BP Should Not Receive Any Federal Fines or Penalty...

[rsmith6621]

.......I don't thing the government should fine BP for this disaster instead I think they should require BP to place 2 billion into an account to fund research and development of alternative/GREEN energy.....


Lets also keep them to account for all the cleanup cost.......lets put the cash where it will do most good...the treasure of the USA is not a good place...

[Cleita]

1. Better than that, the US should nationalize BP and use the proceeds to pay

for all the environmental damage and claims. When every last wetland, ocean floor and wild life habitat is cleaned up; when every claim for loss of life and income is paid, then we can return what is left of the assets to BP.

[dipsydoodle]

3. To do that they 'd need to buy all of the shares

before the Chinese did. Dream on if you think otherwise.

[Cleita]

4. We don't have to buy anything. We can seize or commandeer assets due

to national emergency powers that the President has. He should use them. He referred to FDR last night in his speech. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, FDR declared a national emergency and seized all assets, ships, aircraft, factories and raw goods to go to war with. After the war they were returned to the private sector. I wish he would start looking at what FDR did and why he succeeded. He might benefit from the lessons of history.

[dipsydoodle]

5. You may not understand

too much about nationalisation. What you've described isn't that.

[Cleita]

7. Oh, if I'm so dumb, explain it to me.

Be advised that this country has done so in the past, like the banks were nationalized during the depression, until they were made honest and then returned to the private sector. Since this is a foreign country operating on our sovereign territory and removing our mineral assets, I think it would be even easier to give them the boot.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Which foreign country would that be ?

BP is a global company with share ownership c. 40% USA, 40% UK , 20% other. They are not removing your assets. They drill for oil under licence which is then sold on the international market as is all oil, regardless of country of origin, and the USA receives royalties.

If by nationalising you mean taking control of BP's assets there then good luck - there's insufficient in the USA to cover the likely damage. If you also want to take control of the assets in Russia and China then feel free.

[Cleita]

13. 'British' Petroleum?

And when they sell that oil on the open market they get the revenue. Why wouldn't we want to do that for ourselves and use the proceeds to make up for this disaster? Apparently, they didn't meet the terms of the license so it's invalid as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure a good lawyer could determine that. As far as the stockholders go, tough. That's the law of the Wall Street jungle. When a company fails, the stockholders lose. I have a stock certificate framed called "Cleita's Folly" of stock I owned of a company that went belly up. None of the stockholders were compensated because once the debts were paid, nothing was left. In the case of these stockholders, if they want to hang on to their shares, maybe when the company is returned to them after this is over with, they might have something of value.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Get with the program

British Petroleum. :rofl:

In 1998 British Petroleum became BP Amoco plc, when it merged with Amoco, and in 2002 they dropped the Amoco part and became BP.

It has yet to fail and given the conditions of the escrow deal is now unlikely to do so.

What is invalid as far as you are concerned may not stand up in a court of law.

[golfguru]

17. In your mind pre-meditated attack on Pearl Harbor is same as an accident?

WOW! I am just glad you are not the president or even elected to a local position.

Only thing LEGALLY the government can do is sue BP for actual damages. Anythng
else will not hold up in courts. But then you may wish to dissolve the courts?
Suspend all judicial processes? What's next on your agenda?

[Cleita]

20. Pearl Harbor was a crisis. 9/11 was a crisis. Katrina was a crisis.

BP needs to be kicked out. Period. They are criminals. They are the East India Company of our generation. They need to go. Our leadership in Washington needs to find the way to do it. It's their job. If they are too corrupt or incompetent to do their job, then they need to go.

[golfguru]

21. There difference between wishful thinking and reality

I actually agree BP is guilty of criminal neglect. But that is not
the question. The real question is who exactly has the authority
to kick BP out of business? Or out of the country because it is a
international corporation.

May be Chavez in Venezuela can do that but last time I checked we are
still a democracy and follow laws.

[Cleita]

22. News flash! Venezuela is a democracy that follows laws.

Don't believe the oil company propaganda we get in this country regarding Chavez. They want to get rid of him so they can keep exploiting Venezuelan oil like they did before him. We have the authority to kick ass. Our pols are reluctant too because they have been so well taken care of by these criminal organizations they are afraid of what might happen to them if they don't. Do we still have a democracy? I doubt it.

[conscious evolution]

23. the Securities and Exchange Commision

has the legal authority to revoke british petroleums charter.

[golfguru]

42. and then final decision will be made in courts?

or not? I have a feeling BP will not go down without a fight.

[ShadowLiberal]

43. People would never put up with that in today's society

You're not entirely accurate in how FDR basically took control of a bunch of companies and put them on war time tasks for WW2, for one thing Congress officially declared war, it wasn't just FDR deciding "we need to go to war, and we need to convert these businesses into war time operations".

Besides that, people wouldn't stand for it today if the government said to a company like Ford "ok, you're not making cars anymore, from now on you're making tanks for the US army for the next few years", just like it would be political suicide for the president or congress to bring back the draft.

Plus, even if the government decided to 'seize' all of BP's assets, that would create an international backlash if you just use the government's might to do it instead of seizing it through already existing laws or something. I mean you think the British are mad right now over how the US media is treating BP, they would be beyond mad if you tried to do something like this to an international company based in Britain. They would take it a lot better if the US just put BP out of business through massive fines/massive clean up costs, and lots of expensive lawsuits by all the people harmed by BP's oil spill.

[vaberella]

24. Can we nationalize an international company? I don't think so, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

n/t

[BeFree]

27. We can do whatever we want.

Can we put someone in prison for a 'small' crime?

Then we can damn sure fuck up Big People for big crimes. And we better get started, or we're all Scrude.

[vaberella]

28. Did you spell "screwed" wrong on purpose?

Secondly...BP is not a US company to be nationalized. Let's go with realistic responses not stupidity, shall we. I could be wrong on this--but I don't think we are allowed to nationalize foreign companies.

We can put people in prison if they commit their crime on our territory. However, an enterprise is not a person. Lastly, your posts are reading almost borderline buffoonery--that doesn't translate well for logical discussion.

[BeFree]

30. Well, when talking to small people

Buffoonery gets their attention. Eh?

We can do whatever we want to an 'enterprise'.
There is nothing in our constitution that protects enterprises.

[vaberella]

37. Not if the enterprise is international property...

You can't NATIONALIS an enterprise that is not national.

[treestar]

44. the rule of law?

are you against that?

what do you mean we can do whatever we want?

You sound like a right winger putting things that way.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Tap dance. We went into Panama and Iraq and did as we pleased without legal justification

On what possible authority did we fucking arrest Noriega and take him from his country? How did we hunt down and execute Saddam Hussein?

Under what authority have we been mucking around in sovereign nations in South America for decades?

We should take them and if we do there ain't a damn thing anybody can do about it other than complain just like any other time we thugthistle a situation.

[vaberella]

36. You want to go to war with Britain then? Brilliance. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

41. I don't desire such an outcome and neither does England

They would have no choice but to stand down and bitch over a pint and a plate of bangers and mash.

No one including the combined forces of the world can expect to withstand a conventional all out war with the US without devastation they cannot recover from.

If we took BP there is nothing that could be done to stop it and there would be no recourse as we hold a Security Council veto.

What exactly do you think could be done to stop us from doing as we will?

We aren't good at occupation but cannot be compared to in raw ability to deal damage.

No, I don't want war or even to have to rely on might making right but I won't let that stand in the way of the interest and welfare of or nation.

[treestar]

45. I thought we didn't like it when the government did those things?

As liberals? We were for the rule of law.

[TheKentuckian]

47. I don't but if I'm having goose then I want the sauce.

I don't accept rule of law except for the rich and powerful or for convenience or political calculus.

If it's going to be wild west then so be it, cowboy up for the common folk on occasion too but hiding behind the law you won't enforce or worse yet, break yourself is fucking bullshit.

[dipsydoodle]

2. There's no question

of the escrow a/c ging into the US treasury. It would be independantly administered. As to whether or not any funds would actually leave that account is open to conjecture given that claims would need 100% verification by the 3rd party administrator and may not necessrily meet their criteria.

[ProSense]

6. "I don't thing the government should fine BP for this disaster "

Not only should they be fined into oblivion, they should be held criminally liable.

You think $2 billion is enough? What about the victims?

[dipsydoodle]

10. Currently

there is no case for them to answer against criminal negligence - just wishful thinking here on DU.

If you have a link to indicate otherwise then please post it.

[ProSense]

16. Aren't there investigations pending?

A: The U.S. Justice Department has launched both a criminal and civil investigation into the oil spill but officials have not identified the targets. However, the likely companies that will be the focus of the investigation include BP, Transocean Ltd, which operated the drill rig, Cameron International, which provided the blowout preventer, and Halliburton Co, which was in charge of the cement for the oil well.

link

[dipsydoodle]

19. Any mention I've come across

on numerous news channels interviewing legal experts on the subject have concluded that criminal negligence against BP would be impossible to prove/substantiate and as a result its unlikely that any such charges will actually be brought.

[vaberella]

25. However that, Obama has sent out the FBI to look for information.

This is why we find the dirty dealing of the MMS and we have Eric Holder in the room.

[BeFree]

34. No

The dirty dealing of the MMS was known a long time ago.

Obama just chose to ignore that the MMS was a whore house.

[vaberella]

35. No. The dirty dealing in the DOI was well known.

The major corruption in the smaller branches of that department --- or the magnitude was more of a new development. Further more these problems were not ignored as you wish to think. Several people were fired and many more were in the works contingent on review. There's plenty of info out there. However Obama also said that the reviews were not moving fast enough which was another crutch.

[BeFree]

38. Yer right

Obama did say that the MMS was "too cozy". He didn't ignore it.

He just never took any action until it slapped him upside the head.

And, it seems, all he has done is close the door so no one can see the Scrude nature of the business.

"Ya want a permit? Here ya go, drill, baby, drill"

[vaberella]

39. As I said he was taking action.

Did I not mention the many firings in the DOI by Salazar....Salazar just didn't move fast enough. Further more..Obama should not have to deal with that process---Salazar should have been on top of it, that's why Obama hired him.

As for drilling. Until you tell me your Amish your as addicted to that Black Crack like the rest of us---over 320 million of us. Which is why that alternative is in use. Green doesn't happen over night. It takes time. But you don't seem to get that.

[BeFree]

40. heh

Yep, Obama put Salazar in office and Salazar sat back and let BP drill, baby drill.

I'm not against drilling. I am against the government looking the other way as BP had their way with all the rules. So, I am against Salazar and the idea that put him in office.

The only reason Salazar is still in office is that it would make Obama look bad to shit-can the SOB.

[asphalt.jungle]

8. everyone has an opinion ...

BP would jump at the chance to fund $2b in alternative energy research and development in lieu of fines and liabilities which will be at least $20b.

[dionysus]

11. another winner of an idea. keep the hits coming.

:eyes:

[vaberella]

26. I think Palin came up with this one on Bill O before she said they should face criminal charges. n/t

[Dawgs]

12. How bout they stop giving tax breaks to oil companies, and instead give them to...

alternative energy companies.

[Cleita]

14. I think they do, however, start up companies need seed money.

They need to start putting out grant money and low interest business loans for these start up companies to start.

[Overseas]

18. Unrec. They should have to do both. And not limited to 2 billion. //nt

[ladywnch]

29. whose to say the fine couldn't be used for that? get the money....

whatever you want to call it.....trust fund, fine, penalty.....who cares.....get the money!

[TheKentuckian]

32. Absurd. Two billion is nothing access the penalties and use some of that money

for the R&D.

Two billion?!?!? Jesus in heaven! Do you have any concept of what they will be on the hook for???

What the fuck is two billion?

[TheKentuckian]

33. and unrecced for trying to shortchange the damage and dumbass libertarian talking points

in regards to government.

[treestar]

46. Of course they ought to fine them, if the law provides for it

Sue then, fine them, prosecute them, as long as it is done under the rule of law.

[Laelth]

48. You forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth