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.
Chooser, I agree. Mr Gonzalez should consider providing segments on the FR program for a discussion of the Ron Brown matter.
Hell, I don't read his posts now!
I just like the mental picture of him furiously typing away a ton of stuff that I no longer bother reading, plus the FReemails I get from onlookers are a hillarious!
Get your own show, you and Looser, and talk about whatever it is that you want to talk about.
Now, still running from my radio show?
Jen
I respect your efforts to expose the true scope of criminal activity by the Clinton administration (or whoever may next occupy the Whitehouse) but I strongly suggest you stick to doing what you do best and stay out of the political arena.
As far as I am concerned, ANYONE who hurts George Bush's chances of being elected the next President IS the ENEMY. There is simply too much at stake to risk losing the next election and given the overwhelming bias of the media, the evident control of the DOJ, FBI and IRS by the DemocRATS, the willingness of Democrats to ignore ANY crimes by Democrats, and the spinelessness of many Republicans currently in Congress, THAT is a very real possibility.
27 Posted on 09/29/2000 16:11:09 PDT by BeAChooser
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
How's THAT for a blast from the past?
With you? No way!!!
Ron Brown was one of the first things I learned on FR and that was back when people did research and posted it. You got the facts down pat. You remind me of details all the time.
Well Mr Gonzalez, based on this lowbrow attitude, I'd say that you shouldn't be a commentor on FR. You've already made up your mind about someone -
(and worse yet, you've already prejudged posters - before they even get on the air - - and you have now -
- decisively made up your mind - -
FOR ALL FR posters and lurkers - who might have liked to hear Chooser on the air) -
No, I think that you Mr Gonzalez, either where never cut out to be a guest speaker, and/or, you don't have the patience required to a guest speaker - (should never be allowed to be in charge of who can or can't come on the FR show for segments) and/or - it is possible that you may be qualified to speak on behalf of FR on some topics, but not on all topics. This is my honest constructive advice.
(by the way Mr Gonzalez, every reader knows that it would have only taken you - - what, about 2 to 3 seconds to type in a simple Yes or No - to the 1st and 2nd question I posted in the Loral case. These two 1st and 2nd questions require no thought what-so-ever - so I ask why didn't you at least start with our analyzing this Loral case????
(I ask this of every FR reader - and want every FR reader to remember that what has already been established here is the fact that Mr Gonzalez has a tract record that shows that he thinks poorly of FR. [Mr Gonzalez, FR needs a guest speaker who is not already biased about JudicialWatch...Huh everyone!] (now Mr Gonzalez, when you come back today, please do not fail all readers by not responding to my fair queries in this post and my three posts above / this is important now Mr Gonzalez, remember that old phrase from the '68 Chicago Dem. convention: "the whole world is watching" (you Mr Gonzalez)
"...and want every FR reader to remember that what has already been established here is
the fact that Mr Gonzalez has a tract record that shows that he thinks poorly of JudicialWatch and Larry Klayman."
"is not limited to FR [before about a year ago I started going to so many other sites, I depended entirely on FR - but, even though FR is my first choice for news, I do go to many others every day"
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.