John Yoo's Tortured Explanations
By Michael Winship
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 08 April 2008

"John Adams," that entertaining and instructive TV mini-series based on David McCullough's biography, is a reminder that, in some respects, nations are created as much from rancor and ego as they are from hope and goodwill.
In the television version of the irascible Mr. Adams's saga, democracy triumphs. Still, while watching it, I can't help but be a little depressed by the thought that while the Founding Fathers sought to build a government of laws rather than men and were crafting such worthy documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the current administration's legacy to history will be a series of documents that chose to subvert the very Constitution that Adams, Jefferson, and the others battled so hard to create.
These documents reveal themselves slowly and reluctantly, as if to acknowledge that those who wrote them know deep in their souls what they have done is wrong and antithetical to the ways of a republic.
The latest to ooze its way to the surface, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act suit by the ACLU, is the March 14, 2003, memo written by John Yoo, former deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), an acolyte of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff and former Cheney legal counsel.
Contrary to claims the abuses at Abu Ghraib and other prisons were contrived by subordinates on the ground - i.e., "hicks with sticks" - Yoo's 81-page memo rationalizes motive and establishes the bar for virtually every human rights violation that has taken place in the name of fighting the global war on terrorism.
It is, in the words of Dan Froomkin, author of The Washington Post's irreplaceable "White House Briefing" blog, "a historic document ... the ultimate expression of Cheney's belief that anything the president or his designates do - no matter how illegal, barbaric or un-American - is justifiable in the name of national self-defense.
"It is also an example of how enabling zealots to disregard the rule of law and the customary boundaries of human conduct leads to madness."
Froomkin's description of the memo was echoed by The Post's Dan Eggen and Josh White, who added, "Nine months after it was issued, Justice Department officials told the Defense Department to stop relying on it. But its reasoning provided the legal foundation for the Defense Department's use of aggressive interrogation practices at a crucial time, as captives poured into military jails from Afghanistan and US forces prepared to invade Iraq.
"... The memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to US interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers."
It was this memo, among others, that was shown to Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been in charge of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, when he was reassigned to "GITMO-ize" detention operations in Iraq ("GITMO-ize" being the word he used to Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, then commander of military prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib).
Perhaps not insignificantly, as noted by Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, formerly with the OLC, "The vast majority of the criminal abuse in Iraq occurs between Miller's arrival and December 2003 (In December 2003, new OLC head Jack Goldsmith informed the Pentagon that it should no longer rely on John Yoo's legal analysis.)."
As if this weren't enough, a footnote in the March 2003 memo reveals a second John Yoo masterpiece that blithely undermines the Constitution, in this case, the Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Written on October 23, 2001, not even a month and a half after 9/11, this still-classified Justice Department memo, titled, "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States," held that the Fourth Amendment had no bearing on domestic military operations.
Although now disavowed by the White House, according to The Associated Press (AP), "For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on US soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism."
AP quoted Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security project: "The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the US They believe that the president should be above the law."
In 1977, most of us laughed in astonishment after a disgraced Richard Nixon said to David Frost, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Turns out that belief is standard operating procedure in the White House of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their enablers, such as David Addington and Yoo, who now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
According to several sources, one of the "inspirations" for the techniques used against real-life detainees has been the Fox TV series, "24." In my own mental TiVo, the great John Adams is to John Yoo what the intelligent "John Adams" TV series is to a different program on Fox, that sordid reality game show, "The Moment of Truth," in which contestants are hooked up to lie detectors and interrogated about infidelities and other vices.
But on the game show, only the viewers are tortured.
--------
Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East, and former writer with Bill Moyers, writes this weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in upstate New York. This article was previously published in the Messenger Post Newspapers.
-------

Corporate Croesus
The New York Times | Editorial
Tuesday 08 April 2008
As accustomed as we are to the other-worldly rewards lavished on captains of finance and industry, it is still galling that the chiefs managed to finagle a raise last year as many of the companies they led were in trouble.
A study published on Sunday by The Times of many of the biggest companies found that chief executives who had held their jobs for at least two years got an average pay increase of 5 percent last year, despite poor results at many of their companies.
Net income at Office Depot fell 23 percent last year compared with 2006; its share price fell 64 percent. Steve Odland, its chief, made nearly $18 million all told - some 85 percent more than in 2006. With the share price of Toll Brothers, the luxury home builder, plummeting, it seems reasonable that Robert Toll, its chief, got no bonus. Still, the company took steps to ensure that he gets one this year, even if home-building doesn't recover.
It's hard to square the conceit that chief executives are rewarded for improving companies' performance with the fact that chiefs at 10 financial-services firms in the study made $320 million last year, even as their banks reported mortgage-related losses of $55 billion.
Meanwhile, the average earnings of typical workers have failed to keep up with inflation in four of the past five years. According to the economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, average incomes in the highest-earning 1 percent of the United States grew 11 percent year-over-year between 2002 and 2006. Incomes in the bottom 99 percent grew by 0.9 percent annually over the period. This year looks bad, too.
This polarization is producing a pattern of income distribution rarely seen outside Africa or Latin America, and unheard of in the United States, at least since the gilded age. In 2006, the 15,000 families in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution - earning at least $10.7 million apiece - pocketed 3.48 percent of the nation's total income, double their share in 1993.
Some analysts argue that the spectacular rise in executive pay is to be expected in a marketplace in which bigger and bigger firms compete for talent. Others suggest it has more to do with the ability of chief executives to manipulate their boards to set their own pay.
In any case, the combination of inexorable income growth at the very apex of society and stagnation everywhere else can serve no public good.
The Bush administration has focused its economic policies on cutting taxes for the very richest Americans. Taxation needs urgently to become more progressive. If the United States is to continue to embrace globalization, technological innovation and other forces that contribute to economic growth, it has to share the spoils better.
-------

This whole area is quite disturbing. I recently heard that companies who provide internet service and email accounts may also be involved. Apparently Google Mail, (gmail) is contracted out locally regionally. Who knows how all the different small providers handle the accounts. It makes one wonder if AOL, Fox, MSN, even Microsoft itself could be involved in these schemes. Anybody have any insight into this? GFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI Data Transfers Via Telecoms Questioned
By Ellen Nakashima
The Washington Post
Tuesday 08 April 2008
When FBI investigators probing New York prostitution rings, Boston organized crime or potential terrorist plots anywhere want access to a suspect's telephone contacts, technicians at a telecommunications carrier served with a government order can, with the click of a mouse, instantly transfer key data along a computer circuit to an FBI technology office in Quantico.
The circuits - little-known electronic connections between telecom firms and FBI monitoring personnel around the country - are used to tell the government who is calling whom, along with the time and duration of a conversation and even the locations of those involved.
Recently, three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.), sent a letter to colleagues citing privacy concerns over one of the Quantico circuits and demanding more information about it. Anxieties about whether such electronic links are too intrusive form a backdrop to the continuing congressional debate over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs federal surveillance.
Since a 1994 law required telecoms to build electronic interception capabilities into their systems, the FBI has created a network of links between the nation's largest telephone and Internet firms and about 40 FBI offices and Quantico, according to interviews and documents describing the agency's Digital Collection System. The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco that specializes in digital-rights issues.
The bureau says its budget for the collection system increased from $30 million in 2007 to $40 million in 2008. Information lawfully collected by the FBI from telecom firms can be shared with law enforcement and intelligence-gathering partners, including the National Security Agency and the CIA. Likewise, under guidelines approved by the attorney general or a court, some intercept data gathered by intelligence agencies can be shared with law enforcement agencies.
"When you're building something like this deeply into the telecommunications infrastructure, when it becomes so technically easy to do, the only thing that stands between legitimate use and abuse is the complete honesty of the persons and agencies using it and the ability to have independent oversight over the system's use," said Lauren Weinstein, a communications systems engineer and co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, a group that studies Web issues. "It's who watches the listeners."
Different versions of the system are used for criminal wiretaps and for foreign intelligence investigations inside the United States. But each allows authorized FBI agents and analysts, with point-and-click ease, to receive e-mails, instant messages, cellphone calls and other communications that tell them not only what a suspect is saying, but where he is and where he has been, depending on the wording of a court order or a government directive. Most of the wiretapping is done at field offices.
Wiretaps to obtain the content of a phone call or an e-mail must be authorized by a court upon a showing of probable cause. But "transactional data" about a communication - from whom, to whom, how long it lasted - can be obtained by simply showing that it is relevant to an official probe, including through an administrative subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL). According to the Justice Department's inspector general, the number of NSLs issued by the FBI soared from 8,500 in 2000 to 47,000 in 2005.
The administration has proposed expanding the types of data it can get from telecom carriers under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, so FBI agents can gain faster and more detailed access to information sent by wireless devices that reveals where a person is in real time. The Federal Communications Commission is weighing the request.
"Court-authorized electronic surveillance is a critical tool in pursuing both criminal and terrorist subjects," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government is asking only for information at the beginning and end of a communication, and for information "reasonably available" in a carrier's network.
Al Gidari, a telecom industry lawyer at Perkins Coie in Seattle who handles wiretap orders for companies, said government officials now "have to rely on a human being at a telecom calling up every 15 minutes to send law enforcement the data."
He added: "What they want is an automatic feed, continuously. So you're checking the weather on your mobile device or making a call," and the device would transmit location data automatically. "It's full tracking capability. It's a scary proposition."
In an affidavit circulated on Capitol Hill, security consultant Babak Pasdar alleged that a telecom carrier he had worked for maintained a high-speed DS-3 digital line that co-workers referred to as "the Quantico Circuit." He said it allowed a third party "unfettered" access to the carrier's wireless network, including billing records and customer data transmitted wirelessly.
He was hired to upgrade network security for Verizon in 2003; sources other than Pasdar said the carrier in his affidavit is Verizon.
Dingell and his colleagues said House members should be given access to information to help them evaluate Pasdar's allegations.
FBI officials said a circuit of the type described by Pasdar does not exist. All telecom circuits at Quantico are one-way, from the carrier, said Anthony Di Clemente, section chief of the FBI operational technology division. He also said any transmissions of data to Quantico are strictly pursuant to court orders.
Records, including who sent and received communications, the duration and the time, are kept for evidentiary purposes and to support applications to extend wiretap orders, he said.
Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said no government agency has open access to the company's networks through electronic circuits.
-------

Last updated April 7, 2008 2:10 p.m. PT
Case of ex-Boeing inspector ends in mistrial
By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

A jury couldn't reach an agreement on the fate of former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman, resulting in a mistrial on Monday.

Jurors, who entered their fifth day of deliberations Monday, were split 10-to-2, with the majority leaning to convict Eastman. He was accused of 16 felony counts of computer trespass, after downloading Boeing documents and providing some of them to a Seattle Times reporter. He also had contact with a Seattle P-I reporter.

"We will review the case and make a decision within two weeks on whether to seek a retrial," said Dan Donohoe, spokesman for the King County prosecutor.

Eastman had said that contacting the media was his last resort after Boeing management and the Federal Aviation Administration ignored his complaints about what he said was a shoddy inspection process for new planes. Eastman says that he is a whistle-blower.
The King County prosecutor charged that some of the resulting newspaper articles had nothing to do with airplane safety.

Juror Butch Higgins, 63, of Seattle, approached Eastman after the trial and called him a hero. Higgins said that he was one of two jurors who believed that Eastman was granted access to Boeing's computer systems, and that his crime did not constitute "trespass."
"This man (Eastman) showed tremendous courage," said Higgins, a retail clerk. "I bought the Kool-Aid on his ratting out Boeing."

Judge Monica Benton had told jurors that whistle-blowing laws should not be considered when making a decision.

The case against Eastman had several holes -- the biggest of which was that Eastman was an "authorized user" of the Boeing computer system, yet was being tried for unauthorized access to documents, said his public defender, Ramona Brandes.
Brandes spoke with several of the jurors after the trial.

"They were convinced that he took the material home," she said. "But they were struggling with the authorization portion of the elements. That was very clearly the weakness in the law. ... I'm pleased that the jury took their time with this case and spent so long trying to work through it."

Eastman, who blogged about his experiences during the trial, had testified that he met with Seattle Times reporter Dominic Gates, and had shown him portions of documents that Boeing viewed as sensitive.

Each count against Eastman corresponded with a document that charging papers say was the basis for a Seattle Times article. If convicted on all counts Eastman could have faced just more than 4 1/2 years in jail.

Boeing's investigations team searched for three years to find the source of the leaks, and even checked the e-mails and phone records of senior leadership. It wasn't until an anonymous e-mail to Boeing management in April 2006 that the company was able to discover the leak was coming from Eastman, who worked in Boeing's propulsion systems division in Tukwila.

Eastman combed Boeing's share drives -- some of which were not password-protected -- and downloaded thousands of documents via a thumb drive. After Eastman's arrest in May 2006, Seattle police detectives found thousands of documents on Eastman's home computer.

"It was my intention not to hurt Boeing in any way or release any info that would hurt Boeing," Eastman testified during the trial. Eastman told the jury that he needed to access Boeing documents to expose that the Chicago-based company did not do a thorough job of inspecting planes in production.

Eastman said he was building up a relationship with Gates to prepare him for a larger story on inspections.

But during a three-year relationship with Gates, as senior deputy prosecutor Scott Peterson pointed out, Eastman did not tell his big story about inspections.

P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.

Seattle P.I. asks “What do you think?”
#405891

Posted by flyboy at 4/7/08 2:12 p.m.
It all could have been avoided if Boeing supervisors had spent a little time listening to Eastman.

#405909

Posted by the screen name you at 4/7/08 2:27 p.m.
How much did this nonconviction cost the taxpayers?

Is Boeing going to reimburse King County?

#405922

Posted by NAYSAYING TROLL at 4/7/08 2:43 p.m.
This prosecuter should be shown the door.
Let's hope this arrogant company has had enough of their dirty laundry aired out in public as a result of this trial. By now everyone should be wondering if these planes are being properly inspected, or not.

#405925

Posted by takemeaway! at 4/7/08 2:48 p.m.
Remember: Big Brother (Boeing?) is watching these posts. The prosecution will be pressured to retry by Boeing and other interested parties in order to smear any attempt at a whistleblower lawsuit. I would be very surprised if prosecutorial discretion wins the day and this guy is not retried.

#405928

Posted by takemeaway! at 4/7/08 2:49 p.m.
I think this was a hung jury and not a mistrial. Uh,which one?

#405940

Posted by D_P at 4/7/08 2:57 p.m.
Ha ha! I hope this was jury nullification.

#405979

Posted by allsburg at 4/7/08 3:30 p.m.
A hung jury causes the judge to declare a mistrial. (Her alternative was to force the jury to go back and deliberate more.)

Jury nullification occurs when a jury votes to acquit someone despite actually believing the person to be guilty. The jury might do so because they believe that while the person's conduct was "illegal", the surrounding context makes the jury feel that the person did "nothing wrong."

#405985

Posted by Green Party at 4/7/08 3:37 p.m.
GOOD.

#406009

Posted by zinger at 4/7/08 4:13 p.m.
Eastman, I would not be shouting a victory against The Boeing Company and my mission must continue on. A 10-2 vote to convict is not even a moral victory. My impression is and will always be that you broke the law when you not only accessed share drives for your quote unquote database, but when you copied those files and uploaded them onto your personal computer at home, you crossed the line and broke the law. According to your own analogy, there should airplanes built by Boeing crashing daily because they were not inspected to your standards. That is and has not happened, so your premise of inadeqaucy falls apart and you do not have any point to jump on your podium (BLOG) and blow your horn. The smart people at Boeing have a master plan about safety and quality that far exceed your capability of understanding. You should spend some time exploring the good in things instead all of your derogatory sinical rhetoric slamming one of the better companies in this country.

#406026

Posted by mshowell at 4/7/08 4:26 p.m.
Thanks Zinger for putting it correctlly. I work with the QA of Boeing, and if anything, they all go overboard in looking at things. I will ask for just one thing to be looked at and next thing you know, they are ripping out a pickup for something you haven't ask or is in your job title to do. Granted at the time I;'m a little POed, but then the error is fixed, by the person who made the error or their team leader.
Bottom line: I would and will trust a Boeing QA, I may not agree at things at times, but that's human nature.

#406091

Posted by Green Party at 4/7/08 5:56 p.m.
mshowell, NOW 'they all go overboard in looking at things.'

It took a human sacrifice to do it that way, though. Think a little.

And you'd better hope that you are never caught between your conscience and your career (that is, assuming you have a conscience), because you are helping close the door on your own self.

#406126

Posted by zinger at 4/7/08 6:45 p.m.
There is no human sacrifice and Eastman has and had nothing to do with nor will he ever have input about the methodology of inspections or inspection intervals at Boeing. The inspection methodology at Boeing is so concise and precise that it allows a single individual to create doubt in the integrity of the product. However, in the case of Eastman, it is very obvious that he wants total control because he beleives he knows better than anyone else. In any industry, those people are shuffled aside for someone who is willing to listen and learn and be a team player. Why would you suspect he was transferred around frequently while he was an employee of Boeing ? It is because he would not listen and felt that he knew more than anyone around him. Furthermore, writing hate mail about Boeing QA to anybody any everybody is crazy. Who would understand his rhetoric when it so detailed and hate filled. The answer is Nobody would understand and just through the complaint letter in the garbage. He needs a re-trial and the prosecuting attorney ought to pay a little more attention to whom ends up as a juror. The two no votes ought to have never happened. The guy stole data, brought it home, and used it for his own personal vendetta against a pretty good employer.

#406147

Posted by Green Party at 4/7/08 7:23 p.m.
You have obviously not done any reading on the case, zinger.

#406163

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/7/08 7:41 p.m.
Although I will defend your right to say whatever thing it is you feel compelled to say, (the last time I checked this is still America and I want to believe we still have a Constitution), it is an indication of how ugly it is inside the Boeing Company when comments such as zinger's and mshowell's still stubbornly appear in forums such as this.

Considering the control and influence exerted by Boeing and the seemingly biased direction from the judge, it is a great credit to those members of this jury who saw through the flack and recognized a whistleblower situation for what it was. A person who in doing his job found unacceptable corruption and fraud that not only was a moral and ethical problem, but could have been a great risk to the military, American public, and anyone else flying in those planes, made the conscious decision to stand up to the problem and those responsible for it since the company was not willingly doing it on its own. A person who takes this kind of action is by definition a whistleblower. Rather than turning away and ignoring the wrongdoing, allowing pressure from management and from others within the company to silence him, rather than keeping quiet and continuing to collect his ample paycheck, this whistleblower tried to see to it that the problems were confronted and honestly resolved, at great personal cost to himself and his family.

That no level of his company would hold itself accountable to do the right thing, meant he had to go to the federal oversight agency that is supposed to be policing the Boeing Company's manufacturing process, the FAA. Sadly, the FAA itself has been corrupted and is involved in allegations of malfeasance and fraud. There are many articles, and in fact other whistleblowers nationwide, within the Boeing Company and the government, who have been fighting to get these and other related problems stopped. Due to influences high in our government and what has been called in some quarters “an atmosphere of corruption,” even the Justice Department has been unable to effectively do its job. When FAA failed, Mr. Eastman went to his elected officials (Senators) and also the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, as he should have. Those are the correct paths for a whistleblower to take when as an employee he or she cannot get the problems resolved at a more informal level. At first Mr. Eastman was met with ambivalence and reticence from those who should have acted responsibly to see to it the allegations of wrongdoing were investigated thoroughly and if found to have merit, most assuredly rectified. In fact a later audit by DOT OIG vindicated some of Mr. Eastman’s claims. It is worth noting that if the company had worked to honestly resolve the problems in the first place internally when Mr. Eastman was first working his way up his command chain, none of this later public airing would have had to occur. And the flying public and military might well be better off as even now, we are being barraged by scores of reports of problems with planes causing them to be grounded, at least some of which are Boeing planes.

There are currently investigations into a number of civil and criminal matters still being investigated, which involve companies including Boeing. And I believe there are other whistleblowers, including Boeing, who are working to resolve some of the things that need to be addressed. I hope The Boeing Company will take a deep breath and clear their mind of any more delusions of impunity. It is my opinion that things will continue on until Boeing and any other companies with apparent ethics problems, clean up their collective acts.

Ethics is more than a required eight-hour course, once a year. It is a daily way of doing business. It is a way of working with your employees to assure that you really are creating the best quality product and providing the best possible work environment for your employees which creates sincere pride in belonging to the organization, not just a public PR campaign. It is true ethics that builds confidence and respect for your company. It is true ethics that inspire enthusiasm and support from the taxpayers and the public.

I do hope Boeing will step back and rather than waste any more time calling in political favors, and wasting any more tax payer money prosecuting a whistleblower, (who has a legally protected right to be a whistleblower), Boeing commits itself to real reform and repair of it’s business practices and operation. Something that will make it possible for more of us to unequivocally rally behind the company here at home, whether commercial or defense contracts are at issue.

As for Mr. Eastman, he has paid a huge price for his ethics and efforts. Green Party's last comments are correct. Any one of you working at Boeing in areas caught up in the kind of negative workings exposed by this whistleblower's case, are at risk, even if you are not a whistleblower yet. The very fact you have knowledge of wrongdoing makes you a threat. Someday, you may need to rely on our Justice system and what few protections are available to you as a whistleblower. Think hard on this before you make any more judgments of others or support that which is unsupportable.

Posted by Ballard Pimp at 4/7/08 9:42 p.m.
Trust Boeing?? Did anybody else snork coffee up the nose reading that?

#406275

Posted by sweetpea123 at 4/7/08 10:25 p.m.
And WBR, you're simply expressing your opinion, which some may not agree with either.

I do believe Eastman crossed the line as well. Only time will tell how this all comes out in the wash.

#406430

Posted by J from Kent at 4/8/08 5:05 a.m.
Zinger, well said!
There are so many people from outside the company blogging about this case, who have no idea how things operate. They are just looking for a fight, and want to be the little guy fighting the corporate power structure.
For those who say we haven’t read the articles enough to realize Eastman is a whistleblower… if you haven’t worked for Boeing, how can YOU say you know how things are run here, based on one fired employee?

Think about that. This isn’t a Hollywood movie. I hope the prosecutors re-try the case, and I hope a conviction is handed down. He violated the law. He stole from the company. He mentioned in a letter to the company he would accept monetary damages… didn’t he admit that? I believe he did, in one of his rambling “explanations.”

#406470

Posted by thezorg at 4/8/08 6:43 a.m.
takemeaway writes, "I think this was a hung jury and not a mistrial. Uh,which one?"

A hung jury = mistrial.

Ten jurors voted to convict, two held out to acquit. The prosecutor will retry this case, and the second trial will result in a conviction.

#406509

Posted by Exfan at 4/8/08 7:18 a.m.
This guy clearly knew he was doing something wrong and made up the inspection story once he got caught. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, to put it simply, deluding themselves into thinking theft can be excused. It's unfortunate that taxpayers should have to pay to correct the mistake of a couple of stubborn jurors who sound like they were going to ignore the evidence because they had already decided the outcome. I hope the prosecutor does re-try because otherwise Boeing employees will be free to steal company secrets and sell them to the highest bidder.

#406510

Posted by takemeaway! at 4/8/08 7:20 a.m.
This trial, like all trials was not about what Eastman did or did not do. It was not about what Boeing did or did not do. It was not about truth or justice. This trial was (as all trials are)about power. Think about it.

#406512

Posted by handsome at 4/8/08 7:20 a.m.
Message to the Last Inspector.

Congratulations on the outcome.

I hope Boeing lets you get on with your life.

Tickled to death that the system didn't light the match.

Appreciate the courage of the two dissenting voters. There are times when I question the outcome in our legal system.

I am an "outsider" but still identified with the challenges associated with taking on a big company - to right a perceived wrong or wrongs. Been there, done that - and it was a wrenching experience.

Yee Hah!!!

#406524

Posted by 14017 at 4/8/08 7:29 a.m.
Although I receive a Boeing retirement check, I haven't worked there for 38 years. If there is a choice, I will take a Boeing airplane every time. Look at the safety record. Boeing does everything humanly possible to assure a safe airplane. It wants to stay in business. If it allowed slipshod work or shoddy inspections it would defeat that purpose.
Eastman must have somehow felt wronged by Boeing and was trying to get even for that wrong. Hopefully Boeing and the prosecutor will want a retrial.

#406544

Posted by nativeinwa at 4/8/08 7:47 a.m.
The only thing this guy is blowing is his own horn. He knew that taking this information was wrong but if it could justify his case as the self-proclaimed "Last Inspector" then in his self-absorbed mind, it was necessary.
There may be issues at the Boeing Company but "The Last Inspector" should not be the spokesman for change. In case you haven't visited his website, it's a must read for insomniacs everywhere.

#406689

Posted by zinger at 4/8/08 9:40 a.m.
I did not have to attend ethics classes to realize that stealing was against the law. I know all to well that document theft is equivalent to any other kind of theft. The magnitude of the illegality is a sliding scale. By the way, anybody who can support this kind of theft, has in fact an Ethics problem. I am proud to admit, to having worked at Boeing for 33+ years prior to retirement. I also understood one simple fact. That fact is that you do not shoot off your mouth if you do not know all of the facts. In fact, Eastman did and does not understand how the quality of a part or assembly is evaluated. Why you say ? It is simple, because he did not stop and ask questions before shooting off his mouth and putting to writing to anyone and everyone. Eastman is trying to use the whistleblower defense, when the basis of this case is data theft, and that is a crime. Even if you can access a document on the computer, that does not give you the right to take it home with you and try to use it to your advantage financially or otherwise.

#406768

Posted by J from Kent at 4/8/08 10:37 a.m.
zinger, again, BRAVO! And thank you for your years of service to our company!

#406870

Posted by The Last Inspector at 4/8/08 11:35 a.m.
I was trying to protect the safety of the public from the fraud I witnessed and was forced to take part in by management in Boeing Quality Assurance--nothing more. While trying to get this fraud investigated I came up against the fraud of the FAA looking out more for their own personal post FAA retirement career interests and for the interests of Boeing's bottom line than their mandate to protect the safety of the public that is so much in the news today.

Zinger is deluded. There is no "precise plan" for how to perform QA at Boeing. Instead, what I saw was a systemic disregard for compliance with the FAA-approved quality system and a disregard for the safety of the public. The bottom line and merit bonuses were what management was chiefly concerned about. The public safety related nature and genesis of our jobs was rarely mentioned as it would interfere diametrically with their attempts to get inspectors to not do the inspections as required and rollerstamp the paperwork off that they had done those "overlooked" inspections. This fraud was so prevalent and out of hand because Boeing knew that the FAA had their back on continuing this fraud, as opposed to being a threat to its contiuance that they should have been. I knew I had to do something to stop it. While those efforts have so far not ended that fraud within Boeing QA management, my extensive efforts did prove one thing without doubt--the FAA's complicity in that fraud. Mr. Sabatini and Mr. Scovel should be ashamed of themselves for overlooking this fraud. Thankfully Congress has taken notice of just this same type of FAA fraud that is the "root cause" of Boeing being able to violate their quality system at will. Anyone who has been a part of Boeing's "quality system" knows with what disdain even Boeing QA management treats that FAA-mandated (but not enforced) system with. They view it as "non-value added" and have been working to destroy it for untold years. It is no accident there is no longer a V.P. of Quality at BCA, although there seems to be a V.P. of everything else. QA now reports to manufacturing or "operations," which they are supposed to be independent of to the greatest degree possible. That lack of independence has long ago filtered down to the production floor, where QA managers now in effect report to Manufacturing managers at their same management level, who they are supposed to independently ensure the quality, safety, and reliability of the work of their departments. Line inspectors also are corrupted by their own management and Manufacturing pressure for them to not do their jobs per Boeing's own FAA approved procedures. Yes, Boeing may have a pretty good quality system per those procedures, but the fact they are not followed makes them in effect meaningless. It's ironic bought makes so much of me supposedly violating company procedures on use of the computer system that they had me prosecuted for it, yet they tried to have me and others fired before that that simply tried to follow those critical QA procedures that were meant to ensure the safety, quality, and reliability of Boeing airplanes. And you want me prosecuted for violating a company procedure while trying to overcome this vastly greater Boeing and FAA fraud, while the management at Boeing and the FAA that intentionally violated actual laws and regulations affecting public safety walk away? Are you that deluded, or are you just trying to protect the value of your stock or stock options, or are you one of the managers that would be prosecuted if justice was really done? Boeing didn't care about people accessing the same files I did and selling them to Airbus. To my knowledge they never investigated to see if anyone who accessed files they thought were that sensitive did so. They know I didn't. They know exactly why I did so. That's what scares them so much--that their own skeletons will be found in their "closet" and they will ultimately face real justice themselves. I would suggest they stop trying to hide and protect this fraud by such thinly veiled means as my arrest and trial, and come clean about it, and sacrifice a sufficient number of managers to justice in that process, and thereafter never make noncompliance with minimum quality system standards a "key competitive advantage" again, even if a corrupt FAA will look the other way.

#406924

Posted by zinger at 4/8/08 12:19 p.m.
Diluded, I am not !!!! Eastman, you are deraigned, and need serious time with a psychiatrist. Your time at Boeing must have been very painful to you since hardly anybody agreed with you. Your most basic crime is not snooping at competition sensitive documents. In fact, taking them home is theft. You don't get it because your podium won't allow you to. It amazes me that you wanted to stay 18 years at Boeing after countless people tried to help you understand what quality assurance means in the manufacturing world. Why in the world do you persist in believing that you have done nothing wrong ? You act like a spoiled child when they do not get their way with things. You try to subvert, and when that is not
delivering the desired result, you start mouthing off about things that you clearly do not have the capability of thoroughly understanding. I repeat again, you need a re-trial since common sense is not working. You are simply a thief, which is punishable according to the law. Yes, taking documents from your employer to use for any purpose is a violation of the laws of this great country that we live in and since you do not agree, punishment has it's way dealing with that disregard for the law.

#406988

Posted by J from Kent at 4/8/08 1:18 p.m.
zinger, thanks for staying on him in this blog. I agree with you- I commented before in another blog, even his screen name "the last inspector..." please arrogance! He needs some "me time" in jail.

#407050

Posted by zinger at 4/8/08 2:14 p.m.
Thanks, however it must be overwhelming when you think you are "The last inspector". Unfortunately, he never was an inspector, but was in fact a distractor. It amazes me when people do not want to spend time to understand there assigned job at a company. The sincere person, will quietly learn and understand his assigned task, likewise, the immature person will immediately through up a smoke screen and never spend the time to understand anything. In fact, they, like Eastman will often verbalize their disagreement thinking that eventually somebody will listen. In this case, the emotions of being challenged, forced him to steal competition sensitive documents in order to expand his ignorance. Fortunately, that is called theft, and justice should prevail. Jumping under other claims ssuch as whistleblower etc are nothing but a dodge of accepting what was done and eventually justice will prevail.

#407274

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 4/8/08 6:00 p.m.
Apparently jurors could not come to a unanimous conclusion, based on the evidence presented. Perhaps they have more validity in their opinion than those posting?

If there is a retrial, a jury will again review the case on its merits - as it should be.

#407417

Posted by Green Party at 4/8/08 9:02 p.m.
zinger has no idea how things actually work. zinger has never been there, obviously, as many of us have.

He's just in this for self-agrandizement, as opposed to the subject of this article.

#407420

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/8/08 9:05 p.m.
I do see some tantrums being thrown here, zinger tantrums. lol. It is amazing to me the dissembling by some Boeing employees or former employees, if we can believe who they say they are. It is unfortunate, but perhaps understandable how little many lower level employees know about the workings of their own company. In fact they do not understand to what lengths the company goes to, in order to be sure the left hand does not know what the right hand is up to or vice versa. A lot of things have changed zinger, in 30 some years. You would be amazed.

#407564

Posted by The Last Inspector at 4/9/08 2:34 a.m.
Thanks, WBR Supporter and Green Party, and Sum. Mr. Zinger seems to be a company disinformation artist. Witty or wose he's not. I am not an inspector? Oh please. What kind of experience do you have that give you any right to comment on quality assurance? Nope, wishful thinking. I was never a problem employee. I got harassed and retaliated against when I tried to do only the most basic parts of my job--inspect the engines and struts and document defects so they could be reworked or repaired. Even that minimum ethic was too much for corrupt QA management. They didn't want defects found or documented because they tracked and were rewarded for reducing the "Cost of Rework, Repair, and Scrap", or CORRS. The easiest way to do so was to get inspectors to not document defects, especially the "repair" type which required engineering disposition before repair, as those were counted at an arbitrary cost of over a thousand dollars a "pop". This is just part of what led to the fraud at Boeing that the FAA abetted instead of ended. Concern about smooth production flow, cost, schedule, the bottom line, merit raises and stock options for managers, and a view that quality assurance was "non-value added" even if the FAA regulations stated the opposite, among other motivators. Boeing should be the shining example of how an aerospace Quality Assurance program should be run, not only because it is mandated that they comply with all quality system provisions, but also because they are also responsible for oversight of suppliers in concert with the FAA, and Boeing's quality system should be an example for all suppliers to follow Boeing's lead with. However, a recent report from the DOT OIG stated that that oversight was not adequate, or effective at ensuring supplier compliance. So Boeing is not only failing intentionally in its internal quality system compliance, it is also not performing the minimum oversight necessary to keep its suppliers compliant. But that should surprise no one with how Boeing treats compliance internally.

#407984

Posted by zinger at 4/9/08 12:17 p.m.
Oh please, you are accuse me that I know nothing about how things are really done at Boeing. There is one known fact, and that is that Boeing is not stupid, and in fact documents every exisitng fact toward producing a quality product. The schedule slides on the 787 prove my point. The product will fly when it is in fact a flight worthy product, not one day sooner. That has always been the mantra at Boeing. I am not going to bore people with minutia, the fact is if you defiantly say that quality assurance does not exist at Boeing, you are dreaming and in la la land. You would have extreme difficulty in taking your QA skills on the road outside of Boeing and aplly them to AOG repairs as an example. Where in fact, the separation of QA and manufacturing exists. The real key is working together as a team for the common good of producing a quality product. It works, because I was involved in it and a team player. You might say, well, you were just buying into the company line and became blinded. Well, no , in fact it should be universal knowledge that teaming solves problems. Which is why Eastman is nothing more than a distractor. He refused to be a team player simply because he felt he could be a show stopper and that would gain him the recognition he was craving. So when resistance was felt, he resorted to stealing and using documents to support his over inflated ego. That my friend is a crime !! So, expect to pay the price of your deeds. Maybe a little quiet time away from society will assist you in the much needed reality check that you are deserving

#408117

Posted by Green Party at 4/9/08 2:08 p.m.
{... says the PR department at Boeing ...}

#408139

Posted by Green Party at 4/9/08 2:37 p.m.
Posted by zinger at 4/9/08 12:17 p.m.
.... and in fact documents every exisitng fact toward producing a quality product. The schedule slides on the 787 prove my point.

WHAT?

That's quite some calesthenic reasoning there, zinger.

I think that most reasonable people would see that schedule slips are a symptom that [u]things aren't working as they should be[/u]. That QC earlier in the process was subverted, and so unqualified subassemblies made their way to non-functionality in larger subassemblies.

#408210

Posted by zinger at 4/9/08 3:39 p.m.
Green Party, you exposed yourself as to have never worked inside the confines of the Boeing Company by your reply !!! The schedule slide is part structural defincincy in the center wing box, partly the take-over in South Carolina, and partly a new process of packaging of work by the partners for the 787 airplane. None of which the quality assurance program would have any involvement herewith. The documentation to these statements can be found in the news media. Integrating an airplane into a repeatable flying machine is a team effort accomplished by thousands of employees. Boeing's "strides to excellence" is in the integration of a product into a usable product. Even QA has inputs into the finished product. Very importantly, QA is not the initiator of the inspections and documention, but is fact a follower to assure the product meets or exceeds the minumum design requirements. Where do you think the design requirements come from ? Where do you think the inspection methodology comes from ? I would look to engineering for that guidance, not some final assembly inspector. He should be the follower not the leader.
Especially someone who whines as must as Eastman.

#408378

Posted by Green Party at 4/9/08 8:32 p.m.
What do you mean, "you exposed yourself as to have never worked inside the confines of the Boeing Company by your reply !!!"

I have never said I've worked for Boeing. Where did you get that idea?

No, I have worked in large corporations before. And I have seen the corporate behavior manifested by this situation.

And no, the center wing box is not the only issue. Apparently you don't know it, but they're having a hard time fitting parts together, software is buggy, systems are not running well, etc. All these issues, zinger who works in Boeing PR, are contributing to the ever-sliding delivery schedule.

And all these issues are the result of the very management approach and incentives described by Eastman.

#408414

Posted by zinger at 4/9/08 9:46 p.m.
Green Party, I ask how is it you think this is an uncommon problem with a scratch design airplane. Since you never worked at Boeing, you do not have a clue ! This is a very complex design project. More difficult than you could ever imagine. I do not know why you think that QA can be the controller of those issues. If they exist. Do you realize that no two airplanes are alike each other, other than physically. They are custom designed products to fit the customers needs. The issues that you recite are typical manufacturing issues that you deal with in the manufacture of this type of product. They are not show stoppers. Structural issues are, and that is not the fault of QA, but of Engineering in not unstanding the flight parameters of the aircraft. Structure is probably one of the repeatable components that you want to get right the first time. It just goes to show that the complexity of a highly technical product is not easily dissected and understood by any one single inspector in a final assembly environment. The product is to complex for any one person to thoroughly understand and how to apply your own level of expertise. This is why Boeing is not corrupt or hiding anything. This is why they are not hiding anything from the FAA. Do you realize that before a product can be deemed acceptable to fly, it has to approved by DER's of every facit of the airplanes existance. That is a level of conformance that exceeds any other moving device that propels human beings from destination to destination. The DER's are reportable to FAA for compliance and conformance of the product that Boeing produces. Without them, the airplane does not fly and Boeing has no influence over their evaluation of the product. That in itself is reasuring that the product is usable by the public. For your information I am not a PR person supporting the Boeing Company, but a person with 33+ years of design experience whom retired in 2002. Design is design my friend, and each design has its challenges. Line inspectors at Boeing have a valuable job at Boeing, the issue is not over-exanding your importance to the finished product and understanding your value added input to the end product, not stealing from your employer to prove some innate point to satisfy your ego such as what Eastman has done.

#408427

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/9/08 10:12 p.m.
Zinger,

There is entirely too much protesting and foam and spit flying out of your mouth. Calm down. It is pretty apparent you feel extremely threatened by nearly anything said here. It is also apparent you have bought into the "them and us" mentality it has become abundantly clear some of you at Boeing delude yourself into thinking that "them and us" is somehow germane to these conversations.

There is no "them and us" except perhaps in Boeing Corporate's mind, as they try to control their employees and selectively "manage" information and cover up things that may be too antisocial or perhaps even illegal that they may fear will bring them trouble if exposed.

Every American who flies or who pays taxes has every right to wonder, speculate, investigate and comment upon matters related to Boeing business; they all pay for it, commercial and defense. How arrogant of you to think it is only a matter for internal discussion, ie. by Boeing employees only at their favorite closet or watering hole. Please.

Your performances here and on the other article comment sections are not helping your company. Your posting the same comment on multiple comment threads clearly illustrates your intentions. PR? Maybe, but probably not professional. And your ugly attacking tone is damaging to the reputation of your company. It only makes Boeing itself look more ugly and vicious.

#408440

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/9/08 10:24 p.m.
Since the subject of parts came up...

I was contacted some time ago by someone who was concerned as a few years ago, a lot of machinist jobs were lost locally due to Boeing's decision to outsource (move in plain English) those jobs overseas to have the parts made in China among other places.

This person informed me that parts coming in from China were so badly made that they were impossible to use, and were having to be remachined by those few Boeing machinists left state side. Anybody know anything about this?

#408567

Posted by Green Party at 4/10/08 7:16 a.m.
Posted by zinger at 4/9/08 9:46 p.m.
Green Party, I ask how is it you think this is an uncommon problem with a scratch design airplane. Since you never worked at Boeing, you do not have a clue ! This is a very complex design project ... blah, blah

Backfill doesn't mean anything, zinger. And just to let you know, it would make reading your posts much less arduous if you learned to use paragraphs to delineate (and help organize) your thinking. Otherwise people lose interest in your specious ideas after the first few sentences.

I guess WBR is right, you are not pro PR... probably management, whose bonuses depend on undermining QC.

#409099

Posted by zinger at 4/10/08 5:58 p.m.
WBR Supporter: From what I saw and heard, you are right in the fact that vendor parts are scrapped during the initial period of a contract from new sources. I am not intimately aware of the China machined parts issue, but not surprised in the least. These vendors are selected for offset, when a customer (nation) places an airplane order. Offset is what it takes to sell airplanes in this very competitive market place. It does not make it right or wrong, but in fact it is just a fact of doing business. Boeing spends an enormous amount of time and money to clear the manufacturing issue up, but I have also heard of them cancelling vendor contracts because of a lack of technology to provide quality levels that are expected and required.

Green Party: The issues related ta a scratch design airplane, are relevant. The first time something is fabricated, it presents its own assembly issues. After a quantity of components are built, the assembly difficulties are usually thought out and fixes to those issues are resolved so that the assembly can then become more predictable. As an example, an .02 inch difference in diameters on a 40 foot diameter fuselage equates to .628 in circumference. That is material that you have to account for when mating two fuselage sections. Think about it, that is almost a perfect fit. These types of problems are very common on scratch design airplanes that you are paying millions of dollars to produce.

These type of issues are why one individual QA inspector cannot understand it all, nor should he be expected to understand it all. Which is why the "last inspector" evolved into the "distrator" that drove him to stealing documents from the hand that feeds him. Can we spell "STUPID". Besides, documents are a lot like personal letters in that they have running dialogue. Unless you read them all, you cannot have the complete story. It is just a snapshot in time, trying to reply to a specific issue of a specific problem.

#409325

Posted by Green Party at 4/11/08 6:41 a.m.
When has Boeing ever not made a scratch airplane, zinger? And yet these delays are unprecedented.

Are you so bound up in Corporate Loyalty that you don't have the common sense to see that these are the very quality issues which Eastman has tried and tried to rectify, for the actual benefit and good of Boeing itself, in the face of the most ferocious resistance from management? Resistance which will now cost the company $billions? Against all natural law, these managers (you) will likely continue to be employed and will in fact likely be promoted, while Eastman (the truly righteous one) will suffer much lower income and sparser retirement for the rest of his life.

This will cost Boeing Big, for their internal corruption, and rightfully so.

#409604

Posted by zinger at 4/11/08 12:15 p.m.
Green Party: The 737, 747, 767, 777 are not longer scratch design airplanes. Their is a wealth of experience in manufacturing and assembling these airplanes. The 787 is the new kid on the block. A complete shift in the fabrication methods etc. Boeing was naive in estimating that their would be very few problems with the manufacturing shift to partners instead of the piece work assembly that they had been accustomed to. An all composite airplane is a huge leap in technology.

By the way, I was not in management during my working years at Boeing. In fact is was an engineer. I saw quite a few management antics, but it never bothered me that somebody else was getting merit raises, stock options and the like. That's life !! I got my share of raises and stock options while I was employed, but I felt that I contributed to the betterment of the Company's product and deserved those raises like anybody else. It's not odd to not be bitter when a co-worker recieves a raise etc.

Quality issues are always a topic in huge corporations. I think they are healthy if held in the right context. I never saw or felt things were covered up or ignored. There never is something known as a zero defect airplane. My firm belief is that Boeing does as good a job as any manufactruer to provide a quality product which is reliable to use. Likewise, I think it is blasfemus to cry out that their is management corruption simply because you have a difference of opinion. Trust me with one issue, that their is a process and procedure for any thing you could imagine for every single manufacturing issue at Boeing. It shocked me when I was first employed at Boeing. I later learned to rely upon those and started growing as an employee. That's where it's at in my opinion.

I likewise saw many people who quit working for Boeing because isssues such as Eastman protrays. I just think that he was miserable for 18 years while he worked for Boeing and would have been much more comfortable in a smaller manufacturing setting. It is a difficult concept to accept that you are just 1 of 100,000+ employees, but if you do, you grow and contribute in lieu of distract in daily endevours of employement.

#409838

Posted by Green Party at 4/11/08 5:44 p.m.
Posted by zinger at 4/11/08 12:15 p.m.
Green Party: The 737, 747, 767, 777 are not (sic) longer scratch design airplanes. Their (sic) is a wealth of experience in manufacturing and assembling these airplanes.

Don't you have any common sense, zinger? Or do you think we don't have any?

Each of these planes was designed and built from scratch. Of COURSE they now know all the tricks and kinks about making these planes, as a matter of production, but when they were first designed, they were each all new. (der)

No one expects that something as complex as a commercial jet will have zero defects. However, I have personally seen the sort of corporate culture which Eastman describes very accurately at Boeing, and it rings true. You, zinger, support the murder of a person's career and comfortable retirement, in favor of the subourning of true safety issues, for the sake of your own retirement check. This is your own form of personal corruption, and you will answer for this when the time comes. Even the mentally-retarded have an idea of what's Right and Wrong, and if you support the Wrong, I firmly believe that it goes on your account, whether you want to face that or not.

Posted by zinger at 4/11/08 12:15 p.m.
I just think that he was miserable for 18 years while he worked for Boeing and would have been much more comfortable in a smaller manufacturing setting.

I just think that you were miserable for your working years at Boeing, but now that you are fortunate enough that they pay your freight, you reflexively defend them, Right or Wrong. My opinion.

#409912

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/11/08 8:31 p.m.
I think it is pretty pathetic that Mr. Eastman after having a hard time finding another job, found one, but then apparently from what I can see reading the progression of events, had his new bosses, call him in after his trial started and tell him that they'd been "directed to his website" and they felt there was a conflict of interest with their biggest customer. One can only assume this was Boeing. It appears to me that their intent is to be sure he does not have a job at all.

#409914

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/11/08 8:36 p.m.
This is a classic example of harassment and retribution, none of which is acceptable as a whistleblower is protected from that by law.

Contracts for Body Armor Filled Without Initial Tests
Inspections Skipped in 13 Of 28 Deals, Report Finds
By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 3, 2008; D01

Government auditors said yesterday that nearly half of 28 contracts to manufacture body armor for Army soldiers were completed without the gear ever going through an initial test.
Nearly $3 billion worth of body armor did not go through early inspections known as "first article testing," or FAT, that are performed before major production to ensure that a company can meet the contract's requirements and to catch any defects, according to a report by the Defense Department's inspector general. Contracting officials say the initial testing is done to save time and money.
"Army contracting officials did not require or perform FAT for 13 of the 28 Army contracts and orders reviewed," the report said. As a result, the Defense Department "has no assurance" that the equipment produced under the 13 contracts "met the required standards," the report said.
Officials with the inspector general's office said its auditors did not test the armor or look for flaws after it was made and put into use. The Army manager who oversees the body armor program told Defense Department officials that "the Army has no evidence of deaths that can be attributed to defective body armor."
A spokesman for the Army said that while some paperwork may have been missing, none of the body armor had problems. "None of this equipment in all of the tests we've done is flawed," said Paul Boyce, the spokesman. "It has not shown any signs of flaws."
Boyce said the Army disagrees with the inspector general's interpretation of the acquisition rules that detail the testing requirements for equipment. "There is a debate as to the timing of the types of tests," Boyce said. "We have a different interpretation."
One manufacturer, Point Blank Body Armor of Pompano Beach, Fla., said in a statement that "there are rigorous testing procedures in place at Point Blank Solutions to ensure that our products are in accordance with the requirements of all of our customers, be it the United States government, U.S. Armed Forces and the various domestic law enforcement agencies we service."
For the report, auditors looked at the pre-solicitation, awarding and administration of 40 contracts awarded to 14 contractors by the Army and the Marine Corps from January 2004 to December 2006. They found no deficiencies with the Marines' 12 contracts.
The report said Army officials "did not follow" federal acquisition regulations in buying body armor, and it found "deficiencies in 16 of the 28 contracts and orders" it reviewed. In some cases, Army officials did not have paperwork showing whether the testing had been done, and in other contracts, the requirements for testing were waived.
Defense officials conducted the audit at the request of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
"This indicates that nearly half of the Army's contractors did not perform the most basic test on the body armor before it was sent to our troops fighting overseas," Slaughter said in a statement. "It's shameful that the Army would not scrupulously ensure that every piece of equipment is properly tested, especially a fundamentally life and death product such as body armor."