Why isn't BP considered a Crude Terrorist?

The New York guy with a sloppy concoction of (potential) explosives in his SUV is considered a terrorist. Among the 'weapons' in his SUV were gallons of gasoline, propane tanks, non-ignitable fertilizer and firecrackers. Weapon's experts said even if it detonated it wouldn't have been very destructive, and it would have caused more panic than deaths.

But look at BP and how it recklessly rejected using a $500k cut-off valve that could have avoided the massive oil spill in the Gulf. BP is only motivated by money. They are completely void of principles. Because of their irresponsibility they killed 11 workers and probably millions of living organisms in the Gulf. The oil from their well might end up contaminating the water and killing wildlife for decades.

But BP is not considered to have committed any crimes. Although their actions have caused millions of people to live in total fear because of the uncertainty of their livelihoods BP is facing no criminal charges. I doubt if they premeditated malice or an intent to cause harm prior to the oil rig explosion. But where should we draw the line between people who knowingly try to hurt others and those whose irresponsible acts cause great harm and death to others and the environment? While the New York terrorist's actions were designed to terrify, the resulting actions by BP have led to level of 'terror' that is millions of times greater.

I don't understand how people who knowingly avoid using safety devices cannot be held personally liable for the harm the cause to others, even if the resulting damage is 10 to 20 billion dollars. Don't we need to revisit how we define terrorism? I believe what the thugs on Wall Street did was financial terrorism against the American people. Now I believe the oil thugs at BP are 'crude' terrorists, whose actions have led to an environmental catastrophe.

At least Al Qaeda is motivated by demented principles, but 'principles' nevertheless. But BP executives are only motivated by money. I consider anyone acting out of principles, however misguided, to be less evil than those whose only concern is for profit and to hell with the lives or livelihoods of human beings. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the BP CEO and Bin Laden? Both are exploiters. Both will do anything to reach their goals. Al Qaeda operates clearly outside the law, while corporations like BP buy politicians and lobbyists to write their own laws that enable them to 'legally' jeopardize the lives of countless people. At least Al Qaeda accepts responsibility, while BP executives run from it. We can't legislate terrorism, but we can legislate the way corporations do business. And just as we hold Bin Laden accountable for his evil deeds, we need to change corporate law to make their leaders financially responsible for their actions or 'non-actions'.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe BP executives should be personally liable and have their incomes directly affected? Or do you believe they should continue to be insulated by corporate law from any financial or criminal responsibility at all?

But ultimately I believe we are a nation of laws. If our laws were not sufficient to provide the penalties to BP that we think are appropriate, then we must blame ourselves and seek to correct those laws.

because they didn't break the law. You can blame that on the government, and ultimately, on the Americans who put them in power. Also, the comparison is bad, because BP is driven by profit. They didn't reject the safety measure to terrorize anyone and it's not their objective. Their objective is to make money. Of course, part of the reason was that other safegaurds were in place and they thought the cut-off valve wouldn't work at that depth.

In fact, until we know what went wrong, it's hard to place blame or responsibilty, since Transocean ran the rig.

which is why we need to have mor laws in place for things like this.

Plot:

Architect Doug Roberts (Paul Newman) returns for the dedication of the Glass Tower in San Francisco which he designed for building owner James Duncan (William Holden). At 138 stories, it is the world's tallest building. During a routine systems check, an electrical short starts a small fire in a storage room on the 81st floor which goes undetected. Roberts confronts the building's electrical engineer, Duncan's son-in-law Roger Simmons (Richard Chamberlain). Simmons insists the building is up to standards but Roberts is skeptical and demands to see the specifications.

Roger Simmons tries to save money by cutting electrical safety costs, but he ends up losing the whole new building due to fire.

This is what happens when you get greedy for more money rather than paying more for safety just like BP did. Cheney thought $500,000 was too much for safety for each oil rig. (if I understand correctly)

it was a recommendation of the Clinton Administration but, when no where with the bushies.

This device would have been remote controlled - no even would have to dive!

was on Morning JoeBlow this a.m. during the conversation regarding this massive environmental disater in the Gulf she says something like this: We must not abandon off-shore drilling the fact there is soooo much oil there proves we have to get it out and use it! :mad:

Then J Scuz says, we're too dependant on the middle east for oil, the Saudi's and all of them. We have our own oil.

I wanted to eat the TeeVee. :banghead:

Sorry to just parapharse - tried finding the transcript.

We gotta stop it.

k&r

I would blame BP, but they lost 11 people and I doubt they are any different then any other oil company when it comes to safety. Which doesn't say much.

Haven't studied the Swiss contractor.

BP and Halliburton have a long history of bending the rules and lobbying to get rid of the rules. They also have a long history of bad accidents caused by neglect of safety.

the rumor is that the Deepwater Horizon's permit was only for 18,000 ft deep, they drilled the well to 35,000 then Halliburton installed a concrete cap that was good for the 18,000 depth and it blew because of the extra depth.

if the required Env Impact Study had been conducted April 2009....but Int Dept exempted BP