Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Loral fined $14m over China missiles claim{Treason is cheap these days…}
ft.com ^ | By Edward Alden and Peter Spiegel

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; chinastuff; enronlist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 401-407 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
"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"

How's THAT for a blast from the past?

That was when I still had EXPECTATIONS that a Bush Administration would do the right thing and UPHOLD THE LAW. Guess that was a FOOLISH hope, wasn't it. You STILL haven't identified ANYTHING to indicate that the Bush administration has or is investigating ANY of the crimes committed by the democRATS. All you can point to are cases that they've SHUT DOWN. NOT ONE of you "Move-On'ers" have addressed my simple question about the Riady non-refund case. No matter how you look at it ... whether he was lying or not ... SOMEONE should now be under indictment or in jail. And most important of all ... you STILL are RUNNING from the Brown case ... the most telling case of all. As far as I'm concerned, ANY party that would IGNORE credible allegations of a politically motivated MASS MURDER and COVER UP instigated by members of the other party ... is no better than that other party ... and its loyalist (like you) who act like members of that other party ... are no better than the sycophants in that other party.

321 posted on 01/20/2002 11:32:10 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Well, well......hypocrisy in action! Nice find!

Where is the hypocrisy in what I wrote then and my position now? My position is entirely consistent. I wanted the crimes of the democRATS punished then, just like I STILL want them punished. And IF Bush has betrayed us and is now covering up for those criminal democRATS (people that committed TREASON, MURDER, ELECTION TAMPERING and almost any other crime you can name), then he deserves our MISTRUST now.

It is you and the other move-on'ers who are the hypocrites. Now that Bush is in office you've put your heads in the sand and defend ANYTHING he or his people do ... even if it is a clear violation of his oath to uphold the laws of this country. You STILL are RUNNING from the facts Howlin. Care to explain WHY you believe Brown was not murdered in the face of the pathologists opinions and x-rays suggesting otherwise? Care to explain WHY you believe Foster died by suicide at Marcy Park when even people like Bob Barr are not convinced? Care to provide ANY indication that the Bush administration has or is investigating the crimes of the democRATS in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?

And by the way, if you are going to comment on something that I wrote, I DO expect to be pinged.

322 posted on 01/20/2002 11:45:02 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
"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 (my post #296 and #299)"

Great Scott man! It took you three times just to type that!

323 posted on 01/20/2002 11:51:00 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
"Care to provide ANY indication that the Bush administration has or is investigating the crimes of the democRATS in Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc?"

Actually, since it is you levelling accusations, it is up to you to provide proof that they are not.

324 posted on 01/20/2002 11:53:41 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Actually, since it is you levelling accusations, it is up to you to provide proof that they are not.

RUN Luis, like ALWAYS.

I say there are NO indications. YOU are clearly the one who must provide proof that there are ... IF there are.

What's the problem ... can't find even ONE to cite? Not even ONE?

325 posted on 01/20/2002 12:18:31 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser; KLT; Victoria Delsoul; goldilucky; expose; 2sheep; Snow Bunny; Bigg Red; all
Your #321 and #322 are right on mark. I support Everything in these two posts.
326 posted on 01/20/2002 1:17:48 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
You MUST be Larry Klayman!

Here's your idea of a Court case.

You: Your honor, the prosecution charges that this man is a thief, and a liar!

Judge: Very well Mr. Klayman/Chooser, what proof do you have to back up these charges?

You: No your Honor, can this man PROVE that he's NOT a thief and a liar? No? He can't prove that he's not A thief and a liar? Then surely your Honor, he's guilty as charged. Arrest him!

Here's a clue, clueless.

When you accuse someone of something, which you are here, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, not theirs.

327 posted on 01/20/2002 1:24:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
"What's the problem ... can't find even ONE to cite? Not even ONE?"

BTW, BAC, the article way back at the start of this thread is about two, count them, two, DoJ investigations. Loral and Hughes.

328 posted on 01/20/2002 1:26:57 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Notice this fraud of a man Mr Luis Gonzalez, this fruad of a man for his country, still hasn't given the reader a simple Yes or No as
to even the first question about who the defendents are in the Loral Shareholders case. Why - some might ask? Well folks, it appears by
this lack of action to give us a simple Yes or No, that Mr FRAUD 'MOVER-ONER' Gonzalez...
...KNOWS FULL WELL THAT THIS LORAL CASE SHAREHOLDERS, IS probably a PAT CASE.

Unlike the first two Loral cases that were filed - and where dismissed - basically on technicalities found by Clinton White House lawyers - this third filing
- won't be dismissed so easily
and will proceed very smoothly on to depostions.
(and this upsets Gonzalez because investigations of crimes by the Clinton administration have been given a pass by the current administration....and of course, Gonzalez and his unworthy group of Republican backers (mover-oners) - care nothing about the Rule of Law and the application of the Rule of Law in this Loral case.)

I might be wrong on certain aspects in this post, but basically, Luis has now found himself in the position of having the "whole world watching" - and Luis now finds himself unclothed.

329 posted on 01/20/2002 1:39:14 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
oh for those days before my post #257, huh

"The whole worlds watching"

330 posted on 01/20/2002 1:44:41 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
#325:
"RUN Luis, like ALWAYS."

Yeah, he's haulin' ass...he and his credibility are really starting to take the big hits now - Chooser, let's go ahead and patiently and decisively - knock-out this fraud of a man who doesn't believe in the Rule of Law! (he's down to his panties now... rofl

(Chooser, notice, only a couple other posters have come to Mr Fraud Gonzalez's aid. - - - low and behold, who are these two folks - Iwo and Howlin - KNOWN MOVER-ONERS and obstructors of justice!

331 posted on 01/20/2002 1:52:05 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
oh for those days......before my post #257, huh Mr Fraud Move-oner Gonzalez

332 posted on 01/20/2002 1:54:39 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
LOL!

See, there you go emulating Jeanne Dixon again.

You complain that I will not give you my opinion on the case, and on the same breath you give an opinion on my opinion.

And you call me a fraud?

Pot...kettle...black.

333 posted on 01/20/2002 2:01:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
P.S. I like unclothed.
334 posted on 01/20/2002 2:03:51 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez, BeAChooser
"Actually, since it is you levelling accusations, it is up to you to provide proof that they are not."

Bush has not done anything to investigate Clinton's illegal activities. Neither has the newly appointed Attorney General Ashcroft. Both government officials have failed to do their jobs they swore to uphold. In my opinion they should be impeached! Maybe that's too strong but that is what both swore to uphold. And gee... I wonder who's pulling their strings? Could it be Hillary Clinton?

335 posted on 01/20/2002 5:17:40 PM PST by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
{They are taking a page from Bil Clinton's book. Get all those FBI files you can on Congress.}


Thursday, Jan. 17, 2001 11:03 a.m. EST Arthur Andersen LLP, the company now battling for its survival in the wake of revelations that it shredded Enron documents last fall, has a $1 million contract with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that could give it access to information about the bureau's Enron probe, Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, revealed Wednesday.

"Now, unfortunately, the problem we're going to have is that Attorney General Ashcroft has also hired Arthur Andersen to do about a million-dollar review of the FBI for their reorganization," Leahy revealed in a Vermont radio interview.

The Vermont Democrat said that while he didn't disagree with the decision to hire a good accounting office to help revamp the bureau, he complained, "Unfortunately, Arthur Andersen now has access to some very sensitive things in the FBI at the same time where I'm going to be calling on the FBI to help my committee investigate why Arthur Andersen destroyed material.

"As I'm using some of the FBI agents to help investigate Arthur Andersen," he added, "I want to make sure the fact that Arthur Andersen is at the same time helping with the reorganization of the FBI doesn't get one caught over the other."

Leahy made his comments on WVMT's "Charlie and Ernie in the Morning" show.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman has asked the Justice Department to determine whether "any actual or apparent conflicts of interest" exist in Andersen's relationship with the bureau.

Attorney General Ashcroft has recused himself from the Justice Department's Enron probe because he accepted contributions from the energy giant during his Senate bid two years ago.

336 posted on 01/20/2002 5:42:25 PM PST by expose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You are still RUNNING from the facts Luis ... just like democRATS ALWAYS run from them.

Hummmmm. Let's look at the facts. You argue like a democRAT. You use the same debating tactics they use (avoidance of facts, disinformation, adhominen attacks, ignoring lies, deflection, belief in Clinton controlled investigations, unfounded smears against conservative news sources ... you know, that sort of thing). Why you are even taking their side in this matter ... doing your utmost best to keep us from even INVESTIGATING their activities. People should wonder about you Luis? What are YOUR motives? Why won't you tell us what YOU consider a good sources of information ... where do YOU get your news? Why do your best friends seem to ALL want to "move-on" ... ignore the democRAT crimes? Why don't you have anything to critical to say about some of those "friends" who have been caught outright LYING on this forum? Instead you keep coming to their aid. Why are you so AFRAID to answer the simple question I asked about the Riady non-refund case? Why can't you come up with even ONE indication that the Bush administration is even INVESTIGATING the crimes of the Clinton's and DNC? Why are you so AFRAID of a simple exhumation and autopsy?

337 posted on 01/20/2002 5:46:39 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
BTW, BAC, the article way back at the start of this thread is about two, count them, two, DoJ investigations. Loral and Hughes.

You know that in both those cases they SHUT DOWN ongoing criminal investigations ... just like the Clinton DOJ did in case after case where we KNOW crimes were committed. And a $14 million dollar fine against a company whose CEO gave over half a million to the DNC IN ONE YEAR is a SLAP IN THE FACE of the American people. The reason American cities are now under threat from Chinese nuclear missiles is the TREASON these people committed ... for lousy campaign dollars with which they STOLE at least one election and almost STOLE the last one. You INSULT us Freepers and conservatives in general with your attempts to SPIN either instance as an HONEST investigation. The fact is you can't name a SINGLE new investigation that the Bush adminstration has STARTED into the crimes the DNC and Clinton's committed. NOT ONE. You can't even explain the Riady non-refund and NOTHING could be clearer as an example of an instance were laws were broken, evidence exists and SOMEONE should now be in jail.

You are STILL just RUNNNNNNNING.

338 posted on 01/20/2002 5:55:44 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Howlin
To: Judicial Watch
Sir,

I respect your efforts to expose the true scope of criminal activity by the Clinton administration. . .

This is the funniest line in the entire post.

He probably writes similar letters to professional wrestlers suggesting strategies to use in their upcoming bouts.

339 posted on 01/20/2002 7:00:33 PM PST by William Wallace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
"Bush has not done anything to investigate Clinton's illegal activities. Both government officials have failed to do their jobs they swore to uphold."

Prove that.

340 posted on 01/20/2002 7:03:22 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 401-407 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson