Halliburton Gave Contaminated Water to US Troops

[Killfile]

With a company like Halliburton supporting the War Effort, you've got to ask yourself: "what could possibly go wrong?"

Besides selling expired food rations to the army, inflating the number of meals provided to pad profits, and sending potential whistleblowers to the most dangerous areas of Iraq to keep them quiet - it turns out that Dick Cheney's old company has been providing the military with untreated and tainted water for troop consumption (according to the AP).

Of course, treating water is expensive - and if you can get away with providing untreated water, the profit margins are going to go up. Halliburton's "anything for higher margins" have gotten them into trouble in the past - including illegal trading with Iran despite US laws placing the country under embargo.

For those keeping score at home - Cheney's deferred income from Halliburton generates between $50,000 and $100,000 yearly and he maintains control of some 433,000 shares in stock-options (valued at $32,691,500 as of this posting).

[Sortep]

chalk up another one... i wonder how history will remember us and this war

[Wandering_Mystic]

I was tempted to vote on the third option, but I decided that it should probably be a given anyway, so I went with it being more of the same. But it is no less disgusting that they continue to do this. In fact, it is even more apalling; both for the fact that they still pull this stuff off, and also because despite this knowledge not really being a secret, not enough people (in the right places) are getting on their case about it to put a stop to them.

[Sortep]

thats because the majority of those in the right places are cashing halliburton checks... god bless america

[panasonic]

you know, fighting a war is hard enough without having your soldiers dying from random diseases due to bad water and food

[ucrzymofo87]

Conviction before trial, wonderful.

[Tempest]

Their own testers are admiting to this. This should be a slam dunk.

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said an internal e-mail from Will Granger, who was KBR's water quality manager for all of Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," continued the e-mail dated July 15 of last year and released at the hearing. It said the exposure lasted for up to a year.

[panasonic]

well, what is one suppose to do except convict them for a blatant crime. its not like its not obvious. there is substantial proof that showes haliburton is guilty

[Killfile]

You've hit upon the fundamental problem with the corporate structure.

You can't send a company to jail. You can fine them, but because of the fundamental structures of the legal system, a fine serious enough to harm them will be knocked out as excessive. More over, you're also hurting minority share holders, who don't have any real control over the company, but still suffer if the stock tanks.

So a corporation is effectively beyond the reach of the law. Even Enron wasn't brought down by investigation but by it's own bankruptcy.

Given this - we still allow corporations the ability to give to exercise every right of a citizen, save for the ability to vote and a few other select rights.

In every society there is a trend towards the concentration of power at the apex of what that society holds dear. In ancient Rome it was the military that was venerated, and thus the military leader of the country (the Emperor) was elevated to the level of a god. In the early middle ages it was the church, and religious leaders ruled Europe with impunity - fielding armies and building empires upon the Throne of Peter. In the late middle ages it was the emergent state - and the focal point of the state's wealth and power was in the hands of the King, who WAS the state.

So the trend continues throughout history - in the present, the religion of America is consumerism and the halls of power are not those of the Congress, but those of the corporation....

It seems noteworthy then - that this historical trend has a cycle to it as well. When power concentrates narrowly, it destroys those that hold it. The Emperors fell with the decline of the military, the Church fell with the decline of religion, the Absolutists fell with the rise of democracy, and the corporation too will fall in time, though to what no one really knows.

More concerning is the fundamental fact that each of these upheavals has brought with it cataclysmic change to the society in which it occurred. Rome's fall was a bloodbath across Europe, the fall of the Church ushered in centuries of war, and the fall of the Absolutists brought with it Napoleon's conquests and a tide of revolutionary upheaval.

When this will happen is little more than conjecture and guestimation. That it will happen is historical certainty. These are the tides of history, and they can not be stopped by the hands of men.

[panasonic]

dude, you should publish a book about these things

[vtwahoo]

dude, you should publish a book about these things

Again, thanks. His ego -=totally=- needed that.

[Rosiel]

dude, you should publish a book about these things

Again, thanks. His ego -=totally=- needed that.

Whats wrong with Kill gettin a compliment or two?

[vtwahoo]

Ignoring Killfile's ego for the moment, this is an interesting case from a political economics perspective.

In December 2005 the World Trade Organization met in Hong Kong for their 6th ministerial conference. This conference was part of the Doha Round of the WTO and focused, in part, upon the Singapore Issues. The last Singapore Issue---I swear that I'm getting to the point here---is transparency in government procurement.

That brings me back to the issue at hand. Halliburton receives huge government contracts through a process that is driven, not by market forces, but by political connections. There is no accountability mechanism because Halliburton doesn't have to worry about losing said contracts for things like killing American troops with contaminated water.

Government contracts are a way for the state to interfere in markets that neo-liberals and neo-cons (two groups that, despite their names, are politically in sync) actually approve of. No day care, no health care, no housing subsidies for struggling families but lucrative government contracts for wealthy fat cats are okay.

Business as usual.

[Killfile]

Ok -

I get that Markets are basically I have stuff, you have stuff, and we want to sell our stuff to each other.

I get that when the government tells me I can't sell my stuff they are "interfering" in the market.

What I don't get is why the government giving a contract to a company constitutes market interference. Is all government purchasing market interference, or only when those contracts are handed out to buy political favor?

Second point:

A neo-con is a breed I'm pretty familiar with (*coughucrzymofo87cough*). Basically social conservatives who believe in bigger nanny like governance, expanded defense spending, and a rolling back of civil liberties combined with an Imperial Presidency (as long as their guy is in power).

A neo-liberal is a less common animal in my neck of the woods. What characterizes a neo-liberal from a plain vanilla liberal? The whole neo-con is like neo-liberal comment, I'm afraid I just don't get.

Is this something like "liberal is not equal to Liberal?"

My head hurts.

[vtwahoo]

What I don't get is why the government giving a contract to a company constitutes market interference. Is all government purchasing market interference, or only when those contracts are handed out to buy political favor?

The short answer is yes. All government procurement is interference in the market. However, purchases that are made through free and open markets do not distort the overall economy as much as those that are generated by political connections. The major point is that Halliburton doesn't have to worry about losing its contracts becuase of its political connections. Therefore, there is no accountability mechanism and no reason for them to even try to be efficient. It's the equivalent of a monopoly and is inefficient for the same reasons.

A neo-liberal is a less common animal in my neck of the woods. What characterizes a neo-liberal from a plain vanilla liberal?

Is this something like "liberal is not equal to Liberal?"

Again, yes.

Neo-liberals aren't liberal...they just stole our word. Why? Because they're evil.

Neo-classical economic liberals (note that we're talking about ECONOMIC theory NOT political theory) privilege economic choice but recognize that markets, left to their own devices, lend themselves to dysnfuctions (externalities, monopolies, wealth concentration, etc.). They thus embrace the need for balance between markets and governments. For example, a neo-liberal would recognize that markets do not address pollution and would support government solutions to that particular problem. When you think of economic liberals think of Keynes.

Neo-liberals are obsessed with the power of markets. They want NO government intervention...no import substitutions, no government bail-outs, no tariffs, no redistributive systems, no nothing.

At least that's what they claim. But, in practice, neo-liberals in rich countries (primarily the US) just use this "philosophy" to break open markets in developing countries for exploitation...think of China's cheap manufactured goods and Latin America's agricultural goods. They have no qualms, however, about price supports for US steel, agricultural subsidies for US agri-businesses (despite the fact that they create dysfunctions in international markets that condemn billions of people to poverty), and, of course, non-competitiveness military contracts.

So what do neo-cons and neo-liberalis have in common?

Simple.

Hypocrisy.

Does that help?