Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

They're sellin' our ports, maw!Follow

#27 Feb 23 2006 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
You have no idea how difficult it is to prosecute and prove white collar crime.

People tend to think it isn't prosecuted because the people who commit it are powerful and influential. That tends not to be true, at least outside of the good old boy networks.

What makes it difficult? Several factors. High finance dealings are not well understood by most people - it's hard for a non-expert to look at the paperwork and see that something is off kilter. White collar criminals are much smarter than the average street thug and tend to cover their tracks much better. They can also afford legal counsel savvy in the ways of court procedures and blocking discovery efforts.

Enron has been under investigation and now prosecution for several years. No one sat on their hands and waited to go after them. This is how long it takes to build a case of this size.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#28 Feb 23 2006 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Quote:
You have no idea how difficult it is to prosecute and prove white collar crime.
People tend to think it isn't prosecuted because the people who commit it are powerful and influential. That tends not to be true, at least outside of the good old boy networks.

What makes it difficult? Several factors. High finance dealings are not well understood by most people - it's hard for a non-expert to look at the paperwork and see that something is off kilter. White collar criminals are much smarter than the average street thug and tend to cover their tracks much better. They can also afford legal counsel savvy in the ways of court procedures and blocking discovery efforts.

Enron has been under investigation and now prosecution for several years. No one sat on their hands and waited to go after them. This is how long it takes to build a case of this size.


So action is done after they have taken the people's money. Also, it does matter how much money you have, it does matter what your race is when it comes to trials, thats just the way things works, it shouldn't but thats what happens.




Edited, Thu Feb 23 13:21:45 2006 by kalaria

Edited, Thu Feb 23 13:22:49 2006 by kalaria
#29 Feb 23 2006 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
So action is done after they have taken the people's money. Also, it does matter haow much money you have, it does matter what your race is when it comes to trials, thats just thw ay things works, it shouldn't but thats what happens.

Fight the power.
Fight the power.
Fight the power.
You gotta fight the powers that be.

You're such a rebel. I wish people old enough to know what they were talking about had half the information and insight that you do. You shall be my new hero.
#30 Feb 23 2006 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:

Fight the power.
Fight the power.
Fight the power.
You gotta fight the powers that be.


Smiley: eek Moe quoted Public Enemy. I didn't see that one coming.
#31 Feb 23 2006 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
I can still rap, in time, Bring the Noise, both the original and Anthrax versions of the song. I was a pretty big PE fan in the early days. They opened for U2 when I saw the ZooTV Outside Broadcast @ the Oakland Coloseum. The last album of theirs that I bought was Greatest Misses.

EDIT: I admit, I was a closet wigger when I was 13. I owned an NWA tape and an Ice-T tape. I was hard.

Then I turned 14 and slapped myself.

Edited, Thu Feb 23 13:47:51 2006 by MoebiusLord
#32 Feb 23 2006 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I can still rap, in time, Bring the Noise, both the original and Anthrax versions of the song. I was a pretty big PE fan in the early days. They opened for U2 when I saw the ZooTV Outside Broadcast @ the Oakland Coloseum. The last album of theirs that I bought was Greatest Misses.

EDIT: I admit, I was a closet wigger when I was 13. I owned an NWA tape and an Ice-T tape. I was hard.

Then I turned 14 and slapped myself.

We kids did lots of crazy things in the late 80's - early 90's.
#33 Feb 23 2006 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
Admit it. You donned the old parachute pants, laid down a flattened cardboard box, and busted a wicked headspin.
#34 Feb 23 2006 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Hardly. I had the physical coordination of a toddler at that point. I couldn't break dance to save my life. I did, however, own the outfit right out of Breakin' and carried my ghetto blaster wherever I went.
#35 Feb 23 2006 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
PolySci 101 wrote:
If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present.


Even if the man veto's a possible bill passed by congress, with enough people to disagree with him, the veto can be overridden. It doesn't sound like he's getting much support from either side making this a possibility.

Bhodi makes a good point also. Why is the VP, again, telling lies? Is it because he's a compulsive liar, or is it because there is something, even on some small level, to hide. If he's feeding us lines of shit just so he doesn't have to be bothered, then maybe he should have considered a different job.


Edited, Thu Feb 23 14:34:14 2006 by fenderputy

Edited, Thu Feb 23 14:33:34 2006 by fenderputy
#36 Feb 23 2006 at 4:30 PM Rating: Default
Goes hand in hand with what we're trying to do in the war on terror I think. Building bonds through trade, hopefully interweaving cultures a bit more, and still whoopin *** where *** needs to be whooped. Is there really that much more of a security risk when you break it down? In my opinion, shutting this deal down because an Arab state is involved would be much more likely to put us in danger than putting it through. The people putting this deal together want money, destroying the country making them the money would kinda be shooting themselves in the foot no? It's an interesting mix of friend making and hardcore boomstickin'...count me in. Or I guess we can just solidify Arab hatred for the west by assuring them that we are totally prejudice toward any relations involving them, whatever's clever.
#37 Feb 23 2006 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
When a bill is vetoed, it does go back to the house of Congress where it originated. However, to override, both houses of Congress must pass a 2/3rds vote.

Wikipedia lists ~1,484 vetos in history, of which 106 have ever been overridden. Also listed are ~1,066 pocket vetos (where a party delays action in Congress until the end of the term; the bill is submitted, but the president takes no action; Congress goes out of session before the ten-day period is up; instantaneous veto that cannot be challenged).


Overriding a presidential veto is rare. Even though we're hearing a lot of blabber from Congress, it is difficult to get the parties on the same side of an issue.

Edited, Thu Feb 23 16:49:33 2006 by Wingchild
#38 Feb 23 2006 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Wingchild wrote:



Overriding a presidential veto is rare. Even though we're hearing a lot of blabber from Congress, it is difficult to get the parties on the same side of an issue.



Don't get me wrong, I understand the chances of overriding a presidential veto are slim to none. I just don't remember a time during Bush's term where he has gotten any sort of resistance from Congress. It's almost like he's jumping up and down stamping his foot screaming, "Why won't you all let me do what I want, WHY, WHY, WHY?"
#39 Feb 23 2006 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
fenderputy the Shady wrote:
I just don't remember a time during Bush's term where he has gotten any sort of resistance from Congress.

Yes, Harriet Miers is rather forgettable I suppose...
#40 Feb 23 2006 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
So action is done after they have taken the people's money.


Well... yes. You wouldn't want people to be arrested BEFORE they've committed a crime, would you?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Feb 23 2006 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jawbox the Furtive wrote:
Yes, Harriet Miers is rather forgettable I suppose...
He's gotten bipartisan resistance on the torture legislation, Patriot Act, Katrina and stem cell research banning this term as well. His first term was defined by simple partisanship: Bush wanted things and the Republican congress passed them. This term is a lot more contentious, partially because of Republicans wanting to strengthen their own mid-term campaigns and distance themselves on some of Bush's agendas when they see Bush's numbers declining.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Feb 23 2006 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Quote:
Quote:
So action is done after they have taken the people's money.


___________________________________________________________
Well... yes. You wouldn't want people to be arrested BEFORE they've committed a crime, would you?


Ummm, hello! You can't tell me that no one new that they were stealing the money from the company BEFORE they went under. That's what I'm talking about Samira. But, no the company went under THEN there was a "Scandal", some people got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, now 3yrs later after it happens their on trial. pffft give me a break, all they will have to say is "I don't recall", and they will get off, because there was insufficient evidence. Like I said money can buy you anything, the richer you are the more likely you are to get off, and not just because they can afford better lawyers. There are plenty of lawyers that are better than them, that fight for the people that are really wrongfully acussed, not just trying to get a guilty man off, because he's being paid thousands of dollars to cover up **** and get rid of evidence.

#43 Feb 23 2006 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
**
395 posts
kalaria wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
So action is done after they have taken the people's money.


___________________________________________________________
Well... yes. You wouldn't want people to be arrested BEFORE they've committed a crime, would you?


Ummm, hello! You can't tell me that no one new that they were stealing the money from the company BEFORE they went under. That's what I'm talking about Samira. But, no the company went under THEN there was a "Scandal", some people got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, now 3yrs later after it happens their on trial. pffft give me a break, all they will have to say is "I don't recall", and they will get off, because there was insufficient evidence. Like I said money can buy you anything, the richer you are the more likely you are to get off, and not just because they can afford better lawyers. There are plenty of lawyers that are better than them, that fight for the people that are really wrongfully acussed, not just trying to get a guilty man off, because he's being paid thousands of dollars to cover up **** and get rid of evidence.


Actually - with all the financial manipulation that went on it was difficult to tell if Enron was truly making or losing any money. Enron had dozens of smaller companies it would filter funds through - making it much more difficult to decifer where the money was going and coming from.

And Yes, people did know - however - those people were the ones that were either the ones making the money or had something to fear (like losing their jobs) if something leaked. Whistleblower acts/laws can only protect the person so much, and it was a secretary that let the feds know about the money.

In fact - many of the numbers were so manufactured that their stockholders did not know after looking at the Annual Reports - which have to be audited. (This brings up the auditors who were later found to be involved - and also worked in the same building).

When you have that much covering up, that many different accounts, it will be difficult to track each transaction - especially after all the shredding that went on and the documentation they destroyed. They were greedy, not stupid.
#44 Feb 24 2006 at 12:10 AM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Quote:
And Yes, people did know - however - those people were the ones that were either the ones making the money or had something to fear (like losing their jobs) if something leaked. Whistleblower acts/laws can only protect the person so much, and it was a secretary that let the feds know about the money.


Exactly, because people are afraid to rock the boat, and they wound up losing their jobs anyway.
#45 Feb 24 2006 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
**
395 posts
kalaria wrote:
Quote:
And Yes, people did know - however - those people were the ones that were either the ones making the money or had something to fear (like losing their jobs) if something leaked. Whistleblower acts/laws can only protect the person so much, and it was a secretary that let the feds know about the money.


Exactly, because people are afraid to rock the boat, and they wound up losing their jobs anyway.



No - no one knows how long Enron would have continued to run if the authorities had NOT been notified, that is an assumption that because people either did or did not they lost their jobs.

They lost their jobs because people who had power in the organization knew how to manipulate the system, and it wasnt all by themselves, they had alot of help covering their tracks. Which makes reporting it a bit trickier when more than one person is involved - or could be if you are the one reporting. Not for legalities sake, but for the sake of having a decent work environment and still being able to work with everyone there.

I dont see how you expect for those responsible to have been caught before this happened, its like you are hoping for a scenario out of "Minority Report" - where they arrest you before any action has been taken, but because you might in the future then they can arrest you. If that is the case, they could arrest most any person in a job of influence because the temptation, opportunity and resources are there for them to take advantage of.

No one wants to risk their job - especially a good one, and Im sure whoever did is not sure about her actions still. It affected a lot more than just the employees, but the entire economics of the area.

It sucks - and they put up new measures on corporations because of this to help prevent it from happening again. Should they have been there? Why would they have been? No organization has ever completely fabricated their financial statements like this that I know of... and took the community, employees and shareholders by surprise.

Edit:

Looks like the UAE decided to hold off on their deal a while:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001


Interesting quote from the story tho

Quote:

The White House noted the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina just weeks before Dubai Ports sought approval for its business deal. It said the money was nearly four times as much as the administration received from all other countries combined, and said there was no connection between the money and the pending deal.


http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n20060223185209990004

Yes, they are AOL links - I have it for work so I actually have email that will accept a decent sized graphics file. And the sadder thing is - its more reliable than our organization's email.

Edited, Fri Feb 24 09:11:16 2006 by AanyaRamuh
#46 Feb 24 2006 at 1:14 PM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Quote:
No - no one knows how long Enron would have continued to run if the authorities had NOT been notified, that is an assumption that because people either did or did not they lost their jobs.

They lost their jobs because people who had power in the organization knew how to manipulate the system, and it wasnt all by themselves, they had alot of help covering their tracks. Which makes reporting it a bit trickier when more than one person is involved - or could be if you are the one reporting. Not for legalities sake, but for the sake of having a decent work environment and still being able to work with everyone there.

I dont see how you expect for those responsible to have been caught before this happened, its like you are hoping for a scenario out of "Minority Report" - where they arrest you before any action has been taken, but because you might in the future then they can arrest you. If that is the case, they could arrest most any person in a job of influence because the temptation, opportunity and resources are there for them to take advantage of.

No one wants to risk their job - especially a good one, and Im sure whoever did is not sure about her actions still. It affected a lot more than just the employees, but the entire economics of the area.

It sucks - and they put up new measures on corporations because of this to help prevent it from happening again. Should they have been there? Why would they have been? No organization has ever completely fabricated their financial statements like this that I know of... and took the community, employees and shareholders by surprise.


That is exactly my point if no one had dropped a dime on them, they prolly would still be doing what they where doing, and would have got caught later. Of course, no one wants to lose their job, but thats the difference between a leader and a follower. If people never stood up for what was right instead of sitting there being afraid of people that were "powerful" we would have never had people like MLK Jr., Nelson Mendela, or Ghandi. Some people who worked at Enron lost everything, including their retirement money. I'm not talking about arresting people before they commit a crime, I'm talking about people who didnt want to lose their jobs, or be the one to rock the boat, so they just sat there letting it happen like idiots. Maybe something could have been done sooner, maybe these people losing their jobs could have been prevented.

So, I guess people think it's better to sit down and do nothing, then to stand up and do something about it.
#47 Feb 24 2006 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
Condaleeza Rice goes t6o see her Doctor complaining of Chest Hair.

She opens the top of her blouse to reveal a mat of wiry black hair.

"My word Ms Ric. How far down does it go?" says the Doctor.

"All the way to my ****"
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#48 Feb 24 2006 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Nobby wrote:
bodhisattva wrote:
Condaleeza Rice goes t6o see her Doctor complaining of Chest Hair.

She opens the top of her blouse to reveal a mat of wiry black hair.

"My word Ms Ric. How far down does it go?" says the Doctor.

"All the way to my ****"

Still sexy!
#49 Feb 24 2006 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
kalaria wrote:
That is exactly my point if no one had dropped a dime on them, they prolly would still be doing what they where doing, and would have got caught later. Of course, no one wants to lose their job, but thats the difference between a leader and a follower. If people never stood up for what was right instead of sitting there being afraid of people that were "powerful" we would have never had people like MLK Jr., Nelson Mendela, or Ghandi. Some people who worked at Enron lost everything, including their retirement money. I'm not talking about arresting people before they commit a crime, I'm talking about people who didnt want to lose their jobs, or be the one to rock the boat, so they just sat there letting it happen like idiots. Maybe something could have been done sooner, maybe these people losing their jobs could have been prevented.


I actually think that's a pretty naive assessment of the Enron issue. Are you aware of what Enron was actually doing? It's not like there was a vast conspiracy to siphon money out of the company or anything. I'm not aware of any embezzelment that went on during the late 90s with this company or it's execs. What they were doing was using questionable accounting practices to make it appear as though they were more successful then they really were. All of which would have been fine except that the market started to flatten and they suddenly didn't have enough operating capital to continue running.

Their actions weren't actually illegal or even unethical until some execs, realizing that they couldn't conceal the financial problems of the company much longer began selling off stock while continuing to conceal the problems for as long as possible so they could avoid SEC investigations. While I'm not defending their choice of action at all (especially not the selling of stock while hiding the true economic status of the company), the "honest" approach would have required that they sell of parts of the company, and likely downsize (that's another word for laying off a bunch of people). People would have lost jobs either way, but at least *some* of them might not have.

The real victims in the Enron deal were the investors who were lied to about the value of the company. Additionally, Enron tried to recoup some losses by raising prices through their subdivisions, resulting to some degree in increased prices to energy customers. Honestly, at the time, the accounting practices they used weren't illegal. If they hadn't also run into a period of low profits, it's likely that no one would have noticed or cared. It didn't become criminal until the last 6 months or so when execs started selling stock before it crashed based on knowledge that wasn't shared with the public (which *is* illegal).

Heck. The company I work for used similar accounting practices during that time period. The difference being that we made a bunch of money in the late 90s, so the situation never came up where execs might even have to think about concealing a failing company. Since that time, the SEC has changed some rules regarding reporting of profits so that the loopholes Enron was using don't exist. Yeah. It was a bad thing, but the company didn't fail because of criminal behavior by its execs. It failed for other reasons, and the criminal behavior was a reaction to that failure. I think it's critically important to realize that. This wasn't a case of evil businessmen ******** over the little guy. This was a case of normal busisnessmen, suddenly realizing that their company was going to fold, and making a really poor decision...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Feb 25 2006 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
**
836 posts
Quote:
I actually think that's a pretty naive assessment of the Enron issue.


Some of the head people at Enron knew that the company was in trouble, didnt tell anyone, so they cashed out, and left the other unsuspecting people to lose almost everything.

Quote:
This wasn't a case of evil businessmen ******** over the little guy. This was a case of normal busisnessmen, suddenly realizing that their company was going to fold, and making a really poor decision...


If it wasn't the case they would have told other people within the company. Poor decision my azz, if they really cared about the little people they wouldn't be in court. Since it was just an honest mistake they would have just pleaded guilty, instead of going through a trial. I understand people make mistakes, but an act like the Enron issue was done on purpose, the didn't give a ****.

Read this:

Edited, Sat Feb 25 21:14:11 2006 by kalaria

Edited, Sat Feb 25 21:14:50 2006 by kalaria[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61253-2005Feb28.html]


Edited, Sat Feb 25 21:28:45 2006 by kalaria

Edited, Sat Feb 25 21:32:30 2006 by kalaria
#51 Mar 02 2006 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
The ONLY thing that really bother me about this UAE govermemtn owned company, is that they have some mandate that rejects any trade with Israel.


This thing is still pretty heated over here.

Now they have conceded and are allowing a 45 day investigation.. however, the deal will go on as expected.


I mean really, I can see the point of the nay-sayers... being that 95% of our cargo is not actually inspected... only the manifest is looked at.. it just really seems that this does add more to the risk factor of a security breach in our already POORLY guarded Ports.


I think the figure is a few billion dollars were put into the AirLines.. nad somting like 30 Million was put into Shipping..

Maybe I'm the only one concerned cause I live on the water.
but in reality.. I think that we've always been vulnerable here.. so this is just another straw on the camels back.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 322 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (322)