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.

That was an excerpt from an answer to BAC by FReeper William Wallace.

You should have noted that both Wallace and YOU RAN from my response to that post by Wallace. So I'll just repeat it and see if THIS time you actually have a response. Otherwise, we will ALL know that you are just blowing smoke and RUNNING as usual. AND, you are turning out to be as DISHONEST a poster as VA Advogado. I clearly noted portions of Wallace's post which are DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE and you just REPEATED THEM, just like VA Advogado keeps repeating the LIE that Brown's body was autopsied after being called on that lie over and over. Here was my reply:

***********

The US Air Force, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration conducted an exhaustive investigation into the accident. It's here: Air Force releases CT-43 accident report

Here we go again. Why did they skip the normal SAFETY BOARD when the Safety Board is the portion of the normal Air Force investigation process that is charged with "finding a cause"? Does this report even MENTION the fact that pathologists AT THE EXAMINATION were calling for an autopsy because the wound looked like it might be from a bullet? Does it even mention that they found NOTHING at the crash site to explain the wound although AFIP management publically said they had found a cause? Does it mention that they lost transponder contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? The April 8, 1996 issue of Aviation Week And Space Technology magazine (a RELIABLE source) said that loss of transponder signal was recorded by both the airport and an AWACS and that it could not have been due to line of sight obstructions. Furthermore, the same Aviation Week article stated that voice contact with the plane by the Dubrovnik tower was lost AT THE SAME TIME. So TWO SEPARATE systems go bad at the SAME time ... something was definitely VERY WRONG on board that plane BEFORE the crash ... and the Air Force report and summaries don't even mention EITHER FACT. Does it mention the dead chief mechanic? Does it mention the 2nd survivor that Abe Sockowitz reported to Warren Christopher? Does it mention the missing beacon? Does it mention the 2nd set of x-rays? Something just doesn't seem right about your so-called "comprehensive" investigation. And do you believe EVERYTHING that came out of the Clinton administration just because it was "official"? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

The investigators interviewed over 150 people and produced over 3,000 pages of testimony and documentation regarding the plane crash.

Did they interview the pathologists who called for an autopsy DURING the examination? Did they interview the photographer who first noticed the similarity of the wound to a bullet wound? The fact that they interviewed over a hundred witnesses means nothing if they don't interview the right people. The fact that they have 3000 pages of documentation means nothing if they don't include the critical information in it. Tell me, if the purpose of an Accident Investigation Report is to provide a document for use by lawyers in any legal matters that later occur, why didn't the document include such IMPORTANT information as the statements of the pathologists that the wound and x-rays suggested a bullet? Why didn't it even mention the appearance of something that looked like a lead snowstorm in the x-ray? You'd think that Brown's family and the other families might have wanted to know that, wouldn't you? They certainly showed an interest when these facts later came out.

The families of the other 34 victims who perished with Ron Brown in the plane crash are LYING too, right? Hundreds of people actively participating in a cover-up of a plane crash that killed their families. They're all LYING.

Not necessarily. They simply don't know the facts because the Clinton adminstration and the media deliberately kept those facts from them. Even now if you asked 100 people on the street, who even knew who Brown was, what the cause of the crash was, 99 percent would tell you bad weather because that is the LIE (and we now know it was a LIE) that administration officials (including high military officials) and the media told the public ... over and over and over.

Why was it such a surprise to the Brown family years later to learn that pathologists AT THE EXAMINATION called for an autopsy DURING THE EXAMINATION if that material was in the report and briefings they were given ... if they weren't kept in the dark. When it did come out, the daughter of Brown hired a private investigator who told her that he wasn't shot because they found an exit wound. That's a LIE. They never found an exit wound ... they never even looked for one.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the relatives of the victims received HUGE compensation packages ... MUCH MORE than even the victims of the WTC are going to get. Also, many were ardent democRATS. Why would they suspect their wonderful leader and party. Because some of the victims were also ILLEGALLY buying influence with the Clinton administration, they were also criminals and their families might be reticent to open that bag of worms ... especially if they were getting millions and million in compensation. And some of the victim family members were bought off in other ways. In the case of Brown's family, they dropped the indictment against Brown's wife and his son got off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, his son is STILL working for the democRATS.

Finally, we know the lengths to which the DNC and Clinton folks are willing to go to keep damaging matters quiet. Look at the threats they've made against some of the people who had the misfortune to cross Clinton's path. We know that Linda Tripp found the Clinton Body Count List on her desk. Kathleen Willey told an ABC News reporter that TWO DAYS before her grand jury testimony, a man, who was later identified as a Clinton associate, walked up to her and ask in she ever found her cat, about the flat tires on her car and her children. Patrick Knowlton testified to being shadowed and physically intimidated by several men, while on his way to testify. If Brown was murdered, do you think for one minute that these people would NOT threatened family members afterwards to keep them silent?

A photographer thought she saw what appeared to be a gunshot wound in a photograph of Ron Brown's body.

This is a LIE. DURING THE EXAMINATION, the military photographer who TOOK the pictures of the wound and the x-ray in question, and who was quite experienced when it comes to photographing gunshot wounds, voiced an opinion that it looked like a bullet wound. Then, two pathologists involved in the examination voiced agreement. Since then, 4 more forensic pathologists, including Cyril Wecht who is one of the most experience in this country have looked at the photos and the x-ray and said that it does indeed look like a bullet wound and there should have been an autopsy.

But you accept an untrained person's speculation of what appears in a photograph over the sworn testimony of two Air Force pathologists who actually examined Ron Brown's body and who found NO bullet and NO exit wound.

More LIES and DISINFORMATION. First, the photographer was not untrained. Second, pathologists at the examination voiced their opinion that it looked like a bullet wound. Third, Gormley, who was the pathologist in charge of examining Brown's body and who ruled it a blunt force trauma has stated that he based his conclusion on several observations about the wound (for example, the presence of bone in the wound), which he has since had to retract. He did so on live TV and under questioning by Klayman. As to a second pathologist saying this ... name him. Dickerson, head of AFIP? I don't believe was present at the examination and he LIED about the opinioins of Cogswell and the other pathologists later on. Furthermore, how you claim they found no bullet when they didn't look for one? How can you claim there was no exit wound when they didn't look for one. Gormley himself has stated this. Cite and quote your sources for this DISINFORMATION. I bet you won't.

The Air Force pathologists who examined the body must be LYING, right?

Gormley has already admitted that AFIP was ORDERED not to do an autopsy by the Whitehouse and JCS, even though several forensic pathologists are on record has having stated during the exam that Brown needed one. Gormley has already been caught in several lies. You saw the quotes by him on BET when I cited them previously. Are you trying to deny that Gormley didn't lie on television about the nature of the wound and x-rays? Seems to me you are basing your "case" on the statements of PROVEN LIARS and completely ignoring the other SIX forensic pathologists who have come forward to say Brown's wound could have been a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. Now if you want to suggest that there couldn't have been pressure put on Gormley to come to the conclusion he did, I have a bridge to sell you. I also have sworn testimony from a military officer whistleblower who had nothing to gain by coming forward (in fact, the Clinton administration destroyed her and the other pathologists careers) who said Major Sentelle told her that Gormley tampered with the x-ray process to try and hide the evidence of leadstorm. Major Sentelle won't even comment on the charge. If it didn't happen, don't you think she might have something to say? And it was that disclosure that led Janowski to go back and find the pictures she took of the body and give them to Cogswell.

The photographer who thought she saw a bullet hole couldn't possibly be mistaken, right?

Sure, just like Gormley was mistaken when he claimed the wound had bone in it, there wasn't brain visible and the x-ray showed no snowstorm. All three of those claims were proven to be untrue. I can name 6 well qualified pathologists who agree that the wound could be a bullet wound and there should be an autopsy. Name your two.

She MUST be telling the TRUTH and THOUSANDS of other people must be LYING.

This is a bogus argument. There does not have to be thousands of people lying for Brown to have been shot and a coverup take place. It only takes a couple key people to control an investigation. Only a few people have to actually lie. The rest are in the dark. The rest just go along with the whole thing never suspecting they are being fed bogus information. I don't know "the truth" other than that EXPERTS say there should have been an autopsy and there still could be if Brown were exhumed. Even years later, evidence of gunshot would still be there if that is what happened. If not, fine. Why are you and the "move-on'ers" so afraid?

Instead of asking Luis Gonzalez to do something about this -- he doesn't care -- why don't YOU hire an independent pathologist to exhume Ron Brown's body and produce an autopsy report?

More bogus arguments. You know as well as I that even with an independent pathologist I would not be allowed to exhume Brown's body. That request has to come for the Department of Justice or the Military based on the facts ... the opinions of ALL the pathologists in the case who witnessed the wound or looked at the photos since and voiced a judgement in public ... what the photo of the x-ray of Brown's head shows ... the fact that the original x-rays and photos have "mysteriously" disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP without an explanation ... the fact that certain AFIP managers have been caught LYING about the facts ... the fact that there are so many other unusual and suggestive coincidences and facts in the Brown crash.

After all, the only thing standing in the way of THE TRUTH coming out is a few broken laws, the cost of the autopsy and your callous indifference to the Brown family's stated wishes? Since you've already established the latter, it's just a matter of breaking a couple of laws and shelling out a few bucks, right?

Spoken like a true democRAT who is used to watching his party members breaking laws.

And if YOU FIND NOTHING when you dig up Ron Brown's remains, as you're sitting in a jail cell contemplating what went wrong, will you finally be satisfied and SHUT UP about Ron Brown once and for all? NO you won't, because that would only mean that THEY got to the body before you did. THEY surgically altered the body to destroy the evidence of a gunshot wound. THEY destroyed the evidence that would have proved THE TRUTH.

Yet another bogus argument. I've already stated that the only condition I'd have is that one or more of the people participating in the exhumation and autopsy be some of the whistleblowing pathologists. I've also stated that the great thing about this case is that there would be no way for the bad guys to tamper with the body to make it look like it wasn't shot. Good forensic pathologists would easily detect such tampering if it was attempted, especially since they would have to eliminate small flakes of metal and an exit wound to do so. Now you are the one dreaming up wild conspiracy theories ... get a grip.

Because no matter what anyone else says or thinks, you know THE TRUTH, right? And THE TRUTH is that THEY did "something" to Ron Brown's plane to make it crash. And THEY did "something else" to make it look like an accident, like pre-arranging with the very people they KNEW would be charged with investigating the crash to write a false report.

Your problem isn't with me. It's with the forensic pathologists and photographer who were close to the case and experts at gunshot ... it's with a journalist who thoroughly investigated the matter ... it's with authoritative magazines such as Aviation Week. Why are you trying so hard to defend the Clinton administration? If there turns out to be a bullet in Brown's head then all of what you said will be true. If not, then this matter can finally be laid to rest. Where the harm when the government's own experts are the ones pointing fingers? You are not going to get this to go away by yammering on about "THE TRUTH" and trying to paint people who are willing to give EXPERIENCED, RESPECTED, MILITARY OFFICERS their due as wackos. All you do is make our charges all that more credible.

After doing "something" to the plane, THEY either committed suicide (like Mohammed Atta) or THEY simply parachuted off the plane into the middle of nowhere in the Croatian mountains) without anyone on board getting suspicious. Then THEY sent a HIT SQUAD to where THEY KNEW the plane would crash IN CASE it was necessary to finish off any survivors, of whom Ron Brown happened to be one.

Again, you are really showing your desperation. I've already put forth a credible scenario for why the plane went down. If you don't like it, complain to Aviation Week. Argue the facts. Tell us why the transponder contact was lost. Perhaps the loss of transponder signal was a deliberate deception, along with bogus reports of wreckage in the ocean, to make rescuers initially look elsewhere... so that the hit team would be sure to arrive first and have time to "make sure" that Brown was dead. Tell us why the AP reported that the first OFFICIAL rescuers met 3 Americans already on the ground at the crash site. Is that fact mentioned in the Accident Report? No. Tell us why Abe Sockowitz reported 2 survivors and who that second survivor was supposed to be. You don't know, do you?

If YOU won't dig up Ron Brown's body, WHO WILL?

Why Mr. Ashcroft, of course. It is his job ... just like it is his job to reopen the investigation of Foster's death, Filegate and several other criminal activities by the Clinton administration.

Finally, let me close by advising you to stop trying to do the same thing ABC and NBC did when it came to the Brown case. instead of EVEN reporting the accusations of the pathologists and photographer, they tried to link it to UFO conspiracists. HOW DISHONEST. HOW OBVIOUS.

Why are you so afraid of a simple exhumation and autopsy?

"Chase would you address reply #208?"

Well, the invite by Luis, to me - for a "segment" - is nice. I don't know. Have to think about that.
(I'm not fretting about being on live radio (or tele....as I've called in to C-Span - oh, probably 40 or so times, gotten through and talked on the air - - decisively and calmly - always stated exactly what I want to say, with a calm air about me (maybe not the first time, lol) - but, as far as debating the valued merits of the Loral Shareholders case and the valued merits of Larry Klayman's fine cases - and having now clearly observed that Luis doesn't care much for nor lend much credence to Klayman's cases filed....I think I'd get way to harsh ( & deservedly so!) and smoke 'em right off the air. (hence, thus, possibly damaging the fine image of FR!)

No, I don't think I'll do this show. (all the Dems reading all of this - are thinking "darn" - just missed a good chance to see an FR poster - smoke the FR guest speaker!!). - No, I don't think I'll do this on air gig with Luis nor say anything here - that might ***(will)*** - reflect badly on the good volunteer work Luis does for FR.
(or reflect poorly on FR - now if FR radio brings on another guest speaker who backs the Loral Shareholders case, then I'll accept an invite/and Luis could call-in - and then I could smoke him away, but not while Luis represents FR!)
If it was just another FR poster, no problem, fine - Hammer Time, Big Time, but I know that as soon as Luis spews out any unwarranted negatives about Klayman and his good cause, I'd most likely (would definitely) - get too harsh with him and blast 'em away, and send him reeling out of his chair and quivering down the hall along with his pen, pencil, papers and mic falling and rolling behind him.
No, I won't be doing any of this on air with Luis - because if I got to that point with him - and he in any manner discredits this fine Loral case - I'd make sure that I make him look pretty bad.
(Luis, here at FR and also at L.com, I have over the past two years had four or so lawyers - email me on how excellent the Loral Shareholders case is. My own personal friend and attorney - has reviewed this Loral Shareholders case when I was at his home for a relaxing social visit and he too - stated that the Loral case has great merit and he'd sure like to be the attorney to bring this case to court (as he knows that he would "win it" )

Now, since Luis is most likely backing (going along with) this current administrations lead of - not investigating Loral and investigating the just charges in this Loral Shareholders case - and since it appears that Luis will not even be giving us his take on this Loral case - and that it appears that Luis is - and will - go to "any length" to protect whatever this current administration does, about this Loral matter - if all of this is Luis's stance, then shame on him. - But if someone else - comes to the FR mic - someone who backs the Loral case - or is at least neutral - concerning the allegations in this Loral case...then I'd call in for a segment. I know that if I am the one who goes up against Luis ... I'll do a quick, splendid job (and a decisive one) - of destroying this man's image - for speaking negatively of this Loral case.

I also have noticed that folks have - many times in this thread - called for Luis Gonzalez to give everyone his take on the Loral Shareholders case!
It has been days now - and Luis has still not posted - Anything what-so-ever as to his thoughts on this Loral case. This in and of itself is very perplexing/revealing!

[by the way Luis, just having stated what I've stated above- should give you a Stong hint - that you need to - finally, give every reader here - your position on the merits of this Judicial Watch Loral Shareholders case. You have yet to do so after being asked many times to do so. Luis, this is very suspect!]

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.