Update from the Heartland
No.443
7.6.10 – 13.6.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,My apologies for the late publication of this week’s Update. Sunday evening, night, and Monday morning were spent defending our home against the deluge of stationary front thunderstorms and the rising lake. The water line approached closer than I was comfortable, but did not reach our protective barriers. It was a very long night, with a couple of hours sleep, and then off to work Monday morning. I trust you will forgive my tardiness.
The follow-up news items:
-- The United Nations Security Council ended diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program and imposed a fourth round of sanctions in a seemingly futile endeavor to persuade Tehran to stop enriching uranium [419/20]. The new measures impose a stronger arms embargo; this time banning several types of heavy conventional weapons, as well as other high-tech equipment. Security Council Resolution 1929 passed with 12 votes in favor and two against – Brazil and Turkey (Lebanon abstained) – and joins five (5) earlier sanctions. A few weeks back, I noted the nuclear deal between the IRI, Turkey and Brazil [440] – odd participants. Now, we understand. Then, we were reminded that a year ago The Times [of London] reported that Saudi Arabia agreed to turn a blind eye to over-flights of its territory by the Israeli Air Force should the Israelis decide to strike Iranian nuclear sites, which probably means the Saudis have passed their threshold of tolerance. When will Europe and the United States pass theirs?
An opinion in my local newspaper:
“What are limits of freedom?”
Daniel M. Kirkhuff
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010
http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/08/1349116/what-are-limits-of-freedom.html
. . . instigated my letter to the editor:
Interesting question: What are the limits of freedom?
Daniel Kirkhuff concludes, “Legislators, administrators and judges make the best decisions they can, but decisions should not be based only on the possibility that someone's freedom will be curtailed.”
I respectfully and strongly disagree . . . at least with the second half of his sentence.
Freedom is very precious. The Founders of this Grand Republic sacrificed their blood and fortunes to establish a nation of citizens, who were free to enjoy their individual choices for their “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” – not the choices of the King, or any government, or even the collective.
To take Mr. Kirkhuff’s point, there are limits to freedom. Our challenge is where are those limits, as he asks?
Absolute freedom is anarchy. The absence of freedom is totalitarian autocracy. The limits of our freedom lie somewhere between those two extremes. The question is where do we draw the line of those limits?
It seems to me that the criterion for those limits should be respect for the person and property of others. Thus, any conduct – private or public – that causes injury to another person’s body or property must be wrong. Unfortunately, too many of our legislators, administrators and judges impose their values, their beliefs, and their choices on all citizens. My choices for my life, for my body and mind, for my death, for my pleasure, for my family, are my choices and should not be intruded upon by other citizens or any government. We must return to the principles of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution, and return the freedom the Founders fought for . . . for We, the People.
The only time an individual citizen’s freedom should be curtailed is to protect the person or property of another citizen. We must not impose our choices on other citizens, no matter how righteous we may believe our values are or how much we believe all citizens should embrace our values. Freedom is freedom; anything less is not.
The quadrennial championship of “The Beautiful Game” began in the Republic of South Africa. We watched the United States team manage a 1-1 tie of England in the Group C opener. Both goals came on mistakes, and both teams looked rather sluggish. We also watched the Group D match between Germany and Australia. The question was asked: was Germany that good, or was Australia that bad? My answer: more likely the former as I saw it.
This session of the Roberts Court seems to have focused a lot of attention on backing away from the citizen. The latest challenge – Berghuis v. Thompkins [560 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-1470] – does not bode well for the citizen. Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of shooting two men outside a mall in Southfield, Michigan, on 10.January.2000, killing one and wounding the other. Two Southfield detectives interrogated Thompkins. The suspect was read his now famous Miranda warning and chose to remain silent – neither invoking nor waiving his Fifth Amendment right against being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Nearly three hours into his interrogation, Detective Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?”
Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and answered, “Yes,” as his eyes reportedly welled up with tears.
The detective then asked, “Do you pray to God?”
“Yes.”
“Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
Thompkins answered, “Yes,” and looked away.
Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later. That implicit confession was used at trial and helped convict Thompkins. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the use of Thompkins’ confession. The Supremes reversed the Appeals Court on a narrow 5-4 ruling and set a new, narrower standard, requiring a suspect to specifically and precisely invoke his right to remain silent or his right to counsel during interrogation. Associate Justice Sonja Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, observed, “The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of ‘waiver’ must, counterintuitively, speak – and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police.” As she concludes, “Today's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today's broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent.” Unfortunate, indeed! A cardinal rule of English and American common law has been the accused’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of our peers. Similarly, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of any citizen against self-incrimination. In essence, these rights protect each citizen from the overwhelming power of the State, and place the burden on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a preponderance of factual evidence. By the Thompkins ruling, the Supremes once against enhanced the power of the Federal government and superseded the judicial authority of the states. It is all too easy for each of us to say these decisions do not affect me, my life or my family, after all I do not break the law; therefore, I do not care how the State interrogates criminals. The evidence without Thompkins’ implicit confession was sufficient to convict him of the crime he committed. As Sotomayor said, the Court did not have to constrict Miranda, but they did.
News from the economic front:
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned, “The federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path”; yet, he also defended the government’s deficit spending as necessary to ease the recession. Ben reiterated his view that American economic recovery would likely be slow and painful for many Americans.
-- The Wall Street Journal’s survey of economists suggests a slow but steady growth in the U.S. economy through the middle of 2011, despite recent turmoil in European debt markets. Unemployment is currently at 9.7%, and forecast to be at 8.6% by the end of December 2011. Interestingly, the economists see a 75% chance that Greece will be unable to pay its debts, and they see a 1-in-3 chance the euro zone will eventually splinter. I surely hope they are wrong.
-- The U.S. trade deficit widened slightly in April to US$40.29B as crude oil imports hit the highest level in over a year. Exports and imports both declined from the previous month.
-- New jobless benefit claims fell to just 3,000 in the latest week, indicating the labor market recovery remains sluggish.
-- The Commerce Department reported retail sales fell in May (-1.2%) from the previous month, as consumers pulled back their spending on things from cars to clothing – the first and biggest decline since September 2009 (-2.2%). Excluding auto and gas sales, retail sales slipped 0.8%, the largest drop since 1% in March 2009.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
Blago’s long-awaited graft trial has begun. Hopefully, the process will not take long, and we can get him off the media stage and into a prison cell where he belongs.
Comments and contributions from Update no.442:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will disagree with your complaint on the timing of the criminal investigation. In order to recover evidence and get good eyewitness testimony, investigations must begin as soon as possible. This applies all the more in a high-profile situation, where the culprits can plainly see their interest in concealing the facts. Besides that, justice should be reasonably swift. The Bhopal tragedy took place the night of December 2-3, 1984. Today, June 7, 2010, seven men were finally convicted in that incident. I have no wish for a similar wait in the Deepwater Horizon case. I see this as a very different situation than an air crash; there are too many aggrieved parties and too many potential VIP malefactors for the comparison to hold up. I hope, however, that those responsible for regulating BP and Deepwater Horizon will be included in the scope of the investigation. Investigating Halliburton is probably too much to hope for and, as much as I dislike and mistrust Dick Cheney, Halliburton probably does not bear primary responsibility for this one.
“I have no sympathy to waste on the government of Israel. The world has generously given them a ‘homeland’ and they demonstrate their lack of gratitude by attacking their neighbors for the ensuing sixty years and counting. Helen Thomas's idea of sending them back where they came from is impractical, but let's not make heroes of these people.
“I have often wondered when the Supreme Court will decide that something constitutes ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. The waiting continues.”
My response to the Blog:
I use my experience with aircraft investigations as the foundation of my opinion regarding the criminal prosecutorial process while we are trying to determine the root cause. As with all events, we start from a blank slate, collect facts, inquire to develop details and fill in blanks, and then hopefully construct a clear image of the root cause of any failure or event. I cannot tell you how many times we have folks refuse to cooperate or tell us false information. When we do come across a pilot or mechanic who tells us the truth, we are impressed by the rarity. The last thing I want to hear is invocation of 5th Amendment rights. I am far more interested in finding out why something happened, so we can improve the engineering and hopefully prevent future occurrences. Prosecution interferes with and delays progress and improvement. Accidents happen. I am far more interested in permanently plugging all the leaks and getting the blowout preventor back to the surface, so it can be carefully analyzed. We can do far more for the future of mankind by finding out what went wrong and preventing future events. Whether we like it or not, the Deepwater Horizon event may well have been a dreadful accident. Pilots make mistakes. Drill rig operators make mistakes.
We have discussed Israel many times. I think we understand and appreciate each others opinions. We can certainly take the Helen Thomas approach, after all Israel did not exist until 1948. If so, how far back do we go? How far back do we go in this country? How about Europe, Africa, Asia . . . where do we stop? Virtually all of Israel’s neighbors threatened to drive all Jews back into the sea at one time or another; a few still do – Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRI among those. Who has Israel threatened? Who has Israel vowed to obliterate? Security is one of the most basic primal needs. We are not going to undo history. Our task today is finding the compromises necessary to live in peace and prosper.
Well, in Graham, the Supreme decided that life without parole is “cruel and unusual” punishment for a non-homicidal, youthful offender (18yo). They are moving toward deciding capital punishment is such punishment.
. . . round two:
“My assumption with the Deepwater Horizon investigation is that the engineering/scientific approach that you use with airline accidents will be left to historians, as is usual in high-profile incidents such as this one. The people involved, as with those you have encountered, seek to avoid prison time, large civil suits or loss of good jobs depending on their specific roles in the tragedy. Objective reporting is not a reasonable expectation of people with a great deal at stake.
“I long ago lost interest in the specifics of the Middle East. I could pretty much let the entire crowd go their evolutionary way, killing each other off until a few lucky and peace-minded survivors built something completely different. The Middle East is living proof that "fit for survival" and "fit for combat" are dramatically different things.
“I guess the Graham decision must be counted as progress.”
. . . my round two response:
The common phenomenon is certainly part of my point – self-preservation is a powerful force. My nature – my inclination – is to avoid the blame-game (which is the essence of prosecution) and search for the root cause(s) without emotion or aspersions. We have plenty of time for the blame-game after the situation is contained and the root cause determined. Further, in virtually every accident, there is a chain of pre-cursor events that lead to the final outcome, which means there are often multiple, related causal factors. Regardless, the cows are out of the barn; the deed is done. Moot point now!
If the violence was contained to the Middle East, I would be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, their violence has all too often spilled out on the rest of us – al-Qaeda being the popular example. The Middle East is a perfect example of what destruction machismo without rational thought can inflict upon innocent people.
Perhaps the Graham decision is progress. Nonetheless, it is sad commentary on our society.
. . . round three:
“‘My nature – my inclination – is to avoid the blame-game (which is the essence of prosecution) and search for the root cause(s) without emotion or aspersions.’
“This makes you a historian. The odds of the people actually involved in the incident and/or investigation cooperating in such an investigation without emotions or aspersions are about the same as the odds of my winning the grand prize in a multistate lottery. Historians seek to untangle the emotions and aspersions many years after the event, then find the fact in whatever is left, which is as close as we get.”
. . . my response to round three:
Perhaps you are correct.
“I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.”
Regardless, I have investigated hostile participants. Sorting out the wheat from the chaff is possible with focus and concentration on the facts.
As Julius Caesar said, “Iacta alea est.”
Another contribution:
“Good one.
“I agree about parents being responsible for their children. To me that includes parents in absentia. i.e., in a single parent home, the parent who has departed and is taking no part in the raising of a child they produced, is just as liable as the one in the home. Not quite sure about orphans who have been abandoned, possibly abused, who are ‘rescued’ and put in foster homes or adopted. But essentially I believe the new parents are or should be responsible.
My reply:
In the main, any individual who fornicates must be responsible and accountable for their actions, just as should be the case with all our actions. Sex is not some special, protected, class of action. Thus, we are in clear agreement. However, as with all human activities, there are always exceptions and outliers. Orphans, abandoned children, and such may not have parents or traceable parents; for those, we may have no one to hold accountable. I am interested in a clear, emphatic demonstration. Put a bunch of ‘em in prison for a while to contemplate the error of their ways, and physically sterilize a few, so they cannot create another abused or neglected child . . . eventually the message will get through. Do not fornicate without assured protections unless you fully intent to love, cherish, nurture and teach your children properly . . . to be good, law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens. Frankly, I do not care whether one party or the other was intoxicated, dishonest, or whatever (doesn’t matter) . . . children do NOT spontaneously happen, and it does not matter a hoot what the state of mind or body either participant had at the moment of conception. They are both accountable . . . full stop!
. . . a follow-up query:
“What if a youth has no traceable blood parents, but does have adoptive or at least foster ones. Are they responsible once they have agreed to care for the child?”
. . . and my reply:
Short answer: yes . . . with mitigation. After all, adoptive or foster parents can be and sometimes are abusive, negligent or complacent in raising children. Yet, they say a child’s character is established or set by 5yo, so parental figures after that point should be judged by their actions, rather than the child’s actions. The key is communicating clearly and distinctly to all procreators, parents & future parents, either take proper loving care of your children, or avoid those conditions where you might procreate, or suffer the consequences of penal punishment.
A different contribution:
“The handling of the oil spill in the Gulf boggles my mind. Obama seems more interested in making speeches and trying to sound tough and sympathetic than doing anything in a leadership role. I whole-heartedly agree with you on the criminal investigation aspect. Can we just get the leak stopped first, then do what needs to be done as far as criminal charges go?
“The perception I have is that Obama is just dithering around and not taking this disaster seriously, except when he's in front of the cameras. One report I heard is that there isn't even a command post set up for this. Wouldn't that be the first thing you do? For me, the response should be . . “ 1) Send a team down there (FEMA, USCG, USGS, and whoever else knows about this stuff) to assess the situation.
“ 2) Appoint an overall commander for the disaster, obviously one with experience in this field. He reports directly to the President, that way if he’s running into any bureaucratic BS, the President can pick up the phone, cut through it, and get this guy whatever he needs. Oh yeah, and the President stays out of his way. Micro-management leads to disaster (ask Jimmy Carter).
“ 3) The Vice President can be the liaison with local and state governments to find out their concerns and needs and address them.
“ 4) Once the disaster has been abated, then you can start looking into criminal charges.
“Obama has no leadership skills and is way over his head, and someone better tell him all the pretty words he gets from his teleprompter will not fix this mess or salvage his tumbling popularity.”
My response:
I am not quite so hard on Barack. I like your “send a team” approach. I think that is precisely why the President deployed the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Louisiana, which seems like an extraordinary action to me. I’m just sayin’.
One more thread:
“There may be some criminal malfeasance in false statements related to the papers required for approval for the rig. There are allegations of that so far. Also, there appears to have been some shortcuts or serious omissions taken in procedures that might rise to the level of negligence, which when people are killed, involves negligent homicide. Also, in the Congressional testimony, there may have been some false statements. In case of any of those, I wouldn't call that the 'blame game.' I would think that DOJ would have something in mind when they mention a potential criminal investigation.
“There are some questions BP needs to answer regarding just what happened on the rig. There were a number of BP execs on the rig before the explosion – what were they doing there and how did they get off the rig is one question. Another is, did they have anything to do with procedures being bypassed in the process, which is what some survivors have alleged. BP was purportedly behind schedule and was losing money due to delay - thus was in a hurry to move things along on the drill. Stay tuned.”
My response:
There are many questions BP, Transocean and Halliburton need to answer . . . and they will. I think they will sort this one out. I beg to differ . . . it is the blame-game when we make public statements about criminal investigations before we have the facts to substantiate a criminal act.
As an honorable member of the bar, you know quite well premature charging can compromise pending or future prosecution.
Let’s get the crisis under control, then we can develop the facts, let the chips fall where they may, and then we can prosecute the bastards to the fullest extent of the law . . . and then some. All things in due course!
. . . round two:
“If there is going to be a viable prosecution, the government is going to need to get the facts as soon as possible-- that means talking to witnesses and getting evidence. The longer after an event occurs, the more evidence is lost or compromised. There already are strong indications that criminal conduct occurred- both in the preparative work and paper submissions for the well and in the actual conduct of the drilling. How many weeks have passed since the incident began? They can't wait until the situation is over before they start the investigation-- that could be months. If the government waits to gather evidence and develop leads until perhaps months after an incident occurs, the potential for successful prosecution greatly fails. I think they have been following prosecutorial guidelines and ethics rules about public comments. There can be the acknowledgement /announcement that a criminal case is being undertaken.
“Also, there may have been false statements made in the Congressional testimony, something that members of both parties have alleged.”
. . . to which was added:
“Items like this raise the issue of criminal negligence, if not outright violation of laws.
“A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways. The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling unit that undermined the company's publicly proclaimed commitment to safe operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.”
. . . my response to round two:
You raise a valid point. I do not know if any USG agency has the mandate to investigation drilling (or mining) accidents like the NTSB does for aviation, rail and maritime events. My assumption until now was MMS had that similar charter, but I do not know for sure. I sure as hell hope and expect some USG agency has been collecting facts from the get-go.
One of the big issues with the TWA 800 investigation was the FBI intrusion at the outset, under the assumption that airliners just don’t explode (therefore, it had to be a terrorist event and thus under FBI primacy). As in the TWA 800 incident and similar to the juxtaposition of intelligence & prosecution, premature criminalization of any accident investigation may irreparably contaminate any safety improvement to be derived from a proper engineering investigation.
An investigation should have started immediately by whatever USG agency is charged with drilling investigations. If there is no agency established by law, then the default organization should be DoJ; if so, then the law must be changed pronto to establish a clear mandate for a singular agency like the NTSB for aviation.
If the public and/or Press accusations of BP executives disregarding safety or prudent operation are evident in the facts, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. After all, 11 citizens died and multiple billons of dollars in persistent damage has been and will be done to the local economy of the mid-Gulf Coast and the oil industry. I am not against punishing the perpetrators. I just advocate for actions in their proper place and time. Let’s stop the bleeding before we seek the hangman.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
“This makes you a historian. The odds of the people actually involved in the incident and/or investigation cooperating in such an investigation without emotions or aspersions are about the same as the odds of my winning the grand prize in a multistate lottery. Historians seek to untangle the emotions and aspersions many years after the event, then find the fact in whatever is left, which is as close as we get.”
. . . my response to round three:
Perhaps you are correct.
“I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.”
Regardless, I have investigated hostile participants. Sorting out the wheat from the chaff is possible with focus and concentration on the facts.
As Julius Caesar said, “Iacta alea est.”
Another contribution:
“Good one.
“I agree about parents being responsible for their children. To me that includes parents in absentia. i.e., in a single parent home, the parent who has departed and is taking no part in the raising of a child they produced, is just as liable as the one in the home. Not quite sure about orphans who have been abandoned, possibly abused, who are ‘rescued’ and put in foster homes or adopted. But essentially I believe the new parents are or should be responsible.
My reply:
In the main, any individual who fornicates must be responsible and accountable for their actions, just as should be the case with all our actions. Sex is not some special, protected, class of action. Thus, we are in clear agreement. However, as with all human activities, there are always exceptions and outliers. Orphans, abandoned children, and such may not have parents or traceable parents; for those, we may have no one to hold accountable. I am interested in a clear, emphatic demonstration. Put a bunch of ‘em in prison for a while to contemplate the error of their ways, and physically sterilize a few, so they cannot create another abused or neglected child . . . eventually the message will get through. Do not fornicate without assured protections unless you fully intent to love, cherish, nurture and teach your children properly . . . to be good, law-abiding, peaceful, productive citizens. Frankly, I do not care whether one party or the other was intoxicated, dishonest, or whatever (doesn’t matter) . . . children do NOT spontaneously happen, and it does not matter a hoot what the state of mind or body either participant had at the moment of conception. They are both accountable . . . full stop!
. . . a follow-up query:
“What if a youth has no traceable blood parents, but does have adoptive or at least foster ones. Are they responsible once they have agreed to care for the child?”
. . . and my reply:
Short answer: yes . . . with mitigation. After all, adoptive or foster parents can be and sometimes are abusive, negligent or complacent in raising children. Yet, they say a child’s character is established or set by 5yo, so parental figures after that point should be judged by their actions, rather than the child’s actions. The key is communicating clearly and distinctly to all procreators, parents & future parents, either take proper loving care of your children, or avoid those conditions where you might procreate, or suffer the consequences of penal punishment.
A different contribution:
“The handling of the oil spill in the Gulf boggles my mind. Obama seems more interested in making speeches and trying to sound tough and sympathetic than doing anything in a leadership role. I whole-heartedly agree with you on the criminal investigation aspect. Can we just get the leak stopped first, then do what needs to be done as far as criminal charges go?
“The perception I have is that Obama is just dithering around and not taking this disaster seriously, except when he's in front of the cameras. One report I heard is that there isn't even a command post set up for this. Wouldn't that be the first thing you do? For me, the response should be . . “ 1) Send a team down there (FEMA, USCG, USGS, and whoever else knows about this stuff) to assess the situation.
“ 2) Appoint an overall commander for the disaster, obviously one with experience in this field. He reports directly to the President, that way if he’s running into any bureaucratic BS, the President can pick up the phone, cut through it, and get this guy whatever he needs. Oh yeah, and the President stays out of his way. Micro-management leads to disaster (ask Jimmy Carter).
“ 3) The Vice President can be the liaison with local and state governments to find out their concerns and needs and address them.
“ 4) Once the disaster has been abated, then you can start looking into criminal charges.
“Obama has no leadership skills and is way over his head, and someone better tell him all the pretty words he gets from his teleprompter will not fix this mess or salvage his tumbling popularity.”
My response:
I am not quite so hard on Barack. I like your “send a team” approach. I think that is precisely why the President deployed the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Louisiana, which seems like an extraordinary action to me. I’m just sayin’.
One more thread:
“There may be some criminal malfeasance in false statements related to the papers required for approval for the rig. There are allegations of that so far. Also, there appears to have been some shortcuts or serious omissions taken in procedures that might rise to the level of negligence, which when people are killed, involves negligent homicide. Also, in the Congressional testimony, there may have been some false statements. In case of any of those, I wouldn't call that the 'blame game.' I would think that DOJ would have something in mind when they mention a potential criminal investigation.
“There are some questions BP needs to answer regarding just what happened on the rig. There were a number of BP execs on the rig before the explosion – what were they doing there and how did they get off the rig is one question. Another is, did they have anything to do with procedures being bypassed in the process, which is what some survivors have alleged. BP was purportedly behind schedule and was losing money due to delay - thus was in a hurry to move things along on the drill. Stay tuned.”
My response:
There are many questions BP, Transocean and Halliburton need to answer . . . and they will. I think they will sort this one out. I beg to differ . . . it is the blame-game when we make public statements about criminal investigations before we have the facts to substantiate a criminal act.
As an honorable member of the bar, you know quite well premature charging can compromise pending or future prosecution.
Let’s get the crisis under control, then we can develop the facts, let the chips fall where they may, and then we can prosecute the bastards to the fullest extent of the law . . . and then some. All things in due course!
. . . round two:
“If there is going to be a viable prosecution, the government is going to need to get the facts as soon as possible-- that means talking to witnesses and getting evidence. The longer after an event occurs, the more evidence is lost or compromised. There already are strong indications that criminal conduct occurred- both in the preparative work and paper submissions for the well and in the actual conduct of the drilling. How many weeks have passed since the incident began? They can't wait until the situation is over before they start the investigation-- that could be months. If the government waits to gather evidence and develop leads until perhaps months after an incident occurs, the potential for successful prosecution greatly fails. I think they have been following prosecutorial guidelines and ethics rules about public comments. There can be the acknowledgement /announcement that a criminal case is being undertaken.
“Also, there may have been false statements made in the Congressional testimony, something that members of both parties have alleged.”
. . . to which was added:
“Items like this raise the issue of criminal negligence, if not outright violation of laws.
“A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways. The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling unit that undermined the company's publicly proclaimed commitment to safe operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.”
. . . my response to round two:
You raise a valid point. I do not know if any USG agency has the mandate to investigation drilling (or mining) accidents like the NTSB does for aviation, rail and maritime events. My assumption until now was MMS had that similar charter, but I do not know for sure. I sure as hell hope and expect some USG agency has been collecting facts from the get-go.
One of the big issues with the TWA 800 investigation was the FBI intrusion at the outset, under the assumption that airliners just don’t explode (therefore, it had to be a terrorist event and thus under FBI primacy). As in the TWA 800 incident and similar to the juxtaposition of intelligence & prosecution, premature criminalization of any accident investigation may irreparably contaminate any safety improvement to be derived from a proper engineering investigation.
An investigation should have started immediately by whatever USG agency is charged with drilling investigations. If there is no agency established by law, then the default organization should be DoJ; if so, then the law must be changed pronto to establish a clear mandate for a singular agency like the NTSB for aviation.
If the public and/or Press accusations of BP executives disregarding safety or prudent operation are evident in the facts, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. After all, 11 citizens died and multiple billons of dollars in persistent damage has been and will be done to the local economy of the mid-Gulf Coast and the oil industry. I am not against punishing the perpetrators. I just advocate for actions in their proper place and time. Let’s stop the bleeding before we seek the hangman.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment