Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Crimes Has Halliburton Been Accused?  
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

What are the current criminal accusations/investigations surrounding Halliburton? I mean real life accusations/investigations--winning a no bid contract is not a crime and doesn't count....


E pur si muove -Galileo
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Extraced it from a website, couldn't link it but will try again and edit ,cheers


Other Halliburton crimes and misdemeanours:

1) Operating in countries with dubious human rights records

Halliburton operate in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Colombia, Indonesia, Libya (where it was fined for violating US sanctions) Nigeria and Russia - all countries which are currently politically unstable with dubious human rights records.

In Venezuela last year (2002), Halliburton found its offshore oil rigs seized by protestors which disrupted its ability to operate.14

Halliburton's operations in Burma have come under heavy scrutiny, although it is no longer clear if the company is still operating there. Halliburton joined oil companies in Burma working on two notorious gas pipelines, the Yadana and Yetagun. According to an Earth Rights report,15 "from 1992, until the present (2000), thousands of villagers in Burma were force to work in support of these pipelines and related infrastructure, lost their homes due to forced relocation, and were raped, tortured and killed by soldiers hired by companies as security guards for the pipelines. One of Halliburton's projects was undertaken during Dick Cheney's tenure as CEO.

KBR has so far been awarded contracts worth $33 million to build the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 641 Al-Qaida suspects are at the time of writing being illegally detained and being denied the basic rights guaranteed to Prisoners of War under the Third Geneva Convention. Reports suggest that they are being subjected to "torture lite', being deprived of sleep and subjected to constant bright light.16

Halliburton has been asked to review its operations in Iran by two major investors, the New York City Police and Fire Pension funds, because of corporate ties to states sponsoring terrorist activities. Current government sanctions prohibit US corporations from virtually all trade and investment with Iran. Halliburton opened an office in Iran via its Cayman Island subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd.17

2) Dodgy business practices
Halliburton is currently subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission probe for questionable accounting practices relating to cost overruns on projects carried out during Cheney's tenure as CEO.18

Furthermore, in July 2002, Judicial Watch filed a shareholder lawsuit accusing US vice president Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and accounting firm Andersen of accounting fraud. "They overstated their revenues by tens of millions of dollars and that's an understatement," claimed Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel at Judicial Watch, as the suit was filed in Dallas federal court. "We're seeking millions and millions of dollars ... it's to punish the people involved."19

The change in accountancy practices could well be put down to the company's auditors, the discredited accountancy firm, Arthur Andersen. Both Dick Cheney and the company's current CEO, David Lasar have close personal connections with the accountancy firm.20

According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Halliburton has seriously overrun its budget in Bosnia by almost £300 million.21 The GAO suspectsts foul play, or at the very least extremely sloppy business practices.

3) Stalling on paying-up for asbestos claims
In 1998, Halliburton bought smaller rival Dresser Industries Inc., only to have it backfire on them when Dresser suffered defeat in a key asbestos litigation case. This paved the way for asbestos lawyers to come down heavily on Halliburton.

Since 1976, approximately 578,000 asbestos claims have been filed against Halliburton.22 In December 2002, they reached a settlement for around $4.2billion under which they will have to legally restructure, followed by prepackaged bankruptcy filings of DII Industries and Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc as well as certain other DII and KBR subsidiaries with US operations and named as defendants in asbestos lawsuits. Unfortunately Halliburton itself won't be bankrupted by these claims as most of the costs will be covered by Halliburton's liability insurance. However, it could seriously affect share prices as Moody's Investor Services are considering cutting Halliburton's share ratings.23

It seemed as though Halliburton's cosy connections could have got them off this one. The idea of limiting asbestos liability has been kicking around in Congress for years. And the company has contributed more than $100,000 to legislators who supported the notion. Cheney even kicked in $13,500 when he was a corporate officer.24

4) Serious security lapse and radioactive leaks at the nuclear dockyard in Plymouth
Halliburton runs Devonport Management Ltd (DML). DML has controlled the Devonport dockyards, in Plymouth since they were privatised in 1985.It is here that the UK's Trident nuclear submarines are currently being refitted and four are decommissioned.

In November 2002, two activists from the Trident Ploughshares group broke into the military dock, managed to climb on the submarine, HMS Vanguard, that was being refitted and ring its bell. It had had its nuclear warheads removed before coming into the dock.25

A recent Red Pepper article revealed the threat posed to the health and safety of the people of Plymouth by the negligence of DML and the UK government, which allows increased levels of radioactive pollution (tritium) to leach into the River Tamar, and has failed to mend the serious cracks in the coolant systems of the UK's nuclear submarines.26


And if you were thinking of paying Halliburton a visit they have numerous sites in the UK including

KBR (and Granherne Ltd.)
Hill Park South
Springfield Drive
Leatherhead
Surrey
England
Phone numbers: 01372 865000 and 01372 868296

Devonport Management Ltd
Devonport Dockyard
Plymouth
Devon PL1 3SG
01752 605665

For all UK locations see:

edited to link site
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/news/halliburton.htm/
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/news/halliburton.htm<----copy-paste in adres bar if auto-link doesn't work


[Edited 2004-10-07 20:02:55]

[Edited 2004-10-07 20:04:01]

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-104.htm<----copy-paste in adres bar if
from the official sec-site


[Edited 2004-10-07 20:14:09]


[edit post]
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Most of those items are not accusations; they're all "dodgy business practices" that any major corporation is guilty of at best. The only accusation I see there is the shareholder lawsuit for overstating its revenues, again something just about every Fortune 500 company does/did. Even so, the lawsuit is for overstating its revenues by less than 0.8%--which is illegal, but a tiny amount.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

MaverickM11

I, mistakenly, tought this was a quest for information question and thererfore
linked the two articles (corporatewatch.org and sec.gov).
It however seems that you asked this more like a "in my view halliburton did nothing really wrong"-kind of rethorical question ,I misunderstood.

FYI If you read the SEC-articles it is speaking of millions of dollars and it is not something all forbes500-companys do without a serious risk of getting caught.
The"Operating in countries with dubious human rights records"-thing is also not to be taken lightly (they have been officially sanctioned for it).
Certainly considering Cheney's current high-profile position it is unlucky to say the least.

Most of those items are not accusations; they're all "dodgy business practices" that any major corporation is guilty of at best.
This is a heavy accusation to all other company's, they are all involved in dodgy business according to you.
Also a "Look at the other ones, they are doing the same"-excuse never was very convincing as a defense line.



[edit post]
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

"It however seems that you asked this more like a "in my view halliburton did nothing really wrong"-kind of rethorical question ,I misunderstood."

No I just want to know what they're actually accused of in court, rather than what they're believed to have done. There's a big difference. I honestly don't know what Halliburton stands accused of--but I think we all know all the complaints lobbed against it.

"This is a heavy accusation to all other company's, they are all involved in dodgy business according to you."

I disagree; I think anything the size of Halliburton or bigger will have a similar list of malfeasance, especially from websites like the one you posted.

"Also a "Look at the other ones, they are doing the same"-excuse never was very convincing as a defense line."

I don't think it's an excuse either, but it helps to put it in perspective. Can you name a company with over $10 billion in annual revenues that has a clean record?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

First of all -- didn't your mother ever tell you, "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right"? Neither Halliburton nor any other corporation has any legal standing in pointing the finger at other businesses in their own defense.

Halliburton billed the U.S. government for meals and fuel that it never delivered. That's criminal.


redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Maverick

It seems to me that you have a low trust in big corporations and that they ,by definition, are wrong-doers.
I see things a little different.
I think that simplisticly speaking there are three kind of company's.
a) The "honest",ones that are just doing bussines.
B) The normal ones that walk a very narrow line but hardly ever cross it.
c) The ones that not only cross the line but make it a sport to jump over as far as possible.

a) only a few company's belong in this group, they are clearly exceptional.
b) Most of the company's live in this group ,they need to be scrutinised and checked upon to keep them from doing wrong but in general they just do business as usual
c) these are the "fun" ones ,they keep coming up in all kind of scandals and dubious affairs

The problem with Halliburton is that they clearly belong in the 3rd group (together with the likes of Enron,Parmalat,AMC,etc...) they seem to believe that business is some kind of holy grale and thus everything is allowed to make a buck.

That is exactly what I have against Cheney and his likes: They seem to believe that they have special powers,are more important,are of more value than other "average" people and therefore are intitled to more privileges.
they can cheat and rob as much as they want because they are so important to the community.
Take it from someone who has met his fair share of CEO's,COO's and other top managers they are way LESS important than they believe themself to be.
There are a lot of good ones but there are an equal amount of them that are really totally worthless.
Seeing some of them work you can't help hoping that they change as little as possible because if they do ,it will most probably have catastrophy written all over it.


[Edited 2004-10-08 00:34:42]

[Edited 2004-10-08 00:57:29]


[edit post]
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

"The problem with Halliburton is that they clearly belong in the 3rd group (together with the likes of Enron,Parmalat"

I don't think Halliburton is anywhere in the same universe as Parmalat and Enron, where there was extensive theft and shady investment units to cover up massive losses. There is no such story at Halliburton. They may have, as may have many other companies, possibly saved revenue from one good year to pad revenue during a bad period the next year. I'd bet that most companies do this--and not to hide massive problems but simply to smooth out their earnings and lessen bad surprises on their shareholders.

"It seems to me that you have a low trust in big corporations and that they ,by definition, are wrong-doers.
"
Not really, I just think when you get that many people with that many interests involved under the umbrella of one company, there are bound to be errors in judgement.

"Halliburton billed the U.S. government for meals and fuel that it never delivered. That's criminal"

That was their subsidiary KBR; didn't Halliburton launch an investigation and isn't the Pentagon witholding payment?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

"The problem with Halliburton is that they clearly belong in the 3rd group (together with the likes of Enron,Parmalat"

I don't think Halliburton is anywhere in the same universe as Parmalat and Enron, where there was extensive theft and shady investment units to cover up massive losses. There is no such story at Halliburton. They may have, as may have many other companies, possibly saved revenue from one good year to pad revenue during a bad period the next year. I'd bet that most companies do this--and not to hide massive problems but simply to smooth out their earnings and lessen bad surprises on their shareholders.

Maybe I made a bad comparison by only naming company's that went bankrupt because of excessive fraud.
In the case of Halliburton I was thinking more in line of company's of the likes of Shell,Australian Mining company and so on.
They seem to have no respect for International laws or the lives of people in other country's (and sometimes even in there own country).
In my eyes this is as bad or even worse than these big fraud-cases.


It seems to me that you have a low trust in big corporations and that they ,by definition, are wrong-doers.

Not really, I just think when you get that many people with that many interests involved under the umbrella of one company, there are bound to be errors in judgement.

These company's are clearly B-type company's ,they also make mistakes from time to time (error in judgement as you said).
For this you have laws and all the tools(SEC,IRS,FBI) which the governement can use to enforce them.
In my eyes there is a clear difference between error in judgement and fragrant abuse of power and influence.
-The illegal trading with Iran
-The Oil adventures in Venezuela,Burma,...
-The Asbestos story with some shady manipulating towards the congress to decrease liability
-The overbilling the Pentagon for delivered services
-getting contracts without any competition (you might not think much of it but it is nothing more than highway robbery)
-...


And now I got to go to bed ,if this tread is still alive tomorrow I'll come back and continue the play.


[Edited 2004-10-08 01:56:08]


[edit post]
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Halliburton found its offshore oil rigs seized by protestors

It would seem the protesters would be the ones committing the crimes in this case.

KBR has so far been awarded contracts worth $33 million to build the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 641 Al-Qaida suspects are at the time of writing being illegally detained

1. The Al-Qaida members are legally being held, despite your personal opinion.
2. Halibertion does not run the camp.

The fact your alleged facts come from a left wing hate site does not add to their credibility.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

"KBR has so far been awarded contracts worth $33 million to build the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 641 Al-Qaida suspects are at the time of writing being illegally detained
"

KBR was not doing the 'illegal detaining'; they simply won the contract to build the facilities.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Re: KBR was not doing the 'illegal detaining'; they simply won the contract to build the facilities.

Oh so that's all right then. It's OK to build concentration camps and gas chambers, as long as you're not actually the ones doing the gassing. Nice business ethics there.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

"Oh so that's all right then. It's OK to build concentration camps and gas chambers, as long as you're not actually the ones doing the gassing. Nice business ethics there."

Detaining suspected terrorists is slightly less egregious than systematically exterminating people that have done nothing wrong other than being a group you don't like. You know better than that.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Re: Detaining suspected terrorists is slightly less egregious than systematically exterminating people that have done nothing wrong other than being a group you don't like.

It's an extreme example but valid nonetheless. These "suspected terrorists" happen in many cases to be just "a group you don't like" - the line is definitely hazy, considering that some of the people held at Guantanamo were abducted in West Africa and Pakistan, and those so far released back to their own countries have not been charged with any offences at all. The continued detention of these suspects with due process of law is immoral.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has Anyone Been To The Brecon Jazz Festival? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 23:39:02 by Pe@rson
Has Anyone Been To Disneyland Hong Kong? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 21:22:13 by United Airline
Has Anyone Been To Pierrot, Mandarin Oriental HK? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 12:28:25 by United Airline
What Countries Have You Been To? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 13:48:10 by CXA330300
What City Has The Most Sky Scrapers? posted Wed May 4 2005 01:15:35 by COEWR777
Penang, Has Anyone Been? posted Mon Jul 26 2004 15:32:57 by 'Longreach'
Has Greg Been Holding Out On Us? posted Sat May 29 2004 18:02:50 by L-188
What Cites Have You Been To? posted Fri Dec 19 2003 02:59:45 by Flymia
What Country Has The Most Beautiful People? posted Sun Oct 26 2003 18:58:55 by Ual747
What Country Has Done More For Freedom . . . posted Fri Oct 3 2003 20:20:28 by N6376m