Wednesday-Tuesday, 25-31 May, 2005
Spicer threatens to sue Irish Echo newspaper and Westminster MP
By Ray O'Hanlon, Irish Echo, New York
Controversial former British army officer, Tim Spicer, is this week threatening to sue the Irish Echo and a member of the British parliament in the London High Court. The threat of libel action is contained in solicitors' letters sent to the Echo and to MP Sarah Teather.
The legal letters follow in the wake of a recent report in the Echo that pointed to U.S. criticism of the manner in which a Spicer-owned private security company has been operating in Iraq. Spicer's company, Aegis Defense Services, was last year granted a $293 million contract by the Pentagon for security and reconstruction work in Iraq.
However, a strongly critical report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction recently cited Aegis for not complying with a number of requirements contained in the contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. The contract has sparked controversy in Ireland, Britain and the U.S. because of Spicer's past record in Northern Ireland where he commanded the Scots Guards regiment during a tour of duty in the early 1990s.
Soldiers in that regiment shot and killed Belfast teenager Peter McBride in September of 1992. Spicer subsequently defended the actions of his men. Two members of the regiment were tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to life. However, they were released after six years and reinstated in the unit. In a letter to the Pentagon several months ago, the Derry-based Pat Finucane Center pressed the U.S. army to justify its decision to award the Iraq contract to Aegis Defense Services, of which Spicer is CEO.
The Pentagon has also been pressed on the issue by a group of U.S. senators, Fr. Sean McManus of the Irish National Caucus, and Teather, a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Commons. It was a line in a recent Echo report that prompted legal letters sent to both Teather, the member of Parliament for the Brent East constituency in London, and this newspaper.In its May 4-10 issue, the Echo, in a story headlined "Spicer speared in scathing U.S. report," reported Teather's view that "serious questions" still required answering in the McBride case.
However, it was the Echo's precise wording of this aspect of the Spicer/Aegis story that prompted the legal letters to the Echo and Teather.
The report stated: "Teather recently told the Echo that 'serious questions' were still in need of answers with regard to Spicer and his role in the death of Peter McBride."
The letter sent to the Echo alleged that this statement, made with regard to "Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer OBE," was "seriously defamatory of him."
The letter stated: "He had no role whatever in the death of Peter McBride. He was the commanding officer of the regiment in which two soldiers involved in Mr. McBride's death were then serving. Thereafter he stood by his men and, in due course, was vindicated in so doing."
The letter demanded an "immediate and full retraction" to be published in the Echo. Such a retraction would serve to "unequivocally" withdraw "the serious aspersions made against our client."
The letter additionally indicated that Spicer, through his legal representatives, would be seeking damages and costs in the event of there being no "satisfactory response" from the Echo and Teather.
The letter to the Echo warned that if there was no such response "proceedings will be instituted against you in the High Court in England and against Ms. Teather without further notice."
Both the Echo and Ms. Teather were taking separate legal advice regarding the matter this week. Irish Echo Publisher Seán Finlay defended the Echo's coverage of the controversy surrounding Spicer, his record in Northern Ireland and with regard to the Iraq contract, which has been defended and confirmed by the U.S. Army Contracting Agency, in spite of multiple objections.
"We stand over our reporting of this story," Finlay said. "It is entirely legitimate that the Irish Echo questions the basis for the contract awarded Aegis, as well as Spicer's broader military and alleged mercenary record," Finlay said. The basis for the Pat Finucane Center's objection to the Iraq contract is rooted solely in the death of Peter McBride. Spicer was not present at the scene of the shooting which took place September 4, 1992 in Belfast's Upper Meadow Street.
McBride was shot in the back moments after being searched by a sergeant attached to the same patrol as the soldiers who fired their weapons. Despite his absence from the scene, Spicer's role as commander of the regiment was to draw him to the center of the furious controversy that followed the death of the teenager, a controversy that continues to this day. In its stated objection to the Iraq contract, first relayed to the Pentagon last December, the PFC stated that the "allegation" against Spicer was not that he advocated for the release of the two soldiers from prison after the shooting of McBride.
"The issue is that he opposed their arrest and opposed their being charged with any offense whatsoever. In a sworn affidavit, and again in his autobiography, Spicer has sought to portray an entirely fictitious and untruthful version of the events preceding, during and following the actual murder," the center stated.
Spicer defended the actions of the two soldiers in a letter to the Times of London on the grounds that both believed they were involved in a terrorist incident and had accordingly acted in good faith, in accordance with the law, the rules of engagement, and their military training.
Separately, in his autobiography, which was extracted in the London Daily Mail, Spicer threw additional light on why he had so vigorously defended the actions of his men.
His view, he stated, was in accordance with the British army's "yellow card," a document that outlined the army's rules of engagement in Northern Ireland.
"My view," Spicer wrote, "is that if the soldier genuinely believes his life, or the lives of his comrades, are under threat from something such as a Mark XV, then even if it was not immediately obvious that one was being thrown, he could open fire."
"Mark XV" refers to a "coffee jar" bomb frequently used by the IRA during the time covered by Spicer's tour of duty in Northern Ireland. No such weapon, or any weapon, was found on Peter McBride, either during the army search, or after he was shot. Meanwhile, the criticism directed at Aegis by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction cites rests in part on rules concerning guns and their use. The report stated that Aegis had been unable to provide correct documents to verify that its employees were qualified to use weapons.
And it warned that many Iraqi employees were not properly vetted by Aegis to ensure they were not a security threat. "As a result there is no assurance that Aegis is providing the best possible safety and security for government and reconstruction contractor personnel and facilities," the report stated.
Copyright © 2005 Irish Echo
Wednesday-Tuesday, 18-24 May, 2005
Inside File: Dollars and no sense
By Ray O'Hanlon, Irish Echo, New York
With all that American taxpayer money to splash around Iraq, you would think that Aegis Defense Services would pay a little attention to the small details -- such as putting guns in the hands of locals who can aim straight.
But no, Aegis, headed up by former Scots Guards commander Tim Spicer, has been having problems getting things in proper order, even with that potent combination of British military discipline and bucketfuls of greenbacks.
As reported, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has cited Aegis for not complying with several stipulations set out clearly in its $293 million contract with the Department of Defense.
Now as things go in Iraq, this particular mess might seem like small potatoes. For example, the Special Inspector General has carpeted Aegis for not being able to prove that their employees in Iraq were qualified to use weapons. In one case, 20 employees were issued with 30 assorted weapons. It turned out that the employees were proficient in only about half the weapons issued.
This might be a bit nitpicking in a country where just about everybody out of diapers seems to be adept with an AK47. But still, the little things do count when you're talking hundreds of millions.
It's a bit like splashing out on a five star hotel and not getting those chocolates when the bed sheets are turned down.
Then there is the matter of security vetting. The Special Inspector General is miffed over the fact that Spicer's lieutenants on the ground in Iraq have not properly vetted employees.
Think of the red faces in Washington if it turned out that some characters walking around with pocketfuls of taxpayer dollars were rooting for the other side. Worse, shooting for it.
The SIG report also highlighted problems over background checks. In a sample of 125 Iraqis on the Aegis payroll, six had not been interviewed for the job at all, 18 had not been given background checks by the Iraqi police, and there were no records at all for two hires. Sloppy -- was anybody in this lot named Zarqawi?
The report turned up other problems. Clearly, the feeling in the Special Inspector General's office is that the taxpayer is getting the wrong kind of bang for the buck from Spicer & Co.
One taxpayer who is feeling especially incensed is Senator Russ Feingold. The Wisconsin Democrat is perhaps best known for his efforts, alongside John McCain, to reform campaign financing.
Feingold is rightly fussy about the way that taxpayer dollars are spent and he has characterized the entire SIG report -- which also highlights $100 million floating around Iraq that can no longer be accounted for at all -- as "deeply troubling."
At the same time, Feingold is particularly concerned over that portion of the national pie that has ended up in the lap of not just Spicer, but also another dodgy character from the world of big boys adventures, Viktor Bout.
Tajikistan-born Viktor might have been plucked from a Robert Ludlum novel. Reputedly the world's biggest arms dealer, Bout has been dubbed "Africa's merchant of death."
Bout had been linked with arms sales all over that continent, and also to the Taliban, Al Qaeda's babysitters in pre-9/11 Afghanistan. He has also more recently been doing a flying business in Iraq, apparently with money that has come by the way of subcontracts farmed out by, wit for it, private companies contracted to the Department of Defense.
The U.S. Treasury Department moved in recent days to corral Bout, whose assets include an airline called Aerocom.
The move pleased Feingold.
"I'm glad that Treasury has finally taken this action to isolate Viktor Bout and his air trafficking network, but it has become increasingly clear that there is a vast gulf between Treasury's actions and the State Department's policies on the one hand, and what appears to be a passive, see-no-evil approach of the Department of Defense on the other," Feingold said in a statement.
"Multiple reports have surfaced, and continue to surface, indicating that DOD contractors in Iraq have subcontracted with Bout-affiliated firms. Most Americans would be appalled to learn that taxpayer dollars intended to help U.S. policy in Iraq succeed are actually finding their way into the coffers of the likes of Viktor Bout, a man associated with the Taliban and forces that committed unspeakable atrocities in West Africa," Feingold added.
Feingold issued a separate statement on the SIG criticism of Aegis.
"Aegis was supposed to be providing security for government and reconstruction contractor personnel in Iraq. Not only does it appear that U.S. dollars were not well spent, but the consequence of the haphazard practices revealed in this report . . .could very well be deadly," Feingold said.
Of course, all this talk of lost money, Aegis and Mr. Bout begs a question. Has any of the Aegis money ended up in the cargo hold of one of Viktor's planes?
One who is asking is former Washington Post investigative reporter and author Douglas Farah. On his website, www.douglasfarah.com, Farah mentions both Aegis and Bout in a report related to the Pentagon's contracting business in Iraq. The
"From my sources on the ground in the region, it seems that Viktor Bout's Aerocom continues to fly for the U.S. military, using the call sign designator 'MCC,'" Farah writes.
Farah opined that it seemed "somewhat incredible" that nine months after the State Department circulated a letter to the rest of the U.S. government telling them not to deal with Bout, he continued to "enjoy the largess of U.S. taxpayer dollars."
But, adds Farah, there is an emerging story that may explain Bout's longevity and the inability and unwillingness of the Department of Defense to cut him loose.
Farah goes on to describe the Pentagon deal with Aegis and Tim Spicer and poses a question: "Could it be that our tax dollars paying a British mercenary almost $300 million also provide the umbrella and protection under which Bout continues to fly despite the protestations of the State Department and ostensible U.S. policy?"
And he continues: "One of Aerocom's main businesses now seems to be flying U.S. contractors around Iraq and the Middle East, an activity Aegis has a direct interest in and some say over."
The Pentagon has stated "case closed" with regard to complaints against the Aegis contract -- lodged in part due to Spicer's controversial defense of the shooting of Belfast teenager Peter McBride in 1992.
Well, maybe not.
Copyright © 2005 Irish Echo
Call for International Day of Action & London Public Meeting in September
By Pat Finucane Centre, Derry, Ireland
PFC subscribers outside of Ireland (we have subscribers in 14 countries) may not be aware that NIO Junior Government Minister John Spellar MP will not be returning to these shores in the wake of the post-election cabinet reshuffle. His appointment caused great anger and resentment because of his direct role in allowing the two soldiers convicted of the murder of Peter McBride to remain the British Army. SpellarWatch was our attempt to monitor his movements and protest at any public event that we had advance notice of. This proved remarkably successful given that he didn't show his face in the north-west for almost a year before his departure. Hours after the new Secretary of State Peter Hain was appointed we faxed his office and suggested that Anglo-Irish relations might benefit greatly if Spellar stayed in Britain. Others also lobbied for his replacement. We are happy to report that SpellarWatch is no longer necessary.
The McBride campaign goes on however. At present we are planning for a large public meeting in London on September 4, the anniversary of Peter's murder, to harness support for the Article 7 campaign. A planning meeting will be held in London on Saturday June 11 to gather ideas and build support for the September 4 event. Those wishing to attend should contact the PFC at pfc@iol.ie
The Article 7 Campaign was launched in London last month at a meeting with Kelly McBride, the Labour parliamentary candidate Yasmin Qureshi and Mayor of London Ken Livingstone. The intention is to seek a change in the law during the term of the next parliament. The changes sought would lead to the automatic dismissal of any member of the armed forces found guilty of a serious human rights violation, murder, rape and/or torture. Sadly, Yasmin, who had promised to campaign for a change in the law, failed in her attempt to become the first female Muslin MP in Britain but we are confident that the Article 7 campaign will receive cross party support from MPs. We have called this initiative, which it is hoped will also garner widespread support from church, trade union, human rights and anti-war groups, the ARTICLE 7 CAMPAIGN
Article 7 of the UN Convention states; “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”
The McBride family have long argued that the decision to allow the soldiers convicted of Peter's murder to rejoin the British Army constituted a blatant act of discrimination against their family and in favour of the soldiers. In effect the UK Government failed to provide the McBride family with the equal protection required under Article 7 of the convention.
International Day of Action
In addition we are asking supporters in other countries to help plan events for a further International Day of Action to coincide with the September 4 anniversary. Events could include lobbying of elected representatives, pickets and/or unannounced visits to British embassies and consulates (or British Army recruitment offices in the UK), email/fax/phone campaigns, street theatre and non-violent direct action. Supporters in the US should consider focussing on the Spicer Iraq contract. Now is a good time to pull together a small organising group in your area for the September 4 International Day Of Action. Please keep the PFC informed!
See www.serve.com/pfc/pmcbride/mcbindex.html for detailed background on the McBride case.
Wednesday-Tuesday, 4-10 May, 2005
Spicer speared in scathing U.S. report
By Ray O'Hanlon, Irish Echo, New York
One arm of the U.S. government is happy. The other is not. Aegis Defense Services, the private security company run by controversial former British army officer Tim Spicer is this week in the crosshairs of the government agency is charge of reconstruction in Iraq.
A strongly critical report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction cites Aegis for not complying with a number of requirements of its $293 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense.
However, and in stark contrast, the Pentagon recently defended its contract with Spicer in a letter to the Derry-based Pat Finucane Center.
The center, together with the Washington D.C.-based Irish National Caucus, has been vehemently critical of the contract because of Spicer's link to the shooting dead of Belfast teenager Peter McBride.
McBride was shot in the back by soldiers of the Scots Guards regiment in September, 1992. The regiment was commanded by Spicer at that time and he subsequently defended the shooting.
In a letter to the Pentagon several months ago, the Pat Finucane Center pressed the U.S. Army to justify its decision to award Aegis Defense Services, of which Spicer is CEO, the $293 million contract for private security work in Iraq.
The Pentagon has also been pressed on the issue by a group of U.S. senators, Father Sean McManus of the Irish National Caucus, and Sarah Teather, a Liberal Democrat member of the British parliament.
Teather recently told the Echo that "serious questions" were still in need of answers with regard to Spicer and his role in the death of Peter McBride.
In its letter to the Pentagon, the Pat Finucane Center argued that in addition to the questions surrounding the Aegis contract, a previous company of which Spicer was CEO, Sandline International, was "involved in major violations of international and British law and has been the subject of international and British investigations."
Spicer's actions, both as an officer in the British army and as CEO of Sandline, the PFC argued, had a bearing on Spicer's record of integrity and business ethics, both of which had to be above reproach according to the U.S. Army's own standards.
The letter asked the Pentagon to "review" the $293 million contract awarded a year ago to Aegis and Spicer, who has variously been referred to in British press reports as Britain's "most notorious mercenary" and a "soldier of fortune."
In a recent reply, however, the U.S. Army Contracting Agency stated that the U.S. had determined that Spicer and Aegis Defense Services possessed satisfactory records of integrity and business ethics.
"The issue you have raised, though surrounded in political controversy, does not support any grounds for overturning the responsibility determination by our contracting officer," a spokeswoman for the ACA wrote in the response letter.
"The actions you attribute to Mr. Spicer do not appear to have resulted in any conviction for any illegal activity bearing on his integrity and business ethics. The fact that others could have reached a different conclusion does not mean that this determination was unreasonable."
The letter concluded by stating that the Army Contracting Agency now considered the matter closed.
However, the controversy over Aegis erupted anew last week when the Special Inspector General's critical audit report was obtained by the Reuters news agency.
The report stated that Aegis had been unable to provide correct documents to verify that its employees were qualified to use weapons. It warned that many Iraqi employees were not properly vetted to ensure they were not a security threat.
"As a result there is no assurance that Aegis is providing the best possible safety and security for government and reconstruction contractor personnel and facilities," the report stated.
Fr. McManus of the INC said that the report's view that Aegis was not doing its job properly came as no surprise.
"I told President Bush that he would rue the day he funded the notorious Spicer," McManus said.
"The real issue, here, however is not that Spicer's employees are unqualified. The real issue is that Spicer is unqualified. He practiced and condoned state terrorism in Northern Ireland and he will leave a trail of mischief and tears in Iraq."
Copyright © 2005 Irish Echo
