Daily Times

“Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.” This is a well-known quote. But the devil’s workshop also contains ample room for the willing hands of the greedy. Greed and opportunism have been in play from the beginning of recorded history. One of the original recorded tales springs to life in the Biblical Book of Genesis. A famished firstborn sells his birthright for a bowl of porridge. And that kettle of food was simmering long before Esau crested the final ridge toward home. There is a reason why Jacob was known as a trickster.

Such scenarios can be incredibly easy on a small scale and certainly worth the effort on a larger scale, if successful. So let us take a look at a modern tale of greed.

The New York Times ran a front page, above the fold, article called ‘Group in US saw Gaddafi as big payday’ (November 18, 2011). The cast of characters is as follows: starring Neil S Alpert — prior working affiliation with the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and also the Republican National Committee. Dirk Borgers — a Belgian project engineer with wide experience, who drafted a letter to Gaddafi, which closes with the grovelling words, “Your obedient servants”. Neil C Livingstone — a terrorism specialist and consultant who aspires for the governorship of the state of Montana. Marty Martin — a former CIA officer — and Randell K Wood — a Kansas City lawyer who has represented Libyan officials and organisations since the 1980s.

These men are involved in the lucrative industry of financial opportunism spawned by regional conflict. They are not the first to join the game and they will not be the last. But what was meant to stay in a back room for consideration by private parties is now front page news for the average citizen to ponder. We should embrace the digital age for all the right reasons. Digital communications can shine a light on nefarious activities.

Documents have surfaced, which expose a grand financial scheme. The documents include a three-page letter to Colonel Gaddafi from the ‘American Action Group’. Even the acronym ‘AAG’ seems poorly chosen. Any acronym, which sounds like a gagging noise that accompanies induced vomiting, should be avoided. The skeletal legal aspect of the deal the men hatched is simple enough. Legally, the contract reads with perfect honesty: “The fees and payments set forth in this contract are minimum non-refundable fees…The fees are an inducement for the attorneys and advisors to take the case and nothing else.”

The AAG contract was found in government offices in Libya after the collapse of the Gaddafi government. It seems surreal that confidential documents would not have been destroyed prior to the offices being vacated. In retrospect, the members of AAG probably wish they had merely picked up a satellite phone and called the dear colonel; it would have been harder to trace. But it is more distasteful to try to financially scalp an individual over the telephone. How can a professional tone be conveyed when telling a man that a hastily assembled group might consider spitting on him while he is on fire? Yes, the $ 10 million price tag guaranteed nothing other than a transfer of funds from one account to another. As I write this, discreet enquiries are being made to AAG. I want to be in on their next deal. The whole things looks, well, it looks so lucrative.

The hatchery never delivered an egg, thanks to the treasury department. The group was never issued a licence to do business with Libya. But it seems quite audacious that a few men would even conceive such a plot. NATO was already embarked on a bombing campaign to assist the rebels. I will let out a little bit of the imaginative leash. Maybe they thought it all up after sharing a few beers. It is hard to imagine a sane professional group cooking up such a risk-taking venture.

Mr Livingstone is an honest soul on the scale of the integrity exhibited by the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The venture was not one directed by “an eleemosynary organisation”. That is such a big word. I had to look it up.

Mr Borgers will agree that the goal was to get the Gaddafi family out of Libya whilst freeing up their wealth for future use. He also speaks of wanting to “stop the butchering”. But then he makes the one statement that causes me to consider the news for commentary. In defence of his letter to Colonel Gaddafi, Mr Borgers states, “Let us not argue about semantics.” I agree. We do not need to quibble about the text of the letter. We do not need to argue as to the ill-advised use of “Your obedient servants” as the closing to a letter. We need to discuss unethical behaviour.

As ordinary Libyans fled with the clothes on their backs, a group of hyenas in suits decided that a marriage between cold-blooded revenge (Gaddafi) and hot-blooded opportunism (AAG) might generate a financial bonanza. The non-refundable initial price tag to assist a despotic ruler to take his money and run was a mere $ 10 million. If that worked, surely tens of millions in additional revenue would eventually change hands.

But one consideration remains. What is legal is not always lawful. There is a difference. Legality is dependent on what a government allows. It is the process by which men of clay determine how to relate to their fellow man. Lawful behaviour is of the higher order. It is dependent on the adjudicator of the hearts of men.

AAG had ten million reasons to be ‘obedient servants’. But there is one simple reason why the group should never have embarked on its legal course of action: conscience.

The writer is a freelance columnist. She can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com