-sharing and counterterrorism, Wilhelm explained that the “right mix of policies” for business should include a wide range of “incentives” and “cooperative arrangements,” including “appropriate protections from Freedom of Information Act requirements and other unintended consequences of more open information sharing.” Government, he argued, should “help make the business case, and then sweeten it – because industry will share information when there is a business case to do so.” In other words, corporations were happy to participate in the exchange of information about terrorism and other security threats, but only if there were enough rewards. And for Booz Allen, those rewards have been sweet indeed, as a short list of their recent unclassified contracts attests. They include:

• A $6.3 million contract to provide research on 3-D facial recognition biometric software for the Information Assurance Technical Analysis Center at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska, awarded in 2008.
• A $48 million contract with the U.S. Air Force to conduct research on “survivability and lethality implications” of an Air Force vehicle program, awarded in 2008.
• In a partnership with CACI International, EDS, Lockheed Martin, SAIC and SRA, the right to bid on $12.2 billion worth of contracts for telecom and IT services for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), awarded in 2007.
• Participation in a consortium of seven companies that will bid on up to $20 billion worth of work in Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance – a mouthful of a term usually referred to as C4ISR – for the Army’s Communications Electronics Command, which is based in Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, awarded in 2006.
• A five-year, $25o million contract to provide “systems engineering technical assistance” to the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, signed in 2005.

Little Congressional Scrutiny?


In spite of its tremendous power as a contractor, Booz Allen has received very little criticism or even scrutiny from the U.S. Congress. In January 2007, the Senate had a rare opportunity to inquire about the company when it held hearings on Michael McConnell’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence (see box). Prior to the hearing, several senators said they would question McConnell about Booz Allen’s role as a contractor; but the hearing was a desultory affair, and few questions were asked of the new DNI about the high level of contracting among the spy agencies or the specific role of Booz Allen.

A month later, a Booz Allen contract with the Department of Homeland Security came under close scrutiny in the House. In February 2007, Henry Waxman, a Democratic Congressman from California, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, charged that Booz Allen had a significant conflict of interest over its contract to oversee an $8 billion contract with the DHS Secure Border Initiative known as SBI-Net. Under the contract, Boeing and other companies will build a “virtual fence” of cameras, radar and sensors that will transmit imagery and data to border patrol agents working along the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. (See CorpWatch's “Fencing the Border".)

The conflict arose, said Waxman, because Booz Allen had long-standing business partnerships with Boeing, the prime contractor for SBI-Net, and could therefore not provide objective oversight of the program. At the hearing, Waxman pointed out to DHS officials that they had hired 98 people to oversee the SBI-Net contract. “But the problem is that 65 of these people don’t work for the government. They work for the contractor,” he said. “You’re relying on them to do the function that a government ordinarily would do.” DHS officials responded that Booz Allen had been hired for advice, not for oversight.

Waxman’s criticism could be made of a myriad of contracts Booz Allen holds with intelligence agencies. At the NSA, for example, it has advised the agency about several contracts that involve companies that Booz Allen has close business ties with. That is also true at the NRO, the NGA and the CIA. So far, however, no reports of conflicts of interest have emerged from Congress, which in any case exercises little oversight over intelligence contracts.

In another damaging report issued in 2007, the General Accounting Office, the audit arm of the U.S. Congress, found that the Department of Homeland Security was spending nearly $16 billion a year on goods and services from the private sector, making it the third-largest employer of contractors in the federal government. Among the beneficiaries of DHS’ spending was Booz Allen Hamilton, which in 2006 was awarded a $43 million no-bid contract to provide services to the DHS intelligence unit. Upon reading the $16 billion DHS figures in the GAO report, Joseph Lieberman, an independent U.S. senator from Connecticut, angrily commented: “plainly put, we need to know who is in charge at DHS – its managers and workers, or the contractors.”

The Washington Post later found that Booz Allen’s no-bid intelligence contract with DHS had ballooned in value from $2 million in 2003 to over $30 million in 2006 – 15 times its original value. When DHS lawyers first examined the Booz Allen deal, the Post said, they found it was “grossly beyond the scope” of the original contract and had violated government procurement rules. An open competition was ordered by DHS lawyers, but delayed for a year. During that time, the Post said, “the payments to Booz Allen more than doubled again under a second no-bid arrangement, to $73 million.”

Union Protests

So far, the only public criticism of the potential Carlyle-Booz Allen deal has come from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the country’s largest labor unions. Last year, the union launched a blistering attack on Carlyle and the private equity industry in a widely distributed report called “Behind the Buyouts: Inside the World of Private Equity.” The gist of the report was that Carlyle, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts (KKR) and other large private equity funds were undermining the U.S. economy by avoiding taxes and creating “harsh consequences,” such as layoffs, for workers and communities. In late 2007, when Carlyle acquired the assets of Manor Care, a chain of nursing homes where the SEIU is trying to organize workers, the union stepped up its campaign.

Of Unions, Pension Funds and the Carlyle Group

The SEIU’s campaign material on the Carlyle Group, including a 40-page white paper on private equity issued last year, fails to mention a salient fact: that many SEIU members are affiliated with a pension fund that holds a significant stake in the Carlyle Group.

That fund is the California Public Employees Retirement System, the world’s largest public pension fund, often known as CalPERS. It has held a five percent stake in Carlyle’s core management group since 2000, and therefore profits every time Carlyle makes money from one of its investments. Many of the California state officials who sit on CalPERS boards are also members of the SEIU, although they officially only represent their employer, not the union.

In 2001, this reporter attended a meeting of the CalPERS investment board where Carlyle’s three founding managers appeared as witnesses. The public meeting took place at a time when Carlyle was a hot media topic because of its close ties to the Bush administration and its prominence as the nation’s 11th largest military contractor. Several SEIU officials attended the meeting, and the questioning of Carlyle was led by a CalPERS official who belonged to the SEIU. However, the investment board didn’t ask about Carlyle’s military industry investments, and instead posed a single, softball question about Carlyle’s views on the U.S. investment climate.

Asked why the SEIU hasn’t mentioned CalPERS’ stake in Carlyle in any of its literature, Stephen Lerner, the director of SEIU’s Private Equity Project, replied that the union didn’t start investigating the pension fund’s role in Carlyle until 2007.

Until then, “we never really thought about CalPERS’ investment in Carlyle,” he said. “Now that we’re digging in deeper, we’re raising lots of questions.” Under SEIU’s initiative, a California lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prohibit CalPERS from investing in private equity funds owned in part by overseas funds from countries that don’t “generally respect human rights.” According to an SEIU handout, the legislation “is only applicable to private equity firms in which sovereign wealth funds have an ownership stake,” such as Carlyle.

Carlyle’s Ullman responded that the legislation could hurt the people it is supposed to protect. California lawmakers “should consider the detrimental impact on California pensioners who have benefited greatly from CalPERS’ investment in, and ownership of, the Carlyle Group,” he told CorpWatch.

In January 2008, after rumors of a Carlyle takeover of Booz Allen surfaced in the press, SEIU issued a blistering press release denouncing the potential deal. The union’s criticism of the proposed acquisition didn’t focus on Booz Allen’s role in intelligence outsourcing but on Carlyle’s ties with the Mubadala Development fund of the Government of Abu Dhabi. In 2007, that fund paid $1.35 billion to buy a 7.5 percent ownership stake in Carlyle’s general partnership.

As a result of that investment, the SEIU charged, Carlyle was risking national security. “The potential for a Carlyle Group-Booz Allen buyout demands urgency on the part of lawmakers and regulators to examine the risks faced by the U.S. when foreign governments potentially have access to classified and other sensitive national security information through their stake in U.S. companies,” the union declared in a press release. In an interview with CorpWatch, Stephen Lerner, the director of SEIU’s Private Equity Project, said the union launched this nationalist campaign out of concern that classified information from Booz Allen could leak into the hands of the Abu Dhabi fund, thus compromising U.S. security interests.

“When you combine buyout firms, which have much less reporting requirements because they are private, with opaque sovereign wealth funds, you get a toxic stew of secrecy,” he said. Asked how or why Booz Allen executives might leak classified information to a foreign government, he replied: “The point is, you have no way of knowing if they would or wouldn’t.” He added that, while the SEIU has not taken a position on Booz Allen’s extensive role in intelligence outsourcing, the issue of “government jobs being done by private contractors” might emerge in the future for the union.

(The SEIU does not mention in its material that the California Public Employees Retirement System, the pension fund for California state retirees where the SEIU has significant influence, owns five percent of the Carlyle Group – see box.)

Carlyle’s Ullman, who recently discussed the union campaign with SEIU president Andrew Stern during a conference on private equity, rejected the SEIU’s claims. The charges that the Abu Dhabi investment could jeopardize national security “is really an obscene allegation,” he said. Ullman added that the Abu Dhabi fund was a “passive investor” in Carlyle and would have no role in the management of Carlyle companies. “Carlyle’s portfolio companies have a pristine track record in handling sensitive government data,” he said. “Giving top secret and classified data to foreign governments is known as treason, and is punishable by jail and worse. That would be a fairly strong impediment” to leaks.

In any case, there is virtually no evidence to suggest that any US intelligence contractor has leaked classified information, and it’s unlikely the union’s allegations will be a factor if the Carlyle Group does decide to acquire Booz Allen Hamilton.

Tim Shorrock’s book on the outsourcing of U.S. intelligence, Spies for Hire, will be published in May by Simon & Schuster.

ShareThis