Globalization and Terror and More Obstruction at DOJ

Kudos to Congressman Bill Delahunt. He seems to be on a lonely crusade to get the US Government to treat all kinds of terrorism the same. He has been criticizing DOJ for its sloppy treatment of the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles; DOJ botched its case of immigration violations and Posada effectively went free. And now Delahunt’s leading a small group of Congressman pressuring DOJ to crack down on US corporate support of Columbian terrorist groups. The LAT provides two articles today on the reasons for concern. The first article outlines DOJ’s obstruction and conflicts of interest on the Chiquita case; the second describes the other US companies alleged to be supporting terror in Columbia.

Chiquita and DOJ

Given all the stories about the conflicts of interest in the Bush DOJ, the Chiquita story is real cause for concern. Chiquita just settled with DOJ, agreeing to pay a $25 million fine over five years–not exactly a punishment that will dent its profits. Yet Chiquita first admitted paying off terrorists in 2000, and DOJ prosecutors were trying to bring charges in 2004. So how did Chiquita get off with a fine three years later? Well, political appointee David Nahmias (who is now the USA in Atlanta–though he was approved via the quaint Senate approval channel) intervened:

image_print
  1. pow wow says:

    Boy, sounds like Bill Delahunt is really on to the multinational conglomerates, and is able and willing to do the work to dig out the truth that’s hidden beneath the surface gloss of the unceasing White House and media propaganda about our â€foreign policy.†There was also a very important development connected with Rep. Delahunt on Wednesday, during a joint subcommittee hearing that he co-chaired about reconstruction in Iraq’s oil fields, in which he discussed that ’draft hydrocarbon bill’ and what it really means for the oil wealth of Iraq. Rep. Delahunt laid it out beautifully in an opening statement, which was apparently videotaped by an audience member, and has been posted on YouTube here:



    One of the witnesses scheduled to testify that day was – gasp – an actual IRAQI who helped write the first, since-discarded, draft of that bill, and whose opening statement is presumably posted somewhere on a Congressional website (I haven’t yet tried to track it down).

    This information on the draft hydrocarbon bill from Representative Bill Delahunt came out on the same day that Senator Maria Cantwell courageously told America the WHOLE truth, at 2:15 a.m. during the all-night debate, about what’s really behind the ’urge to surge’ by the Republican Party: it’s mostly about waiting until that oil bill is rammed down the throats of the Iraqi parliament by friends of the Big Oil Bosses; strutting public office-defiling â€businessmen†friends (of ethics-immune corporate raiders) who remain cozily perched in positions of unhindered power in our beknighted Executive Branch of â€government.â€

    Kudos to Congressman Delahunt, indeed!

  2. William Ockham says:

    If Bush has the authority to freeze the assets of people trying to destabilize Iraq, does that mean he’s going to freeze his own assets? Or Cheney’s? I can’t think of anybody who’s done more to destablize Iraq than those two.

  3. William Ockham says:

    On a more serious note, people should realize that it isn’t difficult to figure out who’s paying off the Colombian mob/terrorists. We know what parts of Columbia they control. We know that to do business in those parts you have pay your protection money. We also know that hiding pay-offs of that size is almost impossible nowadays. The only reason there haven’t been convictions is that it wouldn’t fit the Bush/Cheney narrative.

  4. Anonymous says:

    WO

    Well, that, and Bush guards his Uribe relationship because he plans to have military support of any required invasion of Venezuela from Columbia.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Corporations create huge problem yet they only produce 1/3 of the GNP. The power over government is not equally represented. Meaning they have more sway than â€We the People†or the middle class and the small business sector. Corproration were under fire by activist groups in the late 1960’s for their offenses against our rights and interests.
    When they go offshore they avoid our laws espacially environmental, financial and labor: remember Enron_Cuiba 390 mile natural gas pipeline
    http://www.plant-talk.org/stories/29enron.html Shell and Enron built that destroying forests to build a lawsuits persist for those violations which are exempt from the bankruptcy.
    THe fox is guarding the hen house as Bushco has appointed corporate leaders to corporate/government ovrsight positions of industry giants sheilded from the law by a fox friendly Department of Justice.
    Corporations are rattling a lot of cages in our diplomatic corps causing more problems for diplomacy to to be effective. They have mercenaries instead of security forces that are interfering with the best interests of the American government stirring incidents and blaming other governments . All those shadow forces that stir up trouble that taxpayers must cover is costing the Republic dearly.
    They are the priveledged with s special tax dodges and off shore finacial dealings. Untill the US Congress passes national independent financing for elections their feet are on the scales of justice.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Ooh EW, now that is new territory that my tin foil had not yet divined. Well, the good news is there is still hope that Cheney/Bush will leave Venezuela alone; the bad news is it will be because they are to busy attacking Iran.

  7. Anonymous says:

    bmaz

    I actually don’t think that’s tinfoil at all. If we went to war against Iran, we’d need to ensure we got supplies of oil in defensible distance. Venezuela was critical one of the last times the ME tried to use oil as a weapon, but at that time, the oligarchy was all too happy to give us the oil we needed. But so long as Chavez rules Venezuela–particularly if Ahmadinejad remains President of Iran–they’re going to be close allies. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Venezuela cut off supplies in the event of a strike on Iran. There’s even a Venezuela/Iran tie at the beginning of OPEC

    In other words, one of the reasons DOJ isn’t really worried about these terrorists, is because they’re the functional equivalent of the MEK in Iran.

  8. orionATL says:

    oh, come on

    there’s terrorism

    and there’s terrorism,

    don’t y’all see the difference?

  9. pdaly says:

    EW,

    When you write â€US corporate support of Columbian terrorist groupsâ€
    do you mean â€Colombian†as in Bogota, Colombia, or â€Columbian†as in District of Columbia?

    There was some sort of weird White House sponsored ’uniting the Americas’ conference about 2 wks ago. Wondering what sort of Neocon plan is afoot to unite the continent (US, Mexico, Central & South America, ?Canada) into some supercountry.