You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
UN challenges U.S. Congress on oil, food probe
2005-05-10
The Soap Opera continues.
The United Nations won the firstround of a skirmish against the U.S. Congress on Monday when a federal judge temporarily blocked a former investigator from distributing documents on the oil-for-food program for Iraq. U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington issued a 10-day restraining order against the investigator, Robert Parton, a former FBI agent, so both sides could have time to resolve the issue.

The restraining order was sought by Paul Volcker, head of a U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee (ICC) investigating fraud in the $67 billion humanitarian program. Parton resigned from the Volcker probe, saying he believed the committee's last report was not tough enough on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. On Thursday he turned over documents from the IIC to the U.S. House of Representatives International Relations Committee, led by Illinois Republican Henry Hyde. The suit seeks to force Parton to return the documents and not comply with subpoenas from two other congressional committees. Susan Ringler, counsel for the IIC, said in a supporting brief that the documents could "pose a grave risk to the safety of Iraqi witnesses, who if their names are disclosed, fear for their lives and the lives of their families."
This is not the reason so why are they so keen to get the documents back? I have to conclude they contain significant new evidence of wrongdoing.
A UN agency worrying about the lives of ordinary Iraqis? There's a first ...
But the U.N. complaint puts the inquiry committee on a collision course with the U.S. Congress where Republican legislators accuse the IIC of undue secrecy and Volcker says he has to protect the credibility of his investigation.
Credibility through secrecy, thats a new one.
I hadn't thought that Mr. Volcker needed the money, but I can't think of another reason why he got involved in this sordid affair ...
Lanny Davis, Parton's lawyer, said, that his client provided information to congress because he was forced to do so by a subpoena and would comply with the court's ruling. Parton, in his own statement, said he kept copies of "certain materials relating to the areas of the investigation for which I was responsible because of my concern that the investigative process and conclusions were flawed."
A damming statement if I ever heard one.
In the court documents, the U.N. brief said Parton had agreed, in writing to respect the confidentiality of the investigation, which he then violated. "In fact, however, Mr. Parton appears to have unlawfully removed large quantities of Independent Inquiry Committee materials," the U.N. complaint said.
Unlawfully? In which juristiction was this law enacted and by which elected representatives? If a US juristiction then thats up to a judge to decide. The UN has no laws, so it can't under a UN law.
An agreement is an agreement, however, and one that a US court (bound by law) will enforce. I sure hope Congressman Hyde can work a copying machine ...
Volcker on Friday offered a compromise to Congressional committees to allow Parton to give a one-off public statement. providing the materials were returned.
Don't sound like much of a deal.
Volcker, who will give a final report this summer, released an interim report on March 29 that said there was no evidence Annan had interfered in the awarding of a lucrative contract in Iraq to the Swiss firm Cotecna, which employed his son Kojo. But it said the secretary-general was lax in not investigating the possible conflict of interest when U.N. officials closed the probe after only 24 hours. "That non-finding is hardly an endorsement or exoneration," Volcker said, adding that, "On the basis of the facts reported, others may, and have, drawn other inferences."

Parton, however, said he disagreed with "the path the ICC chose to take." He said the documents allowed him to "be in a position to defend myself against risks that I knew existed as a result of the IIC Committee's actions."
A curious statement. Was he being set up somehow, in order to keep him quiet about things he knew?
Posted by:phil_b

#12  RICO prosecution is in order

Sounds like a great bumpersticker:

"RICO the UN"
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-05-10 13:38  

#11  I believe Volker has personal ties with the OFF circle, as well -- a nephew/niece married to someone else's opposite number, that kind of thing. Much like Chiraq and Chretien are related by marriage... and apparently quite a few others in the group.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-05-10 12:32  

#10  We need to keep an eye on this one. The pain in my side sez that this is the tip of the sh*t iceberg.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-05-10 11:52  

#9  The congress needs to slam a congressional impeachment inquiry for Contempt of Congress at this judge who is providing cover to UN criminals. A US Congressional subpeona overrules any treaty in my book.
Posted by: OldSpook   2005-05-10 11:45  

#8  Volcker has business ties with one or more of the companies involved in the Oil for Food scandal. I don't have the cites, but several bloggers are following the issue closely and have all the poop.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2005-05-10 10:30  

#7  Think they "shopped" for the judge to handle this for them?

Google "U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina"
and you get in the very first hit:

"Urbina, Ricardo M. Born 1946 in New York, NY Federal Judicial Service: US District
Court for the District of Columbia Nominated by William J. Clinton on ..."
Posted by: .com   2005-05-10 09:50  

#6  an immediate shutoff of all funds to the UN and an eviction order should be our response. RICO prosecution is in order
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-10 08:43  

#5  I didn't know a Fed Judge could block a Congressional investigation.These seems wrong!
Posted by: raptor   2005-05-10 08:36  

#4  "Mr. Parton appears to have unlawfully removed large quantities of Independent Inquiry Committee materials"
Off to the slammer in Brussels with him -- can't have people revealing UN secrets... Why would the UN have ANY secrets other than private personnel files???
Posted by: Tom   2005-05-10 08:25  

#3  Ya know, I'm pretty sure you can't enforce a contract intended to conceal evidence of a crime.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I really suspect the UN's just clutching at straws.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-05-10 07:28  

#2  The 10-day restraint is pretty standard when one party claims "risk of injury or death", I believe, which may be why the claim was made - a procedural dodge. As for the docs being "unlawfully obtained", well, bullshit. His notes, his property. Does the UN have a reciept, maybe? An inventory of what we're not allowed to see?

This guy no longer works for the UN, and if history is any guide, never will again.

Put up or shut up, Volcker.
Posted by: mojo   2005-05-10 01:49  

#1  An agreement is an agreement, however, and one that a US court (bound by law) will enforce. It depends where it was signed and its wording. If signed on UN premises then these premises are by convention (and some would say by law) not part of the USA (like a foreign embassy) and hence US laws do not apply. I think it extremely unlikely that the UN will test any contract in a US court becuase of the precedent set.

In addition, I don't know the situation in the USA but here in Australia, conditions in an employment contract relating to after the employment has been terminated are dificult to enforce becuase they are generally considered to violate the common law principle of freedom of trade. The employer has to demonstrate harm to their business or reputation, which should be fun to watch.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-05-10 00:51  

00:00