General Discussion

think

(11,641 posts)

45. There is indeed a problem and it revolves around the private contractor NSA relationship

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:02 AM

Jul 2013

This is compounded when the relationship is secret and not open to proper over site.

I'm not sure if you've seen where I've posted that the Carlyle Group was required to pay a $20 million dollar fine for allegedly bribing a govt employee with millions of dollars in 2009. The Carlyle group is an investment fund that owns Booz Allen.

Booz Allen investors allegedly bribing govt officials is a big deal in my eyes. Why on earth would we trust a company; who's primary investors are connected to bribing public officials; be allowed to oversee one our Govts most important functions?

Please check it out:

In March 2009, New York State and federal authorities began an investigation into payments made by Carlyle's Riverstone Holdings subsidiary to placement agents allegedly made in exchange for investments from the New York State Common Retirement System, the state's pension fund. In 2000, Carlyle had entered into a joint venture with Riverstone Holdings, an energy and power focused private equity firm founded by former Goldman Sachs investment bankers. It was alleged that these payments were in fact bribes or kickbacks, made to pension officials who have been under investigation by New York State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo.[43] In May 2009, Carlyle agreed to pay $20 million in a settlement with Cuomo and accepted changes to its fundraising practices.[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group#Since_2007

CARLYLE GROUP FINED IN NY PENSION SCANDAL

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 2:28 PM, May 14, 2009
Posted: 12:51 PM, May 14, 2009

One of the nation's largest private equity funds has agreed to pay $20 million over its role in a corruption scandal involving New York's public pension fund.

The Carlyle Group was one of several firms that paid millions of dollars to an aide to New York's former comptroller in exchange for help obtaining investments from the retirement fund. ...

~Snip~

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_Y7TIdVqJlQ6A2qZOUYK3zM

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Constitution specifically allows for Congressional secrecy and military contractors [View all] Recursion Jul 2013 OP

O_O Amonester Jul 2013 #1

Somehow, I doubt the Founders anticipated our modern ways in quite the detail you are implying. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #2

I don't know. The Quasi-War was pretty early Recursion Jul 2013 #4

I doubt they anticipated assault rifles in quite the detail 2nd amendment fans imply. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #8

+100 demosincebirth Jul 2013 #13

I doubt they anticipated private contractors like Booz Allen in quite the same way either think Jul 2013 #29

I agree. Private contractors shouldn't be involved in any of this. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #54

Thank you for replying. I'm sorry if I've been annoying & repetitive on this issue think Jul 2013 #55

No need to apologize for a "rant." pnwmom Jul 2013 #56

Was Booz Allen granted a letter Marque and Reprisal? Wait don't tell me. think Jul 2013 #3

Essentially. They send out teams with some weapons systems Recursion Jul 2013 #7

And still we wouldn't know because it is classified... think Jul 2013 #11

I can think of plenty that aren't classified Recursion Jul 2013 #12

Thanks. I guess we will just have to take the govt's word that they are not violating the spirit think Jul 2013 #14

Yoo's unitary executive stuff is absurd Recursion Jul 2013 #19

And now important interpretations are classified. That is not a precedent I'm fond of think Jul 2013 #21

well said think! liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #23

Thank you! /nt think Jul 2013 #30

I agree with your views and would like to subscribe to your news letter. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #49

Thank you for the laugh. I appreciate it :) think Jul 2013 #51

The Democratic Underground.com is a wonderful place to learn and share. think Jul 2013 #53

And Raytheon begat Northrup Grumman begat Boeing begat...n/t leftstreet Jul 2013 #5

Ah, the "Letters of Marque" ProSense Jul 2013 #6

So Ron Paul supports using the Letters of marque? think Jul 2013 #15

I seem to remember he considers it a "vast untapped resource" or some crap like that Recursion Jul 2013 #18

Ron Paul favors using the Letter of Marque to use private armies and contractors think Jul 2013 #22

I'm saying it sucks and it was ever thus (nt) Recursion Jul 2013 #38

Completely agree. While I am not against transparent (non secret) cooperation think Jul 2013 #42

PATRIOT and AUMF should both be repealed Recursion Jul 2013 #43

I prefer dragging "the devil we know" before congress. Devil's hate sunshine.... think Jul 2013 #44

I think we are in agreement on this because I am against private armies also think Jul 2013 #17

So where is the open debate in congress that would enable one fifth can keep the goings of the Luminous Animal Jul 2013 #9

The one-fifth is a separate issue from the secrecy Recursion Jul 2013 #10

Yes, where does it say that? think Jul 2013 #48

That is all well and good if they have declared the enemy to be the public at large nolabels Jul 2013 #16

Show us the part about a secret interpretation of law Waiting For Everyman Jul 2013 #20

I still haven't found a provision for secret interpretation of the law in the Constititution.... think Jul 2013 #31

yeah..... dtom67 Jul 2013 #24

If we have a totalitarian government as you claim ... JoePhilly Jul 2013 #32

If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #50

So you are saying that our totalitarian government would NOT misuse JoePhilly Jul 2013 #52

Congressional secrecy isn't the same as Executive secrecy.... DeSwiss Jul 2013 #25

Thank you. aquart Jul 2013 #26

And the Constitution specifically allowed for slavery with the 3/5 compromise cali Jul 2013 #27

That and other things are my problem with originalism Recursion Jul 2013 #37

No you aren't, you are actually offering examples from the past to excuse present problems Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #40

Well, no, I actually know why I posted what I did Recursion Jul 2013 #41

What was their stance on executive secrecy? Democracyinkind Jul 2013 #28

Most of them were alive and in Congress when Washington refused to make trade negotiations public Recursion Jul 2013 #35

So you agree that when my Senators say secrets are being kept from them that is not Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #33

I interpret this as even if it is secret, it can be entered on the Journal with 20% ... kentuck Jul 2013 #34

I can see that interpretation Recursion Jul 2013 #36

Senators say secrets are kept from them. Illegally. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #39

There is indeed a problem and it revolves around the private contractor NSA relationship think Jul 2013 #45

Not one word of that applies to Contractors or the Executive Agencies 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #46

Yes, and the Constitution specifically allows us to throw their asses out if they do so. bemildred Jul 2013 #47