British Petroleum continues its bumbling efforts to stop the flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The latest effort, involving cutting through a riser pipe so it could be capped, has failed as the diamond bladed saw became stuck. Now they are planning to use giant shears (think scissors) to cut through the pipe. Thad Allen just announced that the pipe has been cut and phase two of this process begins.
In what little permit process there was and in what little review occurred for this project prior to drilling BP assured regulators that it could handle a spill ten times as large as what is currently transpiring. Given their clearly inept efforts and even more glaring lack of any preparation or plans for what to do in the event of an accident, BP lied during the permit process. The Justice Department is looking for criminal behavior, fraud in the application process seems the first place to start. The deaths of the eleven workers should be investigated as negligent homicide at the least.
I'm tired of hearing the BP management team bemoan the fact that their task is difficult because they are working a mile underwater. That is exactly why they should have had multiple contingency plans. Instead of trusting that nothing could go wrong, they should have planned for the worst case scenario.
But they didn't plan. Now oil is in the wetlands and rolling onto the beaches. Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi have already had oil on their beaches and Florida is expecting it before the day is out. An area of 750,000 square miles has been closed to fishing. Plumes of oil fill the water column and the oil spill is clearly visible on satellite images. The oil and the dispersants are entering the food chain.
Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, stated over the weekend that he wanted his "life back." The people of the Gulf would like their ecosystem and fishing industry back.
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
AG Holder Takes the First Step
The journey of ten thousand miles begins with the first step. - Lao Tzu.
Attorney General Eric Holder took the first step towards returning the United States to its ideals with the appointment of Federal Prosecutor John Durham to begin an investigation into allegations of torture by CIA employees and their subcontractors.
The appointment of Durham coincides with the release of the Inspector General's report that the Department of Justice has prevented the public from seeing for approximately five years. The largely still redacted report reveals a number of events that are so troubling that one wonders what kind of individual could have conceived of such actions. To argue that several of these actions are anything but torture is to defy common sense.
- Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri was threatened with having his mother raped in front of him.
- one detainee died after being beaten with a flashlight by a person identified as an "independent contractor."
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was told that his young children, whom he knew to be in custody, would be killed.
- mock executions were staged.
- hand guns and power drills were present at interrogations.
I have worked as a prison psychologist, examined sociopaths and murderers, witnessed violence become so casual that it was second nature, but these revelations shocked me. There are only a few of the worst and most ruthless in prison who could look at these actions as anything but pathological.
Yet such behaviors seemingly occurred with frequency. The actions described are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be impossible for multiple people to behave in such barbaric and inhumane ways without others knowing about it. In my reading of the report, there seems to have been concern that then Attorney General Ashcroft was aware of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having been waterboarded "119 times." If there was no concern of illegality, why was there seeming concern about him knowing. Alternatively, if I have misread this and Ashcroft was merely being informed, then he was clearly in the loop. As Attorney General it would have been his duty to stop the actions, not sanction them.
Remember though, that Ashcroft was the one who refused to sign off on Gonzalez's efforts at even greater atrocities. I know, with the Bushies it gets hard to remember what crimes you're talking about.
The confusion about who was informed and what was ordered and by whom are questions that are miles down the road at present. Bush may be at the ten thousandth mile, but I'll bet Cheney will be somewhere around mile marker one. Now that Durham has begun an investigation he must take this wherever it leads him. The report already seems to suggest that the CIA people were deeply concerned that their actions would not be covered. It seems irrational to suggest that they would have spent so much time documenting and questioning how to proceed, i.e. requesting orders from headquarters unless they were following orders.
Who gave the orders? Who ordered that legal justifications be concocted to support the orders to torture? Who made up the legal justifications? It is not just about who inflicted the torture. Those who sanctioned, ordered and turned a blind eye are all guilty. The first step that Attorney General Holder has taken must be followed for the entire ten thousand miles.
Attorney General Eric Holder took the first step towards returning the United States to its ideals with the appointment of Federal Prosecutor John Durham to begin an investigation into allegations of torture by CIA employees and their subcontractors.
The appointment of Durham coincides with the release of the Inspector General's report that the Department of Justice has prevented the public from seeing for approximately five years. The largely still redacted report reveals a number of events that are so troubling that one wonders what kind of individual could have conceived of such actions. To argue that several of these actions are anything but torture is to defy common sense.
- Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri was threatened with having his mother raped in front of him.
- one detainee died after being beaten with a flashlight by a person identified as an "independent contractor."
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was told that his young children, whom he knew to be in custody, would be killed.
- mock executions were staged.
- hand guns and power drills were present at interrogations.
I have worked as a prison psychologist, examined sociopaths and murderers, witnessed violence become so casual that it was second nature, but these revelations shocked me. There are only a few of the worst and most ruthless in prison who could look at these actions as anything but pathological.
Yet such behaviors seemingly occurred with frequency. The actions described are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be impossible for multiple people to behave in such barbaric and inhumane ways without others knowing about it. In my reading of the report, there seems to have been concern that then Attorney General Ashcroft was aware of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having been waterboarded "119 times." If there was no concern of illegality, why was there seeming concern about him knowing. Alternatively, if I have misread this and Ashcroft was merely being informed, then he was clearly in the loop. As Attorney General it would have been his duty to stop the actions, not sanction them.
Remember though, that Ashcroft was the one who refused to sign off on Gonzalez's efforts at even greater atrocities. I know, with the Bushies it gets hard to remember what crimes you're talking about.
The confusion about who was informed and what was ordered and by whom are questions that are miles down the road at present. Bush may be at the ten thousandth mile, but I'll bet Cheney will be somewhere around mile marker one. Now that Durham has begun an investigation he must take this wherever it leads him. The report already seems to suggest that the CIA people were deeply concerned that their actions would not be covered. It seems irrational to suggest that they would have spent so much time documenting and questioning how to proceed, i.e. requesting orders from headquarters unless they were following orders.
Who gave the orders? Who ordered that legal justifications be concocted to support the orders to torture? Who made up the legal justifications? It is not just about who inflicted the torture. Those who sanctioned, ordered and turned a blind eye are all guilty. The first step that Attorney General Holder has taken must be followed for the entire ten thousand miles.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Where Were Our Leaders?
On the same day that it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed 92 tapes of interrogation of detainees, nine (9) secret legal opinions of the Bush (mis)Administration were revealed by the Justice Department. Taken together, these reveal a culture of lawlessness, and contempt for the Constitution and the basis of common law.
George Bush apparently claimed powers not seen since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. In addition, his administration's obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence made Nixon's men look like a bunch of schoolgirls.
First the destruction of evidence. The CIA's torture tapes have been the source of numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups trying to penetrate the wall of secrecy of the Bush (mis)Administration. At first denied to exist, we now find that 92 of these tapes were destroyed. If the destruction of 92 pieces of evidence is not a sign of knowingly committing wrongdoing, what is?
More frightening than the destruction of evidence, are the purported legal opinions under which the Bush-ites operated. To catalog these rulings here would be prohibitive, but just this one quote is horrifying enough, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." In other words, dissent would be suppressed. Other opinions swept aside the Posse Comitatus Act, suggested that Congress had no power to limit the president, justified warrant-less arrests and domestic spying. In essence, these rulings effectively suspended the U.S. Constitution.
To believe that no one in Congress, that no one in the Justice Department, that no one at all was aware of what was in these memos strains credulity. Everyone was informed. This was official operating policy. Where was the outcry? Members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are now hiding behind the idea that to have blown the whistle would have been a violation of national security.
Subversion of the Constitution is a violation of national security. Would that politicians were as interested in preserving the principles of our nation as they are at preserving their political careers. All those who knew and did nothing: treason would seem to be the appropriate charge.
And where were the Republicans in all this? Bush, after all, was a member of their own party. It was their duty, especially as the party in power at the time, to stop him. Instead, they acted with complicity. To hear some off them howl now that they are out of power that they are concerned about the Constitution is just sheer hypocrisy. Where were they when the country needed them?
This aggression must not stand. Leaders of this nation have committed crimes against WE, THE PEOPLE. Hearings and commissions are not enough. They must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution must be viewed as it has become, a nice fiction that we once made real. What hath George Bush wrought?
George Bush apparently claimed powers not seen since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. In addition, his administration's obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence made Nixon's men look like a bunch of schoolgirls.
First the destruction of evidence. The CIA's torture tapes have been the source of numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups trying to penetrate the wall of secrecy of the Bush (mis)Administration. At first denied to exist, we now find that 92 of these tapes were destroyed. If the destruction of 92 pieces of evidence is not a sign of knowingly committing wrongdoing, what is?
More frightening than the destruction of evidence, are the purported legal opinions under which the Bush-ites operated. To catalog these rulings here would be prohibitive, but just this one quote is horrifying enough, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." In other words, dissent would be suppressed. Other opinions swept aside the Posse Comitatus Act, suggested that Congress had no power to limit the president, justified warrant-less arrests and domestic spying. In essence, these rulings effectively suspended the U.S. Constitution.
To believe that no one in Congress, that no one in the Justice Department, that no one at all was aware of what was in these memos strains credulity. Everyone was informed. This was official operating policy. Where was the outcry? Members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are now hiding behind the idea that to have blown the whistle would have been a violation of national security.
Subversion of the Constitution is a violation of national security. Would that politicians were as interested in preserving the principles of our nation as they are at preserving their political careers. All those who knew and did nothing: treason would seem to be the appropriate charge.
And where were the Republicans in all this? Bush, after all, was a member of their own party. It was their duty, especially as the party in power at the time, to stop him. Instead, they acted with complicity. To hear some off them howl now that they are out of power that they are concerned about the Constitution is just sheer hypocrisy. Where were they when the country needed them?
This aggression must not stand. Leaders of this nation have committed crimes against WE, THE PEOPLE. Hearings and commissions are not enough. They must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution must be viewed as it has become, a nice fiction that we once made real. What hath George Bush wrought?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What Obama Didn't Say
Last night, February 9, 2009, Barack Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House that was remarkable. What he said was interesting enough, but it was what he did not say that was even more noteworthy.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
