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.
You pleaded, cajoled, and nearly begged that I cover the Loral shareholders case on my radio show, and the rule of law in these United States.
Well, you convinced me, I will discuss the rule of law as it concerns the Loral shareholders case on the air. And maybe I can shed a little light on my negative opinions of Larry and JW.
But, it was you who flagged nearly everyone in the free world and got them all interested in my opinion of Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch, and the Loral shareholders case. I will be happy to tell everyone...here's the catch, you have to be on the air with me. Sort of a friendly "point, counter point" between FReeper friends.
A little coffe (decaf if you'd like!) comfortable chairs, a fire roaring...we'll just talk.
And if anyone calls they can't be plants like Beachooser! LOL
No Howlin, the only thing that scares you are the FACTS in the Brown case, the Foster case, Filegate, the Riady non-refund and Chinagate. You say Brown was murdered but can't offer ANYTHING to support your contention other than (AFTER I MENTIONED IT!) the bogus accident report. I asked you the same questions about that report that I asked the other "move-on'ers" and just like them you completely ignored those questions. You just RAN putting your FAITH in a report put out by the Clinton administration ... a report that is OBVIOUSLY and I think DELIBERATELY incomplete.
As to PINGING you, I did it as a courtesy since I mentioned you in my last post to Wallace. The last time I posted something said by one of you "move-on'ers" to another FReeper and didn't ping that "move-on'er" I was called RUDE by several of you. Of course, at the time that was just an EXCUSE to not address the facts and arguments I had presented those people.
And I fully intend to keep posting you if you make bogus claims about Klayman's past work, claim that you BELIEVE Brown and/or Foster weren't murdered or suggest we just "move-on" with respect to the many serious crimes committed by the DNC and Clintons. Other than that, I generally do leave you alone. I have no problem with you maintaining your "cover" by posting conservative sounding soundbites. That can't but help our conservative cause.
Right?
What "tiff"? ChaseR *pinged* me at least four times to this thread, trying to needle me into a discussion on JUDICIAL WATCH, that's his/her true goal here. He's simply using this case as a vehicle to create a confrontation wherein he envisions himself to be some sort of "crusader for truth".
Go back and read this thread once again, keep in mind that I have NEVER commented on the Loral case in FR; I have been VERY critical of Larry Klayman, which gets a lot of people pissed off. Coincidentally, the people getting pissed off at my criticism of Larry and JW, are the same people who harrass those who get offended when President Bush is criticized, and attack them for getting pissed about people who criticize the President.
We ALL have our sacred cows I guess.
But anyway, in another one of those traits of really bad lawyers that ChaseR seems to be infested with, now he's backing out because he claims that have some sort of trap thing set for him, and that I will pull the plug on him. Kind of doing that whole Jeanne Dixon thing again, isn't he?
Reminds of of a lawyer who would file a worthless case, knowing full well that it will get thrown out of Court, but prepares his clients by telling them that the Judge is crooked, that way when the case fails, he just says "See! I told you that the Judge was crooked!"
Sound familiar?
Oh, it was a courtesy, was it? You can't even be honest enough to say "Nobody was talking to me, so I decided to stir up some stuff by talking about other Freepers." You are such a total waste of time that most people just don't even read your replies anymore. We've ALL seen them a million times. We've all been called a liar by you a million times......and you play the liberals game of "Prove it."
I would bet hard money that there is not ONE subject that we could bring up that you couldn't figure out a way to work your "theories" into.
Rofl....hahaha. Chooser, don't pay any attention to wrinkles. (this one is a hopeless, paranoid-lost cause/bttt
(and acquiring more of those unevadable/fordained wrinkles...that pop up in the night -rofl)
You'll do it regardless.
Well OBVIOUSLY that isn't true. So are you giving me permission to quote you in the future without pinging you?
You are such a total waste of time that most people just don't even read your replies anymore. We've ALL seen them a million times.
What concerns you is that "move-on'ers" are no longer free to simply dismiss Klayman's past work; no longer free to suggest we just move-on and ignore the democRAT crimes the past 8 years; no longer free to spread your disinformation about the Ron Brown matter or other Clinton era CRIMES.
We've all been called a liar by you a million times..
No Howlin ... that's a select group composed of people who I can prove have lied on this forum. Remember your claiming that you didn't say Ron Brown was murdered? The Brown case is a good litmus test for liars, don't you think?
I would bet hard money that there is not ONE subject that we could bring up that you couldn't figure out a way to work your "theories" into.
Funny how I'm the only one bringing facts and sources to the table in this discussion. You and the others on your side of this argument keep basing your "theories" on BELIEF (in a Clinton administration drafted document no less!). That makes you "move-on'ers" sort of "sheeple"-like, wouldn't you say?
Like I said, you will be discussing the Loral Shareholders case anyway. Regardless. You are now obligated to give your take on all the allegations in the Loral case, yes indeed. As guest speaker - you have too, there has been four days of this going on now, and we will all be anticipating your full comments. Don't let me or anyone down. (I'll call in, and when I do, I'll identify myself as poster "wrinkles." See you on the 24th.
Now, in the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to give your opinion on the allegations in the Loral case. Yes, you can start right now.
Yeah, wrinkles pulled this garbage on me too. And then she oinked and oinked and pressed her hoof on the abuse button and bothered the moderator....oh please wrinkles - go back into the closet and hide from life -ROFLMAO very much. bttt
(Chooser, the trick about wrinkles, is not to mention who wrinkles is) (anyway, back to some other threads for now)
Howlin, I want an clear answer. Do you want me to ping you or not if I quote you in one of my posts or mention your BELIEFS concerning Brown and Foster? Unless you give me a clear answer I will continue to ping you as is common courtesy.
To believe that I am now "obligated" to do anything in response to your badly played out game, is laughable. I am obligated to love, support, and take care of my children, and my wife. Outside of that, I do what I wish to do.
In spite of your almost obssesive-compulsive need to dictate my actions(I feel a little sorry for whatever children you may have had, I'm certain that this ego of yours must have been hell on their formative years), I am not buying into your scheme. I don't feel obligated, or compelled to opine on demand, for you or anyone else for that matter. You asked if I would be covering the subject, and I answered you, way back in post #106, the answer now is "no" as it was then, I don't understand why you would think that there is any room for argument here.
I did however, offer you the opportunity to come on the air with me, to discuss the Loral shareholders case specifically, and its merits, or lack of them. I will listen to your thoughts on the subject, and perhaps give you mine. But you will not, so why should I?
Remember, it was YOU that started this thing, it is now you running from it.
I read your post claiming that I would be setting some sort of a "trap" for you, that's laughable, it is apparent from this thread who has been busy trying to lay traps for whom, and I bested you at your own game.
This is the deal, come on the show and speak your piece about the Loral shareholders case. If you shout, use vulgarities, cut me off when I am speaking, change the subject, or generally act like something less than a gentleman, I will cut you off. I do have control of the mute button, after all, it is MY show, I am THE HOST. I pick my guests, my subjects, and I lay out the ground rules.
If this isn't satisfactory to you, get your own show, and I will call YOU!
For the record, are you Larry Klayman? If you are not, do you work for Larry Klayman and/or Judicial Watch?
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.