Without any review of more than 50 pages of refute and evidence that I mailed them the DoD Inspector General answered for Secretary Rumsfeld by stating “We have sufficiently investigated the alleged reprisal issue and Capt. Koury provides no new information that would warrant further investigative effort by this office.” They next declared, “CentCom officials took appropriate measures in accordance with applicable policy and guidance. Accordingly, further review of this matter within the DoD is not warranted.”
As has been recognized by Congress, a key element in restoring trust to our fouled institutions involves the application of integrity, honesty and “transparency” substantiated by an independent and trustworthy oversight process. This philosophy is applicable to the accounting standards applied to corporations such as Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth, the Weapons of Mass Destruction inspection regime utilized within Iraq, and the ability to trust “built-in” conflict-of-interest involved when Federal employees are tasked with evaluating honesty and integrity of fellow employees.
An impartial evaluation was expected of the Office of the Inspector General (a Federal Agency) as they reviewed my treatment at the hands of United States Central Command (another Federal Agency) ... instead a “protectionist” blanket of forgiveness was given the Command.
In each of these examples of failure and corruption the “dishonest” application of oversight procedure was the enabling ingredient. I remain involved with this situation because of the absurdity of the mishandling in the entire situation and the realization that our government agencies are not responsive; they often provide belligerent and defiant barriers against pursuit of the truth.
Because there are currently thousands of Alabamians that fall under the operational control of United States Central Command the implications of dishonest and unresponsive oversight regarding military matters such as those involved in my case against senior leadership within CentCom are “closer to home” than might be recognized. Although barriers continue to be placed against my attempts to achieve a proper remedy and to have held accountable those who have perpetrated misdeeds against me, a more serious reason to continue this struggle is to reform the Inspector General’s review processes and to “re-establish” a system of accountability.
Based on the Inspector General’s response to Rep. Rogers’ inquiries it is obvious that they are incapable of admitting mistakes and continue to avoid answers to specific questions. I have requested Rep. Rogers use the upcoming Congressional adjournment to contact Alabama’s Congressional Delegation and to inform them of the seriousness of this case.
The more relevant question we must all ask is ... what will be the Inspector General’s response to possible future problems that some conscientious employee of Anniston Army Depot’s Chemical Weapons Disposal Facility attempts to identify and remedy through his chain of command. Hypothetically, if procedures were being sidestepped or chemical weapons were being mishandled and if the chain of command were unresponsive to a complaint, then the next “court of remedy and review” would actually be The Department of Defense Inspector General.
This community must know beforehand: How well its citizens might be treated at the hands of a process that simply protects the “party line” and ... what are the stakes if agencies tasked with the oversight function fail to acknowledge the early stages of potential problems?
Chris R. Koury
Weaver