Under What Law Can BP Execs Be Arrested?

[Yavin4]

Cite the federal criminal statute, and if there's no criminal statute, then that's the fault of the congress not the president.

[mmonk]

1. Under what law can someone be held indefinitely without charge?

Actually, if they break some of our laws, they can be arrested. Depends on the law broken.

[Yavin4]

2. But What Federal Law Can Be Used?

People detained indefinitely are labeled enemy combatants and even the right wing SCOTUS said that they are entitled to due process.

You cannot just arrest someone without there being a criminal statute.

[mmonk]

7. I would have to be cited a crime.

I studied environmental law long ago and no longer remember of what is applicable or still would be. Good question though.

[mmonk]

10. This question does peak my curiousity though.

There is issue of the deaths involved as well as all of the environmental and property damage.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. How is what they have done to this country, and its economy NOT a terrorist attack?.

They did it out of greed, short-sightedness, and hubris, rather than misapplied "religious" principles..but it was an act of terrorism just the same.

Freeze their assets, and throw the corporate decision makers into Gitmo

[Yavin4]

5. Terrorist Criminal Statutes Cannot Be Applied Here

There was no willful act of violence against people. Negligence? Definitely. But you would have to prove that they willfully wanted the rig to explode to inflict harm, and that is too far of a stretch.

[boppers]

29. You are confused about the word "Terrorist".

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:terrorist

It doesn't mean "bad shit happens".

[vaberella]

20. This is not a person but an Enterprise. Problem 1. An international one. Problem 2. n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Contempt of DU. There is no more heinous charge. n/t

[elocs]

18. Yep, the line of those who DUers fantasize about frog marching is very, very long.

The reality of any of it ever happening is almost nonexistent, but that's what makes it a DU fantasy because there are no limits on reality.

[Davis_X_Machina]

27. Rule of law for thee, but not for me....a DU staple.

Certainly in the top five, with Kucinich!, Catholic-baiting, and a few other evergreens.

[treestar]

22. LOL

:rofl:

[Jennicut]

25. A lot of people are on that list.

}(

[TheKentuckian]

6. The same statutes that keep me from dumping crap into the waterways and supply

Or the ones that hold me accountable if I screw around and get eleven people killed.

Or the ones I'd go down for for submitting bogus plans, even for an addition on my own full owned home.

Or the ones I might get for improper gifts and/or bribes to public officials.

Maybe the ones I'd be crucified for if I wantonly killed and tortured an untold amount of helpless animals. People were mad as fuck at Mike Vick and he went to jail for much less.

How about misleading Federal authorities in the act of an investigation?

Maybe failure to comply with an EPA order?

I don't give a fuck if they sprinkle some crack on 'em. Do you?

[Yavin4]

9. None of those on Your List Are Federal Crimes

Again, you would have to prove criminal intent, and you still have not proffered a federal criminal statute.

You cannot arrest someone because you're angry and then shoe horn them into a criminal statute.

[TheKentuckian]

19. What's that statute that allows an American citizen to be executed

without a charge, much less a trial and far from the field of any battle?

You know the one that supersedes the Constitution that gives government it's authority to even exist.

What's that thar law that supersedes the US Constitution that allows the Executive branch to form and maintain an army with zero oversight from Congress?

Like I said, if you can't hang them on anything then set the fuckers up. Let's not playact that these "people" haven't at the very least defied the EPA, filed false plans, lied to Federal investigators, and hindered an investigation.

No doubt they are hiding behind articles of incorporation and I know that will probably stick pretty well for them.
That's why we should end the construct. It's more harm than benefit.

[CanonRay]

8. How 'bout Criminally Negligent Homicide?

just for openers

[Yavin4]

11. How Can There Be Negligence When There Was No Safety Requirements In Place

And you have to prove willfull negligence.

[vaberella]

23. There were safety requirements in place, I believe. They were just not enforced.

But that's not only on BP's end but also the M+M/DOI's area.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. I would be all for that one!!!! At least 11 counts for starters.

[Oregone]

13. Can you tell me under what laws some of the Gitmo prisoners were arrested under?

Yeah...this isn't a nation of laws anymore. Though, it is a nation of money

[Yavin4]

14. They Were Imprisoned for Being Enemy Combatants

Yes, it's a bogus charge, and even the right wing SCOTUS said that they were allowed due process.

[Oregone]

17. A nation of bogus charges is not a nation of laws

Anyway, Im not in the arresting camp. Seize their company assets, shave the executives eye-brows, dye their bodies blue, and make them live in a Louisiana marsh for a year, sure.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. But remember we don't need any actual charges to arrest and hold them indefinitely

and I don't think there's any limit on who we can apply these new non-laws to.

[vaberella]

24. This wouldn't really fall under an act of war, though. More like friendly fire, if anything. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Any of the terraist crap written in the last 10 years would probably work

They may be bullshit laws, but as long as we got 'em, might as well use them for something that might actually help what's left of this planet.

[treestar]

21. Some things are just civil

Though there may be some regulatory violations.

[mmonk]

26. According to Noah Hall of Wayne State University, federal laws

it appears were broken. That doesn't mean they get arrested now but they have liability by law on the federal level.

The $75 million cap has probably been an overplayed issue. And it's really a non-issue. BP has said that it's not going to worry about the $75 million cap, nor should they, because I think, as Professor Hester pointed out, it's almost certain that BP is going to be shown to have violated some federal health, safety, occupational standard, some negligence on BP's part, so they won't have the benefit of the $75 million cap.

And they're facing liabilities of billions and billions of dollars here.

Link.

[TheKentuckian]

28. and I said find something and make it stick, failing that frame

something up and make it stick.

The rule of law is applied based on whim and therefore is rendered moot.

Like anything else they do or don't do, MAKE IT LEGAL.