Injustice!!: Human Shields, not Halliburton, Cited for Trading with Iraq

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/politics/14SHIE.html

U.S. May Fine Some Who Shielded Iraq Sites
By ADAM LIPTAK



Clancy ... went to Iraq, he said, to observe, to learn and "to protect the civilian infrastructure." He spent weeks as a human shield at a grain silo that he feared would be the target of American bombing.

...

The government is not happy with Mr. Clancy and several others like him. Not long after they returned home this spring, they received letters from the Treasury Department seeking information about their activities in Iraq and noting that spending money there was a crime that could lead to 12 years in prison and civil penalties of up to $275,000.

Mr. Clancy and other opponents of the war say the inquiries are part of an effort to suppress dissent, but the government says they are a routine enforcement of regulations. And a Treasury spokesman bristled at the notion that the inquiries were politically motivated.



Meanwhile, over in Cheneyville:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35751-2001Jun22

Firm's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts


Former executives at the Halliburton subsidiaries said Cheney did not object to
trading with Baghdad. (Doug Mills - AP)
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01



UNITED NATIONS -- During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," he said.

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

[gratuitous]

1. Yeah, and on ABCNews

They reported with a straight face some government factotum who claimed that the prosecution of the human shields was "not politically motivated."

I will personally be boosting the economy this weekend when I have to buy a new television. Mission accomplished, baby!

[BurtWorm]

2. Sorry to hear about your television

Glad to know someone is as furious about this bullshit as I am.

[rocktivity]

4. So when are then going to bust this guy for trading with the enemy?

rocknation

[BurtWorm]

3. Why Ashcroft Should Indict "Snarly" Cheney

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010217Halliburton.html


Why Ashcroft Should Indict Cheney
It is time for the investigation and indictment of Vice President Richard Cheney for alleged violations of law and the presidential executive order banning trade with and aid to Iran
by Mac MacArthur

Saturday, Feb. 17, 2001 -- WASHINGTON -- Recently I read that that Dick Cheney's personal cash cow, Halliburton -- a monolith in the American oil hardware and software industry -- has opened an office in (where else?) Tehran.

That's Tehran as in Iran. As in Ayatollah "Kook-Mangy." As in big bucks for Cheney.

Halliburton, in doing so, has, according to colleagues in the Justice Department and the few remaining thinkers in the U.S. Attorney's Office, violated -- in spades -- federal law barring Halliburton (or any other company, for that matter) doing business with the wife-beating, "infidel"-torturing, clitoris-slashing Iranians. And Halliburton is certainly not there for humanitarian violations -- America doesn't care about those now that the smirking Bush Baby has invaded the "Oaf-yule" Office -- but because it's the policy of the United States as approved by Congress.