First; the good news:
Over the past few days it has been reported by various news services that Dick Cheney has been indicted in Nigeria for crimes committed while CEO of Halliburton.
And now; the bad news:
Neither Cheney nor Bush have yet been indicted for the war crimes committed during their administration. Cheney will likely remain free as he is in an undisclosed location supervising Halliburton's reconstruction of the Death Star.
Showing posts with label Halliburton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Halliburton. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Criminal Negligence & Reckless Endangerment
Investigators into the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico have uncovered evidence that BP and Halliburton, the company that poured the cement for the well, had knowledge that the cement mixture was unstable. In three of four tests performed by Halliburton on the mixture, it failed. Neither company appeared to have any concerns at the time that these failures might cause problems. Of course, both are now pointing the finger at each other.
Three failures out of four tests. A 75 percent failure rate and both of these corporations decided to risk it. No reasonable individual would dare think of using a product that failed three-quarters of the time. In a situation such as underwater drilling one would think that there would be a need for certainty rather than an expectation of failure.
Gambling that something that has failed 75 percent of the time will work flawlessly defies logic. The legal terms for what happened here are criminal negligence and reckless endangerment. Negligence may be too mild a term for completely ignoring evidence that a system is likely to fail. The workers were more than endangered, eleven of them died.
It is easy to see why Halliburton and BP are pointing their fingers at each other - when reckless endangerment leads to death the charges are manslaughter or murder. Too strong? What do you think would be the result of an individual putting workers on a scaffolding working at their house that collapsed? What do you think would happen in this case if it were shown the homeowner knew the scaffolding was substandard and likely to collapse? The answer is clear. That individual would be prosecuted.
When will corporations be held to the same standards as individuals? Do they only get to claim personhood when they are dumping unlimited cash into elections?
** Halliburton's history of cutting costs at the expense of safety is well documented. Recall that it was Halliburton that managed to electrocute soldiers by cross wiring electrical services into plumbing at bases in Iraq.
Three failures out of four tests. A 75 percent failure rate and both of these corporations decided to risk it. No reasonable individual would dare think of using a product that failed three-quarters of the time. In a situation such as underwater drilling one would think that there would be a need for certainty rather than an expectation of failure.
Gambling that something that has failed 75 percent of the time will work flawlessly defies logic. The legal terms for what happened here are criminal negligence and reckless endangerment. Negligence may be too mild a term for completely ignoring evidence that a system is likely to fail. The workers were more than endangered, eleven of them died.
It is easy to see why Halliburton and BP are pointing their fingers at each other - when reckless endangerment leads to death the charges are manslaughter or murder. Too strong? What do you think would be the result of an individual putting workers on a scaffolding working at their house that collapsed? What do you think would happen in this case if it were shown the homeowner knew the scaffolding was substandard and likely to collapse? The answer is clear. That individual would be prosecuted.
When will corporations be held to the same standards as individuals? Do they only get to claim personhood when they are dumping unlimited cash into elections?
** Halliburton's history of cutting costs at the expense of safety is well documented. Recall that it was Halliburton that managed to electrocute soldiers by cross wiring electrical services into plumbing at bases in Iraq.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Less Equals More
In a recent email exchange the person I was conversing with began to express a fear of government takeover of health care. Spouting the same disinformation be promulgated by the insurance industry he continually made the point that he didn't want the government making health care decisions. He seemed befuddled at my suggestion that he must not mind corporations running his life.
In health care, and for that matter, all matters where people state that they want the government to stay out of things, they are advocating that corporations be given free rein instead. The government is really the only check on large US and even larger transnational corporations. Corporations, guided only by an allegiance to profits and the bottom line, are at best neutral while at their worst malevolent entities intent on increasing revenues at any cost. Government can run as a non-profit and have employment as a purpose. Corporations view workers only as resources to be used and used up.
There is a dynamic tension that must necessarily exist between government and corporations. Unless governments can control the necessarily amoral actions of corporations the masses of people will be exploited as a matter of course. Corporations gaining control and directing the government is nothing but fascist corporatism. This is the direction the health insurance cartel of United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Wellpoint and Blue Cross are attempting to take us.
Do not think this stops at health care. Corporatism is a growing threat to our society and planet as large transnationals manipulate the governments of the world in the interests of profits. Just as surely as the United Fruit Company overthrew governments in Latin America, those in the corporate world continue to exert their influence.
After being bailed out by the government of "We the People," Wall Street awarded itself bonuses with our dollars. Somehow it seems, Hank Paulson and Tim Geitner looked out for their cronies rather than the people. Blackwater, now re-branded Xe, and Halliburton continue to work as contractors for the government despite being waist deep in corruption and malfeasance.
The rallying cry for the gangster bankers - the banksters- and the health insurance industry is that regulation is bad. The free market will take care of everything they assure us. Less regulation equals more money - for them.
Less does equal more. Less government means more corporate control. In a government of "We the People," we probably get what we deserve. In a corporate world, we are all just fodder for the cannons aimed by the invisible hand of the market.
In health care, and for that matter, all matters where people state that they want the government to stay out of things, they are advocating that corporations be given free rein instead. The government is really the only check on large US and even larger transnational corporations. Corporations, guided only by an allegiance to profits and the bottom line, are at best neutral while at their worst malevolent entities intent on increasing revenues at any cost. Government can run as a non-profit and have employment as a purpose. Corporations view workers only as resources to be used and used up.
There is a dynamic tension that must necessarily exist between government and corporations. Unless governments can control the necessarily amoral actions of corporations the masses of people will be exploited as a matter of course. Corporations gaining control and directing the government is nothing but fascist corporatism. This is the direction the health insurance cartel of United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Wellpoint and Blue Cross are attempting to take us.
Do not think this stops at health care. Corporatism is a growing threat to our society and planet as large transnationals manipulate the governments of the world in the interests of profits. Just as surely as the United Fruit Company overthrew governments in Latin America, those in the corporate world continue to exert their influence.
After being bailed out by the government of "We the People," Wall Street awarded itself bonuses with our dollars. Somehow it seems, Hank Paulson and Tim Geitner looked out for their cronies rather than the people. Blackwater, now re-branded Xe, and Halliburton continue to work as contractors for the government despite being waist deep in corruption and malfeasance.
The rallying cry for the gangster bankers - the banksters- and the health insurance industry is that regulation is bad. The free market will take care of everything they assure us. Less regulation equals more money - for them.
Less does equal more. Less government means more corporate control. In a government of "We the People," we probably get what we deserve. In a corporate world, we are all just fodder for the cannons aimed by the invisible hand of the market.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
See Dick Lie
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney never ceases to amaze me. While vice-president he often appeared to have more power and influence than the actual president. His former firm, Halliburton, received no-bid government contracts without raising even the slightest concern of influence peddling. He accuses the current administration of "dithering" even after his administration spent eight years doing nothing.
He has managed to top all of the above. During questioning about the leak in the Valerie Plame debacle in which an active CIA operative was outed in the press, Cheney responded 72 times that he "Did not recall," or "Could not remember," in response to Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Cheney's right hand man, Scooter Libby, was convicted of perjury for his failure to disclose information. Cheney, on the other hand, got away without even a slap on the wrist.
Some of the information Cheney couldn't recall was whether anyone had ever mentioned to him that the wife of administration critic Joe Wilson was a CIA operative. He also could not recall how he found out that information. Interestingly though, he was able to describe in great detail his lunch with Nancy Reagan. This does not pass the stink test. He couldn't remember details of a major embarrassment to himself but he could remember what was for lunch.
Cheney has long been known for his great memory for details. When it is to his advantage he seems able to recall every detail of a decision making process. He revels in pointing out when others seem unclear on information.
In response to another politician claiming that he did "not recall," details of a scandal, Cheney famously blasted him for his poor memory. He pointed out that it was hard to believe anyone who conveniently forgot information that would convict them in a court of law. On that occasion he told the truth.
When it comes to his own lapses of memory, suddenly Cheney doesn't buy his own rhetoric. See Dick forget. See Dick lie. See Dick subvert the Constitution. See Dick commit treason.
He has managed to top all of the above. During questioning about the leak in the Valerie Plame debacle in which an active CIA operative was outed in the press, Cheney responded 72 times that he "Did not recall," or "Could not remember," in response to Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Cheney's right hand man, Scooter Libby, was convicted of perjury for his failure to disclose information. Cheney, on the other hand, got away without even a slap on the wrist.
Some of the information Cheney couldn't recall was whether anyone had ever mentioned to him that the wife of administration critic Joe Wilson was a CIA operative. He also could not recall how he found out that information. Interestingly though, he was able to describe in great detail his lunch with Nancy Reagan. This does not pass the stink test. He couldn't remember details of a major embarrassment to himself but he could remember what was for lunch.
Cheney has long been known for his great memory for details. When it is to his advantage he seems able to recall every detail of a decision making process. He revels in pointing out when others seem unclear on information.
In response to another politician claiming that he did "not recall," details of a scandal, Cheney famously blasted him for his poor memory. He pointed out that it was hard to believe anyone who conveniently forgot information that would convict them in a court of law. On that occasion he told the truth.
When it comes to his own lapses of memory, suddenly Cheney doesn't buy his own rhetoric. See Dick forget. See Dick lie. See Dick subvert the Constitution. See Dick commit treason.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Our Private Army
Unknown to many Americans is the fact that the United States maintains both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan largely on the backs of "private contractors." These individuals, civilians working for private firms which have contracted with the government, have increasingly replaced soldiers in many positions vital for a military effort.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Ike Was Right
Forty eight years ago today, on January 17th, as his presidency concluded, Dwight Eisenhower sounded an alarm to the world. Ike stated: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwanted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." As a former general, once the highest ranking soldier in history, Eisenhower knew precisely what he was talking about.
His warning has been largely disregarded and those who speak of the influence of the "military industrial complex" are viewed as cranks. Yet, over the past five decades a pantheon of transnational corporations has created a weapons industry that has consumed the wealth of the world. The Soviets went bankrupt trying to keep up, and now we are bogged down in two costly declared wars and several undeclared excursions. Throughout the world, countries point weapons at each other and compete for military superiority.
Corporations such as Halliburton, it's subsidiary Kellogg, Browning & Root, Raytheon, Blackwater (not so much industrial, but certainly military or mercenary), etc. have enriched themselves in the war game. Playing both sides of the fence, many transnationals win either way. The outcome of the wars are immaterial. It is the fact that there is a war that is important.
The abuses of this system and its drain on the resources of this and other nations is incalculable. However, the next time you hear any discussions of the deficit, the national debt or the economy, check out how much we spend on "defense." A military budget greater than the rest of the world - COMBINED - suggests that Ike's fear has become a nightmarish reality.
The Bush years have laid bare any pretense that the military industrial complex is a fictional monster that existed only in Eisenhower's mind. The beast that it has become has mauled us and continues to threaten to devour us.
Isn't it time to defend ourselves against this threat? Does anyone believe these forces are weaker now than they were in Eisenhower's time? Could not his words, "the disastrous rise of misplaced power, ..." serve as the motto of our age?
The full text of Eisenhower's speech may be seen at coursesa.matrix.msu.edu or you may watch the speech itself on YouTube.
It seems noteworthy that today is also the 115th anniversary that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to abdicate the throne of the sovereign nation of Hawaii.
His warning has been largely disregarded and those who speak of the influence of the "military industrial complex" are viewed as cranks. Yet, over the past five decades a pantheon of transnational corporations has created a weapons industry that has consumed the wealth of the world. The Soviets went bankrupt trying to keep up, and now we are bogged down in two costly declared wars and several undeclared excursions. Throughout the world, countries point weapons at each other and compete for military superiority.
Corporations such as Halliburton, it's subsidiary Kellogg, Browning & Root, Raytheon, Blackwater (not so much industrial, but certainly military or mercenary), etc. have enriched themselves in the war game. Playing both sides of the fence, many transnationals win either way. The outcome of the wars are immaterial. It is the fact that there is a war that is important.
The abuses of this system and its drain on the resources of this and other nations is incalculable. However, the next time you hear any discussions of the deficit, the national debt or the economy, check out how much we spend on "defense." A military budget greater than the rest of the world - COMBINED - suggests that Ike's fear has become a nightmarish reality.
The Bush years have laid bare any pretense that the military industrial complex is a fictional monster that existed only in Eisenhower's mind. The beast that it has become has mauled us and continues to threaten to devour us.
Isn't it time to defend ourselves against this threat? Does anyone believe these forces are weaker now than they were in Eisenhower's time? Could not his words, "the disastrous rise of misplaced power, ..." serve as the motto of our age?
The full text of Eisenhower's speech may be seen at coursesa.matrix.msu.edu or you may watch the speech itself on YouTube.
It seems noteworthy that today is also the 115th anniversary that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to abdicate the throne of the sovereign nation of Hawaii.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
RePUGniCAN'Ts
If the Republican Party were half as competent at policy as they are at politics the country would not be in the position that it currently finds itself. After attempting to privatize the federal government (we saw how that worked in the aftermath of Katrina and in the outsourcing of the Iraq War to Halliburton and Blackwater), aiding and abetting the destruction of the Constitution, and dumping money on every crooked banker they could find, the GOP (Gas,Oil & Petroleum) now is demanding a voice in the development of the stimulus package.
Never mind that it was their no-regulation, tax breaks for billionaires, no-bid contract philosophy that must bear the lion's share of blame for the current economic woes. Republicans have shown us by their very actions that their approach to the economy is a failure. Now they demand a say so in how the correction should proceed. This is a little like letting a group of criminals dictate prison policy.
Having had their policies utterly rejected by the American public and their party crushed in the last election, their approach has become one of falling back on formerly successful tactics of threatening to derail all legislation unless they get their way. Remember that this is the same party that threatened it would "go nuclear" in the Senate in order to get around those pesky rules that they will now make their bread and butter.
Already Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are out engaging in political maneuvering surrounding the stimulus in such a way that it will be delayed and/or derailed. Watch as they put their political interests ahead of the nation. Was the bailout just an effort to bleed the Treasury at the time of greatest need? A final rip-off for their cronies before losing power.
The RePUGniCAN'Ts, a party whose time has come - to end.
Never mind that it was their no-regulation, tax breaks for billionaires, no-bid contract philosophy that must bear the lion's share of blame for the current economic woes. Republicans have shown us by their very actions that their approach to the economy is a failure. Now they demand a say so in how the correction should proceed. This is a little like letting a group of criminals dictate prison policy.
Having had their policies utterly rejected by the American public and their party crushed in the last election, their approach has become one of falling back on formerly successful tactics of threatening to derail all legislation unless they get their way. Remember that this is the same party that threatened it would "go nuclear" in the Senate in order to get around those pesky rules that they will now make their bread and butter.
Already Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are out engaging in political maneuvering surrounding the stimulus in such a way that it will be delayed and/or derailed. Watch as they put their political interests ahead of the nation. Was the bailout just an effort to bleed the Treasury at the time of greatest need? A final rip-off for their cronies before losing power.
The RePUGniCAN'Ts, a party whose time has come - to end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
