Bush Declares National Emergency for Iraqi Oil

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-07 01:28am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Yes, it's important to get Iraqi oil running. It's also important to keep the lights on in Boston; does that mean the Massachusetts power grid operators should be made immune from prosecution or lawsuits?
If said lawsuits where going to result in the power being shut off for a prolonged period, yes.

So all a company has to do in order to gain immunity from lawsuits is to design their business model in such a way that their system collapses the minute the corporate legal department gets dragged into court?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-07 01:37am

Darth Wong wrote: So all a company has to do in order to gain immunity from lawsuits is to design their business model in such a way that their system collapses the minute the corporate legal department gets dragged into court?

If that design turns the system into a vital national interest. The railroads, incidently, were nationalized in WWI--do you think the courts would have tolerated a lawsuit against them, then? Or even when they were still private but supporting the military operations in WWII? These businesses have been deemed necessary to support our operations in Iraq, and interference in those operations at any level will not be tolerated.

It seems clear-cut. Obviously the businesses have responsibility, and I'm not going to deny that--but the government has a greater responsibility, by far, and that is the responsibility to protect and defend the United States of America. This extends to supporting the war effort on all levels--and the sinews of war are infinite money--which may require them to intervene to keep that support structure operative. This is such a case.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-08-07 01:39am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I

Yes, it's important to get Iraqi oil running. It's also important to keep the lights on in Boston; does that mean the Massachusetts power grid operators should be made immune from prosecution or lawsuits?
If said lawsuits where going to result in the power being shut off for a prolonged period, yes.

Flase dilema. Just because a company is being sued for whatever, doesn't mean that the company would be shut down while the case is in court. Especially when it is a vital company such as this.

Example;

A couple of years ago, we had an explosion rip throught the Natural Gas plant in Victoria. The entire state was left with no natural gas for about a month til the plant was operational again. This meant cold showers for those that didn't have electric water heaters.

The priority was to get the plant up and running again, afterwards a royal commision was launched to investigate whether the company was at fault.

The comminsion only delivered it's report this year. The company was at fault, ordered to pay damages, and change it's operating proceedure.

And I can very much assure you, that the gas was not off for all of those years while this was brought to the authorities.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-08-07 02:12am

So, basically, now if an oil company fucks up and dumps a half million barrels of crude into the Persian Gulf, they are absolved of responsiblity for it? That's bullshit, because it's their fault and the all the people who had their livelihoods destroyed have every right to hold them accountable, since they were accountable. Corporations, like anything else, must take responsiblity for it's own mistakes.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-08-07 03:08am

Darth Wong wrote:Everything is a fucking national emergency or national security issue lately. The latest travesty is a bill intended to make MP3 sharing a national security issue. This is just par for the course in 21st century America; it's hard to believe that this is the country of Thomas Jefferson.

And when you consider Thomas Jefferson has a mistress on the sly and some illegitimate children its not so far fetched.

The mp3 bill is a result of a generation of people I like to define as "Old" being in charge.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 07:20am

This is complete bullshit of the highest order. What's unfortunate but necessary is the company being taken to court for their fucking lack of corporate responsibility and par for the course bad governance and incompetence.

[law student]Frivolous law suits my ass, the fucking court will decide if it's frivolous, not some cocksucker corporate whore politician before the issue even comes up. If it's frivolous, the court will toss it out.[/law student]

Iraq has become the same bullshit word as war on terror- you can justify anything just by uttering it.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-08-07 07:45am

Courts through out MANY frivilous law suits every single day.

It's something they're designed to do. They do not need lawmakers to decide for them in advance what's frivilous.

The system works. Bush should let it lie.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-07 07:49am

Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:I bet they either had to submit a bid, or else had a pre-existing contract with the government for that kind of salvage of, Shep.

Bushdick gave Halliburton a sweetheart no-bid deal for Iraq without Halliburton ever having to touch a bit of competition.
Why don't you tell me a company as qualified as Halliburton is to put out oil fires? Bush may have been engaging in favoritism, but he sure as hell wasn't irresponsible in hiring Halliburton.
He was irresponsible in offering a no-bid, open-ended contract to his Veep's old company. If Halliburton was really the best company for the job, the bidding would have revealed that, and they would have been hired anyway.

But Halliburton clearly is qualified to do the job assigned to it. Favoritism, yes (welcome to Politics), but not really irresponsible. And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-07 08:13am

Gil Hamilton wrote:So, basically, now if an oil company fucks up and dumps a half million barrels of crude into the Persian Gulf, they are absolved of responsiblity for it? That's bullshit, because it's their fault and the all the people who had their livelihoods destroyed have every right to hold them accountable, since they were accountable. Corporations, like anything else, must take responsiblity for it's own mistakes.

Well, this protection can't last forever, unless the U.S. government intends to be extremely, extremely unpopular in Iraq. And the U.S. will clean up any messes left behind by corporations in the rebuilding of Iraq, assuming there are any (not doing do would be a PR disaster).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-07 08:16am

Durran Korr wrote:But Halliburton clearly is qualified to do the job assigned to it. Favoritism, yes (welcome to Politics), but not really irresponsible. And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.

How about if you suck my dick? I'm not in or connected to the petroleum industry, so how the fuck would I know? I don't know anything about these goddamn companies unless they're in the goddamn news!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-07 08:17am

Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:But Halliburton clearly is qualified to do the job assigned to it. Favoritism, yes (welcome to Politics), but not really irresponsible. And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.
How about if you suck my dick? I'm not in or connected to the petroleum industry, so how the fuck would I know? I don't know anything about these goddamn companies unless they're in the goddamn news!

Oh, I'm sorry, I assumed that if you were going to be making demands of the Bush administration to do what you want you would actually have some idea what the fuck you were talking about.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-07 08:20am

Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:But Halliburton clearly is qualified to do the job assigned to it. Favoritism, yes (welcome to Politics), but not really irresponsible. And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.
How about if you suck my dick? I'm not in or connected to the petroleum industry, so how the fuck would I know? I don't know anything about these goddamn companies unless they're in the goddamn news!
Oh, I'm sorry, I assumed that if you were going to be making demands of the Bush administration to do what you want you would actually have some idea what the fuck you were talking about.

I know a conflict of interest when I see it. I also know a sweetheart deal given to political/economic cronies.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-08-07 08:21am

Hmm, US law, or actions allowed by US law only applies in the US.
The US government's juristiction ends at US borders.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-07 08:33am

Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Why don't you tell me a company as qualified as Halliburton is to put out oil fires? Bush may have been engaging in favoritism, but he sure as hell wasn't irresponsible in hiring Halliburton.
He was irresponsible in offering a no-bid, open-ended contract to his Veep's old company. If Halliburton was really the best company for the job, the bidding would have revealed that, and they would have been hired anyway.
But Halliburton clearly is qualified to do the job assigned to it.

Red herring. Obviously Halliburton is qualified, no one is disputing that.

Favoritism, yes (welcome to Politics),

You're excusing this example of corruption by Appealing to Common Practise.

but not really irresponsible.

Corruption is irresponsible.

And I'm still waiting for you to name me a company qualified to do what Halliburton can do.

Why?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-07 08:46am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Hmm, US law, or actions allowed by US law only applies in the US.
The US government's juristiction ends at US borders.

Because these companies have holdings in the US, it's possible to take them to court within the US for anything they do [location independent]. I'm not 100% on this, but Vympel will set me straight if I got this wrong.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 09:05am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Because these companies have holdings in the US, it's possible to take them to court within the US for anything they do [location independent]. I'm not 100% on this, but Vympel will set me straight if I got this wrong.

If US law is in anyway similar to Aussie corporations law, then you are of correct- the company will be sued, and whoever is determined to be the directing 'mind and will' of the company will be the one who the bullseye is on- wherever the board of directors/corporate hq etc hangs out, that's where they'll get served with their summons.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-07 09:24am

Vympel wrote: If US law is in anyway similar to Aussie corporations law, then you are of correct- the company will be sued, and whoever is determined to be the directing 'mind and will' of the company will be the one who the bullseye is on- wherever the board of directors/corporate hq etc hangs out, that's where they'll get served with their summons.

Missed it by that much! Thanks champ.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-07 10:14am

Vympel wrote: If US law is in anyway similar to Aussie corporations law, then you are of correct- the company will be sued, and whoever is determined to be the directing 'mind and will' of the company will be the one who the bullseye is on- wherever the board of directors/corporate hq etc hangs out, that's where they'll get served with their summons.

A corporation is considered a person by U.S. law, so I don't think you have to have a "directing mind and will" - the suit would be against the corporation, literally, as the corporation is, in legal terms, an individual.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 10:59am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
A corporation is considered a person by U.S. law, so I don't think you have to have a "directing mind and will" - the suit would be against the corporation, literally, as the corporation is, in legal terms, an individual.

Corporations are people in Australian law as well, but it's still pure legal fiction. In deterimining liability there must be someone they can apply the relevant tests to, hence the 'mind and will' test- at least in Australian law (we got it from England)- America may be different in practice, but I don't see how they could possibly find a corporation liable for anything without looking to the actions/responsibilities/judgements of it's leader/leaders, or the person who they delegated those responsibilities to (onus of proof on the corporation to show that there was such a delegation).

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-08-07 11:10am

Vympel wrote:This is complete bullshit of the highest order. What's unfortunate but necessary is the company being taken to court for their fucking lack of corporate responsibility and par for the course bad governance and incompetence.

[law student]Frivolous law suits my ass, the fucking court will decide if it's frivolous, not some cocksucker corporate whore politician before the issue even comes up. If it's frivolous, the court will toss it out.[/law student]

Iraq has become the same bullshit word as war on terror- you can justify anything just by uttering it.

[law school grad] Read the Executive Order, it does not mention frivolous nor does it even attempt to qualify the lawsuits involved, it says ALL attachments and liens. This Order is clearly structured to block legal attachments against the very funds that will be used to rebuild the country. A court does not have the authroity (in the US) of deciding what is in the National interest nor what is a National emergency, this power is STRICTLY in the province of the Executive branch.[Law school grad]

A balancing test as always has to be carried out with these legal issues, the same balancing test that allowed a similar legsilative fiat that limited liability in the wake of 9/11 against the airline industry. Were the airlines and their securoity at fault OF COURSE. Would the resulting lawsuits have bankrupted the airline industry OF COURSE. What did the legislature deem more important, people getting compensation for their injuries or keeping the airlines in business and thus not crippling the aviation industry in the US?

The same test takes place here. What is more imortant in the short term, rebuilding Iraq and keeping the fiscal burden on the American taxpayer as low as possible, or allowing a smaller pool of people compensation for any damages they may suffer?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 11:15am

Stravo wrote:
[law school grad] Read the Executive Order, it does not mention frivolous nor does it even attempt to qualify the lawsuits involved, it says ALL attachments and liens.

I know, I was responding to someone else using frivolous as an excuse, not the Executive Order per se.

A balancing test as always has to be carried out with these legal issues, the same balancing test that allowed a similar legsilative fiat that limited liability in the wake of 9/11 against the airline industry. Were the airlines and their securoity at fault OF COURSE. Would the resulting lawsuits have bankrupted the airline industry OF COURSE. What did the legislature deem more important, people getting compensation for their injuries or keeping the airlines in business and thus not crippling the aviation industry in the US?

The same test takes place here. What is more imortant in the short term, rebuilding Iraq and keeping the fiscal burden on the American taxpayer as low as possible, or allowing a smaller pool of people compensation for any damages they may suffer?

Why does the American taxpayer have to pay for the mistakes of a corporation at all? Let em pay their own bills if they screw up- leave em to twist in the wind, hire someone else.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-08-07 11:28am

I suppose that the victims of 9/11 should have been satisfied with the 250,000 liability cap on their claims? These are the hard decisions that have to be made. The expediency and liquidity of the Iraqi rebuilding effort vs. the possible liabilities that arise from that rebuilding. The law is usually never sharp and delicate it is blunt and plays by the numbers. It is more important right now to rebuild the country and save the US money than it is to address the possible liabilities incurred during the restructuring.

Also I'd like to point out that this Executive order only limits liability in the US court system. Actions can still be brought in other jurisdictions if the facts pan out to allow such action.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 11:48am

Stravo wrote:I suppose that the victims of 9/11 should have been satisfied with the 250,000 liability cap on their claims?

How is this relevant?

These are the hard decisions that have to be made.

I still don't see why they shouldn't be held accountable, or why the US government should be expected to pay for their mistakes in the first place. Their incompetence= their liability. I don't see why the US should be forced to pay extra on top of what they're already getting for just being allowed to be there.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-08-07 11:52am

Vympel wrote:
Stravo wrote:I suppose that the victims of 9/11 should have been satisfied with the 250,000 liability cap on their claims?

Vympel wrote:How is this relevant??

It illustrates the point that such limitations on liability happen even in instances where it would seem to be a difficult and immoral choice. We allow a woman to collect millions for spilling hot coffee on herself in McDonalds but someone who loses a loved one is limited to 250,000, period.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-07 11:57am

Stravo wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Stravo wrote:I suppose that the victims of 9/11 should have been satisfied with the 250,000 liability cap on their claims?

Vympel wrote:How is this relevant??
It illustrates the point that such limitations on liability happen even in instances where it would seem to be a difficult and immoral choice. We allow a woman to collect millions for spilling hot coffee on herself in McDonalds but someone who loses a loved one is limited to 250,000, period.

True or not, it's got little to do with the present situation- these aren't pauper corporations that have fallen on hard times because of an unforseen attack and whoose continued solvency is vital to the US, these are powerful, rich, well connected megafirms with their fingers in a lot of pies. I don't see why they deserve immunity from any such measures.