MJ Logue

Failing to live up to the rules you hold over others

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon claims diplomatic immunity for the UN against the charge that it caused the cholera outbreak in Haiti & will therefore not answer to the case against it. 

They’re not following the very convention they’re invoking.

Article V, Section 20 of the Convention he’s using to shield the UN from answering to it says its his duty to waive immunity in any case where the immunity would impede the course of justice.

And Section 21 reads: “The United Nations shall co-operate at all times with the appropriate authorities of Members to facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observance of police regula- tions and prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges, immunities and facilities mentioned in this Article.”

Here’s the convention:

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1946/12/19461214%2010-17%20PM/Ch_III_1p.pdf

USAID rabbit hole

In digging into the ratio of grant money awarded by USAID to American organizations vs. local ones I got sidetracked by coming across the internal audit on its own practices to ensure they are not funding individuals/organizations that have been involved with terrorism. The report is eye-opening, and reflects the fact that their policies do not go far enough to prevent such funding (a fact they admit). It’s dated to 2007, now I’m curious if they’ve altered policies since then. The original search was a sidetrack from my original research intent, now this is a sidetrack off a sidetrack. Sigh.

Shockingly, this is one of their “strict” rules for avoiding the funding of terrorist-associates:

10 years?! So if I was supporting terrorists back in 2003 (yeah when I was 15) I could be a viable candidate for USAID funding today? Why isn’t the policy zero-tolerance?

The report also cites “the” 2 cases where policies failed to prevent funding supporters of terrorism, this is one of them:

“In February 2005, a USAID partner pled guilty to lying to law enforcement officials about his involvement with and support to one of the disciples of Osama bin Laden in a terrorism-related investigation. In August 2005, a U.S. District Court in Louisiana sentenced the former USAID partner to 48 months’ imprisonment and a fine for making false statements to Federal agents in connection with counterterrorism investigations. Before the indictment, USAID officials had provided the partner with approximately $108,000 (of an estimated $1 million) from July 2004 to January 2005 for a program funded out of USAID/Pakistan. Initially, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan notified USAID about the partner’s arrest in October 2004 pursuant to the indictment. Of the $108,000, USAID paid the partner $25,000 as a termination settlement for the grant that was awarded in July 2004.”

Yeah, now I want to know that whole story as well. US district court in Louisiana hands down the sentence for a grantee for a project in Pakistan, after being informed by the embassy in Pakistan… was this an American? Were they in the US for this sentencing? I’m assuming, I don’t think we really do in absentia verdicts here in public view do we? A LexisNexis search is certainly in order.

More & more things to search out as always.

Take a look at the report for yourself: http://transition.usaid.gov/about/foia/9-000-08-001-p.pdf