Sign Up for Free Mailing List

September 17, 2001

Narco News 2001


Building a Map to

Solve the Crime

By Catherine Austin Fitts

Special to The Narco News Bulletin

(Catherine Austin Fitts is former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former managing director of Dillon Read. Today she is CEO of the Solari Group.)

To understand events such as wars or any of the events on the nightly news, always ask the question "Cui bono?" which translates as "Who benefits?"

Cui Bono?

Who Benefits?

Who financed the perpetrators?

Whose bank and wire transfer systems does their money and precious metals or gems flow through?

Who trained them and supported them over time and now?

Who provides them with critical intelligence?

Who sold them their equipment and arms and did they take payment in cash or drugs?

Whose satellites, phone lines, and internet lines do they use?

Who failed to prevent wrongdoing and do their careers and budgets go up or down?

Whose budget goes up?

Whose business prospers?

Who knew and said nothing?

Who else will make money?

Who will sell arms and supplies?

Who has insurance on what and does the declaration of war relieve the insurance companies of their responsibilities?

Who will acquire databases, new technology, oil rights, mineral rights, bank deposits, land, financial assets, telecommunications, media and consumer markets?

What groups and investors are crosscutting to the people who benefit?

Who will benefit from a distraction?

How do the people who benefit compare with those funding the political campaigns of those making decisions, or those who appoint those who do?

How do the people who benefit compare to those who are government are dependent on to finance their deficits?

Whose power will increase?

Who will pay for this in terms of taxes and government debt and loss of rights, property and life?

I find that if I watch what happens over a period of time and collect up the many possible answers to that question ---whether it is who makes money, who loses money, who gains in power and prestige, and who loses power and prestige, over time, I can learn a great deal about who's responsible and what their goals are.

Part of asking "cui bono" is to understand the power of distraction. While the country invested a tremendous amount of interest in Monica Lewinsky and then a Presidential election, as much as $3 trillion went reported unaccounted for and/or missing from federal agencies without notice. The IOU for that missing money were expected to come due this fall along with various crises in the gold, derivatives, and stock markets. One symptom was the quiet logjam on the defense budget until last week.

Anytime you are tempted to say "But so-and-so would never do that," or "But so-and-so would never exploit something like this in such a way," I would encourage you to reconsider and reach out for the hard data. A review of the statistics on who makes how much money in arms trafficking, narcotics trafficking, warfare and other forms of organized crime indicate that governments, banks and legal and illegal corporations and their investors worldwide consider these to be excellent businesses.

History has shown that powerful but historically invisible wealth has a pattern of financing and ultimately manipulating all sides in a conflict. We all may say these things are wrong, but we in America have traditionally benefited from the rich flow of the profits relative to other people. Our inability in America over the last fifty years to move to local resources accountability and to increase our productivity in balance with our resource use is part of the drive for warfare, covert operations and organized crime worldwide. We have traditionally voted in the marketplace or voted at the polls for the folks who generated the most money for us through these methods.

We should also ask why Americans or people who are not Americans might want to kill innocent Americans.

Sam Smith published the following yesterday:

May 1996

LESLEY STAHL, 60 MINUTES: We have heard that a half million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima and and you know, is the price worth it?"

U.N. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it."

Sam's reference was to 500,000 children dead. I would add the impact of money laundering on Russia. In 1992, there were 14 million people living below poverty in the former Soviet Republics. Today that number is 147 million and rising. That is the result of global banks and investors, with the support of the US National Security Counsel, the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and their contractor in Russia, Harvard University, vacuum cleaning the Russian banking and financial system illegally. These are two examples. There are more. It may be a good time to collect up a list of how many people have died from genocide and warfare in the last decade and who is responsible.

To build a good map of current events, keep asking yourself as events unfold, "Cui bono." Ultimately, if enough people do this the manipulations of those who are responsible will fail to achieve their intended purpose. To exercise the responsibilities of citizens requires understanding how the money and operations works on any issue or set of issues, and how it relates to the general flow of resources.

Or in the words of Bishop Owens, "If we can face it, God can fix it."


Part of the trick to asking and answering the question "cui bono" is getting lots of hard numerical data about how the money and operations work around any situations. As an example, let's look at some of the data about one group who can be expected to benefit from the US declaring war---federal contractors.

A historically large percentage of this war will be designed, run and implemented by contractors. This may be our first true corporate war.

Here are some websites and ranking lists for largest federal government contractors to help you familiarize yourself re how the money works on US contracting capacity.

Size is important. So is control of databases and knowledge, hence the importance of understanding the information technology (including accounting and financial transaction budgets). So is influence on events that impact profits in the marketplace through regulation or change in control of land, assets, etc. such as in times of war. That is why it is always interesting to look at the other companies owned by investors in large government contractors to see the ways that the investment network may profit from their role in helping to run the government and the policies that impact a wide group of affiliated companies.

Intelligence agency rankings are not included as the $30 billion plus intelligence agency budgets are generally not available to the public. My best guess is that if the CIA, NSA and other intelligence agency contracting data were available, they would show the same thing that the defense data shows. Our civilian agencies are essentially run by the military and intelligence contractors.






Check individual company sites for Securities and Exchange Data as well as Edgar-Online.



Rankings from August 2001, Government Executive Magazine:

August 1, 2001

Top Five Defense Contractors



Rank Parent Company Total DoD........Air Force........Army..............Navy

1 Lockheed Martin Corp. .............15,801,357.......9,249,624........2,529,496......3,803,629

2 Boeing Co. ....................................12,036,113......5,839,013........1,345,762.......3,730,929

3 Raytheon Co. .................................7,513,249.......2,582,415........1,809,834.......2,797,321

4 Northrop Grumman Corp. ...........5,962,349.......1,752,231........803,078..........3,088,173

5 General Dynamics Corp. ............4,062,323...........385,906.........1,454,896.......2,181,190


August 1, 2001 DoD Foreign Contractors and Foreign Military Sales DoD

Foreign Contractors TOTAL PURCHASES $5,254,092,000

Rank Parent Company................Amount ($000s).........Market Share (%)

1 BAE Systems 1,019,232 19.40
2 Canadian Commercial Corp. 661,701 12.59
3 Government of Germany 410,555 7.81
4 Rolls Royce PLC 215,741 4.11
5 Motor Oil Hellas 148,432 2.83
6 Okinawa Electric Power Co. 96,653 1.84
7 Duchossois Industries Inc. 92,427 1.76
8 European Utilities Companies 83,840 1.60
9 Daimler-Chrysler 80,548 1.53
10 Kuwait National Petroleum Co. 80,134 1.53
11 Tokyo Denryoku KK 74,207 1.41
12 FN Fabrique Nationale De Herst 72,634 1.38
13 SKE Maintenance GMBH 59,864 1.14
14 Snecma 56,932 1.08
15 Texaco Inc. 54,186 1.03
16 Siemens AG 52,821 1.01
17 Hyundai Corp. 50,811 0.97
18 Government of the Netherlands 48,819 0.93
19 Bilfinger & Berger 42,353 0.81
20 Williams Holdings PLC 40,263 0.77
21 Warehouses Service Agency SARL 37,736 0.72
22 Greenland Contractors 36,422 0.69
23 Compania Espanola de Petroleos 33,370 0.64
24 Racal Electronics PLC 32,775 0.62
25 Ericsson 31,852 0.61


DoD Foreign Military Sales TOTAL PURCHASES $8,576,475,000

Rank Parent Company Amount ($000s) Market Share (%)

1 Lockheed Martin Corp. 3,431,950 40.02
2 Raytheon Co. 916,557 10.69
3 Boeing Co. 525,128 6.12
4 Canadian Commercial Corp. 455,658 5.31
5 Northrop Grumman Corp. 364,135 4.25
6 General Dynamics Corp. 330,531 3.85
7 TRW Inc. 297,288 3.47
8 Science Applications Intl. Corp. 256,031 2.99
9 United Technologies Corp. 159,830 1.86
10 General Electric Co. 96,106 1.12
11 Honeywell Inc. 91,697 1.07
12 Renco Group 71,842 0.84
13 Carlyle Group 59,540 0.69
14 Engineering Mgmt. Concepts 48,821 0.57
15 Government of the Netherlands 48,819 0.57


August 1, 2001

The Top 100 Civilian Agency Contractors


Rank Parent Company Total Energy Department NASA

1 Lockheed Martin Corp. .................4,817,838...........2,002,190...........2,242,193
2 University of California System...3,406,804 ..........3,343,074................27,399
3 Boeing Co. .......................................2,624,617 ................16,172...........2,604,230
4 Bechtel Group Inc. .........................2,058,495 ...........2,046,739..................7,436
5 BNFL Inc. .........................................1,814,248............1,804,847........................85


August 1, 2001

Information Technology Contractors

TOTAL PURCHASES $32,985,893,000

Rank Parent Company Amount ($000s) Market Share (%)

1 Lockheed Martin Corp. 2,585,040 7.84
2 Northrop Grumman Corp. 1,894,975 5.74
3 Raytheon Co. 1,886,146 5.72
4 Computer Sciences Corp. 1,155,877 3.50
5 Science Applications Intl. Corp. 1,070,865 3.25
6 Electronic Data Systems Corp. 969,181 2.94
7 General Dynamics Corp. 880,985 2.67
8 AT&T 812,479 2.46
9 TRW Inc. 560,431 1.70
10 Hughes Electronics Corp. 528,117 1.60


August 1, 2001
Information Technology Contractors - Computer Services & Software

TOTAL PURCHASES $19,332,872,000

Rank Parent Company Amount ($000s) Market Share (%)
1 Lockheed Martin Corp. 1,421,269 7.35
2 Northrop Grumman Corp. 1,114,384 5.76
3 Computer Sciences Corp. 1,105,094 5.72
4 Science Applications Intl. Corp. 1,035,132 5.35
5 Electronic Data Systems Corp. 639,833 3.31
6 Raytheon Co. 467,892 2.42
7 Unisys Corp. 408,409 2.11
8 ACS 378,319 1.96
9 IBM Corp. 345,050 1.78
10 Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. 323,085 1.67
11 General Dynamics Corp. 299,179 1.55
12 GTSI 281,131 1.45
13 TRW Inc. 271,098 1.40
14 Titan Corp. 224,737 1.16
15 DynCorp 201,625 1.04
16 CACI International Inc. 189,245 0.98
17 Oracle Corp. 180,544 0.93
18 SRA International Inc. 173,779 0.90
19 Azimuth Technologies Inc. 172,528 0.89
20 Getronics 150,974 0.78


Rankings from Washington Technology, 5/01

Top Federal Prime Contractors in Information Technology

1. Lockheed Martin Corp.


Bethesda, Md.


2 Northrop Grumman Corp.


Los Angeles


3 United Space Alliance




4 Computer Sciences Corp.


El Segundo, Calif


5 Raytheon Co.


Lexington, Mass.


6 Science Applications International Corp.


San Diego


7 Electronic Data Systems Corp.


Plano, Texas


8 TRW Inc.




9 General Dynamics Corp.


Falls Church, Va.


10 AT&T Corp.


New York


11 Boeing Co.




12 Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc.


McLean, Va.


13 Dell Computer Corp.


Round Rock, Texas


14 Unisys Corp.


Blue Bell, Pa.


15 GTSI Corp.


Chantilly, Va.


16 Motorola Inc.


Schaumburg, Ill.


17 Affiliated Computer Services Inc.




18 IBM Corp.


Armonk, N.Y.


19 BAE Systems Plc


Farnborough, U.K.


20 CACI International Inc.


Arlington, Va.


21 Titan Corp.


San Diego


22 DynCorp


Reston, Va.


23 Anteon Corp.


Fairfax, Va.


24 ARINC Inc.


Annapolis, Md.


25 American Management Systems Inc.


Fairfax, Va.


26 Verizon Communications Inc.


New York


27 ManTech International Corp.


Fairfax, Va.


28 WorldCom Inc.


Clinton, Miss.


29 Compaq Computer Corp.




30 Harris Corp.


Melbourne, Fla.


31 Oracle Corp.


Redwood Shores, Calif.


32 SRA International Inc.


Fairfax, Va.


33 Getronics NV




34 ITT Industries


White Plains, N.Y.


35 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.


Pasadena, Calif.


36 Signal Corp.


Fairfax, Va.


37 Lucent Technologies Inc.


Murray Hill, N.J.


38 Honeywell International Inc.


Morristown, N.J.


39 Colsa Corp.


Huntsville, Ala.


40 Resource Consultants Inc.


Vienna, Va.


41 KPMG Consulting Inc.


McLean, Va.


42 OAO Corp.


Greenbelt, Md.


43 Micron Technology Inc.


Boise, Idaho


44 Sprint Communications Corp.


Westwood, Kan.


45 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York


46 Carlyle Group




47 Milcom Systems Corp.


Virginia Beach, Va.


48 Technology Management & Analysis Corp.


McLean, Va.


49 PlanetGov Inc.


Chantilly, Va.


50 Eagan McAllister Associates


Lexington Park, Md.

Information Without Advertisers