The Wages of Corruption

C.J. Chivers has a crackerjack piece of investigative reporting in The New York Times running under the weirdly low-key headline "Supplier Under Scrutiny for Aging Afghan Arms". The heart of the matter is that we're trying to stand up some Afghanistan security forces who can maintain some reasonable level of security and order in that country, but "to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur." And this doesn't turn out to be a heartwarming story where a fledgling company led by a 22 year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur do a bang-up job and we end the war. No.

On the contrary, "the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging . . . the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete . . . contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking . . . tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law." I won't quote any more in the hopes that you'll click through and let the Times internalize some of the rewards for their reporting, but suffice it to say that there's even more scandalous stuff in there.

Just one more example of how dangerous it is to have the government led by people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent.

U.S. Army photo by Col. Marin Lepper

Comments

What is so sad is how brave the Afghan National Army soldiers are. I've read some reports of them fighting with Canadian units in Kandahar and as the canuk soldiers say 'these guys are all balls, they really put themselves out there.'

It would be nice to equip them with proper firearms. I guess they need to die to make Grover Norquists' dreams come true.

Also why does the larger ummah not actively support the traditionalist Tajiks and Hazari and Pashtun against the radical and revolutionary Pashtun Taliban? Again why has not the ulema spoken out on this? Is not the Taliban nothing but fitna?

Posted by Northern Observer | March 27, 2008 1:55 PM

One interesting aspect of our involvement in Iraq is that we've spent endless billions to rebuild the infrastructure, but (as far as I can tell) all the money's been stolen and almost nothing has been rebuilt.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have been spending a tiny fraction of that on similar projects, but since they have almost no corruption by comparison, apparently their things ARE being built, which makes the Iraqis much more favorable to them.

One crucial advantage which Western countries have traditionally had over Third World ones is the relatively low level of corruption. That's now been totally reversed in this situation.

Countries which become mired in breathtaking levels of corruption tend to have low success rates in their endeavors and (eventually) low survival rates in their own domestic political regimes.

Posted by RKU | March 27, 2008 1:57 PM

RKU:
Corruption or not, who would you trust if you were Iraqi: Blackwater and KBR or Iranians? Kind of simple once you put it in those terms.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 27, 2008 2:03 PM

Just one more example of how dangerous it is to have the government led by people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent.

If only we had a government that really believed in government! Then for sure all the corruption and malfeasance would be eliminated.

Lucky for us, the Messiah will soon be elected. And When the Messiah is elected, we'll never have corruption or malfeasance again. Hooray!

Posted by Al | March 27, 2008 2:03 PM

Nothing new here, guys. It's the American way. In '67 I was eating C-rations that had the date 1944. I was lucky though, the Marines I was with had M-14 rifles to carry in the boonies--which inconveniently enough do not 'do' full automatic; essentially the sort of rifle you'd use for deer hunting. Our gov't has always thought that anyone stupid enough to actually fight in a war (as opposed to talking about or posing for one) are too stupid to deserve much.

Posted by JohnMcC | March 27, 2008 2:13 PM

Wow Al. That is pretty weak even for you (no matter what iteration of Al you actually are). In my job or any other I'd rather be surrounded by people who believe they are providing a valuable and useful service than not. The work turns out better. Always. That is just basic stuff.

Posted by Joshua | March 27, 2008 2:13 PM

Al,

No one is saying that governments will ever be corruption free. What Matt is saying is that when you put people in charge of government who hate government, corruption rises to catostrophic levels. The main goal of government institutions should be as efficient and transparent as possible; not a fiefdom rigged to enrich the most well connected.

Posted by Bernie | March 27, 2008 2:14 PM

Now we blame kickbacks in Albania on the Republicans, too? I'm not going to rush to AEY's defense - reading of their association with Botach in the article inclines me to believe they're crooks without any evidence at all - but this looks like run-of-the-mill incompetence in contracting, rather than a result that can plausibly be traced to electing a government that doesn't believe in government.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 27, 2008 2:15 PM

Hey, Al, quit knocking me down. I know it's easy and all, but what you said wasn't what Matt said, and it's time to grow up.

Posted by Straw Man | March 27, 2008 2:15 PM

Northern Observer -- Let's assume you're not a concer-troll here. Which ulema are you talking about? Specifically, which scholars or groups of scholars?

Becuase the most significant centre for Islamic scholarship in South Asia, the Dar-ul-uloom Deoband, has spoken pretty clearly ont he issue. Here is the link

Posted by Ikram | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM

Follow the money...

There's got to be more to this story than the initial details.

Posted by lutton | March 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Look on the bright side. Skimming the article, I was sure I'd read the part where the company was run by, say, Bush's brother's wife's cousin, or some fundraiser's nephew, or some Fox News anchor's kid. But no! This looks like simple incompetence. In other words, at least it's not corrupt cronnyism and incompetence :)

Posted by Ari | March 27, 2008 2:19 PM

This looks like simple incompetence. In other words, at least it's not corrupt cronnyism and incompetence

Well, maybe. But when the company of a 22-year-old kid with no qualifications is given $300M in government cash and (apparently) just skims off most of it by buying, cheap worthless junk, you have to wonder whether a certain amount didn't get paid to the right people (or their relatives) making the purchase decision.

Offhand, this doesn't sound like like corrupt cronyism, just old-fashioned regular corruption...

Posted by RKU | March 27, 2008 2:26 PM

The only testimonial on David Packouz's Friendster page:

"this mans got magic hands hes a licesesd
message therapist. to all the girls out
there lookin for a good message call him
up so he can work some magic 305 793 3413
oh yeah and guys too but what ever

oh and david its not shameless self
promotion if your friends do it for you"

Posted by Adam Sofen | March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

No one is saying that governments will ever be corruption free. What Matt is saying is that when you put people in charge of government who hate government, corruption rises to catostrophic levels.

And this example shows that corruption has risen to "catastrophic levels" ... how?

In fact, this example doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever about whether corruption and malfeasance is worse under "people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent" than under people who believe in gvoernment.

If government will never be corruption free, then this could happen regardless of who is in charge of government. And there is no evidence here showing that putting one person in charge of government makes this more likely than putting some other person in charge of government.

Posted by Al | March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

He was 19 according to the article when he started the company. What was the name of the private in Catch 22 who supplied the air force with cotton balls in sauce at certain point, trying to unload his stock?

I also liked it, in the article, about how proud he was that he didn't have to fake an id to get a drink anymore, after the police stopped him for beating up another girlfriend. At the same time that he was the right arm of our righteous cause in Afghanistan!

The Bush people are always pushing the envelope on worse.

Posted by roger | March 27, 2008 2:34 PM

Actually, there's no evidence in the article of any corruption on the part of the US government, at all. We may (probably do) have an ethically challenged contractor, dealing, by virtue of the products he needed buy, with some definitely unethical members of foreign governments, but nothing yet that can be laid at the feet of the US.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 27, 2008 2:38 PM

Al:

If only we had a government that really believed in government! Then for sure all the corruption and malfeasance would be eliminated.

I agree with Al -- this is a cheap shot from Matthew. I mean, it would be one thing if this were just one more, especially horrifying example uncovered after seven years of mindnumbing incompetence and corruption at the highest levels of the Bush administration. But given that the administration's record has been so spotless to date, with the White House focused like a laser on professionalism and transparency, it's clear this could happen to anyone.

Posted by 23456 | March 27, 2008 2:49 PM

Yeah, srsly. Merchants have taken advantage of military demand to dump substandard goods at government prices in Every. Single. War. Ever. Fought.

Posted by Senescent | March 27, 2008 3:00 PM

weirdly low-key headline

It's not low key in the print edition, it's the page A1 headline and it's four columns, which they rarely do. The photo is four columns as well. The sub-heading is "U.S. Company is Suspended--Secret Tape."

There is something herein related to your recent post about the "death of newspapers" piece in The New Yorker. When you read a print news publication regularly, you get an idea from layout when the editors think something is important. Now, admittedly, grocery store line and tabloid publications have always gone for pandering with the cover to sales. But serious subscription newspapers have usually gone with putting headlines as "what the masses ought to know" rather than "what the masses prefer to read about." But I would argue that the major newspaper websites so far seem to pander to "most popular" and "breaking" on their website home pages, and this is detrimental in that important stories will be ignored if they are not in the zeitgeist....The Watergate story, developed over months, for example, these days might have languished not just on page A20 of WaPo as it did some days, but as having just a few hours on the home page because of not having enough mouse clicks.

Posted by artappraiser | March 27, 2008 3:06 PM

Al sez:

In fact, this example doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever about whether corruption and malfeasance is worse under "people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent" than under people who believe in gvoernment.

Nonsense. The Bush Administration outsources any and all functions it can even if it can do it better and cheaper in house. The Bush Administration also believes oversight of contractors is low on the priority list at best (they have, indeed, even hired contractors to oversee contractors). Both are core parts of the ideology and policy that has driven this administration from day one.

Much has been written on the waste and fraud from contractors in Iraq. It was and is rampant whether you want to believe it or not.

So, yea, actually, corruption from a military-related contractor is more likely to happen from a government which has a long and sordid history of corruption from military-related contractors. Imagine that.

Posted by Joshua | March 27, 2008 3:15 PM

Charlie Wilson's Masseuse's War

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 27, 2008 3:25 PM

The Bush Administration outsources any and all functions it can even if it can do it better and cheaper in house.

That may be true, but in this instance, since the US government isn't in the business of providing Soviety Bloc weapons and ammunition, it pretty much had to work through contractors. Again, there's no evidence presented that "the Bush administration," as opposed to your usual array of well-meaning, if not terribly competent, civil servants and low-level military officers had anything to do with this.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 27, 2008 3:26 PM

Sounds like there's a market here for a competently run company to supply arms to the Afghans. Since this one's the good war and all, why don't the flophouse guys start one? Imagine the articles and blogging you could generate from the experience. You'd just have to hunt for WiFi hotspots in your East Block supplier countries and in Afghanistan.

There must really be a paucity of bidders for these B2G contracts for some 22-year-old ex-masseuse to land one.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 3:32 PM

There must really be a paucity of bidders for these B2G contracts for some 22-year-old ex-masseuse to land one.

Depends on whose back you've got to rub to bid.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 27, 2008 3:43 PM

"That may be true, but in this instance, since the US government isn't in the business of providing Soviety Bloc weapons and ammunition, it pretty much had to work through contractors. Again, there's no evidence presented that "the Bush administration," as opposed to your usual array of well-meaning, if not terribly competent, civil servants and low-level military officers had anything to do with this."

This is true, but another idea might have been to simply pay the relevant Russian companies to deliver new weapons to the Afghans.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 3:43 PM

This fuckup is inexcusible.

I live in the Philadelphia SUBURBS. But every few months, they have a gun show down the road at a local hotel. You can go in and buy CRATES (1000 round packs) of Soviet and Chinese amno of new to fairly new vintage. As well as fully automatic machines, silencers, and hundreds of assault rifles. I've even seen a 50 caliber Browning on sale.

The shows out toward Reading are even bigger and god knows what the fuck they sell in Texas -- tactical nukes, probably.

Its not that hard to arm Third World armies any more. You don't need "Merchants of Death" like the old Interarms -- there are plenty of merchants of deaths. The only time you have to show a little initiative is if you want to skip the paperwork.

You could give a Republican political appointee $10,000, stick him in a whorehouse and he still couldn't figure out how to get laid.

Posted by Don Williams | March 27, 2008 3:47 PM

Where did the people in this crooked family business come from? I couldn't find any mention of their origins in the NYT article.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 27, 2008 3:50 PM

Correction: "fully automatic machines" = "fully automatic machine GUNS"

Posted by Don Williams | March 27, 2008 3:51 PM

Wow Fred is the voice of reason to the other right wingnuts.

You hit the nail on the head. The right wing logic of outsourcing really falls down when you apply any logic at all.

Rather than simply having the military do stuff we are somehow saving money by paying some private company to act as an extra middle man? The goods to be bought or the labor to be performed still costs the same (or in the case of labor often a lot more!) but we add a layer of profit and huge executive salaries and save money? I guess if you use Enron accounting.

Posted by Eric k | March 27, 2008 3:51 PM

"the Marines I was with had M-14 rifles to carry in the boonies--which inconveniently enough do not 'do' full automatic; essentially the sort of rifle you'd use for deer hunting."

Uh, not correct, unless the Marines had theirs modified - which I doubt. M-14's were capable of full auto. And it's the M-16 which is more suited for varmint hunting (not even deer), since the 5.53mm cartridge sucks compared to the 7.62 NATO the M-14 fires. The lighter M-16 cartridge hitting a car body or car windshield will frequently spall, not even hitting the target behind the obstruction. A 7.62 NATO will go right through.

You are partly correct, however, as the Ruger Mini-14 is a shrunk-down version of the M-14 modified for consumer use - and it is used for hunting. But it's also the rifle of choice for police departments since it fires a decent cartridge but doesn't look like an AK. Ruger also makes the Mini-30 which fires the AK round.

The only problem with the M-14 is that it's a heavier rifle to carry - although lighter than the M1 Garand carried in WWII and Korea. Maybe you were thinking of the M1.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 3:55 PM

This is true, but another idea might have been to simply pay the relevant Russian companies to deliver new weapons to the Afghans.

I wonder if they'd be eligible to bid. Probably not, but I don't know.

I live in the Philadelphia SUBURBS. But every few months, they have a gun show down the road at a local hotel. You can go in and buy CRATES (1000 round packs) of Soviet and Chinese amno of new to fairly new vintage. As well as fully automatic machines, silencers, and hundreds of assault rifles. I've even seen a 50 caliber Browning on sale.

I must be going to the wrong gun shows. Or you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect it's a mixture of both.

Reading that the Albanian government were getting 22 dollars per thousand rounds of 7.62 ammunition (is it x 39 or x 54r?) indicates that Albanians ought to be complaining about getting ripped off more than we Americans. You can't buy .22 LR at Wal Mart for that little anymore.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 27, 2008 4:05 PM

Don Williams,

Go and make your fortune. Seriously. Fill the need.

Steve Sailer,

Can I guess what background you are guessing -- Armenian?

R.S. Hack,

You are dating yourself. First, M-16s fire 5.56mm ammo, and second that is the current NATO standard, not 7.62mm. You are right though that no deer hunter would use 5.56mm ammo.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 4:23 PM

You hit the nail on the head. The right wing logic of outsourcing really falls down when you apply any logic at all.

Rather than simply having the military do stuff we are somehow saving money by paying some private company to act as an extra middle man? The goods to be bought or the labor to be performed still costs the same (or in the case of labor often a lot more!) but we add a layer of profit and huge executive salaries and save money? I guess if you use Enron accounting.

The US government doesn't make, and never has made in any sort of quantity, the weapons and ammunition used by Afghanistan's forces. It has to go to outside suppliers. Iraq is being armed with M16 series weapons made in America and firing American ammunition, but one might well ask why they aren't using the cheaper ComBloc stuff lying around from the Baath Regime, and charge corruption in that instance, as well.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 27, 2008 4:24 PM

Cyrus,

You keep completely missing the point.

Duh, of course the US doesn't make the stuff we need here. Someone needs to buy them from Eastern Europe. The way they do it now is some procurement guy in the Army allocates the money and hires this kid's company who then buys the stuff. The simpler thing to do would be just have the army buy the stuff from Albania or wherever in the first place. There is no added value being provided by having a private company act as the middle man.

Posted by Eric k | March 27, 2008 4:35 PM

Which ulema are you talking about? Specifically, which scholars or groups of scholars?
Becuase the most significant centre for Islamic scholarship in South Asia, the Dar-ul-uloom Deoband, has spoken pretty clearly ont he issue. Here is the link
Posted by Ikram | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM

Thank you for the link.
I have noticed how the Deobandi branch has come to the reasonable conclusion that a purely political islam as advocated by Ayman and Osama will destroy the legitimacy of the religion itself. I think the fact that they are in India has much to do with it, but they should be praised and emulated.

What has suprised me is the silence of Al Azhar and other more arab schools.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 27, 2008 4:45 PM

What was the name of the private in Catch 22 who supplied the air force with cotton balls in sauce at certain point, trying to unload his stock?

Milo Minderbinder. He ended up subcontracting to bomb his own guys, with planes marked "MM." Satire, as always, was ahead of reality but reality is catching up.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | March 27, 2008 5:39 PM

Ha!

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/victory_4.php#comment-1607304

Posted by El Cid | March 27, 2008 6:03 PM

"Just one more example of how dangerous it is to have the government led by people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent."

The basic premise might be right, but I'm not sure about the causal mechanism in this particular case. Maybe it's true that the administration neglected, say, FEMA because they had no enthusiasm for good government, believing as they did that these programs are pernicious anyway. And perhaps there was subconscious effort to discredit affirmative action by making a parody of it in the person of Harriet Miers. But it seems that the conservative movement is very much dedicated to the idea that government can do a lot of good if it is occupying other countries. So I'm not sure how their general disdain for government could lead to bad performance in Afghanistan.

The reverse of this argument would reasonably be that since Barack Obama doesn't think the government can succeed militarily in Iraq, that it would be very dangerous to put him in charge of Iraq policy, because he might deliberately sabotage it in some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think that this is going to happen.

Posted by Colatina | March 27, 2008 6:13 PM

Re TheOTherCyrus "I must be going to the wrong gun shows. Or you don't know what you're talking about. I suspect it's a mixture of both. "
-----------
Hey, dumbshit. I've been there. Go to the gun show at the Radisson Hotel Convention Center across from Valley Forge Park. (Yes --where George Washington left all of the cannon scattered around.)

All of the items I've mentioned above I've seen there.

It's called the Borderline Gun Show (heh heh heh).

Next one is sometime in June. I can get you the specific dates if you need them.

Posted by Don Williams | March 27, 2008 9:14 PM

Boy, there seem to be a lot of "gun people" on this blogsite!

As for me, I don't think I've ever even *touched* a gun in my entire life...

Maybe all you gunners can go over to one of those Virginia gun shows, "load up", then just drive up the road to DC and totally "clean out" that huge nest of vipers, parasites, criminals, and traitors based there. Betcha Sen. Jim Webb would be willing to lend a hand!

Meanwhile, I'll be backing you up 100% by typing really harsh and nasty things on Matt's blogsite...

Posted by RKU | March 27, 2008 9:50 PM

Fred, where did I say M-16's don't fire 5.56? That .53 was an obvious typo.

Not to mention that 7.62 NATO is the designation, regardless of what the current standard is.

Don, I'm not sure what gun shows you go to, but last I heard, full auto weapons are Class III and cannot be owned by civilians unless a) they were manufactured before the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986 (which would include that Browning, probably - that's old hardware), or b) you're a Class III Firearms License holder licensed to sell to the military or police.

I'm not up on the current legal status of "assault weapons", which is a vaguely defined term to most people - and legislators - anyway, despite having a precise military definition.

Sound suppressors are also severely restricted (despite the fact that moderately effective ones can be made from plans in numerous books.) The restrictions are Federal, not state, and are basically the same as for full auto weapons. 35 states allow ownership of suppressors and some allow use of them for hunting or animal control.

Of course, all this stuff CAN be SHOWN at a gun show. I've seen stuff like that at shows at the Cow Palace in San Francisco in the past. You just can't walk in and buy it though - unless of course, you know the dealer is willing to sell to anybody. Some dealers might be if you pay them enough. That's highly risky since ATF agents prowl these shows looking for stuff like that.

Check out "The Shotgun News" magazine and Web site for fun stuff. The site doesn't seem to have too much, but back in the day the magazine - a newsprint publication with thousands of ads - used to have some sections for suppressors, full auto, sniper rifles, all kinds of cool stuff.

http://listings.shotgunnews.com/gunad/category/S4220

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 12:21 AM

The kid's just a frontman for his Israel arms merchant uncle, Bar-Kochba Botach. The arms purchases went through Israeli middlemen, and the uncle owns most of little Ephraim's firm.

THAT is how strings were pulled to get a 22-year old into the megamillions arms business and beat out legit American arms dealers lacking Bar-Kochba Botach's clout with US overnment agencies..
You don't have attention-deficit (from his MY SPACE page) 22 year olds negotiating complex paperwork on arms deals worth tens of millions at a crack with former Soviet satellite nations about squirreled away 40-year old ammo stores unknown to even most citizens of those countries - but not to Israeli pros in the arms business.

And the usual old greed and too clever by half corruption by an inexperienced Israeli crime family son is was flushed this cozy arrangement into public attention.

The Botachs and Diveolis have several scams going. The uncle, Bar Kockba-Botach owns 144 commercial properties and businesses as well as his arms sales biz which operates out of a pawn shop he once operated in Crenshaw. He is reportedly worth 700-800 million. The kid's mother Alteret Diveroli, was sued for a scam where a "money for the children" was established in the name of Michael Jackson for poor kids in Africa and USA, even had a Carnaghie Hall fundraiser - but alas, all the money disappeared and none went to the children...They have other scams related to expensive TSA airport equipment that didn't work..

The whole pack of them either belong in jail or deported - preferably to the hospitality of Saudi Arabia or Gaza..

Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 2:28 AM

Steve Sailer breaks the rest of this story, some of which Chris Ford has mentioned:

With some readers' help, I've done some digging into the cast of characters in that NYT article about the 22-year-old international arms dealer who got a huge contract from the U.S. government to supply ammunition (which turned out to be shoddy) to the Afghan government. I asked the question the NYT wouldn't: "Who are these people?"

The answer turns out to be a wacky story that involves Michael Jackson, Maxine Waters, a reality TV show host, the most hostile retailer ever, and the largest palimony suit in American history. I've added all these new findings to the bottom of my previous post: "UPDATED: More amazing adventures of Men with Gold Chains"

Petey might appreciate this part:

There's been a lot of speculation over how young Diveroli got this lucrative contract. One common suggestion is that perhaps he's a big Republican campaign donor.

Yet, the only person mentioned in this posting who has contributed to a Presidential candidate over the last decade, according to OpenSecrets.org, is pawnshop owner turned merchant of death Yoav Botach, who gave $1,000 to John Edwards last year.

That's a lot more interesting than Matt's original knee-jerk comments on this NYT story.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 4:08 AM

Sailor found the same stuff I did just googling about. No doubt the NY Times reporters with better, premium pay search tools and retrieval from newspaper archives have better stuff they are sitting on or elected not to report.

The shit is hitting the fan with Government Oversight.

From Waxman's letter to Diveroli:
At the hearing, please be prepared to discuss your company's financial history, past performance, and compliance with U.S. law and government contracting regulations. The Committee will be sending you under separate cover a request for documents relating to this issue. In addition, I request that you make yourself available for a transcribed interview with Committee staff on or before April 11, 2008.
Waxman has also sent letters to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Each are asked to "be prepared to discuss the scope of AEY's contracts with the Department, efforts by the Department to determine whether AEY is a responsible contractor capable of adequate performance under federal contracts, the Department's efforts to investigate allegations that AEY may have violated U.S. law and government contracting regulations, and any actions the Department has taken against the company as a result of such investigation."
The hearings have been scheduled for for April 17th, at 10:00am sharp.

I started looking because he had a Jewish name and was doing complicated arms transactions with obscure once Iron Curtain firms, state armories, and enormously complicated paperwork for UN-monitored small arms, ammo transactions between nations that all parties - something I didn't think a 22-year old not hooked up to the shady Israel arms network long connected to Mossad could do, Indeed, Ephraim is no Jewish genius - but a kid who struggled in HS and has ADD, and shows writing problems - looking at his My Space entry.

Once you Google, all sorts of shit falls out on this shady extended family.

I am MOST interested in:

1. Who at DoD and at Homeland Security has been approving contracts for their worthless shit. Did Ephraim get intro's from influential donors or were calls made by high level Israelis to their "friends" in the Bush Administration.

2. Who in arms origin countries was doing the signoff on sales of the ammo, and whose name(s) were on the arms export licenses the UN looks at.

3. Who was the receiving American military agency that brought in in and distributed the crap and what did they do about complaints and evident contract non-compliance.

4. Will the investigation broaden to look into the Israeli Uncle and his 700 million-dollar empire of other businesses. This appears to be a Jewish crime family with ties to the Israeli Gov't and with Israeli arms merchants - engaged in ripping off the US taxpayer.

5. The masseur who bailed and is not subpeona'd?
Masseur David M. Packouz also appears to run a business selling scrap metal worldwide. Here's his 2006 Annual report (you can see others through sunbiz.org).

Here's a copy of the business record:

Company Name: Intelliterran Inc.
Business Type: Buying Office
Product/Services: Metal, Scrap, Copper, Non-Ferrous Metal
Number of Employees: 101 - 500 People
Company Website URL: http://

Ownership & Capital
Year Established: 1999

Trade & Market
Main Markets: North America
South America
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Eastern Asia
Southeast Asia
Mid East
Africa
Oceania

Total Annual Sales Volume: US$50 Million - US$100 Million

The headquarters address, 3150 Sheridan Ave, Miami Beach, FL tracks back to the Aish Hatorah Jerusalem fund, a nonprofit run by Rabbi Kenneth M. Packouz and Shoshonna Packouz. No record of a scrap metal business in their 990 IRS filings.

6.Aish Hatorah Jerusalem fund reportedly sponsors military arms fairs run by General Shaul Mofaz, current Likud Party's Minister of Transportation. (From TPM Muckraker - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/waxman_scheds_hearing_for_twen.php )

7. The Army memo has disturbing info: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/aey/?resultpage=4&

a. AEY was doing 24-48 contracts a year with DoD since 2004. Meanwhile Ephraim was also running an office supplies business and helping with his masseur pal's scrap metal business run out of his rabbi Dad's religious offices.

b. It wasn't just ammo, it was also tens of millions in high explosives, howitzer shells, RPGs, grenades, even anti-tank guided missiles....and all were delivered stripped of country of origin packaging. The shippers who did the stripping of ID and the Banks doing the transactions are not clearly understood at this point.

c. Why AEY was approved, who approved them for nearly 100 contracts, and other bidders rejected was not discussed in the Army's suspension letter. Nor the names of the many people that had to be working with young Ephraim.

Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 6:35 AM

If I'm not mistaken, if these bozos are indeed from Miami Beach they are constituents of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | March 28, 2008 8:57 AM

"If I'm not mistaken, if these bozos are indeed from Miami Beach they are constituents of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen."

The arms depot and the guys actually running it are in South Central Los Angeles, so they are constituents of Maxine Waters.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 9:05 AM

Re Richard's comment " You just can't walk in and buy it though - unless of course, you know the dealer is willing to sell to anybody. "
-------------
Class III purchases (fully automatic machine guns, silencers ) require a background check and a $200 transfer tax. The $200 tax dates from 1930 and was a backdoor way for Congress to use its power to tax to suppress sales of machine guns without violating the Second Amendment. Of course, inflation has lessened that deterrent.

The ban on further Manufacture of fully-automatic machine guns dates from about 20?? years ago -- so there's a fair number out there. Plus any moron can make an illegal Sten gun --they're very simple. (Brits didn't have time to piss around in 1940 when they designed them --not with Hitler breathing down their neck.)

I've shot fully automatic machine guns and think they're not worth the trouble. Something that's controllable usually shoots the 9mm pistol round and the common pump shotgun is equally good.
(Shoots equivalent of nine 9mm rounds per blast of double ought buckshot. )

Semi-automatic AK47s are as good as the Army's fully-automatic M16 in all but a few special cases (Might want fully automatic fire to bust out of an ambush.) Aimed fire is much more effective than "spray and pray".

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 9:40 AM

Don, the AK47 is fully-automatic, not semi-automatic. Move the safety catch down one notch for automatic fire, and another for semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull).

Your opinion that fully automatic machine guns are "not worth the trouble" and that shotguns are just as good is, shall we say, a minority one.

On the other side, there's every army in the world for the last ninety years or so, during which they have all been acquiring more and more machine guns of various sorts - from machine-pistols and SMGs to automatic rifles, LMGs, heavy machine guns and so on. There's also, as you note, Congress, which restricts machine guns far more heavily than it does pump-action shotguns.

On your side, there's ... well, there's just you really.

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 10:47 AM

I think it is high time we have our choice of 6-speed AK47's or maybe even CVT's, and someday hybrids on the skateboard platform.

Posted by El Cid | March 28, 2008 10:57 AM

Re Ajay's comment "Don, the AK47 is fully-automatic, not semi-automatic "
-------------
What I said was "Semi-automatic AK47s are as good as the Army's fully-automatic M16 "

Maybe a pedant like you would have preferred if I had said "Semi-automatic VERSIONS of the AK47 --widely available at gun shows -- are as good"

Talk to some who's been in the infantry and ask them for their opinion of the frequency/usefulness of Semi-automatic aimed fire versus fully automatic fire.

The US Army MODIFIED the M16 to REMOVE its fully-automatic fire capability. When in Automatic mode, it only fires 3 rounds per pull of the trigger. Why do you think they did that?

In my opinion, the only reason the Army even kept the 3 round burst capability of the M16 is that
if you're being overrunned by the enemy --Final Protective Fires -- and you only have the M16 5.56 mouse gun then you need to shoot an attacker multiple times to stop him.

By contrast , the AK-47 7.62 x 39 round has roughly the weight (125 grains) -- and over 1 1/2 times the velocity (2300 fps) -- of the 357 Magnum round. And candy ass civilians can use hollow-points.

By contrast, the M16 round only weighs 55 grains (maybe 60? in the S109 round).

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 12:31 PM

Re Ajay's comment "There's also, as you note, Congress, which restricts machine guns far more heavily than it does pump-action shotguns "
----------------
Yes -- and Congress is so knowledgable about firearms, right?

The Military keeps pump-action shotguns (Rem 870s and Mossberg 500s). Why do they do that?

The H&K MP5 machine gun used by the Seals,etc has one advantage over the pump shotgun (I've fired both.)

The MP5 can be fired in semi-automatic mode (one shot per pull of the trigger) and it can be fitted with a silencer. Although you have to use heavier than normal 9mm rounds with the silencer because the standard 9mm pistol round cracks the sound barrier at 1200 fps (maybe 1500 fps with the MP5's longer barrel). With the MP5's longer barrel, the 9mm pistol round's round is extended from 50 yards to maybe around 80 yards. If you don't need silenced fire, then the MP5 is a pretty crappy weapon in the power vs weight tradeoff.

Never get in an argument with a gun nut.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 12:46 PM

Talk to some who's been in the infantry and ask them for their opinion of the frequency/usefulness of Semi-automatic aimed fire versus fully automatic fire.

OK then.

"Hey, Imaginary Soldier!"

("Yes?")

"I see you're in a bit of a firefight there!"

("I sure am! We ran into these guys when we were out on a patrol and it all started happening!")

"Look, I've got Don Williams here. He wants to take away that M-60 you're using and give you a pump-action shotgun instead. What do you say?"

(unintelligible)

"I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Shotguns are only useful in a small number of highly specialised cases, such as taking down doors, and he should insert his pump-action shotgun where, exactly? Uh-huh... OK, well, Don takes your point, but he says semi-automatic fire is still far better than fully-automatic. So you can keep your M-60, but I'm going to modify it to fire one round at a time. How's that?"

(unintelligible)

"Uh huh, he should insert his single-shot M-60 there too? What? ...well, you see, Don's not actually qualified to come out there and experience combat himself. He's just a gun nut on the internet... What's that? Well, yes, I am qualified, now you ask, Imaginary Soldier. In fact, I've spent the last five years being trained in infantry combat by some of the finest soldiers in the world. Why do you ask? ...Because you're a figment of my imagination designed to allow me to make the points I want? You're not so dumb, Imaginary Soldier! Thanks, and good luck with the firefight!"

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 1:23 PM

OK, a question for Imaginary Soldier. Is the M-60 the Army uses now the same one I learned how to shoot in 1967? Because to fire that one, you got down on the ground and used the bipod on the barrel. The instructors, as I recall were derisive about the usefulness of firing it from the hip, because only the first round would go in anything like the direction you started off pointing it in.

Posted by roac | March 28, 2008 2:24 PM

1) Kinda misleading, Ajay.

2) One, I didn't say pump shotguns should replace assault rifles. Assault rifle effective range is around 250 yards, shotgun's is around 40.

What I was comparing is value of pump shotguns relative to fully automatic submachine guns like the MP5.

3) You might inform your reader that that M60 you cited weighs in around --what ? -- 24 pounds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun

Plus it uses up so much amno you usually need a second guy along to carry the amno. Maybe Ajay could explain why every infantryman isn't carrying one around in Iraq.

4) But , with Ajay's reasoning, I suppose every infantryman should just discard his assault rifle and pull a howitzer along behind him.

5) Re Ajay's comment "In fact, I've spent the last five years being trained in infantry combat by some of the finest soldiers in the world"

Unfortunately, those trainers stuck you with a piece of shit called the M16:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,84635,00.html

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 2:28 PM