Just for the sake of clarity, The Nation article did allude to Hallibuton's bad reputation. (In fact, it was the first sentence! "Yet another sordid chapter in the murky annals of Halliburton...") Regardless, I don't think I've given anyone the impression that I presume Cheney's guilt. As a matter of fact, I hedged my arguments with all sorts of qualifiers: "potentially explosive scandal" "may very well be indicted" "potential Spiro T. Agnew redux." Even the title is open-ended: "Will the French Indict Cheney?" I'm admittedly happy that Cheney may be the focus of an investigation, but that's not the same thing as presuming his guilt, of course. I'll put this in a smaller size because answering totally off-base criticism deserves it.
Thanks for the Guardian Unlimited article, giant, and everyone else who stays on topic.
Just for the sake of clarity, The Nation article did allude to Hallibuton's bad reputation. (In fact, it was the first sentence! "Yet another sordid chapter in the murky annals of Halliburton...") Regardless, I don't think I've given anyone the impression that I presume Cheney's guilt. As a matter of fact, I hedged my arguments with all sorts of qualifiers: "potentially explosive scandal" "may very well be indicted" "potential Spiro T. Agnew redux." Even the title is open-ended: "Will the French Indict Cheney?" I'm admittedly happy that Cheney may be the focus of an investigation, but that's not the same thing as presuming his guilt, of course. I'll put this in a smaller size because answering totally off-base criticism deserves it.
Thanks for the Guardian Unlimited article, giant, and everyone else who stays on topic.
So you think showing that The Nation is biased somehow helps your cause? Did the French source use the same words or is The Nation taking an investigation and spinning it?
As for presuming guilt, you associate Halliburton with guilt via a false charge on Iraq, and associate both of them with a figure who was guilty. (Not charged or investigated, but guilty)
As for your qualifiers, they all assume guilt and then soften it. "Potentially explosive scandal," how would it be a scandal unless he is guilty? How about potentially explosive investigation, which while still slanted, only names what has occured and has no softened presumtion of guilt. As for "may very well be indicted", I think it accurate that someone under investigation could be charged. Lastly for the Spiro Agnew redux. Agnew resigned after pleading no contest to tax evasion related to taking bribes. How would that relate to Cheney?
You know damn well plenty of scandals happen the party involved is not guilty.
Actually they may not be proven guilty in a court of law, but the scandal happens because they did something wrong. The link Shawn posted in no way tied Cheney to any actions other than being the head of the company and being listed on the investigation. I think that is a far cry from say directly taking bribes. I've not seen any article posted that even alleged Cheney did anything with regard to action.
This time it deals with Dick Cheney's role as CEO of Halliburton, the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees.
Actually they may not be proven guilty in a court of law, but the scandal happens because they did something wrong. The link Shawn posted in no way tied Cheney to any actions other than being the head of the company and being listed on the investigation. I think that is a far cry from say directly taking bribes. I've not seen any article posted that even alleged Cheney did anything with regard to action.
Nick
Didn't cheney sell all his holdings in the company or something when he started running with bush? I will have to look it up. but if anyone knows about it please comment.
Didn't it occur to you that the use of the word "notorious" referred to something other than just your one little pet case? Not only did Halliburton already admit to bribing a nigerian official but the rap sheet is so long we can put it into catagories.
Iraq:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Quote:
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
And the lobbying:
Quote:
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
I'm sorry what I meant was, anyone that is intellectually HONEST, and that doesn't think they are perpetually right cause they say so, that does want to debate in a civil manner, who does not talk down there nose from their self appointed throne of immense knowledge and is open to opposing ideas, please reply to my post.
Didn't cheney sell all his holdings in the company or something when he started running with bush? I will have to look it up. but if anyone knows about it please comment.
A congressional committee determined this fall that the deferred payments currently being made to him by halliburton are indeed considered a financial tie to the company, wholly contrary to his multiple public comments.
Furthermore, direct financial investment in a company is not at all necessary to profit from its business. Any investor relatively familiar with at least one industry knows the ways you can profit off the moves of a juggernaut in that industry, typically even more so than simply investing in that company.
The Nation article that is linked to at the top of the page also gives an overall sweep of details concerning the nigerian arrangement, and in doing so provides an example of how complex and convoluted these processes can become.
A congressional committee determined this fall that the deferred payments currently being made to him by halliburton are indeed considered a financial tie to the company, wholly contrary to his multiple public comments.
Furthermore, direct financial investment in a company is not at all necessary to profit from its business. Any investor relatively familiar with at least one industry knows the ways you can profit off the moves of a juggernaut in that industry, typically even more so than simply investing in that company.
But you have to understand that you're full of yourself simply because a congressional committee came to this conclusion.
So you're officially going on record to say that the only way a scandal occurs is when someone does something wrong?
Here maybe dictionary.com can help you.
1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation.
2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal.
3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace.
4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip.
The first three have to do with the person doing something wrong. The last one is malicious gossip. Unless you are willing to claim Shawn is just spreading gossip, then I'm going to have to go with doing something wrong $600 Alex...
If Cheney is indicted, it will be a scandal. (Definitions 1-3 apply.) Why are you arguing about this again?
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
You should call it what it is, an investigation, not what it could be if some magical hypotheticals happen to work out like you want them to in your head. All you do is show your bias and how you will lie to get others to believe that. You lied about the Halliburton scandal. You cite sources that don't report, but rather spin. Then since their spin isn't harsh enough for you, you have to add even more spin yourself.
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
So it is okay to speculate without any proof, or even named actions with regard to wrong doing. Your article doesn't even say what Cheney did to be investigated about, but it could be "explosive."
The first three have to do with the person doing something wrong. The last one is malicious gossip. Unless you are willing to claim Shawn is just spreading gossip, then I'm going to have to go with doing something wrong $600 Alex...
The only people the Europeans are interested in charging with crimes these days are americans and jews.
Er..no. Actually West European countries have well-grounded criminal law systems that investigate and prosecute all sorts of crimes.
But thanks for your comment. I am glad that a few Americans are able to take a few moments away from their busy tasks - executing mentally-challanged individuals and juvenile offenders, holding people for years without charges, and jailing the poor and minorities in astounding numbers - to teach the rest of the world lessons about justice.
Incidentally - with respect to the execution of juveniles - when the US government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, it reserved the right to ignore Article 6(5), which forbids the use of the death penalty against children.
in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious
So what are you claiming here? That the word 'notorious' didn't exist before this thread, or that Halliburton isn't " Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
Quote:
lied about the subcontractor
I don't see where Shawn mentioned a subcontractor or lack thereof, or even that 'overcharging' referred to any specific instance.
As I cited above, the GAO found numerous instances of overcharging, so, yes, Halliburton has a history of it with or without the still ongoing and unresolved audit regarding fuel sales in Iraq.
But maybe you are talking about something from another thread.
No problem, you asked for a broader definition and I gave one. I considered the context of this thread. I though Shawn was arguing that Cheney did something wrong. However if to be "right" you would prefer to claim Shawn was spreading malicious gossip, more power to you.
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
Whew!!! When I first saw the title to this thread my heart started to beat a bit faster. On a quick glance I saw "Will the French indict Chinney?"
You feeling a little guilty about something there?
Thanks for the Guardian Unlimited article, giant, and everyone else who stays on topic.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Just for the sake of clarity, The Nation article did allude to Hallibuton's bad reputation. (In fact, it was the first sentence! "Yet another sordid chapter in the murky annals of Halliburton...") Regardless, I don't think I've given anyone the impression that I presume Cheney's guilt. As a matter of fact, I hedged my arguments with all sorts of qualifiers: "potentially explosive scandal" "may very well be indicted" "potential Spiro T. Agnew redux." Even the title is open-ended: "Will the French Indict Cheney?" I'm admittedly happy that Cheney may be the focus of an investigation, but that's not the same thing as presuming his guilt, of course. I'll put this in a smaller size because answering totally off-base criticism deserves it.
Thanks for the Guardian Unlimited article, giant, and everyone else who stays on topic.
So you think showing that The Nation is biased somehow helps your cause? Did the French source use the same words or is The Nation taking an investigation and spinning it?
As for presuming guilt, you associate Halliburton with guilt via a false charge on Iraq, and associate both of them with a figure who was guilty. (Not charged or investigated, but guilty)
As for your qualifiers, they all assume guilt and then soften it. "Potentially explosive scandal," how would it be a scandal unless he is guilty? How about potentially explosive investigation, which while still slanted, only names what has occured and has no softened presumtion of guilt. As for "may very well be indicted", I think it accurate that someone under investigation could be charged. Lastly for the Spiro Agnew redux. Agnew resigned after pleading no contest to tax evasion related to taking bribes. How would that relate to Cheney?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
"Potentially explosive scandal," how would it be a scandal unless he is guilty?
You know damn well plenty of scandals happen the party involved is not guilty.
Originally posted by bunge
You know damn well plenty of scandals happen the party involved is not guilty.
Actually they may not be proven guilty in a court of law, but the scandal happens because they did something wrong. The link Shawn posted in no way tied Cheney to any actions other than being the head of the company and being listed on the investigation. I think that is a far cry from say directly taking bribes. I've not seen any article posted that even alleged Cheney did anything with regard to action.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
This time it deals with Dick Cheney's role as CEO of Halliburton, the notorious company that recently caused the President some discomfort about overcharging our government tens of millions of dollars in excess fees.
Just for the record check this.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1202085.html
A whole lotta knee jerking going on around here.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually they may not be proven guilty in a court of law, but the scandal happens because they did something wrong. The link Shawn posted in no way tied Cheney to any actions other than being the head of the company and being listed on the investigation. I think that is a far cry from say directly taking bribes. I've not seen any article posted that even alleged Cheney did anything with regard to action.
Nick
Didn't cheney sell all his holdings in the company or something when he started running with bush? I will have to look it up. but if anyone knows about it please comment.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just for the record check this.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1202085.html
A whole lotta knee jerking going on around here.
Didn't it occur to you that the use of the word "notorious" referred to something other than just your one little pet case? Not only did Halliburton already admit to bribing a nigerian official but the rap sheet is so long we can put it into catagories.
Iraq:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.?_ But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain._ Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and theInternational Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime._ The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I._ Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.?_ Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
And some of the crimes and fines (bold deals with overcharging and crazy accounting):
Subverting Democratic Values and the Rule of Law - Criminal Activity
Between 1993 and 1994, Halliburton allegedly shipped Israeli goods illegally to Iran several times between 1993 and 1994._ As a result, the_ the Department of Commerce filed charges against the company._ While under the leadership of Dick Cheney, Halliburton agreed to pay a $15,000 fine for the alleged offense, but refused to admit it had violated any laws._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
In spite of the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1995, Halliburton continued to do business with Iran through its multiple subsidiaries - while Cheney was the CEO. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton had extensive investments and contracts in Indonesia. One of its contracts was canceled by the post-Suharto government during a purging of corruptly awarded contracts._ Indonesia Corruption Watch revealed that Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton's engineering division) was among 59 companies using collusive, corruptive and nepotistic practices involving former President Suharto's family._ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Before Cheney, Halliburton was very active in Libya, making $44.7 million there in 1993._ In 1994, as a result of sanctions on Libya their income dropped to $12.4 million. Ignoring the sanctions, Halliburton did business in Libya throughout Cheney's tenure. A member of Congress accused Halliburton ?of undermining American foreign policy to the full extent allowed by law.? (Athans and Lolordo 8-16-2000; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
A 1997 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed Halliburton has repeatedly overcharged the government for its services._ For example, in one case, Halliburton charged the U.S. government $85.98 per sheet of plywood delivered to a location outside the U.S._ In another instance, the company attempted to bill the Army for the income taxes that its employees were liable for while working in Hungary._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
In 2000, the GAO discovered that Brown and Root had grossly mismanaged its expenditures at the army's facilities in Kosovo._ For example, contract labor working in the Balkans on the U.S. taxpayers' clock_ were encouraged to work extra hours doing redundant tasks.__ The report explained that at Camp Bondsteel laborers often cleaned offices_ and bathrooms over and over again - up to four times a day._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a; Hennessey 5-23-2002)_ Additionally, it revealed that Brown and Root had ordered so much furniture ($5.2 million worth) that the army had great difficulty finding room for it all._ Processing the order alone cost U.S. taxpayers $377,000. (Hennessey 5-23-2002)
The former Brown and Root contract manager, Dammen Grant Campbell, blew the whistle on his ex-employer, revealing that the Halliburton subsidiary had purposefully inflated its invoices by exaggerating the quantity and quality of the supplies its used on government contracts._ In the span of about 4 years, between 1994 and 1998, the company sent the government these fraudulent bills for 224 projects._ (Chatterjee 5-2-2002a)
KBR charged the U.S. Army $750,000 for electrical repairs that had cost them only about $125,000 at a base in California._ Commenting on the incident, A KBR lawyer explained, "The company happened to negotiate a couple of projects we made more money on than others._ On some projects the contractor may make a large or small profit, while on others it may lose money, as KBR sometimes did on this contract."_ (Gerth and Van Natta 7-14-2002)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently investigating Halliburton for possible fraudulent accounting in 1998 and 1999._ The company is accused of booking $100 million in reimbursement income for cost overruns on construction contracts before its customers actually agreed to pay these extra costs._ The New York Times_ reported that according to a former Dresser Industries executive Halliburton claimed the income "to obscure large losses on several important construction contracts."_ Halliburton's auditor, Anderson Accounting, is assumed to have approved of the misleading financial statements._ (Berenson and Bergman 5-22-2002; Harrington and Toedtman 5-30-2002)_ According Halliburton's current CEO, David Lesar, Cheney had been aware the projected cost-overrun payments were being recorded as revenues._ (PRNewswire 7-14-2002) While much of the complacent public seems content that Cheney's former company is not being overlooked by the SEC, more critical observers_are calling attention to the apparent conflict of interest between Harvey Pitt, the current SEC chairman, and the allegations he is charged with investigating._ (Coile 7-1-2002; Fields 7-9-2002)_ Pitt at one time was a top lobbyist and attorney for several major Wall Street brokerage and accounting firms._ Even Al Gore has raised his voice._ In a speech on June 29, he complained: "They picked the principal lawyer and lobbyist for the big five accounting firms who, before coming to the government, went and pleaded with the SEC to open up loopholes for the accounting companies."___(Coile 7-1-2002)_ Another conflict of interest is that the SEC reports to the Vice President._ (Harnden 5-7-2002)
In May of 2003, Halliburton admitted to having paid $2.4 million to an official posing as a tax consultant in exchange for tax concessions from that country. According to Halliburton, the bribes, which took place between 2001 and 2002, did not involve senior company officers. The SEC is investigating the issue and Halliburton may ultimately be liable for some $5 million in back taxes in Nigeria. [Guardian, 5/9/03; Houston Chronicle,5/8/03]
Disregard for Human Rights.
Halliburton was accused by local villagers of being involved in the shooting of a protester by Nigeria's Mobile Police Unit._ Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in this country. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
Halliburton did a significant amount of business with the notorious regime in Burma. An investigation by EarthRights International in 2000 documented Halliburton's complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
And the lobbying:
Halliburton lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on countries with which it sought to do business.
Even though the nation?s leaders and their friends in the executive suites of the world?s largest multinational corporations blissfully hail the wonders of ?free trade,? all available evidence indicates that one of the real forces behind corporate success is the ability to manipulate the conditions within which the so-called ?free market? operates._ In the case of Halliburton, this reoccurring theme is particularly acute._ While Halliburton opposed the the use of sanctions on some countries, it simultaneously supported imposing sanctions on other countries - depending of course on how the sanctions would effect Halliburton._ This policy of inconsistency demonstrates that the so-called principles of 'free trade' are applied only when it is profitable to do so.
Between 1995 and 2000, Halliburton, under the leadership of former secretary of defense and current Vice President Dick Cheney, successfully lobbied against the imposition of international sanctions against countries with which it wanted to do business._ In most cases these countries were being sanctioned because of serious human rights abuses._ Halliburton, along with a few other companies, attempted to argue that the best way to discourage the violations of human rights was to do business with them, or as they explained it ? ?engage.?_ Here are a few examples of cases where they successfully undermined sanctions.
Dick Cheney lobbied to lift sanctions against aid to Azerbaijan that were mandated under section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act._ The sanctions were imposed because of concerns about the ethnic cleansing of the Abkhazis._ Cheney claimed the sanctions were the result only of groundless campaigning by the Armenian-American lobby. Then in 1997, Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root bid on a major Caspian project from the Azerbaijan International Operating Company._ (Halliburton 8-11-1997; Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cohn 8-10-2001)
_It successfully lobbied, through the front organization U.S. Engage, against a 1997 bill intended to impose sanctions against foreign governments that persecute religious groups._(Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
_It supported the overturning of the Massachusetts Burma law that discouraged the state government from awarding contracts to companies doing business in Burma, a country notorious for its repressive government._ Halliburton?s business interests in Burma and their complicity in major human rights violations - including the murder, torture, rape, forced labor and forced relocation of some of Burma?s indigenous populations - was documented in a 2000 report by EarthRights International._ (Bruno and Vallette 9-2000)
Dick Cheney has lobbied heavily to prevent or eliminate federal laws that restrict Halliburton's ability to do business in Nigeria. (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
As the CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney lobbied relentlessly against the Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1995 and tried to secure Halliburton an exemption._ The oil company was very upset that it was being prevented from participating in the development of Iran's offshore oil fields and it wanted to take an active part in the construction of proposed pipelines that would carry Caspian Sea oil to the Persian Gulf._ He argued that the ?the unintended result of our policy toward Iran is to give Russia more leverage over the independent states of central Asia and the Caucusus by blocking export routes toward the south."_ (Bruno and Vallette 2000; Flanders 10-06-2001)
All this just from the CCR page where you can get more info on the company, including descriptions of the huge contracts: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
Didn't cheney sell all his holdings in the company or something when he started running with bush? I will have to look it up. but if anyone knows about it please comment.
A congressional committee determined this fall that the deferred payments currently being made to him by halliburton are indeed considered a financial tie to the company, wholly contrary to his multiple public comments.
Furthermore, direct financial investment in a company is not at all necessary to profit from its business. Any investor relatively familiar with at least one industry knows the ways you can profit off the moves of a juggernaut in that industry, typically even more so than simply investing in that company.
The Nation article that is linked to at the top of the page also gives an overall sweep of details concerning the nigerian arrangement, and in doing so provides an example of how complex and convoluted these processes can become.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually they may not be proven guilty in a court of law, but the scandal happens because they did something wrong.
So you're officially going on record to say that the only way a scandal occurs is when someone does something wrong?
Originally posted by giant
A congressional committee determined this fall that the deferred payments currently being made to him by halliburton are indeed considered a financial tie to the company, wholly contrary to his multiple public comments.
Furthermore, direct financial investment in a company is not at all necessary to profit from its business. Any investor relatively familiar with at least one industry knows the ways you can profit off the moves of a juggernaut in that industry, typically even more so than simply investing in that company.
But you have to understand that you're full of yourself simply because a congressional committee came to this conclusion.
Shame on you!
Originally posted by bunge
So you're officially going on record to say that the only way a scandal occurs is when someone does something wrong?
Here maybe dictionary.com can help you.
1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation.
2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal.
3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace.
4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip.
The first three have to do with the person doing something wrong. The last one is malicious gossip. Unless you are willing to claim Shawn is just spreading gossip, then I'm going to have to go with doing something wrong $600 Alex...
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
If Cheney is indicted, it will be a scandal. (Definitions 1-3 apply.) Why are you arguing about this again?
And if Clinton screwed a goat it would be a scandal.... so should I start a thread on that as well?
You should call it what it is, an investigation, not what it could be if some magical hypotheticals happen to work out like you want them to in your head. All you do is show your bias and how you will lie to get others to believe that. You lied about the Halliburton scandal. You cite sources that don't report, but rather spin. Then since their spin isn't harsh enough for you, you have to add even more spin yourself.
I mean look at you thread title. It is just a hypothetical. It would be like me starting a thread called, "Will Dean urinate on his audience?"
I mean if he did, it would be an explosive scandal.
So it is okay to speculate without any proof, or even named actions with regard to wrong doing. Your article doesn't even say what Cheney did to be investigated about, but it could be "explosive."
What a joke...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The first three have to do with the person doing something wrong. The last one is malicious gossip. Unless you are willing to claim Shawn is just spreading gossip, then I'm going to have to go with doing something wrong $600 Alex...
In other words...I was right.
Thanks!
Originally posted by Scott
The only people the Europeans are interested in charging with crimes these days are americans and jews.
Er..no. Actually West European countries have well-grounded criminal law systems that investigate and prosecute all sorts of crimes.
But thanks for your comment. I am glad that a few Americans are able to take a few moments away from their busy tasks - executing mentally-challanged individuals and juvenile offenders, holding people for years without charges, and jailing the poor and minorities in astounding numbers - to teach the rest of the world lessons about justice.
Incidentally - with respect to the execution of juveniles - when the US government ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, it reserved the right to ignore Article 6(5), which forbids the use of the death penalty against children.
Originally posted by trumptman
in true Shawn fashion I'll declare myself right through all the replies since you made up the word notorious
So what are you claiming here? That the word 'notorious' didn't exist before this thread, or that Halliburton isn't " Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous?"
lied about the subcontractor
I don't see where Shawn mentioned a subcontractor or lack thereof, or even that 'overcharging' referred to any specific instance.
As I cited above, the GAO found numerous instances of overcharging, so, yes, Halliburton has a history of it with or without the still ongoing and unresolved audit regarding fuel sales in Iraq.
But maybe you are talking about something from another thread.
Originally posted by bunge
In other words...I was right.
Thanks!
No problem, you asked for a broader definition and I gave one. I considered the context of this thread. I though Shawn was arguing that Cheney did something wrong. However if to be "right" you would prefer to claim Shawn was spreading malicious gossip, more power to you.
Nick