Loral fined $14m over China missiles claim{Treason is cheap these days…}

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.

...I've been a mean man to his pet boy, BeAChooser, and I guess ChaseR feels obligated to protect his sycophants)

What? You didn't ping me! You promised you were going to keep doing that just to "yank" my "strings". Chicken out?

For the record, I don't need anyone's help to prove that you are RUNNING from the facts in the Ron Brown case. Since you RAN from the last thread where we "chatted", I'll just repeat (with minor rephrasing) my last response to you ... to give you yet another opportunity to actually discuss the FACTS instead of simply basing all your arguments on smearing people's character ... as you have done above. Here goes ...

"What you keep running from is that ALL the experts directly involved in the case now say the wound looked like a bullet wound and there should have been an autopsy. Some even called for an autopsy DURING the examination but the government stooge, Colonel Gormley, said no. But even Gormley now admits that there should have been an autopsy based on the nature of the wound. The photos and x-rays (those that still exist after SOMEONE in the government ... remember they were in a locked safe ... got through destroying the rest) suggest a gunshot. That is the opinion of several very qualified forensic pathologists that were not present at the examination, including Cyril Wecht, who is one of the top people in the profession. Plus we have the FACT that management at AFIP (Gormley, Dickerson and others) have been caught LYING to the public about the nature of the wound and the status of the photos and x-rays. All of that, plus everything else that I've listed for you countless times before, certainly SUGGESTS that Brown might not have died as the result of an accident. We have motive, opportunity and means. Why do you FEAR a simple exhumation and autopsy SO much ... "

Well, NOW do you have a response? Or will you STILL refuse to discuss those pathologists and x-rays ... like a democRAT would refuse to discuss them? See? I don't need anyone "protecting" me. Now let's see if you can handle a FACTUAL response on YOUR own.

Scenario C=They have a team waiting in the mountains in case Ron survived the crash, who will shoot him. Of course, not really knowing WHERE the plane would crash, they must have had hundreds of hit men out there.

Still RUNNING from the pathologists and x-ray I see.

Why do you say they wouldn't know WHERE the plane would crash? Have you missed the facts I posted you COUNTLESS times about the missing airport beacon and what Aviation Week said about it? RUNNING from those FACTS too? As Aviation Week indicated, the missing beacon could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into a KNOWN location on a mountain ... where a cleanup crew could be waiting. Maybe that is why the maintenance officer in charge of those beacons had to commit "suicide" days after the crash before he could be interviewed? Are you also IGNORING the FACT that Associated Press reported that the first OFFICIAL rescuers were MET by 3 Americans? Could those 3 have been the cleanup crew?

Also, how come both an AWACS and the airport lost transponder contact with the plane when it was still 8 MILES from the crash site if nothing was amiss aboard the plane? Aviation Week reported that they SIMULTANEOUSLY lost radio contact (2 separate systems). Explain that or are you going to just IGNORE those facts like that bogus investigation report you like so much DID? Or how about this ... why did they initially announce finding wreckage of the plane in the ocean, miles and miles from the crash site? Could that have been a deliberate move to keep attention away from the crash site until they were sure?

But ... in any case ... why are you STILL RUNNING from the pathologists and the x-ray? Why do you FEAR a simple exhumation and autopsy so much?

Then, they get literally HUNDREDS of people, Air Force personnel, families, friends, etc. to participate in the cover-up.

DISINFORMATION. SPIN. DEFLECTION. I've responded to this same argument from you REPEATEDLY (just as you have NEVER responded to ANY of the points I made above). It does NOT require 100's of people be in the know to stymie an investigation.

Control the head of the AFIP and the attending pathologist and you control the report they give to the crash investigation team. That's EXACTLY what happened and now we know that the head of the AFIP and the attending pathologist BOTH LIED REPEATEDLY about the nature of the evidence and what happened during the examination.

Control the crash investigation team members and the ASSUMPTION that they start with (that it was an accident) and you stymie any chance of an HONEST investigation. That's EXACTLY what they did. They SKIPPED the normal Safety Board (cutting out of the loop the people that are normally tasked with FINDING the CAUSE of crashes) and instead left it up to the ACCIDENT investigation team CONTROLLED by one of their own ... someone who was publically saying it was PILOT ERROR and WEATHER before the investigation had even begun. And the military being the military ... everyone else just did as ORDERED.

How do you handle family members and the public?

(1) Don't tell them all the facts after the crash ... like the fact that pathologists DURING the examination were saying "BULLET" and calling for an autopsy. Make sure such information isn't in ANYTHING (not the official report or the private briefings) that were given to ANY of the families. Make sure that NOT ONE major paper or network news outlet mentions any of the facts that later come out about the crash, the suspicious wound or the whistleblower's views. And that's EXACTLY what happened.

(2) Blackmail them. Brown's family had both the wife and son already under INDICTMENT at the time of the crash. In exchange for staying silent, promise that Brown's wife would get her indictment dropped and her son would get a slap on the hand for SERIOUS violations of the law. And that's EXACTLY what happened.

(3) Reward them. Give the son a lucrative job and keep him employed to this day. Provide each family with MILLIONS (on the average 13 to 14 MILLIONS) of dollars in compensation. Make sure that in exchange for that money they have to drop their lawsuits. Promote those in the military who went along. And that's EXACTLY what happened.

(4) Threaten them. KNOWING that the administration had KILLED their husband/dad, AND STILL controlled the law enforcement agencies, military AND media, do you think threats wouldn't also have been effective against the Brown family? Knowing that some of those on board the plane violated the law to be there, do you thinks threats wouldn't have been effective against other families? Look at the threats made against the military officers in the case who first went public about the events at Dover?

(5) Deceive them. And later, when the daughter found out about the pathologists and started asking for an autopsy, they again used LIES. She relied on a private investigator (want to bet he didn't have ties to the DNC or Clintons?) who FALSELY told her that the found no exit wound so it couldn't have been a bullet. Float one bogus explanation after another to explain the what the x-rays show. Make sure that the papers publish LIES (such as the one by the head of AFIP where he said ALL the pathologists at AFIP agreed that it was blunt force trauma) (such as the WORST WEATHER OF THE CENTURY lie that ALL the new media carried and that most people STILL believe to this day).

(6) Destroy all whistleblowers. Instead of simply showing the military officers who first blew the whistle on a possible murder and coverup that they were mistaken ... that the wound and x-rays don't suggest a bullet ... the government DESTROYED their CAREERS. That sort of response would have a chilling effect on ANYONE in the military or government, wouldn't you say Luis?

(7) Act concerned. Have both Bill and Hillary visit the Brown's and shed some crocodile tears. Make sure that Ted Kennedy joins along. Have them utter compassionate words at the funeral for public and private consumption. Never mind that immediately following the funeral cameras catch Bill whooping it up with his associates (laughter which instantly turns to tears once he notices the camera).

(8) Ignore them. Instead of responding to most of the allegations the administration and their spokespersons simply ignored them ... and the media went along ... so the issues just died a quiet death before most of those you name even heard about them (including people in the military who were actually involved). Isn't that EXACTLY what you are trying to do here? ... ignore the pathologists and what they say?

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.