What is Digg?150 Comments
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+102"...or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime."
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+82Props to Leahy. The profiteering going on in Iraq is disgusting.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+75Gee, the Republicans held control of congress since the start of the war until now.
Why didn't they think of come up with something like this?
Oh yeah, the fukers have been on the shame the whole time, that's why!
Democrats are barely in the new congress and they are cleaning up.
America is now on the right foot. Now, we just need to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Let's get it started. Get the word out ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/1585028665/left/842507 - holotone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Between this and limiting / killing corporate donations, the Dems might win my respect yet..
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46not just iraq.
- migbike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44There are some serious conflict of interest issues when companies that stand to make money from war have direct ties and links to people in Government that sway decisions on whether or not we declare war.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Thank you! That's almost the best part, but i ran out of room in the story description.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40why not just make it illegal to profit off of war at all? our troops might be enjoying better food, armor, strategies... hell, they might have never had to go to iraq at all.
- barneytoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35we can make room by letting some of the minor pot sellers out.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35Bush is going to veto this bill so fast ...
- StarCrusher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2320 years in prison? If they decide to actually enforce this, we're going to need a lot more prisons.
- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23This is the kind of just and courageous legislation this country needs. Though the cynic in me denies it will ever pass.
- verifex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Democrats set to win the hearts and minds of disillusioned Americans!
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19If you have stock with war profiteers you might want to diversify in your portfolio.
The Center for Corporate Policy's Ten Worst War Profiteers of 2004:
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/topten2004list.htm
The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/
If you read these articles you will understand that accountablity is compatible with justice.
Thank you, Sen. Leahy, let the investigations begin. - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15should be easy enough to build and support them given the money made from those fines
- trer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15War profiteering is one the most sickening crimes ever.
Making money at the expense of so many human lives. It's disgusting. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Not if we legalize pot, then there will be PLENTY of room!
- AggieTales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@nixonrichard
Thats not what the wording is saying, its saying that it applies to US companies that do war business overseas. Again, this only applies to US Companies, so there is no extension of "dominance," if they didn't include this wording, then the profiters could just claim that since the work was done in Iraq, they're outside the US's jurisdiction to prosecute for profiteering. - PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21If they removed all profitability from war then no one would build the planes, weapons, armor, etc since they can't make a profit off it. The problems come when they make excess profit at the expense of quality. I won't fault a company for wanting to make a profit, that's why they are in business in the first place, but if they take advantage of a contract and gouge it and have unnecessary spending of the US tax payers dollars not authorized by the contract is where I see the problem would begin. Like Haliburton charging 3 times the cost of product and shipping for products they have a contract to supply, such as potable water.
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13If there isn't going to be any profiteering; I'm not going to support any more wars.
War? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, now, thanks to Sen. Leahy. - fuckingstudent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11more importantly the US might just BEGIN to win some miniscule amount of global respect back
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Neo-Con Response: "This is *****. President George W. Bush, the administration and the GOP-controlled congress were doing such a good job protecting this fine country from terrorists (especially homeland ones) and making sure we don't run out of oil. They deserve a little extra bonus for their outstanding job. They also don't need to be checked on. Who needs to be watched are those damn kids with the blogs and anti-American opinions."
- thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@nixonrichard
You are right that there has always been fraud, and it is illegal, but there really wasn't much of a deterrent before besides jailtime. If a company committing a crime knows they will be fined $100,000,000.00 for an offense, all they would need to do is make $250,000,000 from the offense. All this legislation really does is provide tougher fines for those who want to commit corporate crimes (two times the given amount). Better deterrent, IMO. - IrwinFletcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I thought it already was illegal. But then again common sense and the US Government don't always go hand-in-hand.
- zombiedepot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7just don't try to board a plane wearing one
- Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Not if they limited to the scope of what is described. He is in too much water not to pass that one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Man i wish i could profit on a war. I think ill start selling antibush t-shirts
- AggieTales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7War profiteering is not simply making a profit off of war goods provided, its charging an unreasonable price with the goal of making an extraordinary profit.
- lovethebomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6dang, Leahy is runing this war for everyone. I just bought stock in GE and now it's gonna tank.
Thanks a lot! If you can't make a profit off the mass murder of civilians with massively overpriced useless armament, then what it the point? 25 million for retreads on the bradley vehicle, not designed for desert use. Each vehicle requires new treads every month. Can you think of any vehicle that requires a 25 mil dollar service every month? Wow, that is some great gouging. Gotta love it. Now watch this drive . . . - Lane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Rules of Acquisition #34. "War is good for business"
- JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As I predicted, Republican scum are going to pin the Iraqi loss on the Dixie Chicks, libs, and the Democratic Congress. Just like they pinned the Vietnam debacle on anti-war protesters and Jane Fonda. Whiny little Nazis keep saying "just give us 5 more years and a trillion dollars - we'll win this thing, whatever it is."
- zeebusboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Doesn't this de facto make the Republican party illegal.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6We got prison space for these turds care of Halliburton's secret $375 million govt contract to build all those hidden detention centers.
- michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5no but its a start. We're not trying to create the perfect union here.
We're shooting for the more perfect union. - bighed213, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Islam isn't the enemy.
- calbff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@nixonrichard:
There's a difference between engaging in war for the purpose of securing something for yourself or protecting your way of life, and supporting a war that someone else is fighting so you can make a pile of money from the associated death of people without having to risk your own life. Two very different situations.
@trer
I couldn't agree more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4whats the difference between this and just regular old fraud? do we really need a law for that because I thought we already did.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hell, Halliburton's already built a load of them: http://www.google.com/search?q=halliburton+prison+camps
edit: damn! InetRoadkill already said it... but there's a link anyway. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My problem is not making profit from war, but from leveraging the government to bilk tax payers out of billions. Take Cheney - head of Halliburton - then he becomes VP, low and behold, he awards contracts to Halliburton. Despite Fox News defending him, Cheney does profit from this and will profit in the future. Eiesenhower would not be happy. Cheney can't just temporarily claim he sold his interest, he shouldn't be allowed to be VP and award contracts. This is a conflict of interest, plain and simple. If we can lock up people like Cheney, this world will be a better place. After the last election, I think most people would love to see Cheney behind bars.
- Chilllllion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For all the "hard to prove/proof" comments, a lot of crimes are hard to prove, that why lawyers go to law school.
- AggieTales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Fraud is simply misrepresenting the price/quality of the services, while profiteering is making an unreasonable profit off of the service.
- buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Seems fair to me and not an over reaching of our power, since it only applies to people who have made an agreement to provide services to the people of the United States and then ripped us off instead of providing the agreed upon service.
This only applies to people who entered into a contract with the United States and then over billed the people of the United States for the contracted service. It should apply anywhere to anyone no matter where they are when they sign the agreement or how far they flee if they violate the agreement.
Don't want to get caught ripping off the American people? Then charge a fair price for the agreed upon service.
Or just don't try to rip us off.
Any other option and you will fail. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[quote]a country electing Muslims to congress.[/quote]
Maybe we'll finally work our way up to electing some atheists. You have to ask yourself why everyone is expected to swear on some sort of religious text when they get elected.
Screw all this Judeo-Christian mumbo jumbo. - Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dems, Rock on, and keep on rockin!
- klaruz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It would only affect him if he said the boat would do what it was supposed to, then didn't. Or he bribed somebody to use his boat. Or if he agreed to one price, then doubled it. Or if he got the contract without anybody else bidding on it. Or if he charged to ship his boats, but didn't actually need to ship them. And on and on and on.
Doing government contract work for a war isn't what they're after. The word you're looking for is Fraud. There are already laws against it, and everybody agrees with it, it's just not enforced well in the area because there's lots of money to be made. - cranium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I guess it's time for Michael Moore to finally sell off his Halliburton stock.
Wartime profiteering indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"why not just make it illegal to profit off of war at all?"
Because the companies that manufacture the items purchased by the government are not charity organizations. They are in business to make money. Jacking up the prices due to a war is wrong and should be punished, but if you were required as a business to sell your products at cost to the government, would you do it? - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3so you're saying that these businesses wouldn't contribute to the national defense of the very country in which they do business?
i bet we'd have enough planes, body armor, etc. for something like world war ii, but you're probably right that we wouldn't have had the means to invade iraq... maybe not such a bad idea after all. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This one hits Bush where it hurts most.
The Dems are showing more backbone and leadership than I thought on this.
Props. - blitzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Does anyone really think that any new law is going to magically make government programs honest, efficient and accountable? They couldn't even make it work under Stalin with the death penalty for such.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is