Human Shield FINED $10, 000 - 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, 01:03 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Human Shield FINED $10, 000

[Q]U.S. Fines Woman for Being 'Human Shield'

The Associated Press
Monday, August 11, 2003; 9:42 AM


SARASOTA, Fla. - A retired schoolteacher who went to Iraq to serve as a "human shield" against the U.S. invasion is facing thousands of dollars in U.S. government fines, which she is refusing to pay.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury said in a March letter to Faith Fippinger that she broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border before the war. Her travel to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions that prohibited American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."

She and others from 30 countries spread out through Iraq to prevent the war. She spent about three months there. Only about 20 of nearly 300 "human shields" were Americans, she said.

Fippinger, who returned home May 4, is being fined at least $10,000, but she has refused to pay. She could face up to 12 years in prison. [/Q]


I do not think she should be fined. She is not a corporation that was in a monetary relationship with Iraq. She was trying to protect lives.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 01:51 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:06 PM
She may be able to overturn this on free speech grounds.
__________________

nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:06 PM   #3
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 637
Local Time: 09:06 PM
You break the law, you get in trouble.
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:11 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:06 PM
I agree with you, Dread. She wasn't seeking to gain anything from her relationship with Iraq, she simply wanted to help and defend the Iraqi people. I don't see how acting as a human shield can be construed as a "commercial, financial or trade transaction."
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:22 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
You break the law, you get in trouble.
I don't think it's clear she broke a law.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:24 PM   #6
War Child
 
U2Lynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Posts: 539
Local Time: 01:06 PM
But, something else to think about. If she *had* been killed while over there, don't think for a second that her family wouldn't want some sort of restitution from our government. And of course, her being an American would mean that if she got kidnapped or imprissioned over there, our goverment, or rather our soldiers, would be there ones expected to sacrifice *their* lives to go save her.

Sorry, I think it's great that she is being fined. People like that don't think at all that they are putting our soldiers in harms way to protect them.
U2Lynne is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:28 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Why do you presume that you know everything about this woman's motives for going to Iraq and her expectations of the US government?

And what evidence do you have that human shields endangered any US soldiers?
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:34 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Wasn't there at least one human shield that was killed?
BVS is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 02:44 PM   #9
War Child
 
U2Lynne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Posts: 539
Local Time: 01:06 PM
I said *if*. I have no evidence that she endangered any of our soldiers. But she was in Iraq as we were invading it and she was putting herself potentially in harms way and the possibility that she *could* have been injured or harmed in some way is there. And *if* she was injured or harmed, my *guess* is that her family would want our goverment to do what they could to get her out of there. These are all guesses of mine (since I don't know her or her family), but these are the reasons our government gives when they ask Americans to get our of volitile countries. They don't want Americans in there that they have to worry about.
U2Lynne is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 04:12 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,932
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Lynne
But, something else to think about. If she *had* been killed while over there, don't think for a second that her family wouldn't want some sort of restitution from our government.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

You can't debate hypotheticals like that. Who cares what her family may or may not have done? Since it didn't happen, it doesn't pertain to this situation in any tangible way. Had they said a priori that they'd sue in case of death, it might be a point for discussion. As things stand, it's basically a lot of nothing.
anitram is online now  
Old 08-11-2003, 04:29 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Lynne
these are the reasons our government gives when they ask Americans to get our of volitile countries. They don't want Americans in there that they have to worry about.
Actually if you read the original post you'll see that the US forbade its citizens from "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq." Nowhere does it state that this has anything to do with the safety of US citizens but rather it has to do with the US sanctions against Iraq.

In any case, anitram is right - you're talking about a hypothetical situation, it doesn't have any relevance to the actual facts of this situation.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 05:14 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 PM
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.

How is that for an about face.

LOL
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 05:22 PM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 03:06 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.

How is that for an about face.

LOL
I think if this administration had the means to charge her with treason they would like nothing better than to do that.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 08:22 PM   #14
The Fly
 
U2luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: in front of my computer :-)
Posts: 203
Local Time: 04:06 PM
I may be playing with fire here but since when is not agreeing with what your (American) government is doing considered treason?
U2luv is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 08:28 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2luv
I may be playing with fire here but since when is not agreeing with what your (American) government is doing considered treason?
I would never accuse someone who does not agree of treason.

I would however accuse someone, who put themselves in Iraq to help Saddamn, when the United States Governement has gone to war with their country.

There is a difference between excercizing your right to protest and free speech and taking actions during a war. I guess Benedict Arnold was just disagreeing though.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2003, 08:29 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 01:06 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 youíre 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, 08:36 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Throw Vice President Cheney in jail while youíre 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, 08:41 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 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, 08:52 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:06 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, 08:55 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 01:06 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  
 

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 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×