Halliburton, KBR Burn Pit Suit Thrown Out by U.S. Judge
Halliburton Co. (HAL) and KBR Inc. are en led to the same legal protection as U.S. armed forces when serving as military contractors, a judge ruled, dismissing claims over so-called burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. District Judge Roger us threw out 57 consolidated lawsuits against the companies brought mainly by military personnel who claim they suffered damaging health effects from exposure to the contractors’ pits, where items including medical waste, paints and pesticides are burned in war zones.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...u-s-judge.html
the imperial corporatocracy is untouchable, protected by the compliant judiciary, no matter how murderous, poisonous their activities.
Hmm... strange ruling. I mean, I thought the whole point of hiring contractors was that you could sue them if they screwed up. It's not like the military can demote them. , what's the point of a contract if a judge is just going to throw it out? Glad it's getting appealed.
No.
The whole point of hiring contractors was so Clinton could also make claim to reducing the military.
you always think man is trying to get you
Halliburton is Military.
Not when it comes to making a claim of reducing the military forces.
gutted the military, or was only faking it? you can't really have it both ways.
I remember when I was in, the 5 year reduction of forces put in place by president Bush (41). My job was one that was eliminated, and replaced by civilian contract. It was a fixed station electronics technician job. This was understandable to do after the end of the cold war. There were also several divisions of combat forces dismantled. Much of the military was truly reduced, and some of it replaced by civilian contract. Now Clinton didn't reduce combat troops, or replace fixed location support units. He replaced the supply chain and food chain. This was his claim to fame. This is why we had so many supply problems and food related problems. I was aware of one location that the troops were not getting food resupplyment. The contractors wouldn't go to some areas in Iraq. One letter I read described the troops being rationed to one MRE a day, so they had food until they execrated a shipment to arrive. If I recall, they only had one meal a day for over three weeks. These contractors held out for six digit figures before returning to work. Would have never happened with a military supply chain.
Clinton's move didn't save . He was able to campaign on reducing the military forces. That's it. In the end, paying the contractors is more expensive.
privatization proved wasteful, essentially?
!One letter I read described the troops being rationed to one MRE a day, so they had food until they execrated a shipment to arrive
When the truck drivers, supply handlers, and cooks get 6 digits in pay, sometimes more than $200k annual, what do you think?
never heard it put quite that way.
btw, it's a way stronger defense of Clinton than I expected from you: the crappy contractors let everyone down.
There should have never been contractors in the first place that could walk off such key jobs. If a military person walks off the job in wartime, they are a deserter.
lol outsourcing to deny certain benefits but they come back and bite in you in the ass
The vast privatization of Iraq/Afghanistan as a war profiteering project was done under dubya, head, rummy
After collapse of the Soviet Empire, there should have been and was a "peace dividend" of military reduction, which is exactly what THE REPUGS are saying now their sequestration is "achieving" with military cuts post-Iraq/Afghanistan.
Bull . You don't know . Bush was forced to up the pay and types of contractors because of the contracts put in place under Clinton.
Repugs "forced" to dump/waste tax payer $10Bs on war-profiteering contractors?Your blind ideology makes you dumb as .
\\Repugs "forced" to dump/waste tax payer $10Bs on war-profiteering contractors?
Man you are blinded. I feel sorry for you.
Shazbot.
Look at when Halliburton replaced US military in key support jobs.
It was during the Clinton era.
You go to war with the military you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Wow, that's stupid and shameful. But, it's per par tbh. Government contractors have held expansive influence since Clinton and continued with subsequent administrations under the (false) pretense that it was less expensive and easier to sever ties.
So back to the OP, does anyone else think these companies should be immune from prosecution?
I hate to say it, but there were no contracts from the Clinton era when we went into Iraq. All of the staging areas (e.g. Kuwait) and the country itself were under the LOGCAP contract; billions in support services.
No one administration is less culpable for the environment than another.
It used to be contractors did not go into hostile areas. Staging areas, yes. I see you didn't look at the history of LOGCAP prior to making your post. That program was actually implemented in the 80's I think. Contracts changed as previous ones expired, and during the Desert Storm, contractors were delivering in the war zone.
That is absolute taboo in my book.
I agree it's taboo, but my point was to say that the Bush administration was not free of guilt for using it expansively and wasting millions on sub-par performance.
By the way, I know the history of LOGCAP. The funding mechanism has been in-place since the 80's and we're now on our fourth iteration of it. My deployment overseas was specifically to monitor the support contracts we're referring to, so I'm very familiar with the contract type and the most recent contractors executing them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
