The final outcome depends upon how the govt. spends the income - as in relocating, educating, providing medical care for impoverished indigenous peoples.
Fabara said the government had decided not to open certain blocks of land to bidding because it lacked support from local communities. "We are entitled by law, if we wanted, to go in by force and do some activities even if they are against them," he said. "But that's not our policy."
Now let us consider how the US Big Oil companies raped Ecuador's environment and the indigenous populations for decades! Texaco was the primary international oil company exporting oil from the coast of Ecuador. This company managed the oil operation from 1971 to 1992, when it was nationalized by Ecuador.
Texaco's contract for oil production in Ecuador expired in 1992. PetroEcuador then took over 100% of the oil production management. 1.5 billion barrels of crude oil was reported to have been extracted while under the management of Texaco. There were also reports of 19 billion gallons of waste that had been dumped into the natural environment with the absence of any monitoring or overseeing to prevent damages to the surrounding areas. In addition there was a report of 16.8 million gallons of crude that was dispersed into the environment in relation to spillage out of the Trans-Ecuadorian pipeline.
In the early 1990s a lawsuit led by Ecuadorian government officials of 1.5 billion dollars was presented against the Texaco company with claims that there was an immense pollution epidemic that led to the demise of many natural environments as well as an increase in human illnesses.
A cancer study was conducted in 1994 by the Centre for Economic and Social Rights which found a rise in health concerns in the Ecuadorian region. In 2002, it was found that there was a notably higher incidence of cancer in women and men in the countries where there was oil production present for over 20 years. Women also reported increased rates in a copious amount of psychical aliments such as skin mycosis, sore throat, headaches and gastritis. The primary argument against these findings were that they were weak and biased. Texaco decided on jurisdiction in Ecuador.
The case put against Texaco remained in the works for some time. In 2001, Texaco was taken over by Chevron, another oil company, which assumed the liabilities left by the previous production. On February, 2011 Chevron was found guilty after inheriting the case left by Texaco and was said to be required to pay 9 billion dollars in damages. This is known to be one the largest environmental lawsuits award recorded
Special bonuses for cramming more than 3 of their scripted talking points into a single post? And an extra BIG, try-to-cut-'em-off-at-the-knees bonus for being the first one to respond to any latest breaking news post documenting negative actions, motivations or behaviors by their hero or hero's agents/minions/appointees.
My dog, how the money rolls in! Do they have a Hall of Infamy for those lemmings who post more than a certain number of times per thread? Award the Medal of Dishonor to anyone posting more than 200 times per 24 hour period? Is there a super-secret annual awards dinner? A faux gold sheep? "The 2013 Sheeple Award for the greatest number of anti Snowden/pro NSA posts goes to _ _ _ _ _!
Einstein had it right:"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
You just love the Citizens United decision, right? Because you conflate prosecuting Big Banking with giving only lip service to civil liberties. Some might find your position amazing - but then they are not familiar with your long-standing, knee-jerk defense of any scintilla of criticism of Obama or his administration. Here's the deal and it's a very big deal, so try to keep up:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND LAWS GRANT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT CORPORATIONS.
Civil liberties are simply defined as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual, for example, parts of the government, other individuals, or corporations. The liberties explicitly defined, make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy. There are also many liberties of people not defined in the Constitution, as stated in the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And give an example where prosecution by the "U.S. government", i.e, Obama's Justice Department has or has not been a "slam dunk". I can think of problems the Justice Dept. has had with prosecuting medical marijuana growers, distributors and purchasers. Those pesky juries, state legislators and judges just won't get with Holder/Obama's program, will they? But let's talk about "too big to fail" interests - ya know - the ones with the lobbyists regularly bribing politicians with the big fat campaign contributions. What Holder was really thinking when he said "too big to fail" was "too big a contributor to the guy who appointed me to be prosecuted".
Of course, neither Holder nor Obama nor you can quote any section of any state or federal l law which excludes perpetrators on the grounds that they are "too big to fail" or recognizes a defense of "too big to fail".
Given the evidence detailed in the OP, and speaking as a retired government attorney and law professor, I say yes, prosecuting the Bank of America is a slam dunk.
How appalling and disgusting to see Bill Clinton devote his considerable mental abilities & political skills to glorify and exploit the demise of the US working class. He sounds like goddamn Romney speaking at a fundraiser to his one percent donors. "Hey, fellas! This is great! We've ripped off the US working class/middle class down to the point they're at a third world level! Or as I, Bill Clinton, like to describe it: America's wages are now on parity globally!" No wonder Clinton, Obama & the 2 Bushes distanced themselves physically from Jimmy Carter in that Oval Office photo of the 5 presidents. Carter is to that bunch of uber capitalists as garlic is to vampires or holy water sprinkled on evil spirits.
China's per capita income is three and a half times less than that of the U.S., and even less than Brazil. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/23/within-three-years-u-s-no-longer-no-1/
For god's sake, all you Clinton supporters. Look at the numbers he gleefully relies upon to claim the US has global parity re wages. The US race to the bottom re the difference in income distribution between the 1 percent and the rest of us, the huge increase in payoffs to corporate board members, the obscenely high ratio of CEO pay to worker bee pay as compared to other civilized countries like Germany, etc., - of course America's wages have dropped to the point of being on parity with third world countries.
Rounding out the top five are Indonesia (245.6 million) and Brazil (203.4 million)
RATIO OF PAY - CEO: Average worker
SO. AFRICA 21:1
UNITED STATES 475:1
Americans are falling out of the middle class at an alarming rate. It has been observed that the only way kids of middle class families will be able to remain in the middle class is if they each inherit considerable funds.
Source: Yahoo linking to op-ed published today in Guardian
Daniel Ellsberg, whose leak of the so-called Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971 exposed the secret history of the war in Vietnam, thinks Edward Snowden's leak of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs was more important than his.
"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material, and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago," Ellsberg wrote in an op-ed published by the Guardian on Monday. "Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an 'executive coup' against the U.S. constitution."
Ellsberg added on CNN Sunday night that it cant be overestimated to this democracy. It gives us a chance, I think, from drawing back from the total surveillance state that we could say were in process of becoming, Im afraid we have become. Thats what hes revealed.
In 2011, Ellsberg was among a group of noted whistle-blowers that penned an open letter asking that a "transparency award" given to Obama earlier that year be rescinded. They called the Obama administration's record on secrecy and surveillance "a disgrace."
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ellsberg-snowden-nsa-leak-pentagon-papers-142811185.html
In the Guardian, Ellsberg scoffed at Obama's response, and effectively schooled the Obama administration and all the loyalists trying to spin this matter on DU:
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsenseas is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first timeas with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squadsthey have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning and I both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
Really? Here's an example of being easily manipulated. That would be a guy who believes prostitutes when they tell him they're prostitutes because they like sex and the money is just a side benefit. Get real, fella! What good businesswoman is going to tell her clients: you're homely, you've got bad breath, your huge pot belly repulses me, when was the last time you bathed, or, no wonder your wife doesn't want you to touch her? Sex Ed 101: A prostitute will say the things that will (1) help the client to "finish" ASAP and (2) come back for return visits. And amazingly each and every one of the 4 prostitutes of your acquaintance all felt compelled to tell you they do it because they like sex. Were they all marketing the Brooklyn Bridge as well? Talk about pathetically gullible and manipulated!
"I know prostitutes"
One I met at a strip club and we're good friends. A couple of others I met through her, another I met the old fashioned way.
All of them are in it because they like sex. The money is a side benefit.
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 15,480
- 2016 (77)
- 2015 (254)
- 2014 (125)
- 2013 (72)
- 2012 (12)