USApedia

EDO Corporation: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

EDO Corporation (view source)

Revision as of 22:16, 14 March 2025

24 bytes removed ,  14 March
m
Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian"
VisualWikitext
m (Text replacement - "CNN" to "CNN")
m (Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian")
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 137: Line 137:
On 20 September 2006, ''[[Rolling Stone magazine]]'' published an article on the story entitled "Another Tale of Waste and Fraud Unpunished".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20061017051243/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11729724/the_low_post_another_tale_of_waste_and_fraud_unpunished "Your tax dollars at work: In Washington, another tale of waste and fraud unpunished"], ''[[Rolling Stone magazine]]'', September 19, 2006</ref>
On 20 September 2006, ''[[Rolling Stone magazine]]'' published an article on the story entitled "Another Tale of Waste and Fraud Unpunished".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20061017051243/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11729724/the_low_post_another_tale_of_waste_and_fraud_unpunished "Your tax dollars at work: In Washington, another tale of waste and fraud unpunished"], ''[[Rolling Stone magazine]]'', September 19, 2006</ref>


On 28 September 2006, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that the F-22 multiyear contract had been approved by Congress despite opposition from [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[George W. Bush]] and the present and future chairmen of top U.S. Government military procurement committees. ''The New York Times'' suggested that the military industrial lobby that pushed the F-22 multiyear programme was more powerful than the elected officials who oversee government military spending including the [[President of the United States]] himself.<ref>[https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F15FD3D540C7B8EDDA00894DE404482 "Air Force Jet Wins Battle in Congress"], September 28, 2006</ref>
On 28 September 2006, ''The New York Times'' reported that the F-22 multiyear contract had been approved by Congress despite opposition from Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the present and future chairmen of top U.S. Government military procurement committees. ''The New York Times'' suggested that the military industrial lobby that pushed the F-22 multiyear programme was more powerful than the elected officials who oversee government military spending including the [[President of the United States]] himself.<ref>[https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F15FD3D540C7B8EDDA00894DE404482 "Air Force Jet Wins Battle in Congress"], September 28, 2006</ref>


On 1 December 2006, ''The Washington Post'' reported that the U.S. Inspector General had found that although Blair had indeed violated IDA's conflict of interest policy by working for both EDO and IDA at the same time, his actions had not affected IDA's results on the F-22.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101451.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025031642/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101451.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=2012-10-25 | newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>  It also found that Blair's involvement in the IDA F-22 MYP study was "minimal," with no involvement in conducting the analysis or preparing or reviewing the report before it was finalized.<ref name="coireport" />
On 1 December 2006, ''The Washington Post'' reported that the U.S. Inspector General had found that although Blair had indeed violated IDA's conflict of interest policy by working for both EDO and IDA at the same time, his actions had not affected IDA's results on the F-22.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101451.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025031642/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101451.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=2012-10-25 | newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>  It also found that Blair's involvement in the IDA F-22 MYP study was "minimal," with no involvement in conducting the analysis or preparing or reviewing the report before it was finalized.<ref name="coireport" />
Line 152: Line 152:
===EDO Director Paul Kern and allegations of war crimes at Abu Ghraib/EDO links with Titan Corporation===
===EDO Director Paul Kern and allegations of war crimes at Abu Ghraib/EDO links with Titan Corporation===
[[File:Generals Kern Fay Jones.jpg|thumb|General [[Paul J. Kern|Paul Kern]] receiving the report on the [[Abu Ghraib]] scandal from Generals George Fay and Anthony Jones]]
[[File:Generals Kern Fay Jones.jpg|thumb|General [[Paul J. Kern|Paul Kern]] receiving the report on the [[Abu Ghraib]] scandal from Generals George Fay and Anthony Jones]]
While still serving in the U.S. military General [[Paul J. Kern|Paul Kern]] was appointed by Defense Secretary [[Donald Rumsfeld]] to report on an internal investigation into the [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]]. In August 2004 he presented the [[Fay Report]] largely absolving the military hierarchy of blame for the torture and sexual abuse.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_hr/040909-kern.pdf "Statement by General Paul Kern, commanding General, United States Army Material Command, before the Armed Services Committee"], September 9, 2004</ref> Kern blamed the torture in part on the civilian contractors working with [[military intelligence]] services in the prison. One of the companies involved was identified as [[Titan Corporation]], a contractor that supplies technology and 'civilian interrogators' to military intelligence. (The company has close links to the US intelligence community. Former CIA director [[James Woolsey]] has served on its board of directors.) However Kern did not advise that Titan Corporation should be charged with any criminal offence. Kern had been picked by Rumsfeld to investigate the Military Intelligence operations at Abu Ghraib after an earlier report which had implicated them in the torture. This earlier report was called the  [[Taguba Report]] and because of its controversial reference to 'systematic abuse' was kept secret until it was leaked to [[Seymour Hersh]] of ''[[The New Yorker]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.corpwatch.org/downloads/taguba.pdf |title=Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade |work=CorpWatch |date=9 March 2004 |access-date=July 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105220223/http://corpwatch.org/downloads/taguba.pdf |archive-date=5 January 2009 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref> In June 2007 Hersh published an article on Taguba who was forced to resign after submitting the report to Rumsfeld.
While still serving in the U.S. military General [[Paul J. Kern|Paul Kern]] was appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to report on an internal investigation into the [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]]. In August 2004 he presented the [[Fay Report]] largely absolving the military hierarchy of blame for the torture and sexual abuse.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_hr/040909-kern.pdf "Statement by General Paul Kern, commanding General, United States Army Material Command, before the Armed Services Committee"], September 9, 2004</ref> Kern blamed the torture in part on the civilian contractors working with [[military intelligence]] services in the prison. One of the companies involved was identified as [[Titan Corporation]], a contractor that supplies technology and 'civilian interrogators' to military intelligence. (The company has close links to the US intelligence community. Former CIA director [[James Woolsey]] has served on its board of directors.) However Kern did not advise that Titan Corporation should be charged with any criminal offence. Kern had been picked by Rumsfeld to investigate the Military Intelligence operations at Abu Ghraib after an earlier report which had implicated them in the torture. This earlier report was called the  [[Taguba Report]] and because of its controversial reference to 'systematic abuse' was kept secret until it was leaked to [[Seymour Hersh]] of ''[[The New Yorker]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.corpwatch.org/downloads/taguba.pdf |title=Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade |work=CorpWatch |date=9 March 2004 |access-date=July 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105220223/http://corpwatch.org/downloads/taguba.pdf |archive-date=5 January 2009 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref> In June 2007 Hersh published an article on Taguba who was forced to resign after submitting the report to Rumsfeld.


A few enlisted U.S. soldiers were eventually convicted, and imprisoned as a result of the investigations. Titan Corporation sacked one of their employees [[Adel Nakhla]] who had admitted holding down prisoners who were being tortured. Another Titan employee [[John Israel]], a 'civilian interrogator/interpreter' identified by the Taguba Report as one of the four main people believed to have been responsible for the [[torture]] is suspected by some journalists including [[Robert Fisk]] of being an Israeli agent.<ref>[http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1784 "Who is Behind the Abuse at Abu Ghraib?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060720113432/http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1784 |date=2006-07-20 }}, ''Truth Seeker'', May 6, 2004</ref>
A few enlisted U.S. soldiers were eventually convicted, and imprisoned as a result of the investigations. Titan Corporation sacked one of their employees [[Adel Nakhla]] who had admitted holding down prisoners who were being tortured. Another Titan employee [[John Israel]], a 'civilian interrogator/interpreter' identified by the Taguba Report as one of the four main people believed to have been responsible for the [[torture]] is suspected by some journalists including [[Robert Fisk]] of being an Israeli agent.<ref>[http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1784 "Who is Behind the Abuse at Abu Ghraib?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060720113432/http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1784 |date=2006-07-20 }}, ''Truth Seeker'', May 6, 2004</ref>
Line 171: Line 171:
===Regular anti-war protests outside EDO (UK) factory===
===Regular anti-war protests outside EDO (UK) factory===


On 21 September 2006, protesters blockaded the EDO MBM factory in Brighton for several hours forcing the Managing Director Paul Hills to scale a security fence to enter the premises. He then used an angle grinder or wire cutters to cut a hole in the EDO's fence to let the employees in to work. The protesters left the scene without being arrested.<ref>{{cite web|last=Acford |first=Louise |url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/933667.campaigners_get_stuck_in_at_arms_protest/ |title=Campaigners get stuck in at arms protest |publisher=[[The Argus (Brighton)]] |date=September 22, 2006 |access-date=July 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351317.html |title=Arms Dealers forced to Break in to their own Factory |publisher=UK Indymedia |date=September 21, 2006 |access-date=July 29, 2014}}</ref> On 16 September 2006, 100 protesters marched through Brighton to deliver a petition calling for the closure of EDO MBM to Brighton Town Hall.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.925031.0.police_hold_line_against_peace_marchers.php|title=Police hold line against peace marchers|website=The Argus|date=18 September 2006 |access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref> On 23 August 2006 two protesters climbed 40 feet onto the roof of EDO MBM Technology Ltd to unfurl a banner protesting the company's supply of weapons to Israel used in the [[Qana]] bombing in which 16 Lebanese children were killed.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/5278062.stm | work=BBC News | title=Roof-top protest at arms factory | date=2006-08-23 | access-date=2010-04-30}}</ref> On 19 July 2006 protesters staged a 'Horrors of War' demonstration outside the Brighton factory recreating scenes of violence and mutilation that result from aerial bombardment.<ref>[http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/7/20/212906.html Shock tactics in weapons factory protest<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111253/http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/7/20/212906.html |date=2007-09-29 }}</ref> On the morning of 17 July 2006, three activists completely blockaded EDO's [[Brighton]], [[United Kingdom]] subsidiary EDO MBM Technology Ltd in protest at EDO's supply of weapons technology to the Israeli military being used to attack [[Gaza Strip|Gaza]] and in the then ongoing [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5187726.stm | work=BBC News | title=Factory protest at Israel bombing | date=2006-07-17 | access-date=2010-04-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/345246.html|title=Brighton Arms Dealers Blockaded Now - You Can Support the Blockaders - UK Indymedia|website=www.indymedia.org.uk|access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Tyler |first1=Jerry |title=Tornado Cash |url=https://tornado.community |access-date=29 March 2024}}</ref> These are just  a few actions in an ongoing campaign of protest, civil disobedience and non-violent direct action against EDO in Brighton that began in 2004 and has come to be known as the Smash EDO campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smashedo.org.uk|title=Smashedo - Begin!|website=Smashedo|access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref>
On 21 September 2006, protesters blockaded the EDO MBM factory in Brighton for several hours forcing the Managing Director Paul Hills to scale a security fence to enter the premises. He then used an angle grinder or wire cutters to cut a hole in the EDO's fence to let the employees in to work. The protesters left the scene without being arrested.<ref>{{cite web|last=Acford |first=Louise |url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/933667.campaigners_get_stuck_in_at_arms_protest/ |title=Campaigners get stuck in at arms protest |publisher=[[The Argus (Brighton)]] |date=September 22, 2006 |access-date=July 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/351317.html |title=Arms Dealers forced to Break in to their own Factory |publisher=UK Indymedia |date=September 21, 2006 |access-date=July 29, 2014}}</ref> On 16 September 2006, 100 protesters marched through Brighton to deliver a petition calling for the closure of EDO MBM to Brighton Town Hall.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.925031.0.police_hold_line_against_peace_marchers.php|title=Police hold line against peace marchers|website=The Argus|date=18 September 2006 |access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref> On 23 August 2006 two protesters climbed 40 feet onto the roof of EDO MBM Technology Ltd to unfurl a banner protesting the company's supply of weapons to Israel used in the [[Qana]] bombing in which 16 Lebanese children were killed.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/5278062.stm | work=BBC News | title=Roof-top protest at arms factory | date=2006-08-23 | access-date=2010-04-30}}</ref> On 19 July 2006 protesters staged a 'Horrors of War' demonstration outside the Brighton factory recreating scenes of violence and mutilation that result from aerial bombardment.<ref>[http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/7/20/212906.html Shock tactics in weapons factory protest<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111253/http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/7/20/212906.html |date=2007-09-29 }}</ref> On the morning of 17 July 2006, three activists completely blockaded EDO's [[Brighton]], United Kingdom subsidiary EDO MBM Technology Ltd in protest at EDO's supply of weapons technology to the Israeli military being used to attack [[Gaza Strip|Gaza]] and in the then ongoing [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5187726.stm | work=BBC News | title=Factory protest at Israel bombing | date=2006-07-17 | access-date=2010-04-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/07/345246.html|title=Brighton Arms Dealers Blockaded Now - You Can Support the Blockaders - UK Indymedia|website=www.indymedia.org.uk|access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Tyler |first1=Jerry |title=Tornado Cash |url=https://tornado.community |access-date=29 March 2024}}</ref> These are just  a few actions in an ongoing campaign of protest, civil disobedience and non-violent direct action against EDO in Brighton that began in 2004 and has come to be known as the Smash EDO campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smashedo.org.uk|title=Smashedo - Begin!|website=Smashedo|access-date=15 October 2018}}</ref>


===Smash EDO campaign===
===Smash EDO campaign===
Line 211: Line 211:
===Injunction case: EDO MBM v Campaign to Smash EDO & others/EDO MBM v Axworthy & others===
===Injunction case: EDO MBM v Campaign to Smash EDO & others/EDO MBM v Axworthy & others===
{{Main|EDO Injunction Case}}
{{Main|EDO Injunction Case}}
The ongoing protests led EDO MBM and its employees, in April 2005, to seek a permanent high court [[injunction]] against 14 named protesters and two protest groups ''Smash EDO'' and ''Bombs out Of Brighton'', on grounds of harassment.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/antiwar/story/0,,1456744,00.html "Iraq war firm asks for bar on protests"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', April 11, 2005</ref> The intended injunction brought under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, applied to all protesters, not only those named in the court papers (who in any case strongly denied the allegations). The case created controversy because it was seen by some as an unjustified measure used by a U.S. arms company to suppress the freedom to protest of UK anti-war protesters. Others, however, suggested that the court action was used in order to prevent harassment and violent crime. The company failed to gain a permanent injunction and dropped the action in early 2006, at a cost of several million dollars in legal costs.
The ongoing protests led EDO MBM and its employees, in April 2005, to seek a permanent high court [[injunction]] against 14 named protesters and two protest groups ''Smash EDO'' and ''Bombs out Of Brighton'', on grounds of harassment.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/antiwar/story/0,,1456744,00.html "Iraq war firm asks for bar on protests"], ''The Guardian'', April 11, 2005</ref> The intended injunction brought under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, applied to all protesters, not only those named in the court papers (who in any case strongly denied the allegations). The case created controversy because it was seen by some as an unjustified measure used by a U.S. arms company to suppress the freedom to protest of UK anti-war protesters. Others, however, suggested that the court action was used in order to prevent harassment and violent crime. The company failed to gain a permanent injunction and dropped the action in early 2006, at a cost of several million dollars in legal costs.


===Allegations of Sussex Police collusion with EDO MBM===
===Allegations of Sussex Police collusion with EDO MBM===
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/17419...31815’