More on Equatorial Guinea’s Oil-Sotted Crook

From Gawker:

A tipster, who works on Rodeo Drive, says Teodoro Nguema Obiang, the Ferrari-driving big spender who plunders Equatorial Guinea’s oil wealth is dating a family member and just dropped $70,000 in one store on clothes for her. The insider, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of ending up in the infamous Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, said Obiang regularly spends up to $200,000 in a day on frequent LA shopping sprees.

I recently reported here on the U.S. investigation into Obiang, and raised the question of why he had not been added to a State Department list of corrupt foreign officials that are supposed to be denied American visas. Perhaps Equatorial Guinea’s oil wealth and close relationship with ExxonMobil and other American energy firms has helped protect Obiang, whose father has ruled the African nation for decades.

I hear certain members of congress are not very happy with the State Department and are asking why Obiang — his country’s environmental minister, AKA the minister of chopping down trees — continues to be allowed into the United States. A well-placed source tells me:

“There are senior congressional staff saying they are going after his visa. He may have a $35 million estate [in Malibu] but he may not have a visa to get in the country. There are also calls being made to the State Department, to the seventh floor [where Secretary Hillary Clinton has her office] and to the Africa bureau. Obiang is becoming toxic.”

I’ll update the situation as I learn more.

Six Questions for Marian Wang on “Lady Bloggers”

Marian Wang works and writes for Mother Jones. She previously was a freelance investigative reporter and blogger for The Chicago Reporter, the Chi-Town Daily News and ChicagoNow. Wang’s recent post, “Where Are All the Lady Bloggers?”, cited a report from Technorati that found that sixty-seven percent of bloggers are men, prompting her to ask: “Is there a glass ceiling in the blogosphere?” I recently spoke to her by phone and via email about the post, and the broader issue of gender and journalism. This interview was edited for length and clarity.

1. Based on the Technorati survey, women are badly underrepresented in the blogosphere. What do you think accounts for that online gender disparity?

It’s hard to speculate, since a lot does depend on how accurate the Technorati survey actually is. I know part of the survey’s findings was also that a higher percentage of bloggers — at least, higher than expected — actually had backgrounds in news and journalism, in which case I think it’s quite logical that the gender disparity in the blogosphere mirrors the disparity in our newsrooms. Technorati doesn’t really raise this point, exactly, but the thoughts that drove my blog post were more along the lines of why, outside of the world of hobbyist-type blogs, there aren’t more women writing political blogs. A lot of women I know seem to decompartmentalize a little more — the political is mixed with the personal — and I wonder if to some extent that diffuses their opportunities for branding and reaching wider audiences with their blogs, since the online world is all about niche, and about tailoring or even customizing what you have to the interests and tastes of your target audience.

2. One commenter about your post wrote that the real question is “Why don’t more females want to blog?” since, this person noted, “the entry requirements to blogging are the ability to fill out an online registration form and to write stuff.” Do women feel blocked from blogging for some reason or do they just prefer not to?

I don’t think it’s necessarily that women don’t want to blog. There are tons of blogs out there written by women–I write, my friends write. It’s so obvious to me, because I grew up reading blogs written by funny, opinionated women–at first on random online blogging communities like Xanga or, when I was even younger, AsianAvenue. Even now there’s still a random mom blog on Xanga that I subscribe to on my Google Reader. I don’t know why, I’m not a mom myself, and I don’t know the woman, I just find her life fascinating and her kids are creative and funny and adorable. It’s so random. But sure, there are all kinds of blogs out there–a whole world of them–and women write a ton of them.

But if you look at the top names in professional political blogs (and by that I mean they’re hosted by some sort of news outfit), I’d argue that most blogs written by a solo blogger are written by men. It’s kind of just a hypothesis of mine, and some people may say, well you’re just not reading the right things. I’ve heard some people say, even some feminists say things like, well some women just aren’t into politics. I don’t think that’s true at all. All the women I’m around are incredibly informed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to start a political blog and comment on all the things they know and have opinions about. Plus, I wonder if there’s a degree to which they just think, “Why bother?” We’re all busy, why sink time in this unless you are going to have some tangible returns–why just be another voice lost in some online political fray?

Most of the women I know who blog about issues/politics/policy had formal training in journalism, so having a voice in the telling of news is something they were used to doing as work. Transitioning into blogging, for them, probably seemed a lot more natural than for, say, one of my teacher friends to suddenly start a political blog in her spare time in addition to doing lesson plans for her first grade class.

3. What was the general reaction to your post? Not everyone seemed happy with it.

Some weren’t surprised at all by the numbers, some questioned the accuracy of the Technorati survey, but people seemed to agree that if the numbers are in fact accurate, this is really bad news. Some readers even went a step further and got into the spirit of things by suggesting female bloggers, offering support for female bloggers, and trying to make them more visible with the hashtag that Sarah Posner started.

But definitely not everyone was happy with the piece. There was some amount of picking at silly things, I think, like the term “lady bloggers” in the headline. Even after I wrote a response to some of the main objections, I saw some blogs that were still really critical, saying stuff like, oh Marian Wang said she chose the term “lady” for the headline because it was shorter than “female.” That’s just silly, and it’s not what I said. And then there were a few comments from people who were annoyed that the photo in the blog showed Ana Marie Cox with the slightest bit of cleavage.

My gut level response to both of those criticisms was just, really? We’re not over this yet? “Lady” still implies antiquated gender norms to you, like corsets and daintiness? It doesn’t to me. And really? Are we so backwards that somehow Ana Marie Cox showing a hint of cleavage undermines her legitimacy as a blogger? I don’t get it. I read somewhere that Emily Gould blogged about a sort of “feminist policing,” and I think to a certain extent that’s what happened in this situation, but it’s so ironic because NOW who’s saying what women can or can’t do? Plus, it just seems to me that feminism is best when it’s inclusive, and it seems counterproductive to say there’s just one way to be a feminist. It’s just silly, all these rules. I didn’t know they were out there. Who gets to make them?

4. What did you think of last year’s campaign coverage of the Democratic nomination? Do you think gender impacted the way Hillary was treated by the media?

I think gender did affect how she was treated. Granted, Hillary has been in the public eye for a long time, and with Bill as her husband but also as a powerful politician in his own right, it makes her situation a little different. Certainly I feel there was a lot of questioning about her ability to be her own person in the race, and Bill injecting himself on her behalf probably hurt her chances more than he actually helped, because people started asking whether this was just another way for him to get in a few more terms.

In the end, I do think Hillary had her time to shine. We all saw she was a brilliant debater, she knew her stuff. There was no doubt about her intelligence or strength. But there’s often this negative caricature of strong liberal women as scary, unfeminine and mannish, who don’t attract their husbands/get laid/have a soul, and that seemed to always be lurking in the background for Hillary, in commentary and political cartoons. Certainly there were some moments where gender played a huge role. First Hillary’s this power-hungry woman who’s lampooned as having threatened Bill to help her with her campaign. Then she cries in New Hampshire and suddenly it’s like, if the tears were real, is she strong enough to lead us? And if it’s not, was it a cunning, strategic attempt to show that she has a soul after all? It just seemed to me that she had to be careful about negotiating her public image in a way that most male politicians never have to consider.

5. And what about Sarah Palin? Do you think some of the criticism of her is nastier and unfair because she is a woman?

In the political image game, she didn’t go the Hillary route and wear yellow pantsuits all the time. She talked about lipstick, she brought her hockey mom identity into the picture–it was part of how she wanted to be packaged, I think. In some ways, she had the opposite problem of what Hillary had. Hillary was seen as smart, so she became the smart, frigid woman that no one wants to have sex with. Sarah Palin was seen as dumb, so she became the dumb bimbo that was only good for eye candy–or, if you look at some of the nastier comment threads–for blowjobs.

Personally, I think she was totally under-qualified for the position that she suddenly found herself in. She’d never been on the national stage up until this point, so in her own attempt to stretch her credentials and sound as if she had the knowledge and experience for the job (neither of which she actually had), she came off sounding stupid when she tried to explain her qualifications, like her state’s proximity to Russia. I don’t think she IS stupid, she just sounded stupid at times because she was so far in over her head.

Anyway, all that’s to say that people were quick to call Sarah Palin a bimbo, for sure, but that’s not unique to her being a woman–it happened to Bush and has happened somewhat to Biden. I do think, though, that when a woman gets the bimbo label, the criticism gets way more personal and offensive than criticism of gaffe-tastic men like Bush and Biden. When women aren’t seen as intelligent (especially if they’re attractive) it’s like, well you’re not good for anything else, so let me objectify you, then–you’re all boobs and no brain. And you see these awful comments like, “She’s dumb, but I’d still do her.” I guarantee that’s never been said of Bush. What I would say was incredibly unfair was all the speculation about whether she could handle her mommy responsibilities and do her job at the same time. That was annoying to see, because when are men ever, ever asked that?

6. What political blogs by women do you recommend?

Several of my friends are beat bloggers, but I’d say their beats count as political. Megan Cottrell writes an amazing blog on public housing at True/Slant, and she really hits on all the angles–political, economic, racial. She’s also a great storyteller. Teresa Puente writes a blog on immigration called Chicanisma. I love both their blogs. Really like Dana Goldstein’s stuff, now over at The Daily Beast, and the women who write on the Tapped blog, as well as Feministing. And Wonkette has always been hilarious, a legacy that started with Ana Marie Cox. Then of course there are tons of great female bloggers at Mother Jones who also cover politics. We’re out there, you just have to look, but my sense is that in the world of political blogging, women’s voices still aren’t equally represented, and I’d love to see us move closer to that.

Our SOB: Will State Department finally act against crook from oil-rich Equatorial Guinea?

It will be interesting to see if the State Department, which by order of a presidential proclamation and act of congress is required to bar corrupt foreign officials from American territory, will finally take action on Teodoro Nguema Obiang. As I reported here yesterday, the Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have compiled a laundry list of gross misconduct on Obiang, the son of the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a major oil producer and site of billions in investments by U.S. energy firms.

Obiang, sometimes known as Teodorin, earns the equivalent of about $5,000 monthly as minister of agriculture and forestry (or the minister of chopping down trees, as some of his critics call it). Yet documents from the investigation show that he has used shell corporations to move tens of millions of dollars into the U.S., helping him buy a $35 million estate in Malibu, a $33 million plane and a fleet of luxury cars. “[I]t is suspected that a large portion of Teodoro Nguema OBIANG’s assets have originated from extortion, theft of public funds, or other corrupt conduct,” said a Justice Department document from 2007. A second document from that same year, produced by ICE, said, investigators hoped to “identify, trace, freeze, and recover assets within the United States illicitly acquired through kleptocracy by Teodoro Obiang and his associates,” and to “deny safe haven in the United States to kleptocrats.”

Yet the State Department, which can at least bar Obiang from enjoying the loot he has accumulated here, has done zero to keep him out. “The least they could do is cut off his shopping privileges by denying him entry into the United States,” Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate counsel, commented to me about Obiang’s case. “Where the hell is the U.S. government?”

“Natural resources are the only significant source of wealth in many developing nations, and we have seen how easily the proceeds can be exploited by government officials for their own self interest,” Senator Patrick Leahy, who played a key role in passing the congressional amendment barring corrupt officials from entering the United States, commented. “Some of these despots have used this ill gotten wealth to live in luxury in the United States. We should not facilitate their crimes against their own people, and we have every right and obligation to deny them entry.”

I contributed reporting to a lengthy study released yesterday by Global Witness, which obtained the U.S. documents from the case of Teodorin. The documents were also reported on by the New York Times.

U.S. Government Documents Crime Spree by Dictator’s Son: Why no action by the feds?

In 2004, George W. Bush issued Presidential Proclamation 7750, which barred corrupt foreign officials from entering the United States and ordered the State Department to compile a list of banned individuals. Three years later Congress approved a complementary measure that said the State Department should take special heed to bar officials when there was “credible evidence” to believe they were involved the theft of natural resources revenues. Last July, the State Department issued a report noting that corruption eroded “confidence in democratic institutions” and that fighting it was a central tenet of American foreign policy. The report also stated that the Obama administration would “vigorously” enforce 7750, better known as the Anti-Kleptocracy Intiative, and give particularly close scrutiny to visa requests from individuals involved in corruption involving natural resources.

Why, then, is a notoriously crooked official from oil-rich Equatorial Guinea allowed to enter the country and to hold vast millions in assets here? It’s certainly not because the U.S. government is unaware of the scandalous activities of Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue. Previously undisclosed documents — obtained by London-based Global Witness and provided to Harper’s Magazine — reveal an extensive federal investigation of Obiang Mangue was underway at least two years ago. Global Witness’s report on the U.S. investigation into Obiang Mangue is available here.

Obiang Mangue, often called Teodorin, is the son and potential successor to Equatorial Guinea’s long-ruling dictator. The investigation, led by the Justice Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), identified a list of Teodorin’s American assets. They include an estate in Malibu, which sits on sixteen acres of land and boasts a swimming pool, tennis courts, and a four-hole golf course. Teodorin paid $35 million in cash for the property three years ago. He also owns a $33.8 million Gulf Stream V private jet, millions of dollars worth of sports cars, and at least two luxury boats, and has used money laundered through shell corporations to finance his American shopping sprees, according to the documents.

A Justice Department memorandum from September of 2007 noted that Teodorin’s salary as Minister of the Agriculture and Forestry paid only $5,000 per month. “[I]t is suspected that a large portion of Teodoro Nguema OBIANG’s assets have originated from extortion, theft of public funds, or other corrupt conduct,” said the document, which also detailed how between 2005 and 2007 Teodorin had funneled into the United States at least $75 million — nearly twice the amount allocated by Equatorial Guinea for its yearly national education budget.

A PowerPoint prepared by ICE’s lead investigator on the case identified the inquiry’s goals as being to “identify, trace, freeze, and recover assets within the United States illicitly acquired through kleptocracy by Teodoro Obiang and his associates,” and to “deny safe haven in the United States to kleptocrats.”

In September 2007, an American delegation met investigators in France, where Teodorin has also lived (quite well) and been the subject of law enforcement inquiry. At the meeting it was agreed that the U.S. would submit to French authorities a “commission rogatoire internationale,” or a formal request for cross-border legal assistance.

Yet two years later the investigation into Teodorin is stalled, according to two sources that spoke about the case off the record. And though the State Department will not publicly disclose the list of foreign officials barred under Bush’s Proclamation 7750, Teodorin is not on it. An official at Equatorial Guinea’s embassy in Washington, who asked to remain unidentified, said he had traveled to the United States as recently as late-September, when he helped officially inaugurate his country’s consulate in Houston.

I requested an interview with Teodorin through the embassy of Equatorial Guinea and through Qorvis, a Washington public relations and lobbying firm that works for the government, and provided a detailed account of the charges in the U.S. documents. I received no reply other than for this comment from the embassy: “We have not been contacted by any Government Agencies and are not aware of any ongoing investigation into the Government of Equatorial Guinea or any of its representatives.”

Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate counsel who played a key role in investigations into BCCI and the Lockheed Corporation’s overseas bribery scandal, suspects that the lack of action against Teodorin may be tied to Equatorial Guinea’s energy wealth and close ties with American oil firms, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron, who have major investments in the country. “The least they could do is cut off his shopping privileges by denying him entry into the United States,” he said. “Where the hell is the U.S. government?”

Teodorin’s father, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has ruled Equatorial Guinea since 1979, when he overthrew and executed his uncle. Since taking the reins of power, Obiang has squashed political opposition and crushed dissent. He has been “elected” three times in balloting marred by fraud (in 1989 with 99 percent of the vote, in 1996 with 97.8 percent, and in 2002 with 97.1 percent).

The State Department’s 2009 global human rights survey, released in February, cited abuses in Equatorial Guinea that included “unlawful killings by security forces; government-sanctioned kidnappings; systematic torture of prisoners and detainees by security forces; life threatening conditions in prisons and detention facilities; impunity; arbitrary arrest, detention, and incommunicado detention.”

Until the mid-1990s, Equatorial Guinea was a pariah state with few international allies. Then American energy firms discovered vast reserves of oil and gas in the waters off Equatorial Guinea. Since then, the country has become the fourth-largest producer of crude in sub-Saharan Africa. Between 1993 and 2007, annual oil revenues shot from $3 million to $4.8 billion.

Equatorial Guinea now enjoys a per capita income of about $37,000, on par with Denmark. Yet a report released earlier this year by Human Rights Watch noted that 77 percent of the population still lives in poverty, 35 percent die before the age of 40, and 57 percent lack access to safe water. “The government of Equatorial Guinea has set new low standards of political and economic malfeasance in handling its billions of dollars in oil revenue,” the report stated. “The dictatorship…has used an oil boom to entrench and enrich itself further at the expense of the country’s people.”

The Obiang family has not been terribly discreet about its plundering of the national treasury. In 1999, Obiang bought a $2.6 million mansion in the Maryland suburbs that has 10 bathrooms and an indoor pool. The following year he bought a second Maryland property for $1.15 million. In 2008, a Spanish civil rights group filed a complaint charging that Obiang and eleven relatives and associates had used laundered money to buy homes and other real estate in the country. An official investigation into those charges is now underway.

A 2004 report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that Obiang had control over some $700 million in state funds, deposited at Riggs National Bank in Washington, D.C. by American oil companies active in Equatorial Guinea. Riggs opened multiple personal accounts for Obiang, his wife and other relatives, which held at least $13 million, and helped establish shell corporations overseas for the president. Riggs, said the report, “turned a blind eye to evidence suggesting the bank was handling the proceeds of foreign corruption, and allowed numerous suspicious transactions to take place without notifying law enforcement.” (Subsequent to the investigation, Riggs Bank paid $41 million in fines for lax oversight, a senior vice president pled guilty to fraud and money laundering, and it was bought by PNC Financial Services.) According to the report, American oil companies “contributed to corrupt practices” by entering into business ventures and making substantial payments to government officials in Equatorial Guinea.

The Obiang regime’s awful record on corruption and human rights has not prevented the United States from cozying up to it. In 2003, following an intense lobbying campaign by the oil industry, President Bush decided to reopen the American embassy in the country, which had been shut down eight years earlier for budgetary reasons and human rights violations. In 2006, Obiang met with then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who called him “a good friend” to the United States.

Teodorin has had ties to the Los Angeles area since at least 1991, when he attended an English as a Second Language course at Pepperdine University in Malibu. Elisa Wax, director of the course during that time, recalled Teodorin arriving to campus in sports cars or limousines. “He was there to party,” she said. “He rarely came to class.”

Teodorin’s tuition of $3,400 for the non-degree course included boarding at Pepperdine, but he shuttled between the Beverly Wilshire Hotel and a house he rented in Malibu. Wax received a steady stream of phone calls from the hotel as well as shops in Beverly Hills trying to track down Teodorin to settle outstanding bills. She would direct these calls to a representative at Walter International, a Houston-based firm that then had a stake in Equatorial Guinea’s offshore fields and that financed Teodorin’s “studies” at Pepperdine. The woman assigned by Walter to handle these complaints was “pulling out her hair,” Wax said. “There were people trying to locate him from all directions.”

After five months, Teodorin dropped out of the program. John Bennett, the American ambassador in Equatorial Guinea at the time, said that Walter International covered $50,000 in expenses racked up by Teodorin during his brief stay.

Teodorin has owned several estates in Los Angeles. Before purchasing his current property, he bought a house for $5.8 million in Bel Air, where he lived across the street from Farrah Fawcett. For a time he owned and operated a hip-hop label called TNO Entertainment, which produced two albums before going out of business. In an effort to woo the rapper Eve, Teodorin reportedly rented a 300-foot yacht from Microsoft founder Paul Allen for about $700,000. News accounts said Eve dated Teodorin for a time but dumped him after learning that his father had been accused of being a cannibal who ate his political rivals. (A request for comment sent to Eve’s publicist was declined.)

In France, a TV crew filmed Teodorin driving down the Champs-Elysees in a Bentley and on a shopping spree during which he bought 30 designer suits in a single afternoon. A Western businessman who had dealings with Teodorin recalled meeting him in Paris, where he was staying at the Plaza Athenee, one of the city’s most luxurious hotels. Teodorin had commandeered three of the biggest suites there—the current rate for such suites runs to thousands of dollars a night — and booked a number of other rooms for his entourage, including bodyguards and girlfriends.

Teodorin also invited this person (who asked not to be identified in this article) to a large dinner party at La Maison du Caviar. “He had a private room and he ordered a lot of champagne and so much caviar you could have scooped it with a shovel,” the source said. “All he knows is how to spend money, that’s how he measures success.”

A 2007 French police investigation uncovered tens of millions of dollars worth of assets belonging to the rulers and family members of Equatorial Guinea, Congo, and Gabon. The investigation showed that Teodorin controlled multiple accounts at blue chip banks such as Barclays, BNP Paribas, and HSBC, and that his car purchases alone had come to $6.3 million over the prior decade.

In South Africa, Teodorin bought two estates in Cape Town in 2004 for $7 million. The Times of South Africa reported that he spent millions more on renovations, including a home-theater sound system and spa baths and marble surfaces for the bathrooms. An unnamed security guard who had worked for Teodorin told the newspaper that his employer was never without a briefcase full of cash and spent thousands of dollars on champagne for his female companions.

On September 4, 2007, Stewart C. Robinson, deputy director of the criminal division at the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, sent French investigators an urgent “Request for Assistance” in an investigation of “suspected criminal conduct of Teodoro Nguema OBIANG and his associates.” It asked that “the subject of this request and the existence of a U.S. investigation on this subject be kept strictly confidential.”

In addition to Teodorin, the “targets of the investigation” were Michael Jay Berger, a Los Angeles-based attorney who “serves as an intermediary for funds wired from Equatorial Guinea,” and Somagui Forestal, a forestry company “beneficially owned by [Teodorin] from which large money transfers to the United States have originated.” Teodorin’s home in Malibu was purchased in the name of a shell corporation, Sweetwater Management, Inc., of which he is the president. His Gulfstream jet was purchased by another of Teodorin’s shell corporations, Ebony Shine International, Ltd., which is registered in the British Virgin Islands.

The U.S. investigation of Teodorin and his associates, wrote Robinson, had “identified numerous suspicious transactions”:

—In April 2005, Teodorin “was the originator on at least five separate wire transfers,” each for $5.9 million. The money moved from a bank account in Equatorial Guinea, through a French bank and then “to a correspondent account at Wachovia Corporation Atlantic to [an account] at First American Trust FSB in the name of First American Title.” Investigators believe he used those funds to purchase the mansion in Malibu.

—In April 2006, Teodorin “was the originator on three wire transfers” that moved through the same banks, except the final destination now was a Bank of America account in the name of McAfee & Taft. Through those three transfers, Teodorin moved $10.3 million into the United States.

—From May to June 2006, Teodorin and his associates executed six wire transfers from a French bank to a correspondent account at Wachovia Atlantic and then to a UBS account in New York, in the name of Insured Aircraft Title Service Correspondent. The funds, $33.8 million in all, were used by Teodorin to purchase his luxury jet.

—Between November 2006 and June 2007, the “suspected money laundering continued …through the use of an intermediary,” identified as Michael Jay Berger. He was said to be the recipient of at least four wire transfers totaling about $800,000. The evidence suggested that the wires originated from an account for Somagui Forestal bank in Equatorial Guinea and were transferred through French banks to Berger’s attorney/client trust account at Union Bank of California. (Berger declined multiple requests for comment.)

Walter Moran, then Special Agent in Charge of ICE’s Miami bureau, sent the French a PowerPoint presentation in support of the request for assistance. It said that Teodorin’s Malibu mansion was “undergoing multi-million dollar renovation,” and that he had “multiple luxury vehicles stored at the Peterson Automobile Museum in Los Angeles,” including two Rolls Royce Phantoms worth $350,000 each; two Maybachs worth $350,000 each; four Ferraris worth $250,000 each; and one Rolls Royce Park Ward.

It identified other American assets of Teodorin’s, including two speedboats of unknown value. Furthermore, two independent sources had told investigators that Teodorin was building a 200-foot custom luxury yacht, complete with a shark tank. He had also recently sought to purchase an apartment at the Ritz Carlton in New York for $20 million in cash and was looking to purchase residential property in Miami.

The PowerPoint said further that Teodorin:

—was a “Recreational drug user (3 to 4 day binges with friends).”

—frequently traveled to the United States as an A-1 diplomat, “although he is seldom on official business.”

—“allegedly received large wire transfers weekly through a ‘fictitious’ corporate account at Union Bank in California.”

—was the target of multiple Suspicious Activities Reports for suspected money laundering from financial institutions including Bank of America and Wachovia. “As a result of his activities, both banks have closed all accounts associated with Obiang and his associates,” the document said.

After being informed of the contents of the government documents, Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor, said:

“To build a case like this you have to prove that his money comes from the proceeds of corruption. That would generally require the cooperation of the foreign government in order to gather sufficient evidence, and in this case Equatorial Guinea is obviously not going to cooperate. It looks like they [prosecutors] have grounds for probable cause, which would be enough to get a warrant and an indictment, but they have to get over the hump of probable cause to beyond a reasonable doubt and that’s a lot tougher. Justice Department guidelines say you should not seek an indictment unless you believe you can meet the reasonable doubt standard.”

However, Barcella said that even if Justice could not prosecute Teodorin, the State Department could bar him from entering the country. “Traveling into the United States is not a right, it’s a gift. He could very easily be declared PNG and denied entry. For years, John Lennon couldn’t enter the United States because he smoked marijuana. You can deny a visa for any reason.”

Jack Blum shared much of Barcella’s assessment. “Gathering the evidentiary material to prove the illegal origins of [Teodorin’s] money would not be easy and [bringing a case] would turn the U.S. relationship with Equatorial Guinea on its head, and that’s of some interest given all the oil.” However, barring Teodorin from the country would be a simple matter, adding, “That is a sensible step that would have real impact, as it would put off limits to him all of his assets in the United States,” he said.

Blum believed the failure to take action against Obiang could be politically motivated. He noted that several other Justice Department cases involving oil kleptocracies — including the so-called “Kazakhgate” scandal, in which the president of Kazakhstan allegedly received tens of millions of dollars in payoffs from an American businessman representing U.S. oil companies—have been mysteriously bogged down for years. “It’s quite possible that there is high-level political interference,” he said. “As U.S. citizens, we have the right to know what’s going on here. If they are going to drop the cases, they need to lay out the facts and explain why.”

Alexandre Wrage, the president of TRACE, which advises multinational companies on compliance with anti-bribery laws, offered this comment: “To deny a visa under 7750, the State Department needs to determine that there is ‘reason to believe’ a public official has misappropriated public funds. That’s a very low standard to meet. Teodorin Obiang owns real estate and cars valued in excess of $80 million. That certainly gives me reason to believe that the funds have come from some source other than his official salary. There’s a second part to the test [of denying a visa under 7750]: has the misappropriation had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States? Massive theft by the kleptocrats of the world undermines U.S. long-terms interests; it undermines democratization efforts and poverty alleviation, and contributes to the collapse of some states, making the world less safe. I would hope that it is this standard that applies, and not the short-term national interest of access to oil.”

Barring a coup d’etat, it is likely that President Obiang, age 67, will rule until his death and then hand off power to a chosen successor. Teodorin is widely considered to be the leading candidate to succeed him. “The guy knows how to play politics,” says Bennett, the former American ambassador. “He’s seen as the junior Big Man.”

One can argue about the legal obstacles involved in prosecuting Teodorin or seizing his assets. There is no doubt at all, though, that he is ineligible to enter the United States under 7750. Despite the U.S. government’s public commitment to keeping corrupt foreign officials out of the country, the State Department appears to be reluctant to make use of 7750. The list of those banned under the proclamation is classified, but two confidential sources I spoke to said there are only about three dozen names on it. These include, according to a few foreign press accounts and my sources, officials from Cambodia, Kenya and Nigeria.

Could the lack of action against Teodorin stem from political pressure to ignore the crimes and corruption of a possible future president of an oil-friendly ally? It’s impossible to say with certainty, and the Department of State declined comment for this article. Both the Justice Department and ICE also declined comment, saying they could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation.

How Much Does It Cost to Hire a “Respected Economist”?

From the Washington Post:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an assortment of national business groups opposed to President Obama’s health-care reform effort are collecting money to finance an economic study that could be used to portray the legislation as a job killer and threat to the nation’s economy, according to an e-mail solicitation from a top Chamber official.

The e-mail, written by the Chamber’s senior health policy manager and obtained by The Washington Post, proposes spending $50,000 to hire a “respected economist” to study the impact of health-care legislation, which is expected to come to the Senate floor this week, would have on jobs and the economy.

Step two, according to the e-mail, appears to assume the outcome of the economic review: “The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document.”

The Washington Version of the Twinkie Defense

The New York Times reported over the weekend that dozens of statements from members of congress printed in the Congressional Record during the House debate on health care “were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.”

“E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans,” said the newspaper. “Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.”

Some members of congress expressed regret for having their statements written by lobbyists, and said they assumed that their staffers had put the words in their mouths, not lobbyists. But an unnamed lobbyist “close to Genentech” defended the practice, saying “This happens all the time.”

It’s good to know that lobbyists routinely write statements for members of congress, but that defense — that these sorts of things “happen all the time” so it must be OK — isn’t very compelling. Try it during your next court appearance and see how the judge reacts.

(A few years ago I found that the lobby firm of Patton Boggs had drafted a statement for Congressman Joe Barton of Texas in support of it’s client Kazakhstan. “Mr Speaker, if the United States is to become truly energy independent, it must seek non-OPEC alternatives for our supply of oil,” Barton’s statement said. “Kazakhstan can — and is willing to — help greatly in this endeavor.” When asked about this, Barton’s spokesman replied: “Some think Congress has no business listening to people who are paid to know something. They think congressmen would do better to get all their information from newspapers and social activists. We think that’s baloney. We take our facts where we find them, and we use them where we choose.”)

Another version of that defense is when politicians claim that they deeply believe in campaign finance reform but they can’t actually restrict contributions to their own campaigns because that would amount to “unilateral disarmament.” Do a Google search with those words and “campaign finance” and you’ll see that it’s been trotted out forever as a justification for raking in as much cash as possible, by both Democrats and Republicans. There is some logic to the claim, but at bottom it’s simply an easy way to claim virtue and innocence while having neither, and it allows for political grandstanding and complete inaction. The perfect Washington combination.

Blogger Junket to Uzbekistan: Torture chambers likely not among tour stops

A short while back I noted here that Gulnara Karimova, daughter and henchwoman of Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, had recently hosted rock star Sting in Tashkent, the nation’s capital. Sting took in a fashion show and other events with Gulnara, whose father’s regime killed one prisoner by immersion in boiling water, and in 2005 slaughtered hundreds of protesters in the town of Andijan. “The scale of this killing was so extensive, and its nature was so indiscriminate and disproportionate, that it can best be described as a massacre,” Human Rights Watch said in a study of the events at Andijan.

Now Gulnara has hired an American firm to bring bloggers to “a gala event in Tashkent,” to quote an email that Chris Stone, vice president at Atlas International Partners, has been sending to invitees. The email says that the event will “showcase the work of young Uzbek artists” and is being sponsored by the Forum of Culture and Arts of Uzbekistan Foundation, which is chaired by Gulnara Karimova. Here’s an excerpt from the email:

The Foundation wants to bring a couple of well-known bloggers over to Tashkent to live-blog the event — and it would like at least one to be a public policy or foreign affairs blogger, undoubtedly because Ms. Karimova is a political figure in Uzbekistan in her own right. That said, the live blogging would involve talking about the cultural and artistic aspects of the event, and your touristic impressions of Uzbekistan; it should not be overtly political…We believe that the Foundation’s primary aim is to get people talking about Uzbekistan as a cultural destination, like Egypt, rather than a place people think about only when there is a crisis in Central Asia.

We can offer you $1,000 in compensation, and would cover business-class airfare from the US to Tashkent (you would probably leave on the 14th or 15th and return the 18th or 19th, although you’re welcome to extend your visit if you want), your stay in the Intercontinental Hotel in Tashkent, and incidentals such as meals and visa fees.

Finally, I should emphasize that I am making this inquiry on a preliminary basis; the Foundation has to approve our proposal. I understand that Ms. Karimova is reviewing the proposal personally and will get back to us within the next 24 hours, which would be necessary to get your visa processed on Friday. Our feeling is that she is likely to give us a green light, so I am assembling a team of bloggers now.

If you are interested, it would be helpful if you can let me know as soon possible. It would also be helpful to know how many hits per day your blog receives and whether you would be interested in writing about the event in any of the print media to which you contribute.

I’m not sure who is on Gulnara’s “team” of bloggers, but if you start reading posts later this month about the exciting arts world of Tashkent, it’s a safe bet that it will be the handiwork of one of the junketeers. And for those who want to go, you can suck up to Stone by telling him that you’re a big fan of Gulnara’s music. Just don’t say anything about Andijan.

I called Stone and he tells me that his firm offers “strategic advisory” services and that Gulnara is “trying to position herself as a patron of the arts.” He asked if I was interested in going and I said I was not. I asked if he didn’t think it was unethical for journalists to accept an offer of money and travel to a place like Uzbekistan, especially when it was clearly expected that nothing unfavorable would be written. “I guess it would depend on whether the blogger was a journalist or not,” he said. “Travel writers get paid to go to places all the time.”

Stone would not disclose which bloggers were going on the junket but he told me that he had approached Abovethelaw.com and suggested strongly that a blogger there had agreed to go on the Uzbek trip. However, he refused to answer a direct question about that.

I emailed the blog’s editor, Elie Mystal, and associate editor, Kashmir Hill, to see if they could clarify the matter. They have not yet replied to my email; if they do, I’ll update this post immediately.

Update: Hill emailed back now to say: “This comes as news to me. i don’t know anything about it.”

Managing editor David Lat says: “As far as I know, neither I nor anyone at Above the Law is going to Uzbekistan!”

So the list of junketeers remains entirely unknown.

Hold the Feta: Marine foils Florida “terror” plot

From the St. Petersburg Times:

Marine reservist Jasen Bruce was getting clothes out of the trunk of his car Monday evening when a bearded man in a robe approached him.

That man, a Greek Orthodox priest named Father Alexios Marakis, speaks little English and was lost, police said. He wanted directions.

What the priest got instead, police say, was a tire iron to the head. Then he was chased for three blocks and pinned to the ground — as the Marine kept a 911 operator on the phone, saying he had captured a terrorist.

Congress: Not quite the People’s House

From Politico:

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress. Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body—compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

What’s the Term? “You got screwed”

From the Washington Post:

Economists say that free trade generally promotes U.S. economic growth and a higher standard of living. In addition, proponents of free trade say, the U.S. job losses will be overcome as businesses and workers shift into more profitable industries.

But here in Catawba County, the high unemployment rate has dampened confidence in such notions.

“The people in the think tanks keep saying we are going to become — what’s the term? — an ‘information and services’ economy,” said Allan Mackie, manager of the North Carolina Employment Security Commission office. “That doesn’t seem to be working out too good.”

The Idiocy Begins: Pundits and politicians on Hasan

From Jim Sleeper:

Now that we know that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was steeping in a kettle of Islamicist paranoia and rage, Joe Lieberman will hold hearings to examine the dark brew, and David Brooks, wired just like Lieberman, fans the fumes this morning to embarrass hapless liberals, therapy addicts, and merciful Christians who tried to understand Hasan as a troubled individual or lost soul.

Lieberman and Brooks are right the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. Where were they at another time of the day, in 1994, when a Brooklyn Jew, Baruch Goldstein, massacred 29 Palestinians at prayer in Hebron? Did they condemn and examine the Jewish paranoia and rage driving him?

Here’s the David Brooks column Sleeper is referring to.

Green Jobs: Moving to China

From the Boston Globe:

Little more than a year after cutting the ribbon at a new factory in Devens built with more than $58 million in state aid, Evergreen Solar said yesterday that it will shift its assembly of solar panels from there to China.

About half of the 577 full-time and 230 contract employees at the Devens factory are involved in putting the panels together. Evergreen declined to say how many of those jobs would disappear with the scheduled transfer next year to China, where it is expanding because of lower costs.

Evergreen uses the Devens facility to make the silicon wafers and cells used in the production of solar energy. It also assembles those parts into the solar panels that increasingly adorn rooftops. The wafers and cells will still be manufactured at Devens, but the final assembly of the panels will move to China.

Employee Recommendation: A moron, but shows initiative

From The Smoking Gun:

Meet Aaron Siebers. The 27-year-old Denver man, a Blockbuster employee, was skateboarding yesterday afternoon when he fell and ripped his uniform pants. Due to work last night–and concerned about getting “written up” by Blockbuster superiors for not wearing his work-issued khakis–Siebers came up with a harebrained idea. Instead of just calling in sick, he stabbed himself in the leg and showed up at work claiming to have just been attacked by three Hispanic males.

Also, see this poll from the New York Daily News, which ran next to a story about Siebers and asked: “Would you go so far and stab yourself to avoid coming in to work?”

Thirteen percent checked the box for “Sure, why not.” Two percent were undecided.

Obama and the Closing of the Arabian Mind

From Marc Lynch:

Obama’s window is closing. Arab audiences see Guantanamo still open (including in an endlessly repeating al-Jazeera promo), US troops escalating in Afghanistan, Gaza still blockaded, and no settlement freeze or peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. They have seen little follow-up on the ground on the Cairo address (regardless of what’s been cooking secretly in Washington). A narrative is clearly hardening that Obama has not delivered on his promises, and that he hasn’t really changed American policies despite his personal appeal. U.S. officials may complain that this is unfair, that it’s only been four months since Cairo, that they are preparing a lot of programs… but the world isn’t fair. This window isn’t closed yet, but it’s closing fast and opinions appear to be hardening. I don’t think that the risk here is that al-Qaeda will take advantage of it, given its weakened state — in fact, Secretary Gates made an uncharacteristic mistake when he lapsed back to the Bush-era argument that we had to win in Afghanistan because otherwise al-Qaeda would capitalize. It’s more that the mobilized Arab and Muslim publics which Obama hoped to win over will be lost.

On Bended Knee: Gideon Levy on Obama’s Israel Policy

From Gideon Levy at Haaretz:

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don’t change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America’s automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world’s policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Of course, Levy is surely a self-hating Jew (like me, I’m told in emails from time to time) and Jeffrey Goldberg will soon be oh so cleverly referring to him as “Sheikh Hassan Levy”. Such is the state of debate about the Middle East in the United States.

Sting: Obama, Synchronicity, Hypocrisy

The biography of a celebrity asshole, in three short chapters. Excerpts below all come from news stories published in October of 2009.

From the Associated Press, on Sting’s deep thoughts on Obama:

The former Police frontman said that he spent some time with Obama and “found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world.” Sting, 58, said he’s hopeful that the world’s problems can be dealt with, but is frustrated that “we seem to be living in a currency of medieval ideas.” “My hope is that we can start talking about real issues and not caring about whether God cares about your hemline or your color,” he said. “We are here to evolve as one family, and we can’t be separate anymore.”

From EurasiaNet, on Sting’s visit with the daughter of Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, whose regime killed one prisoner by immersion in boiling water:

Tickets to see British singer Sting perform in Tashkent will cost between $1,000 and $2,000 dollars, organizers say. The former Police front man will play at the Alisher Navoi Theater on October 18 as part of Art Week Style, a fashion and art event masterminded by Gulnara Karimova, President Islam Karimov’s daughter. Even the cheapest ticket will cost more than 45 times the average monthly salary in Uzbekistan, the report notes. Previous entertainers at Karimova’s showcase include Rod Stewart and Julio Iglesias.

From Fashion Week Daily:

Sting made it all way to Uzbekistan for the event, where he joined beautiful Dr. Gulnara Karimova at fashion shows and beyond. The superstar closed the week with a concert at the Tashkent Sate Opera and two giant screens were positioned in the square outside the State Theater to accommodate all of those who couldn’t get tickets to the charity performance. And believe it or not, the entire city knew every word to nearly all the songs in the set.

Goldman Sachs: The casino always wins

From Greg Gordon at McClatchy :

In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

Goldman’s sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation’s premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.

Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.

Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman’s failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.

The Mysterious $75,000 Inheritance

Here’s a bizarre story to read before going back to work today. From the Washington Post:

Recently a professor of mine, whom I’d studied with 20 years ago at Bennington College, died. Two weeks afterward, I learned that she had made me the beneficiary of her life insurance policy, leaving me $75,000.

I found this out only because the school where she was then teaching, Phillips Exeter Academy, sent me a letter asking that I fill out “the enclosed form from Prudential.” When I called the administrator who had signed the cover letter, she informed me of my windfall.

This is a true story. For the longest time, I puzzled over it: What in the world motivated her to do it? With no note attached? No explanation? No instructions?

The Wild West: Livingstone for governor

Neil Livingstone worked with Oliver North during the Iran/contra period and is now a beltway security consultant and terrorism pundit who publicly advocated for the war in Iraq and then made money advising companies doing business there. His controversial clients have included the powerful daughter of the dictator of Uzbekistan and he once helped a hired gun representing “a post Soviet entrepreneur indicted on 45 counts by the Feds” broker high-level meetings at the Justice Department. “Think of us as a McKinsey & Company with muscle, a private CIA and Defense Department available to address your most intractable problems and difficult challenges,” he said when his current firm, Executive Action, opened for business.

Livingstone is also mulling over a run for governor in Montana. Current governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, cannot seek reelection in 2012 due to term limits.

Last July, Livingstone reserved the domain name livingstoneforgovernor.com. He told my colleague Ted Trautman that he’s “in the early stages” of a potential run because he’s “been approached” by people suggesting it. He said he wouldn’t make any formal decision until after the 2010 mid-term election, but “presumably” he’d be running under the banner of the Republican party.

Livingstone is originally from Montana and says he maintains close ties there. “I feel I can make a difference,” he said, “and if other people feel I can, too, I’d like to give it a try.” His platform is necessarily vague, but he said that Montana had “not prospered in the way that other Rocky Mountain states have” in terms of business development. He mentioned an interest in “helping the state move forward in pragmatic ways,” such as coal mining, energy drilling and tourism.

Should be an interesting race if Livingstone throws his hat in the ring.

Members of Congress: Corrupt and incompetent is no way to go through life

From the Washington Post:

House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July. The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.

The Post reported in a second story that “nearly half the members of a powerful House subcommittee in control of Pentagon spending are under scrutiny.”

There’s little chance that any of the members under investigation will actually be held accountable for thei actions, though. As the Post noted, “The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations…Most result in private letters that either exonerate or reprimand a member. In some rare instances, the censure is more severe.”

Six Questions for Desmond Travers on the Goldstone Report

Desmond Travers was one of the four members of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which produced the controversial Goldstone Report. Travers is a retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. He also served in command of troops with various UN and EU peace support missions. I recently spoke to Travers by phone about the report. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

1. Were you surprised by the criticism of the report?

There was a lot of criticism even before the report came out, primarily against individuals, especially Justice Richard Goldstone. So we were not unduly surprised by the whinging when the report was released, except for the intensity and viciousness of the personal attacks. Justice Goldstone has publicly invited the critics, especially within the U.S. government, to come forward with substantive evidence of incorrect or inaccurate statements. But there has been no credible criticism of the report itself or of the information elucidated in it.

2. Douglas Griffiths, the American delegate to the Human Rights Council, said, “While Justice Goldstone acknowledged Hamas’s crimes, in examining Israel’s response sufficient weight was not given to the difficulties faced in fighting this kind of enemy in this environment.” Is that a fair criticism?

I was a soldier for 42 years and I reject that criticism, which seems intended to excuse alleged Israeli breaches of the laws of warfare. I retired as a colonel in the Irish army in 2001 having served in war zones in Cyprus, Lebanon, Bosnia and Croatia, and I would not underestimate the challenge of combat in built-up areas. Nonetheless, armies have never had the technological luxury that they do today when it comes to taking out targets without inflicting collateral damage.

3. What’s your opinion of the overall U.S. reaction to the report?

The Obama Administration said that Israel should carry out an investigation into its actions, and that’s an enormously important statement for the U.S. to make. In the view of the fact-finding mission the core message of the report is that there has to be an end to impunity to commit war crimes.

4. Critics have also said that Hamas deliberately inserted its fighters among civilians and that doing so increased the civilian toll. Did you find that to be the case?

We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I’d store munitions would be in a mosque. It’s not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques—one where worshippers were killed—and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship.

There is a sinister and foolish notion among certain proponents of insurgency warfare that to fight an insurgency means that civilians will inevitably be killed. But if you give the state authority to be indiscriminate with the lives of civilians in pursuing insurgents, it plays into the hands of the insurgents. Dead bodies are grist to the insurgents’ mill: if the dead are on your side they represent insurgent victories and if the dead are on their side then they have martyrs.

5. What is your view of the claim by Israeli officials that the IDF is the most “moral” army in the world?

Given the tactics, the weapons used, and the indiscriminate targeting, I think this is a dubious claim.

6. What other issues do you think need to be addressed?

We were disturbed by the lethality and toxicity of weapons used in Gaza, some of which have been in Western arsenals since the Cold War, such as white phosphorous, which incinerated 14 people, including several children in one attack; flechettes, small darts that are designed to tumble upon entering human flesh in order to cause maximum damage, strictly in breach of the Geneva Convention; and highly carcinogenic tungsten shrapnel and dime munitions, which contain tungsten in powder form. There is also a whole cocktail of other problematic munitions suspected to have been used.

There are a number of other post-conflict issues in Gaza that need to be addressed. The land is dying. There are toxic deposits from all the munitions that have been dropped. There are serious issues with water—its depletion and its contamination. There is a high instance of nitrates in the soil that is especially dangerous to children. If these issues are not addressed, Gaza may not even be habitable by World Health Organization norms.