Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday October 14 2014, @03:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-late-than-never dept.

The Washington Post reports that a criminal investigation has uncovered a secret Pentagon weapons program "entwined with allegations of a sweetheart contract, fake badges and trails of destroyed evidence."

The Directorate for Plans, Policy, Oversight and Integration (a Navy intelligence office located in the Pentagon) ordered 349 untraceable silencers for $1.6 million, though the cost of production was $10,000. The silencers were manufactured by the brother of the directorate's boss, a mechanic who works on hot-rods.

From the article:

The exact purpose of the silencers remains hazy, but court filings and pretrial testimony suggest they were part of a top-secret operation that would help arm guerrillas or commandos overseas.

[...]

Much of the documentation in the investigation has been filed under seal on national security grounds. According to the records that have been made public, the crux of the case is whether the silencers were properly purchased for an authorized secret mission or were assembled for a rogue operation.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:02PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:02PM (#105971)

    What article?

    Also, "SIlencers". Are they made from silicon?

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:04PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:04PM (#105974)

      Also, 349 untraceable silencers for 1.6 Million!? What the hell? Sounds like what was untraceable was the amount of money that went into their private pockets.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:20PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:20PM (#105984)

        My guess: $10,000 for silencers, $590,000 for the brother to keep quiet about it, $1,000,000 kicked back to the director in question.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:45PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:45PM (#105997)

        From my own security clearance experience they're most interested in your general credit record, trying to make sure your only source of income is a declared source and not a drug gang or the Russians or something.

        Dude made hot rods. Elite troops think dune buggies and the like are cool. Would not be shocked if totally off the books each silencer was delivered in the trunk of a desert dune buggy and nobody's saying nothing about dune buggies. They might be stupid enough to have 349 dune buggy chassis in accounts receivable and the like and they just kinda disappear off the books. Which must be really weird for taxes.

        Or thats 349 silencers delivered in downtown Kiev and a chunk of that million is a bribe for border guards or couriers.

        Finally $28 per silencer strikes me as rather optimistic even if provided with blueprints and doing it all CNC. How do you intend to pay for the BATF stamp and all the other BS the BATF wants you to jump thru at $28 each? So now he's building destructive devices without a FFL (probably) and without paying the $200 transfer tax (duh, since he's only charging $28 each) If it was $10K per silencer, maybe for some very large caliber beast, I could see that, but thats no profit. If you want a total project markup of 50% which is high but not ridiculous, and the ATF makes you jump thru vault and licensing hoops I could totally see in a "cost plus" contract this could approach $1M. So why isn't the ATF saying anything, well, maybe because the books are in fact clean so they were told to stay out of it. From a paperwork standpoint, manufacturing, storing, and selling what the ATF describes as "Destructive devices" following all the regs as a commercial mfgr isn't cheap. And if you're a real gunsmith you can spread some of the fixed costs over 1000 customers and 20 years of sales, but if you're one - offing it...

        • (Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:14PM

          by drussell (2678) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:14PM (#106013) Journal

          How do you intend to pay for the BATF stamp and all the other BS the BATF wants you to jump thru at $28 each? So now he's building destructive devices without a FFL (probably) and without paying the $200 transfer tax (duh, since he's only charging $28 each)

          Uhh... The whole point was that these were off-the-books, untraceable, unregistered, no serial number parts being made illegally so as to not have any BATF stamp, proper records, etc.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Bill Dimm on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:03PM

    by Bill Dimm (940) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:03PM (#105973)

    A link to the article [washingtonpost.com] might be helpful.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by LaminatorX on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:16PM

      by LaminatorX (14) <laminatorxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:16PM (#105980)

      Fixed, thanks.

      • (Score: 1) by Bill Dimm on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:19PM

        by Bill Dimm (940) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:19PM (#105982)

        It doesn't look fixed. Is there a button you need to press to push the update out?

        • (Score: 1) by Bill Dimm on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:23PM

          by Bill Dimm (940) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:23PM (#105987)

          My bad, I see it now.

          • (Score: 2) by paulej72 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:04PM

            by paulej72 (58) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:04PM (#106071) Journal
            It takes a while for the memcache to clear and an updated article to actually show up corrected. I'd rather have a short delay than a site that goes BOOM when more than a few people click on a link.
            --
            Team Leader for SN Development
    • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:51PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:51PM (#106376) Journal

      Heh, my bad. So it goes.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:14PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:14PM (#105979)

    Corruption at the Pentagon? I'll put it this way: If you thought civilian agencies were bloated and corrupt, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's funny that in the US we are quick to go after someone pocketing an extra $3000 worth of welfare checks, but will happily spend $400 billion on a fighter plane that has yet to fly.

    Using secrecy to cover up malfeasance? That is par for the course in any government organization that is allowed to keep things secret. Which is why I don't want large government agencies allowed to keep things a secret for very long.

    And finally, trying to set up guerrilla fighters funded by the US while trying not to get caught? That's exactly what the Obama administration has announced as their strategy in Syria, and what previous administrations have done in Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Nigeria, and many other interesting places. So again, I'm hardly surprised at this.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:58PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:58PM (#106005)

      Corruption at the Pentagon? I'll put it this way: If you thought civilian agencies were bloated and corrupt, you ain't seen nothing yet.

      Fair point, but I've worked across several. I always thought federal and DoD agencies were good examples of bloated, corrupt, inefficient bureaucracy. But then I experienced Northrop Grumman.

      --
      I am a crackpot
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:12PM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:12PM (#106073)

      I actually think we need a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal to for government employees (up to and including the President), to keep secrets of any kind from the public not deemed to be a private matter.

      The military gets an exception only for strategy in a time of war or engagement, or development of military technology. In the case of the latter, a *civilian* review board to keep track of what they are doing. They're Americans, and I'm not a pussy. I'll just have to trust them and not be paranoid about them running to sell secrets, or naive enough to think we wouldn't keep tabs on them. Military gets 20 years to keep tech or strategy secret, unless directly authorized by the review board every single year thereafter.

      Law Enforcement gets an exception for *active* investigations with proper judicial oversight, where DIRECTLY subsequent to the closing of any cases or trials, all the information deemed to be public is released on the Internet and to public archives (including publicly operated archives). An additional exception is allowed to protect informants and witnesses, while also requiring judicial oversight.

      Whistleblowers enjoy Constitutional protection designed to protect their anonymity and ensure their safety until investigations are concluded. In the case of convictions, where appropriate, whistleblowers will receive bounties and witness protection.

      In all other cases, it only serves as evidence of information asymmetry highly detrimental to the democratic process as well as our economy. I bet most arguments against such a thing will relate to security theater that ignores actual statistics.

      Even foreign policy, actually *especially* foreign policy, should be absolutely and completely transparent. Otherwise you have crap like the TPP where wealthy and influential interests representing monied interests are selling out their fellow citizens.

      Yeah, government keeping secrets has turned out to be a very bad thing.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16 2014, @03:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 16 2014, @03:36PM (#106657)

        ...development of military technology. In the case of the latter, a *civilian* review board to keep track of what they are doing. They're Americans, and I'm not a pussy. I'll just have to trust them and not be paranoid about them running to sell secrets, or naive enough to think we wouldn't keep tabs on them. Military gets 20 years to keep tech or strategy secret, unless directly authorized by the review board every single year thereafter.

        You've pretty much outlined the current system, with the exception that it's 30 years, not 20. Still a lot shorter than a copyright, though. And that civilian review board - they're called congressional panels.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday October 16 2014, @06:14PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday October 16 2014, @06:14PM (#106730)

          And that civilian review board - they're called congressional panels.

          Wait... you think our politicians are citizens? I also think you are implying that we have the consent of the governed.

          When I say civilian review board, I really mean a review board made up of civilians with politicians specifically excluded.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:26PM

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:26PM (#105988) Journal
    What you are attempting to refer to are *sound suppressors.*

    The first step to having an intelligent conversation is to understand what you are talking bout.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:48PM (#106017)

      So a moving object can't be made to emit sounds as weak as negative infinity decibels?

      Pedantic. The term is widely used.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Tinyboss on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:47PM

      by Tinyboss (4794) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:47PM (#106032)

      Oh thank god you clued us in. In the future I'll just scroll down to the first douchey-looking monospaced post since I know that's where the intelligent conversation begins.

      • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:27PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:27PM (#106045)

        +1 They Totally Deserved That

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday October 14 2014, @08:56PM

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @08:56PM (#106068)

          I say we follow him around for a week and just fling monkey poo at his comments. One monkey is just annoying though. Several is funny.

          You in?

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:33PM (#106048)

        Harsh, but funny.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday October 15 2014, @10:17AM

      by Bot (3902) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @10:17AM (#106206) Journal

      Bah, SHUT UP!

      (see? there IS such thing as a silencer)

      --
      Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by computersareevil on Wednesday October 15 2014, @04:44PM

      by computersareevil (749) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @04:44PM (#106311)

      The BATF refers to them officially as "silencer" in their definition of "firearm" on Form 4 which is used to transfer NFA items.

      http://atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf [atf.gov]

      So where does the "intelligent conversation" begin?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @05:03PM (#106320)

        Certainly not with the BATF. That's about as far from a reliable source as you could possibly get.

  • (Score: 1) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:30PM

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:30PM (#105989)

    Anybody remembers that the prez of that warmongering, corrupt and slightly fascist country of ours got the Nobel Peace prize?

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:38PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:38PM (#105992)

      In fairness he basically got it for not being Bush - an accomplishment he managed to sustain for several months.

      • (Score: 1) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:53PM

        by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:53PM (#106001)

        Right.

        Come to think of it, Kissinger got it too, so in the end it don't mean nothing...

        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:47PM

          by cafebabe (894) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:47PM (#106033) Journal

          "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize." -- Tom Lehrer.

          --
          1702845791×2
    • (Score: 2) by redneckmother on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:49PM

      by redneckmother (3597) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:49PM (#105999)

      OHHHH! I heard that story, but thought they said "The Noble's Piece Prize" - meaning he got the king's share!

      --
      Mas cerveza por favor.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:39PM (#105993)

    Murder, obviously.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:56PM (#106003)

    Wow so many things to talk about:

    First 1.6 million for less than $500,000 worth of equipment, and they went to some guy's garage for it?
    http://www.silencerco.com/harvester/ [silencerco.com] If only that can was legal in my state. :(

    Then theirs this from TFS:

    The badge inquiry led NCIS to discover e-mails and a paper trail pertaining to the $1.6 million contract to buy the silencers from Landersman, the California mechanic. Court papers describe him as a struggling small businessman who raced hot-rods and had declared bankruptcy in July 2012.

    He is the brother of David W. Landersman, the senior director for intelligence in the Navy directorate.

  • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:27PM

    by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:27PM (#106015) Journal

    and we'll never use these on a civilian target..

    and we'll never use these on a US citizen..

    and we'll never use these to topple governments..

    • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:17PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:17PM (#106025)

      Because we'll never use them, period.

      This was a pure and simple giveaway from a Very Senior Person who oversees a ton of purchasing contracts, who for "reasons of national security" perforce has very limited oversight, basically giving money away to his brother.

      The fact that some (relatively cheap) silencers were manufactured and (hopefully) delivered is practically immaterial. I wouldn't be surprised if they were immediately declared surplus and sold or recycled.

  • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:19PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @06:19PM (#106027)

    The Directorate for Plans, Policy, Oversight and Integration (a Navy intelligence office located in the Pentagon) ordered 349 untraceable silencers for $1.6 million

    Umm...I'm pretty sure we just traced them.

    Slightly more seriously, is there any regulation at all around silencers? Do they have to have a manufacturer or serial number (a la the lower receiver)? Or are they just "accessories" that have no real oversight? i.e. are ANY silencers "tracable"?

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:21PM

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:21PM (#106040) Journal

      They are heavily regulated by BATF.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrchew1982 on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:31PM

      by mrchew1982 (3565) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:31PM (#106046)

      They are very tightly regulated. You must receive a special license to manufacture them and pay a special tax, strick inventory and serial number records must be kept, storage requirements, etc.

      To purchase one you must pay for a $200 tax stamp and have your application pre-approved with a full background check. There is usually about a one year wait.

      Just an FYI, silencers/suppressors don't make guns silent. The practical ones just make it so that you don't damage your hearing when not wearing ear protection. They're pretty useless for anything illegal, too bulky and still too loud.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:43AM

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:43AM (#106157) Journal
        The article implies they were for use with a stock of captured AK-47s.

        Yes, you read that right, AK-47s.

        For anyone not already laughing their head off, AK-47s use the 7.62x39mm "russian" round, which is essentially equivalent to a 30-30, minus the flat-nosed bullet and rimmed cartridge. The muzzle velocity is over twice the speed of sound.

        This is important because, to simplify only slightly, sound suppressors are only effective on a weapon that fires a projectile at *less than* the speed of sound. Using a sound suppressor on a supersonic weapon is ineffective, and rough on the suppressor to boot. In some cases it is practical to use a suppressor on a weapon that *could* fire supersonic rounds; for example standard 9mm rounds are supersonic, but not by much, and you can load your own rounds with a bit less powder which you could then use effectively with the suppressor. But that's never going to work in this case - if you load a 7.63x39 lightly enough that it's sub-sonic, the weapon would no longer cycle - it would be converted from a selective fire assault rifle into an awkward single-shot weapon with almost no range. You'd be better off with a .380.

        So not only did someone spend way too much of the taxpayers money on these things, but it appears they were purchased for a purpose that was never practical to begin with.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @09:54PM (#106088)

      Well, they are, you know, illegal. Kind of like keeping a marmot within city limits.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Thesis on Wednesday October 15 2014, @12:52AM

      by Thesis (524) on Wednesday October 15 2014, @12:52AM (#106129)

      I own a few suppressors, as well as other Title II firearms. Yes, they are heavily regulated, and are legally registered with the BATFE. The Federal government allows you to own them, but some states do not. Here is a copy/paste from a reply long ago on TOS which I made that explains how it a person can own one:

      Title II firearms are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, commonly referred to as NFA. Sometime the weapons are incorrectly referred to as "Class 3" by the general public. All NFA weapons are tracked with mandated registration with the BATFE. Weapons regulated by the NFA are Title 2 weapons (Title 1 weapons are "normal" firearms you see in most gun stores) include Destructive Devices, Suppressors (aka Silencers), machine guns made prior to May 1986, Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), and lastly the Any Other Weapon (AOW) category. These items can be purchased and transferred to you from any FFL who has paid an annual Special Occupation Tax (SOT) on file with the BATFE. Not all states allow you to purchase or posses these items, but most do. That being said, Federal law is clear that you can own these items if you pass the background check done by BATFE, which generally takes a few months due to the volume of applications they process. State law however, can limit or prohibit your possession, as well as use of the items. When you purchase any of the items above, you pay a one time $200 transfer tax to the BATFE per serial numbered item. The only exception are the AOW's which have a $5 transfer tax.

      The age restrictions on the Federal level for Title 2 weapons is the same as it is for a handgun. The age limit to purchase one of these items through a dealer, or to have it transferred through a dealer, is 21 years of age. If a person is between the ages of 18-21, you can purchase a Title 2 firearm from an individual, as allowed by Federal law. A dealer is not involved in a person to person transfer, only as long as both individuals reside in the same state. Background checks are still done by BATFE, and there is a paper trail. Again, these are legally registered weapons.

      Any individual can sell a registered transferable Title 2 weapon at any time they wish, to a qualified person, entity, or agency, which passes the background check. The background check is free, however you will pay the transfer tax of $200 ($5 if it is an AOW). The paperwork is filled out and sent in with the appropriate transfer tax amount. When the approved transfer papers are returned to the owner of the weapon, then the physical transfer of the weapon to the new owner may take place. No sooner.

      As for machine guns made after May 19, 1986, individuals cannot purchase or posses them. Only dealers, manufacturers, and government agencies may purchase or posses them. These guns are commonly referred to as Post Samples, for they are made after the ban in 1986. Dealers who sell Title 2 weapons commonly have them, and sell them to local LE agencies.

      If you want to own a machine gun, be prepared to pay a handsome price. You can buy a car, or a house, for as much as some of them can cost. It is estimated that there are just barely over 100k transferable machine guns in the US that an individual can legally own. They are quite rare, and priced accordingly. See here for an example of prices:

      http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key= [subguns.com]

      http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi [sturmgewehr.com]

      As for the article this submission is about, it is a clear case of an insider "milking the government" rather than a case of the government wanting suppressors. There already are well established manufacturers who supply these items to the government, both with and without serial numbers.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:43PM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:43PM (#106050) Journal

    Meanwhile, the person who made the silencers is being prosecuted and doesn't stand a chance of a fair trial. Every time he tries to show that he had reason to believe what he did was legal the prosecution plays the top secret card and prevents the evidence from being presented. Or the evidence has been destroyed for 'national security reasons'.

    So we get the strange case where the government claims he made illegal silencers and it also says 'what silencers' out the other side of it's mouth. So the defendant is being tried for something that "doesn't exist" but isn't allowed to present any evidence that the non-existent silencers were authorized by the U.S. government.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:25PM (#106366)

      Every time he tries to show that he had reason to believe what he did was legal

      Well his first clue that he was involved in something shady should've been that the payment was more than 160x the cost to manufacture; the second clue should've been that the order was coming from his brother. People may get away with it all the time, but "getting away with it" is not the same as "legal".

      Not being able to get a fair trial is indeed fucked up and proof that we're under a rogue government, but I have a feeling that he's far from innocent. It would be nice if this could lead to more prosecutions for thsi kind of fraud, but its pointless if the cost is continued constitution shredding.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15 2014, @07:27PM (#106367)

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/14/5103084/1-6-million-silencer-fraud-us-navys-second-investigation-november [theverge.com]

    Digging up old stories like this makes me wonder what isn't being reported...but I suppose it could just be laziness, too.