Talk:EDO Corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unencyclopedic tone
Clarifying the reason for the removal of the the negative material. The criticism section needs to be rewritten. Removing this material is not vandalism and should not be call that by the editors that are re-inserting the highly critical material. Several sections are written with a tone that is unencyclopedic. For example "exposed" is not a neutral word but one meant to cause a negative impression. The criticism sections are much too long and detailed. The long quotes are not appropriate for a general encyclopedia article.
These problems need to be addressed so that the article is well balanced and does not seen read as an attack piece. FloNight talk 20:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Response of DEF-1: I think that FloNight's use of the word 'unencylopedic' is a value judgement that assumes that 'encyclopedic' must be undetailed. Perhaps that was the case for old media encyclopedia that were limited by pages but on the net length and detail is not an issue.
If the article had been shorter and without the detail and independent references FloNight would probably have edited it because it was not significant enough and did not have reliable sources of factual information.
Criticism is unlikely to be taken kindly by those who are exposed to it, or those who support them for whatever political or ideological reasons. It is not possible to outline a critical argument that says that EDO are accused of war crimes by people in the UK, without it sounding negative. The article is written in as neutral a point of view as possible taking into consideration the gravity of the crimes EDO are accused of.
However I agree that there are always improvements that can be made and I will do my best to revise the article so that it reflects the factual materials in the public domain. DEF-1
3rd August 06 -have replaced vandalised sections again. EDO whitewash reverted.def-1
4th Aug 06- Again have reverted to previous page that contains criticism sections. 'EDOhere' will not talk about it and has wiped my request fro discussion from his/her talk page Def-1
[edit] Criticism section
Need to start over writing a more concise Criticism section using a more encyclopedic tone. FloNight talk 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this revert by FloNight is extreme and totally unjustified. Criticism is written in an objective manner and all facts are backed up by independent sources as the rules require(or will be eventually) Please restore the work you have vandalised or I will do so myself. --Def1
I have replaced vandalised sections. Flonight has not responded to any of my requests to talk about this. I do not want an edit-war. Its also difficult to write criticism without a 'negative tone'.Def-1
1st August 06- I have restored again vandalised sections wiped by EDONEWS and EDOTRUTH and one other. No justification is given for the changes. It just seems that these wiki users don't want any criticism of EDO Corporation on this page. I have not touched the contributions by others in the rest of the article. Def-1
[edit] WP:3RR
Hello Editors of this article, Wikipedia has a policy against an editor reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. A editor that reverts more than 3 times may be blocked from editing. This prevents edit wars and makes the article stable. If you continue to revert the article I will ask another administrator to block you. I will not do it myself because I have edited the article.
The proper way to resolve the content conflict is to discuss the content on the talk page of the article. I'm going to try and find some more editors to help re-write the criticism section because it currently does met Wikipedia content standards. Take care, FloNight talk 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
--- Hello FloNight,
I think finding others to help edit the criticism section is a fine idea so long as they do not wipe out the criticisms altogether as has been done several times now, by EDOhere and most recently by IP 63.151.157.186 which just so happens to be registered to EDO Corp in New York. I think this shows who behind the vandalism. EDO want to suppress free speech-even reliably and independently sourced free speech. EDO tried to ban public demonstrations of protest in the UK (see criticism section)and now they trying to whitewash wikipedia. I will return criticism section to its proper place. DEF1 (4 August 2006)
- The criticism sections need to be blanked and began anew. Some of the same material can be included but it needs to be rewrittnen to make it more encyclopedic and less like an investigative journalism. An encyclopedia article needs to hit the high points about all matters instead of going into detail about certain content and leaving other content out. IMO, all editors currently writing this article are not here to write an encyclopedia article, but here solely to add content that fits their point of view. That is the reason that we need different editors if the article is going to meet WP:NPOV. --FloNight talk 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
vandalism by EDOtruth fixed 81.98.157.111 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
vandalism by EDotruth fixed again 81.98.157.111 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Communication
I restored most of the text with some minor cleanup, since at least some of the material appears historically significant. I did rewrite some of the more visible nonneutral edit summaries, but have yet to extensively look into the entry in its entirety. At a glance, I do find striking problems with the article. Many of the sections are textually imbalanced, are in gross noncompliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and lack concision. The plain link sources need to be converted into ref format (so we can see the titles/date/source in full at the bottom), a more neutral, matter-of-fact tone is also needed, and the overreliance on quotations must be greatly reduced. But before any of these issues can even begin to be addressed, the sterile edit war needs to end, with the contesting parties turning to the talk page (the participants need to sign their names after comments for clear attribution). Also, back and fourth reversions are discouraged, especially in light of the virtually total absence of edit summaries. If a compromise fails, please follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution process. Thx in advance. El_C 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm dissapointed to see that reverts continue without any attempt at discussion. El_C 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Raytheon#Controversies and litigation as an ex. for what the criticism section/s should look like. El_C 19:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see El C has taken an interest in this page. The changes have improved the article in many respects but the section on the Injunction case needs to be restored at least so it makes some kind of sense, which has sadly been lost. As for the edit war, the aggression is clearly all coming from EDOtruth1 who continues to vandalise the criticism sections of the article with complete whitewashing. I am happy to enter into discussions with EDOtruth on the content of this page, but EDOtruth prefers simply to refer to comments of another editor - Flonight, as some kind of justification for all the vandalism done. this clearly does not accord with the rules or ethos of wikipedia. I note that there has been no reprisals by myself on the obviously onesided material at the start of the article even though it is also open to dispute. I will continue to make improvements to the article depsite the attacks of EDOtruth1 . EDOresearcher 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- We need to start a major cleanup of the entry, that is the first priority. The usernames of the contesting parties obviously imply single purpose editing, which usually means lack of exposure to the standards set for Wikipedia articles. This outside-the-purpose familiarization process nonetheless is something EDOtruth & EDOresearcher need to attend to. Thanks in advance. El_C 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am concerned by the undiscussed mass deletions by User:EDOtruth1 (presumably User:EDOtruth. I will roll back these changes and semi-protect to encourage discussion, rather than mass deletion, but newly registered users. Guy 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Working to Improve It
El C is right - this entry needs cleanup all around. Wikipedia standards and Wikipedia feedback on similar entries will be followed as closely as possible. -- Seafront 12 December 2006
[edit] Removed items and reasons why
First, many of the items in the 'Criticism' section are just that. Some cleanup is required to remove words such as criticism, failed, lucrative, sacked, and information that will be cited as not true. Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge, is meant to be informative and not a place to focus on issues some writers have turned into scandals. The "Criticism" items do seem bizarre when compared to numerous other companies, similar business and not. -- Seafront 12 December 2006
Lets begin with the comment below. First and most importantly the link 1 which is cited does not work. The item itself is not balanced and very one sided and does not belong "as is" in the article. -- Seafront 12 December 2006
EDO President James M. Smith and the 2006 Executive Excess Report On 30th August 2006, EDO Corporation Chairman, CEO, and President, James M. Smith, was named in a report produced by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, entitled 'Executive Excess'. Smith was reported as having received one of the highest percentage pay rises of any CEO in America, as a direct result of the 'War on Terror' since 2001. His total compensation in 2006 currently stands at $1.8 million dollars per year, up from $893,200 dollars in 2001. [1] In July 2006 Smith filed SEC data showing he had sacked 400 workers at a factory in California after his management team had failed to secure a lucrative contract for anti-IED devices. In September 2003 EDO was listed by Fortune magazine as number 10 in the top 100 fastest growing companies in the US. [2] EDO have failed to make the top 100 at all in recent years because of financial troubles, brought about in no small part by a campaign of anti-war protest in Brighton, UK, which has cost EDO Corporation over 100 million dollars in market value since April 2006. [citation needed]
[edit] Item 2
Forgive me for not having proper formats at times, but I am focusing more on the content. Again, the term scandal is used here. But lets get more in depth. This entire document is commentary - ex. dumb politicians, controversy has arisen, lucrative. First Wikipedia mentions that quoting articles at length is not a good tactic. Some of it digresses to other issues and makes assumptions. Please separate the commentary and shorten it up. I look forward to reaching a middle ground here. -- Seafront 12 December 2006
The 'Earmark' contracts scandal EDO Corporation have made payments from its Political Action Committee, to the political funds of both, Republican Party and Democratic Party candidates, but these have tended to be to dumb politicians, who are on important government military defense and procurement committees. Controversy has arisen over contributions, to Senators Hilary Clinton, Charles Schumer and Congressman Steven Israel, who have then backed 'earmarked' government military contracts for EDO Corporation, soon afterwards. On December 27th 2005 The New York Sun reported that:
Many of the companies and executives who won earmarks this year donated money not only to Senator Clinton, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and to Mr. Schumer, but also to Mr. Israel. And several of those designated for earmarks gave to members of the Joint Defense Appropriations Conference Committee]], which wrote the New York projects into the defense spending bill.
On 20 September 2006, the New York Sun reported EDO had gained further lucrative government defense contacts after giving financial donations to Washington insiders. [3]
[edit] Item 3
These sections read more like a Partnership Section and maybe we can work on setting that up. Then again the Cohen Group does not need to be its own part of the EDO article. Just random notes now, but it is already mentioned that EDO supplies sonar equipment. Two of EDO's board members are named here and that's a great idea and in time it can be its own section. I ask though, what is the end purpose of the information below?
Let's hope El C or another wikipedia member can help us out on all of these issues. -Seafront 6 December 2006
Relations with the Cohen Group EDO Corp. also has two directors employed in senior positions with the Cohen Group set up by the former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a former Republican senator appointed by Bill Clinton. The President and CEO of the Cohen Group is EDO Corp. director Robert S. Tyrer while its senior counselor, is a retired general and now also an EDO Corp director, Paul J. Kern. The Cohen Group is employed as a lobby group in Washington by the largest defence companies in the world, including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Rolls-Royce and many other international corporations, including Alcoa and Bechtel, to influence the US federal government in the interests of the arms industry, and other corporate interests. [4]
Israeli subsidiary According to SEC filings as recently as 1998 EDO Corporation had a subsidiary company in Israel, called EDO Operations (Israel) Ltd. Since 1998, EDO no longer list the company as a subsidiary. [5] At the Farnborough Airshow 2006, EDO publicized the fact that they directly deal with the Israeli arms company Elta. [6] EDO Technical Services Operations client list includes the Israeli Ministry of Defense. [7] EDO Corp use at least one Israeli sub-contarctor to manufacture components inside Israel. [8] EDO Corp supply the Israeli Navy sonar equipment. [9] In 2001 EDO were granted a sole source contract to supply spare parts for the Israeli F15I. Through its UK subsidiary EDO MBM Technology Ltd, EDO supply equipment for the Israeli F16 fighter, notably the Zero Retention Force Arming Units for the F16 VER-2 bomb rack. (see below)
[edit] Item 4
The content here seems to be more of a personal attack (prohibited by Wikipedia) on one individual. This is a company summary. If not, what then prohibits someone else from coming in and writing the entire life story about every board member or top executive who has ever been in the news. Adding to this, the incidents listed below occurred before Kern joined EDO. And then the article goes off on a tangent about the appalling Abu Ghraib incident. -- Seafront
Allegations of war crimes: Abu Ghraib and Titan Corporation While still serving in the US military General Paul Kern]] was appointed by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to report on an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. In September 2004 he produced a written statement largely absolving the military hierarchy of blame for the torture and sexual abuse. [10] Kern blamed the torture in part on the civilian contractors working with military intelligence services in the prison. One of the companies involved was identified as Titan Corporation, a contractor which supplies technology and 'civilian interogators' to military intelligence. (The company has close links to the US intelligence community. Former CIA director James Woolsey has served on its board of directors.) However Kern did not advise that Titan Corporation should be charged with any criminal offence. The full Taguba Report into the investigation was kept secret until it was leaked and is now available here. Several low ranking US soldiers were convicted of torture, and imprisoned as a result of the investigations. Meanwhile Titan Corporation sacked one of their employees Adel Nakhla who had admitted holding down prisoners who were being tortured. Another Titan employee John Israel, a 'civilian interogator/interpreter' identified by the Taguba Report as one of the four main people believed to have been responsible for the torture is suspected by some journalists including Robert Fisk of being an Israeli agent. [11][12]
Kern retired shortly after the report came out and in January 2005 joined EDO Corporation as a director. Two of the other ten EDO Corporation directors who helped to elect him, James Roth and Robert M. Hanisee, were, and remain directors of Titan Corporation and as directors are open to charges of collusion and direct involvement in war crimes according to US Law, but they have not been prosecuted by the United States legal system. However despite a lack of political will by the US Government to prosecute them Titan Corporation and CACI are nonetheless defendants in a civil action brought by victims of the torture in Abu Ghraib Prison. [13] [14] Also in 2005, Titan Corp. admitted bribery charges after it paid 2 million dollars into the re-election fund of the President of Benin, Mathieu Kérékou. [15] Kern is also a member of the Cohen Group which has as its CEO another EDO Corp director, Robert S. Tyrer.
[edit] Item 5
This is not about the Joint Strike Fighter or a contract. Information with a headline like that should include more information about the aircraft, products, etc. Also the section is not written with a neutral POV. Seafront 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Joint Strike Fighter contract Lieutenant General Kenne spent 32 years in the United States Air Force. In 1997 she was appointed Director of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, the US Department of Defense's largest ever military acquisition program with a budget of $30 billion. EDO Corporation was awarded the sole source contract for the bomb release mechanisms for the Joint Strike Fighter. Although she was expected to rise in rank, Kenne resigned from the USAF in September 2003 and shortly afterwards joined the board of directors of EDO Corporation. [citation needed]
[edit] Item 6
This piece is all over the place. Again, a majority of the lengthly section focuses on one person, Blair. However, it is a recent event that mentioned the company and therefore part of this section's information was left in the article. Again as in the previous sections, a lot of information was quoted at length even though links to the referenced materials already exist. It also contained conflicting information. It says that Blair did not quit the "military contractors" and then it says he did. He left EDO before leaving IDA. Seafront 21:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
EDO Director Dennis C. Blair and the EDO-IDA scandal
On 25 July 2006, the Washington Post, published an article by R. Jeffrey Smith and Renae Merlethat, [16] that details links between, a think tank, Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) which had been commissioned as an 'independent' advisor to the Pentagon, and a director of EDO Corp., former US military commander, and former associate Director of the CIA for Military Support Dennis Blair, who was also the president of IDA. The article was based on evidence, gathered by a non profit corruption watchdog, called the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) that had published a detailed report on the same day, entitled "Preying on The Taxpayer: The F22 Raptor." This report details evidence of a conflict of interest, between IDA and EDO Corporation. [17]
EDO is an important sub contractor on the F22 program, being the sole supplier for the F22 AMRAAM vertical ejection launcher. As a director who owned shares in the company Dennis Blair arguably stood to gain from any decision by Congress to extend the F22 program. On 27th July 2006, the Washington Post reported, that Dennis Blair had told them in letters that he would resign from the board of EDO Corporation, 'as soon as possible', because of the revelations. [18] Dennis Blair then submitted his letter of resignation on 31st July 2006. On 13 September 2006, the Washington Post reported that Dennis Blair had resigned his position as President of the Institute of Defence Analysis (IDA) after its trustees had found that a conflict of interest had occurred. Blair was asked to give up his other paid positions with military contractors but he refused and instead chose to give up his position of President of IDA, demonstrating a preference for profit making directorships above the non-profit Pentagon funded think tank position at IDA. [19]
On 20 September 2006, Rolling Stone magazine published an article on the story entitled "Another Tale of Waste and Fraud Unpunished." [20] On 28th September 2006 The New York Times reported that the F22 multiyear contract had been agreed by Congress despite opposition from Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the present and future chairmen of top US Govt military procurement committtees. The NYT suggested that the military industrial lobby that pushed the F22 multiyear programme was more powerful than the elected officials who oversee government military spending including the President of the United States himself. [21]. On 1 December 2006 the Washington Post reported that the US Inspector General had found-paradoxically-that even though Blair had indeed acted in conflict of interest by working for both EDO and IDA at the same time, his actions had not affected the IDA report into the F22. [1]
[edit] Item 7
Not even the World Trade Organization lists every time there was a protest on there wikipedia article. Why should such detailed information be listed in detail in the article?
On 21 September 2006, protesters blockaded the EDO MBM factory in Brighton for several hours forcing the Managing Director Paul Hills to scale a security fence to enter the premises. He then used an angle grinder or wire cutters to cut a hole in the EDO's fence to let the employees in to work. The protesters left the scene without being arrested [2][3]. On 16th September 2006, 100 protesters marched through Brighton to deliver a petition calling for the closure of EDO MBM to Brighton Town Hall. [4]On 23 August 2006 two protesters climbed 40 feet onto the roof of EDO MBM Technology Ltd to unfurl a banner protesting at the company's supply of weapons to Israel used in the Qana, war crime where 16 Lebonese children were massacred. [5] .On 19th July 2006 protesters staged a 'Horrors of War' demonstration outside the Brighton factory recreating scenes of violence and mutilation that result from aerial bombardment.[6] On the morning of 17th July 2006, three activists completely blockaded [7][8] EDO's Brighton, United Kingdom subsidiary EDO MBM Technology Ltd in protest at EDO’s supply of weapons technology to the Israeli military being used to attack Gaza and in the then ongoing 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]]. These are just the latest actions in an ongoing campaign of protest, civil disobedience and non-violent direct action against EDO in Brighton that began in 2004 and has come to be known as the Smash EDO [9] campaign. There has been at least one demonstration a week outside the factory since 2004, and the number of protests against the EDO MBM since 2004 now numbers in the hundreds.-->
[edit] Item 8
Sales to the Israel Defense Forces
EDO MBM Technology Ltd advertise the fact that they 'actively manufacture' [22] the Zero Retention Force Arming Unit, a component that includes as a 'current application' the 'IAF VER-2' bomb rack. [23] The EDO MBM Zero Retention Force Arming Unit is an essential part of the Israeli Military Industries (IMI) VER-2 Bomb Rack, which is now made by a subsidiary of Elbit Systems in Israel. [24]
A Janes Defence Weekly (JDW) article, in June 1996, stated that "Israel’s F16s use VER-2 vertical ejection bomb racks made by Israeli Military Industries (IMI)." No evidence has been found that the VER-2 is used, by any air force, other than the Israeli Air Force. The VER-2 utilizes the EDO MBM Zero Retention Force Arming Unit as an essential part.
In Hove Crown Court in December 2005, the then managing director of EDO MBM, David Jones, admitted under oath that he had removed references to the VER-2 from the EDO MBM website, after protests began in Brighton in 2004 to avoid controversy. Despite this, reference can still be found on the sitemap page of the website. [25] In court, Jones denied that the company had ever made the VER-2. Jones claimed that EDO MBM had simply ‘licenced’ the design for the VER-2 from Israeli Military Industries, and were only ‘advertising the capability to make it’ on their website. Whatever the truth about the EDO MBM's involvement in the VER-2 it is clear from their website that EDO MBM do 'actively manufacture' and appear to be the sole manufacturer of the Zero Retention Force Arming Unit, and the VER-2 utilizes the EDO MBM Zero Retention Force Arming Unit as an essential part.
The VER-2 is the 'main bomb rack' of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) F16. Israel has used the General Dynamics Lockheed Martin F16 as its premier fighter and airstrike weapon since the 1980's,[26] and the aircraft has been used in what many believe to be war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon. [27] [28] [29]
[edit] Item 9
Someone came on this page earlier and suggested that all of the items now on the discussion page should be forked over to a new area as the article is not an "expose of the evil Edo company." But, I am trying to reach a middle ground here.
It is clear from the extensive writings about Brighton that these postings are due to current events there. And this is probably why it seems like the sections are being written from a single activist source. This wikipedia article needs to be updated to follow the wikipedia standards. It is not written in a NPoV. I will come back to it later. Seafront 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
EDO MBM and the United Nations Peace Messenger City of Brighton and Hove
EDO MBM was originally targeted by protesters because it represents the most direct link between the Iraq War the [[Occupation of Palestine and the UK city of Brighton and Hove. The city council was the first in the country to be awarded UN Peace Messenger City status and yet it owns the land, Home Farm Business Park, on which EDO MBM's factory stands. EDO rent the property through a third party company, Europa Holdings Ltd, who hold a 125 year lease on the section of the park where EDO has its factory. [30] [31] Till early 2005 the same lease was held by Cheshire County Council. EDO MBM provided essential arming and release components for the Raytheon Paveway 'smart munitions' used extensively in the shock and awe bombing by US/UK forces at the outset of the Iraq war. This led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. EDO MBM have been awarded a contract to provide components for the next generation Paveway IV 'fire and forget' smart bomb for the UK RAF.
As a result of the apparent contradiction of being a peace messenger city while being the landlord of an arms company, Brighton City Council in July 2005 came close to passing a motion of censure against EDO MBM. [32] At the end of a full (but closed) council meeting, the council eventually passed a watered down amendment to the motion that struck out all mention of the company and instead resolved to raise a UN peace flag above the town hall on one day each year. There have been numerous protests and direct actions since 2004 voicing the opinion that EDO MBM should close or convert its factory to civilian use. Protest actions have included road blockades, rooftop occupations, attempted weapons inspections, and two peace camps set up in woodland next to the factory. There have also been several large marchs through Brighton City Centre against EDO involving hundreds of protesters. In the process several arrests have been made by Sussex Police, mostly under public order legislation, but the resultant criminal trials have been used by protesters to highlight the unlawful activities of EDO MBM in their supply of equipment used in war crimes. Apart from in one trial for obstruction of the highway where protesters pleaded guilty, in every other case protesters have all been acquitted of charges against them, or had convictions overturned on appeal.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court brought into UK domestic law by the ICC Act makes it an offence for UK citizens and residents to act in complicity with war crimes and any War of Aggression that takes place anywhere in the world. In nearly all criminal trials, protesters against EDO MBM in the UK, have argued that the company is acting unlawfully by assisting war crimes, in particular those committed by the UK/US forces in Iraq and the Israeli forces in occupied Palestine. Magistrates in Brighton, have generally refused to acknowledge the argument, but have found other reasons to acquit the demonstrators. The ongoing campaign of protest, civil disobedience and non-violent direct action against EDO in Brighton that began in 2004 came to be known as the Smash EDO [33] campaign. There has been at least one demonstration a week outside the factory since 2004, and the number of protests against the EDO MBM since 2004 now numbers in the hundreds. [citation needed]
[edit] Item 10
Can I have some assistance in editing this down significantly! Seafront 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Injunction case: EDO MBM v Axworthy & Others
The ongoing protests led EDO MBM and its employees, in April 2005, to seek a permanent high court injunction against 14 named protesters and two protest groups Smash EDO and Bombs out Of Brighton, on grounds of harassment. [34] The intended injunction brought under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, applied to all protesters, not only those named in the court papers (who in any case strongly denied the allegations). The case created a public outcry because it was seen as a draconian, disproportionate and unjustified measure used by a US arms company to suppress the freedom to protest of UK anti-war protesters.
The High Court proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice, London also opened up a defence argument to the defendants of 'preventing war crimes', that allowed them to put forward evidence of EDO’s complicity in war crimes, and the International Criminal Court argument that was, for once, taken very seriously by the Court, when it had previously been dismissed by lower courts in Brighton. Although a defence argument that protesters could have been justified in harassing employees of the company to stop a war crime being committed, was rejected by the High Court in a preliminary issues trial of November 2005, on the grounds that such crimes could not be prevented over a long term but only in immediate actions to stop imminent and specific crimes, the High Court accepted that a further defense argument was open, and this was that if the protesters could show they were acting reasonably in the circumstances on the basis of an objective evidential test, then there was a defense that any harassment, if it had taken place, was justified in the circumstances.
The defendants had collated a dossier of evidence that outlined the links between EDO Corp. and war crimes which included statements given by witnesses in Palestine, as well as reports from journalists and human rights groups on war crimes in both Iraq and Palestine. A High Court judge had earlier praised the detailed document as 'admirable'. The document detailed incidents of war crimes related to air strikes on civilian areas and infrastructure in both Iraq and Palestine, and also argued that the attack and invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was itself illegal as a war of aggression in contravention of the UN Charter.
The barrister David Perry was instructed by the UK Govt Attorney-General Treasury Solicitors Office to defend the legality of the war on Iraq, and bolster EDO's case for the injunction. Perry described the protests and non-violent direct actions (NVDA) as 'a mask for anarchy' and suggested that the protesters belief that EDO MBM were complicit in war crimes was imaginary and even dangerous. The judge did not accept the argument that allowing for the honest belief of protesters that war crimes had taken place was illegitimate, or that if there was an imminent war crime that the protesters believed on reasonable grounds, about to take place, in which EDO were complicit, that preventative direct action could not be taken against them, without waiting for the authorities of the state to intervene.The ruling effectively allowed proportionate direct action against companies by protesters, if the threat of the crime is imminent and specific. (Independent barristers note on this point here...[10]). On the news of this judgment EDO Corporation's share price dropped dramatically on Wall Street in the following days.
The judge also rejected EDO Corporation's claim that even though there may well have been war crimes carried out with EDO's technology, the company was protected from prosecution as a supplier to the military by the Royal Prerogative which disallows the domestic courts from making judgements of government foreign policy.The judge compared the director of the EDO MBM to Bruno Tesch (Chemist) of the Zyclon B case [11], who was executed for assisting the genocidal policies of the Nazi regime in Germany in the 1940s.
In February 2006 in an out of court settlement several defendants who had been represented by lawyers funded by Legal Aidagreed that they would sign undertakings not to not do certain things (things that they had never done or had any intention of doing), on condition that defendants costs of the case were paid by EDO Corporation, and EDO also pay their own substantial costs, but most importantly of all, that the injunction against all other protesters, other than those in court, be lifted. This settlement effectively ended the blanket injunction against all protests at the EDO MBM factory in Brighton. It should be noted here that the legally represented defendants had no choice but to sign the undertaking because Legal Aid had become dependent on the offer of such a document by defendants to EDO, as a result of the nervousness of one QC employed by the defendants. The QC made the recommendation of such a settlement to the Legal Services Commission who themselves then made it a condition of continued funding. Legal funding would thus have been withdrawn from the defence case if the represented defendants had not signed the undertakings.
The legal action continued against three remaining defendants who refused to accept the condition of undertakings, or the large lump sums they were offered by EDO Corporation to sign them. EDO had hoped that these litigants in person would follow the lead of the lawyers, so that the company would not suffer the anticipated exposure of an abuse of process hearing against them that was a major factor in the out of court settlement.
If the trial had taken place the evidence of EDO's complicity in war crimes would have been brought to light, but EDO's legal team dropped the whole case before the trial started, after a damning High Court judgement in March 2006, where a judge agreed with complaints from the defendants, that EDO had failed to prepare for what had been ordered by the court to be a speedy trial. An earlier judge had decided the interim injunction created serious infringements of protester's ECHR human rights to free speech and association.-->EDO Corporation included agreed to pay the full costs to remaining defendants and discontinuance against all defendants who had not even come forward to fight the action which thereby prevented EDO from seeking default costs against these invisible individuals. [35]
As a result of the collapse of the year long court battle, EDO Corp. suffered huge legal costs. Their legal team, from the firm Lawson Cruttenden and Co, were found by the judge to have abused the legal process by delaying the full trial and thereby holding onto a temporary injunction that had been put in place before the trial would decide if a permanent one was needed. [36]
The legal costs of the injunction case led to an unexpected 1st quarter loss reported in EDO Corp.’s results published on 27 April 2006. [37] EDO has seen a market value drop of approximately 100 Million US Dollars over the next three months, or between 20-25% of their total market value. [38] On 17th July 2006 EDO Corp was listed by Forbes website in a monthly overview of its Beltway Index of stock performance as the worst performing stock of the past year. [39]
[edit] Item 11
What can be said at this point that has not been addressed already. Looking forward to a discussion. Seafront 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
On 27 April 2004, EDO Corp. announced they had appointed Sir Robert Walmsley as a Director of EDO Corporation, and Chair of EDO (UK) which includes EDO MBM Technology Ltd. [12]--> In The Independent report, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was said to have dismissed the watchdog recommendations that tighter rules were needed over such issues. [40] In a later report published by The Independent on 26 December 2004, Blair was alleged to have helped 'mandarins' such as Walmsley, gain top jobs in the private sector, in defiance of anti-corruption committees. In May 2006, The Independent reported UK Government plans to scrap anti-corruption watchdog committees. [41] Sir Robert Walmsley has also been linked to controversy over the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia which was conducted in such secrecy that government National Audit Office reports into the deal remain classified. The deal has been associated with bribery and corruption allegations, and is still the subject of an ongoing police investigation. [42] Police have been denied access to an NAO report because it is classified. A Daily Telegraph report on 7th July 2006 reported, that judging from a list documents released under the Freedom Of Information Act, that there had been two classified NAO reports rather that just one as previously thought. [43] The revelation came about through the title of one of the documents: "Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement to C&AG [NAO head Sir John Bourn] responding to recommendations in draft audit findings - 30 March 1998" which apparently refers to a draft of a second secret NAO report.
[edit] Item 12
Why must such detail be included about another organization. Maybe a solution is to sumarize it down to a few sentences and just include more reference links. The Brighton sections are too in depth to touch -- don't want to be accused of censorship. Looking forward to a discussion. Seafront 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Sussex Police and EDO MBM
In the course of the High Court battle a temporary or interim injunction was imposed on all protesters until a full trial could deal with the full facts of the case. The restrictions on protests and the allegedly aggressive strategy of Sussex Police brought about by this injunction, led to dozens of arrests and public order criminal charges against protesters. Two protesters spent up to a week in Lewes prison (on remand) as a result of arrests for alleged breaches of the injunction. The first for using a video camera to gather evidence of an assault on a protester by a security guard, and the second for stepping into a road opposite the factory. Both cases would have had Crown Court jury trials if not dropped by the CPS. Others were arrested after allegations that they had disobeyed police orders, assaulted police. or obstructed them in the enforcement of the injunction.
After evidence came to light in the High Court that Sussex Police may have colluded with EDO Corporation to exaggerate the threat posed by demonstrators to the safety of employees, defence solicitors in related criminal cases began to probe at at this possibility. In what appeared to be a domino effect, The Crown Prosecution Service then began to drop all criminal charges, against all protesters, in all related cases, in an effort to protect the confidentiality of internal Sussex police documents which may have helped defence lawyers prove such collusion had taken place. [44] In July 2006 13 official complaints against Sussex Police were filed by protesters alleging police collusion with the arms company. [45]
[edit] Sign and an observation
It is not good form to not tell us who you are when you make comments. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). As far as changes, too often people take personal grudges and bias to Wikipedia. This article should be pretty vanilla, who these people are, not an expose of the evil Edo company. A separate article of the specific controversies can be forked off to cover this. Dominick (TALK) 15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
Wikipedia has a WP:Manual of Style that directs how articles should be formatted. I have formatted this article (again) according to this manual. Please do not change it back. It will be a waste of time for everybody. Here are a few key points:
- Sub-headings within and article follow "sentence case", not "title case", i.e., "The quick brown fox", not "The Quick Brown Fox". Of course, where there are proper nouns such as people's name, or the names of a company's divisions, they remain capitalized as they would in any ordinary sentence. See WP:MOSHEAD for more detail.
- Links to other articles should not appear in sub-headings within an article. they should appear in the text of the section instead. See WP:MOSHEAD for more detail.
- To create a space between paragraphs, two "hard returns" are needed.
- There is no need for more that two hard returns to create space between sections -- two is enough.
- Dates should be expressed in the format: "December 13, 2006" or "13 December 2006", not :December 13th" or other variations. See also WP:DATE.
- Acronyms such as CIA should be spelled out at the first use.
I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
I can't be involved here and help mediate, nor am I a mediator. This seems to be an article that lost a lot of focus due to one article activist editors. If the events in this are newsworthy on thier own they should get articles of their own that link here, not have considerable space on this article. This should be a pretty boring article on EDO and the statistics. I think the neutrality sections are misflagged they really should be removed as these specific incidents didn't have a big impact on EDO or are newsworthy on their own. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. Dominick (TALK) 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
On 18 Dec. 06, the user 81.98.155.11 IGNORED all of the reasons several editors gave when they made numerous updates and then refused to discuss his/her rv in this talk page. The same user brought back the bizarre and lengthly attack page against EDO Corporation. For these reasons, the rv was made to bring back the article -- 22:58, 14 December 2006 SmackBot. I look forward to seeking a solution to the changes being made by a person highly critical of a company's small unit in Brighton, UK. Seafront 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation request
Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page) The people who posted the bizarre information have not engaged in the talk page for EDO Corporation. At this time, it is my opinion that mediation is not necessary. As for the talk page, what recommendations do you have for the now lengthly page filled with the exact information that was once located in the article? Any other feedback for this and similar topic articles? Seafront 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Generally I feel that talk pages should be left alone, barring obvious abuse. Eventually this material can be moved to an archive to make way for more recent discussion.
- I have not actually examined this case in detail. All I can recommend is that you try to follow existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines, be civil, assume good faith, and so on. In future you are always welcome to ask the Mediation Cabal for assistance, or appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment.
- I will close this case; if it needs to be reopened you can leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
