Human Shield FINED $10, 000 - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2003, 09:29 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
While on the one hand I think there is something wrong with the charges, on the other, couldn't she be charged with treason?

The United States Congress under President Clinton voted and approved actions to remove Saddam from power.

The United States Congress under President Bush voted to use force.

It is kind of a no brainer when you have the Congress voting.

Throw her in jail for treason. Don't fine her. If you are willing to make the sacrafice to go over theree you should also be willing to pay the price.



LOL
Throw Vice President Cheney in jail while you’re at it.

Haliburton, or a subsidiary of, was doing business with Saddam in the 90s when Cheney was the CEO.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:36 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Throw Vice President Cheney in jail while you’re at it.

Haliburton, or a subsidiary of, was doing business with Saddam in the 90s when Cheney was the CEO.
I am curious about this....

Do you have the dates? Was this before the votes?

Just curious...I have learned to ask for the facts from you before responding.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:41 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I think if this administration had the means to charge her with treason they would like nothing better than to do that.
I think you are right on this.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:52 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
She may be able to overturn this on free speech grounds.
Does this right extend during times of war into a War Zone?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:55 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I am curious about this....

Do you have the dates? Was this before the votes?


Washington Post
June 23, 2001

During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," he said.

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them.

Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said that if he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No.' "

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin said. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.

Halliburton's trade with Iraq was first reported by The Washington Post in February 2000. But U.N. records recently obtained by The Post show that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Vice President Cheney has acknowledged.

As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate Saddam Hussein's government. After Cheney was named in 1995 to head Halliburton, he promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.

But in 1998, Cheney oversaw Halliburton's acquisition of Dresser Industries Inc., which exported equipment to Iraq through two subsidiaries of a joint venture with another large U.S. equipment maker, Ingersoll-Rand Co.

The subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War.

Former executives at the subsidiaries said they had never heard objections -- from Cheney or any other Halliburton official -- to trading with Baghdad. "Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."

Dumas and Perrella said their companies' commercial links to the Iraqi oil industry began before the U.N. Security Council imposed an oil embargo on Baghdad in the wake of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

They returned to dealing with Iraq after the council established the "oil-for-food" program in December 1996, permitting Iraq to export oil under U.N. supervision and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and humanitarian goods. The program was expanded in 1998 to allow Iraq to import spare parts for its oil facilities.

The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion.

The proceeds funded a sharp increase in the country's nutritional standards, nearly doubling the food rations distributed to Iraq's poor.

But U.S. and European officials acknowledged that the expanded production also increased Saddam Hussein's capacity to siphon off money for weapons, luxury goods and palaces. Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq may be skimming off as much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program.

Cheney has offered contradictory accounts of how much he knew about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," he denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

Cheney modified his response in an interview on the same program three weeks later, after he was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had acknowledged that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq. He said he was unaware that the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," Cheney explained, "but we divested ourselves of those interests."

The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records.

Perrella said he believes Halliburton officials must have known about the Iraqi links before they purchased Dresser. "They obviously did due diligence," he said.

And even if Cheney was not told about the business with Baghdad before the purchase, Perrella said, the CEO almost certainly would have learned about it after the acquisition. "Oh, definitely, he was aware of the business," Perrella said, although Perrella conceded that this was an assumption based on knowledge of how the company worked, not a fact to which he could personally attest because he never discussed the Iraqi contracts with Cheney.

A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In the first expression of that new thinking, the Bush administration is campaigning in the U.N. Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq.

U.S. officials say the new policy is aimed at easing restrictions on companies that conduct legitimate trade with Iraq, while clamping down on weapons smuggling and other black-market activity.

If the plan is approved, there would be "nothing to stop Iraq from importing [as many] oil spare parts as it needs" from Halliburton and other suppliers, according to a British official who briefed reporters on the proposal when it was introduced last month.

Cheney resigned as chairman of Halliburton last August. Although he has retained stock options worth about $8 million, he has arranged to donate to charity any profits from the eventual exercise of those options, Glover Weiss said. Confidential U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had broad, and sometimes controversial, dealings with the Iraqi regime.

For instance, the documents detail more than $2.5 million in contracts between Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq that were blocked by the Clinton administration. They included agreements by the firm to sell $760,000 in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya.

The Persian Gulf terminal was badly damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and later was destroyed by allied warplanes during Operation Desert Storm. At the time, Cheney was secretary of defense.

Washington halted the sale because the facility was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. Under the terms of the oil-for-food program, Baghdad is permitted to export crude oil, subject to U.N. supervision, through only two terminals, Ceyhan in Turkey and Mina al Bakr on the Persian Gulf.

The equipment was never delivered to Iraq, but Baghdad subsequently repaired the Khor al Amaya facility on its own. A senior Iraqi oil ministry official, Faiz Shaheen, told an official Iraqi newspaper that Iraq would soon be able to export about 600,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the terminal.

Dumas said he was not aware of the dispute over the Khor al Amaya terminal. It was unlikely, he added, that Cheney or other top Halliburton executives would have known about the specific deals. "We had great independence in running our business," he said.

U.S. officials say the Bush administration is prepared to allow Iraq to resume exports from Khor al Amaya, as long as the earnings are placed in a U.N. escrow account that is used to pay for humanitarian supplies and further improvements to the oil industry.

"The U.S. attitude towards Iraqi exports has evolved considerably," said James A. Placke, a Washington-based analyst for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "They used to tightly restrict Iraqi oil exports, and now there is no limitation on Iraqi exports."

Iraq's power to entice foreign investment, meanwhile, has increased with the soaring demand for oil. U.S. companies, which have been able to trade with Iraq only through foreign subsidiaries and middlemen, are wary of dealing with Baghdad but eager to get a piece of the action, according to industry sources.

"The American oil industry is very interested in trying to enter Iraq," said J. Robinson West, chairman of Petroleum Finance Co., a consulting firm. "But I think that they are quite respectful of U.S. policy towards Saddam Hussein. There is a very strong feeling that in fact he is the greatest threat to oil production in the Middle East."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 11:24 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
That is fine and I was aware of this. But you failed to answer my question. Were the dealings with Iraq before the votes I mentioned that Congress took? You seemed to me to have been trying to characterize Mr. Cheney as someone who had interactions with the enemy after Congress had made the votes I mentioned. See, the teacher, went to Iraq and had dealings with them after the votes, Mr. Cheney, by your posted article, did not.

Unless of course you have some proof that Mr. Cheney was dealing with Iraq after Congress and President Clinton signed the law authorizing the removal of Saddam HUssein, your point is kind of moot in regards to this issue.

Nice article though.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 11:57 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:16 PM
I almost did not put my first post up.
Because it is debatable.

I don’t think this woman gave any real aid to Saddam.


I believe Haliburton’s subsidiaries and other companies did aid Saddam by providing the means for him to stay in power.

Was Haliburton doing this after Clinton’s declaration and his congress’ actions? I think so.

I do not believe it is possible for Cheney to be the CEO and say that he was not aware of their contracts.

There is not a picture of Cheney and Saddam together holding a sign that reads “Death to America”

So the administration’s supporters can sit in a circle and nod at each other and keep repeating
“Honor and dignity.” (general sarcasm here, not directed at any member of this board.)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 09:20 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Getting back to the "human shield," I think that the fine against her for the law in question is probably being applied incorrectly. However, I certainly think that a treason charge could easily be in order. There is certainly a difference between free speech and actually flying to an enemy nation to assist it...

...but then, it really wasn't "assistance." These human shields cannot be put at the same level as Benedict Arnold. What they did was stupid, yes, but their actions never affected the outcome of the war, nor were any of them in a position to do so.

Overall, I think this should be prosecuted, if we are willing to prosecute similar actions from conservatives. I think that Pat Robertson's $8 million, Cayman Islands-incorporated gold mine in Liberia is quite problematic, but I don't exactly see the government swooping down on that. The government should have left the human shield be, accepting that we are a nation of political and religious fanatics, who have zero common sense.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 11:52 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Getting back to the "human shield," I think that the fine against her for the law in question is probably being applied incorrectly. However, I certainly think that a treason charge could easily be in order. There is certainly a difference between free speech and actually flying to an enemy nation to assist it...
Sorry about getting off it. Just felt the Cheney comment was uncalled for and not really applicable.

I do not quite understand why treason is not the charge....

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
...but then, it really wasn't "assistance." These human shields cannot be put at the same level as Benedict Arnold. What they did was stupid, yes, but their actions never affected the outcome of the war, nor were any of them in a position to do so.
I was being over-zealous in my Arnold comment.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Overall, I think this should be prosecuted, if we are willing to prosecute similar actions from conservatives. I think that Pat Robertson's $8 million, Cayman Islands-incorporated gold mine in Liberia is quite problematic, but I don't exactly see the government swooping down on that. The government should have left the human shield be, accepting that we are a nation of political and religious fanatics, who have zero common sense.

Melon
WE agree on this.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 04:01 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Bunbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Close yet far from home \m/
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 04:16 PM
With person was dumb, now she has to pay the price for breaking the law.
__________________
Bunbury is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 05:12 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 07:16 PM
put her in Gitmo.

she is lucky she did not get herself killed.
__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 10:01 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 07:16 PM
How is this different from war protesters in our own country trying to do all they can by protesting and taking out ad's in major newspapers?
and on another note, one will never get any proof of Cheney's involvement because it's not a matter of what he didn't know, it's a matter of information that never existed, (to prove it) therefore it cannot be proven. Alot can happen when one party has complete control and it will never come to light. Or, will it?
and of course I can't quote anyone or anything because it's not there. The cover up is complete. For now... In my opinion.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 02:49 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:16 AM
Those people who wish to see human shields either fined thousands of dollars, or alternatively thrown in prison, a question for you: Precisely what crime would you like to punish them for?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 04:16 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 07:16 PM
treason.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 08-13-2003, 04:57 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Flower
treason.
On one level I respect human shields, do not misunderstand me. This said however, I also think if you are going to be one, you should also be willing to suffer the punishment.

Fizz, when a citizen leaves the country to AID another country that the Congress has voted to authorize the President to use force (ie go to WAR) you are certainly acting against the United States of Amercia. The people who voted to give the President this power, are our representatives and they, not just the President determined Iraq to be a threat. From that day forward, any citizen leaving this country to help Iraq committed treason in my humble opinion.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com