Posted on 01/11/2002 2:08:31 PM PST by expose
Loral fined $14m over China missiles claim
By Edward Alden and Peter Spiegel in Washington
Loral, the US satellite company, said it would pay $14m to the US State Department to settle a claim that it improperly gave technical information to China that may have aided that country's nuclear missile programme.
Loral also said the Justice Department had ended its investigation of the company and would not pursue any criminal charges.
The fine marks the last chapter in a bitter political battle in Washington in which Republicans alleged that during the Clinton administration the US had turned a blind eye to actions by Loral and other satellite makers that may have threatened national security.
Loral agreed to the fine, which will be spread out over seven years, without admitting or denying the government's charges.
The investigation arose out of the 1996 explosion of a Chinese rocket carrying one of Loral's Intelsat satellites. Loral subsequently took part in a technical investigation of the launch failure, which it inadvertently shared with the Chinese. The US Defence Department found that the technical data given to China may have helped the Chinese improve the accuracy of their military rockets and missiles, which use similar technology. Experts have since questioned whether anything of military value was given to China.
Bernard Schwartz, Loral chief executive, said on Wednesday the data were mistakenly sent to China by a Loral employee without approval by the US government, and expressed regret. He said the company had since greatly improved its oversight.
The Loral incident led to a detailed congressional investigation, which concluded China had been stealing an array of US military secrets. It resulted in severe restrictions on US satellite exports imposed in 1999.
The Justice Department had also been investigating a separate incident involving Hughes Electronics, another US satellite maker. Richard Dore, a Hughes spokesman, said on Wednesday the company had also been informed by Justice that no criminal charges would be filed.
But Hughes lawyers will meet State Department officials this month to discuss their own settlement of the matter and whether a fine will be necessary. "We've contended all along that we followed the government guidelines," said Mr Dore.
Hughes was accused of helping improve Chinese rocket and missile technology while investigating launch failures. The satellite-building unit of Hughes, Hughes Space and Communications, was sold to Boeing in 2000, but Hughes retained liability for the technology transfer investigation.
Lockheed Martin also agreed to pay $13m in 2000 after a company it acquired was accused of helping a Hong Kong company with ties to Beijing. <P.
ASHINGTON -- Stephen (the Rifleman) Flemmi is a gangster who spent a generation as a valued informant for the F.B.I. in Boston. He is now awaiting trial for 10 murders he is charged with committing while on the F.B.I. payroll.
Also charged is his F.B.I. handler, John Connolly Jr., accused of tipping off Flemmi and his mobster boss before police were dispatched to pick them up. The boss, accused of 19 murders, is still a fugitive. Six years ago the Rifleman claimed that the F.B.I. had promised him immunity from prosecution for his killings — allegedly including a couple of his girlfriends — but Federal Judge Mark Wolf, in a landmark decision, ruled that nobody in law enforcement had the power to sanction murder.
The New England F.B.I.'s long-running abuse of power is "the greatest failing in federal law enforcement history," according to James Wilson, chief counsel to the House Government Reform Committee. Evidence of this sustained miscarriage of justice was the 30-year imprisonment of Joe Salvati, whom F.B.I. officials are said to have known to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted — but they remained silent to protect Mafia sources.
John Ashcroft's Department of Justice does not want Congress to air out this long, shameful story.
At the time J. Edgar Hoover belatedly began his war on the Mafia, civil liberty was set aside to meet the perceived emergency — abuses that lasted through three decades. The current F.B.I. chief, Robert Mueller, was U.S. attorney in Boston during the mid-80's and presumably did not have an inkling about the unlawful law enforcement going on around him.
Accordingly, the Bush Justice Department induced the president to sign an order asserting executive privilege over its "deliberative documents" that would inform the public of answers to questions like: Why did Justice decline to indict an F.B.I. supervisor who admitted taking money from Flemmi's gang? Why did Justice help defend a hit man in California who killed a man while in the witness protection program?
Much of this systemic perversion of justice took place decades ago, but the Ashcroft-Mueller crowd is determined to keep the embarrassing institutional history hushed up. That's why department lawyers recently adopted a policy of refusing all documents relating to its declinations to prosecute.
One reason for Bush's executive privilege claim, unprecedented in its sweep, is: Such decisions are never to be examined by Congress lest politics influence prosecutors' judgments. But this power grab would eviscerate Congressional oversight.
The other reason, spoken sotto voce, is that some of the documents Chairman Dan Burton's committee is requesting deal with other cases — such as Janet Reno's decision to abort investigations into Bill Clinton's overseas fund-raising over the protest of special counsel. Burton, some of these Bush G.O.P. appointees say, is just an old Republican Clinton-hater out to beat a dead horse.
That's a red herring. At issue here is Congress's responsibility and authority to examine the misdeeds of the executive branch in a thorough manner — with an eye toward legislation to make criminal those policies evidently adopted by a regional division of our F.B.I. to subvert the law in the name of the law. (Burton, with Ashcroft's thumb in his eye, is considering legislation renaming the J. Edgar Hoover Building.)
Is the White House counsel explaining to the president the scope of the powers being asserted in his ill-advised orders? "Executive privilege" was restricted by the Supreme Court in the Nixon case and further circumscribed by the courts in Clinton's frantic attempts to place himself above the law. Why is Bush, so early in his term and with little to hide, going down this road to upset our system of checks and balances?
Maybe it's hubris; popularity breeds contempt. When you're sailing up there around 90 percent, your advisers tell you that wartime is the perfect time to put those Congressional pipsqueaks of both parties in their place.
Maybe it's ultra-cleverness; by wrapping the latest self-levitation in the mantle of protecting a former administration's reputation, you dream of winning liberals' support.
It's another mistake that will come home to haunt the Bush presidency. Call me Cassandra, but history will not look kindly on those who let ends justify means — and let helpful hoodlums get away with murder.
I'm in a hurry, just sell me the bridge.
By EDWARD ALDEN and PETER SPIEGEL
Loral, the US satellite company, said yesterday it would pay Dollars 14m to the US State Department to settle a claim that it improperly gave technical information to China that may have aided that country's nuclear missile programme.
Loral also said the Justice Department had ended its investigation of the company and would not pursue any criminal charges.
The fine marks the last chapter in a bitter political battle in Washington in which Republicans alleged that during the Clinton administration the US had turned a blind eye to actions by Loral and other satellite makers that may have threatened national security.
Loral agreed to the fine, which will be spread out over seven years, without admitting or denying the government's charges.
The investigation arose out of the 1996 explosion of a Chinese rocket carrying one of Loral's Intelsat satellites. Loral subsequently took part in a technical investigation of the launch failure, which it inadvertently shared with the Chinese. The US Defence Department found that the technical data given to China may have helped the Chinese improve the accuracy of their military rockets and missiles, which use similar technology. Experts have since questioned whether anything of military value was given to China.
Bernard Schwartz, Loral chief executive, said yesterday the data were mistakenly sent to China by a Loral employee without approval by the US government, and expressed regret. He said the company had since greatly improved its oversight on export controls.
The Loral incident led to a detailed congressional investigation, which concluded alarmingly that China had been stealing an array of US military secrets. It resulted in severe restrictions on US satellite exports imposed in 1999, which have hampered sales of US-made satellites.
The Justice Department had also been investigating a separate incident involving Hughes Electronics, another US satellite maker. Richard Dore, a Hughes spokesman, said yesterday the company had also been informed by Justice that no criminal charges would be filed.
But Hughes lawyers will meet State Department officials this month to discuss their own settlement of the matter and whether a fine will be necessary. "We've contended all along that we followed the government guidelines," said Mr Dore.
Hughes was accused of helping improve Chinese rocket and missile technology while investigating launch failures. The satellite-building unit of Hughes, Hughes Space and Communications, was sold to Boeing in 2000, but Hughes retained liability for the technology transfer investigation.
Lockheed Martin also agreed to pay Dollars 13m in 2000 after a company it acquired was accused of helping a Hong Kong company with ties to the Chinese government.
Is that something else?
Another president gets moderate contributions from an energy company which is allowed to go bankrupt. Stockholders, employees and creditors (but not the entire country) suffer financial losses. They get calls for Senate investigations, endless wire stories and carried on all the domestic media 24-7.
What's wrong with this picture?
They'd be wrong.
It's "a kiss planted on Loral's fat a$$."
We sure don't want Congress to know anything. They might, (GASP)leak it to the press.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the quintessential embodiment of the following:
"Don't p*ss on my leg and tell me it's raining."
$14 million would be a drop in the bucket if criminal charges were pursued.
Not if you are an illegal from Mexico.
Not if you are an illegal from Mexico.
What is wrong is that there is no justice at Justice. Ashcroft disbanded the campaign finance task force which should have investigated this well as all the other criminal activties associated with Chinagate and the rest.
So, how much of an improvement is a change form obstructing justice, as Reno did, and ignoring justice as Ashcroft is doing?
Of course the "Bush....right or wrong, Bush" people don't like us to say anything about it, and they can jump through rhetorical hoops with a grace that doesn't match Clinton's but still isn't too bad when it comes to Janet Ashcroft doing a little obstructing of his own regarding the stuff Burton seeks.
This is worse than nothing. This fine is paid by the company, which means the stockholders. Meanwhile, the CEO and the criminals associated with this pay nothing.
No, the lid is still jarred open a crack. The Loral Shareholders case is STILL PENDING!
Help what am I missing here?
US Congress Subpoena Orders Ashcroft To Release Clinton Evidence on Sept. 11, 2001 - Re-Post
Will Ashcroft Obey House Subpoena Commanding Evidence by 11th or KeepProtecting Clinton?Thread 2 1/2
But, the Beginning of the End, for Chinagate investigations began here with the Ashcroft signing off on Raidy's slap on the wrist:
*** with the exception of - the Loral Shareholders case! ***
That won't help them. Some average Joe - will expose this treason - !!!
I might be in error, yes, I might be...but please further expose my error.
These acts appear to be violations of the law unrelated to Clinton or campaign contributions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.