A criminal investigation of BP should by launched by the Justice Department to determine if its executives were guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of 11 rig workers.
The classic case of the Cocoanut Grove fire provides the legal precedent.
On the evening of November 28, 1942, a fire swept through the Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston, killing 492 people. The owners had ignored various codes and safety regulations, for example, welding shut side doors, that could have been used to escape, so that customers could not leave without paying their bills. The nightclub had twice the number of allowed guests.
The owner, who was said to have had mafia and political connections that allowed him to operate in violation of the codes and safety regulations, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to a 10-15 year jail sentence.
Unlike murder that requires various levels of specific intent, involuntary manslaughter is applied to situations in which the perpetrators act with utter indifference to human life, or reckless indifference, or gross negligence (definitions vary, but the descriptions all have the same concept).
Although innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, BP executives appear to have displayed the same reckless indifference to human life vs profits as the Cocoanut Grove owners. Although the corporate structure protects management and owners from individual liability, the corporate veil can be pierced in cases of fraud and criminality.
Moreover, BP has been alleged to have improperly influenced its regulators. Not only is this similar to the Cocoanut Grove owners, but it may also raise questions of the criminal liability of those regulators. That issue did not arise in the Cocoanut Grove fire, possibly because the owner was the one who had the final opportunity to follow the codes despite a carte blanche to avoid them. But, when it comes to "reckless indifference" to human life, the MMS regulators may be considered co-conspirators.
Such regulatory laxity may also be traceable to Dick Cheney -- at the very least, the investigation's need for the minutes and participants of his meetings in 2001 with oil executives should now trump the (bogus) executive privilege claim that Justice Scalia -- who went hunting with Cheney soon before the decision -- and his compatriots on the Court granted him. [Strangely, the Court never raised the question of whether Cheney actually was part of the Executive Branch, an assertion Cheney denied when confronted with his violation of executive archival preservation rules].
One might also wonder why Michael Vick should go to jail for dog-fighting, but BP can kill marine life with impunity. Vick, of course, had intent. The standard for BP, again, would be reckless indifference. Leaving dogs in locked cars during heatwaves is probably a more apt precedent.
There is sufficient legal precedent, though, to launch a criminal investigation of BP executives for involuntary manslaughter of the rig-workers.
To the objection that we have to focus on the clean-up, I quote President Obama: "we can do two things at once."
Rev. Jesse Jackson: Which Way Are We Going? You Decide
Are we going to go backward and argue for discrimination on race and gender, defend BP and others from accountability, and fight endless war abroad while laying off teachers at home? Or are we going to move forward together?
Jamie Rappaport Clark: Gulf Disaster Shows Drilling Is Too Dangerous
If the catastrophe in the Gulf does not wake us up to the need to wean ourselves off oil and move towards clean, safe, renewable energy, I don't know what will.
Susan Deily-Swearingen: BP Oil Spill: The Nuclear Option
One solution to stop the leak is the terrifying-sounding nuclear option which, essentially, would detonate a nuclear bomb underground near the oil well shaft.
Jeff Schweitzer: Why Clean Coal Is Not, but Renewables Are
The assertion that coal can currently be mined and burned cleanly is as delusional as the claim that new technologies render off-shore drilling perfectly safe.
spillthetruth.org has a letter you can send to the President to ask him to have it shut down.
Sad: we have to beg our government to stop criminals.
Sadder: our government is criminal too.
Saddest: we elected them!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoanut_Grove_fire
Then we should be able to criminally prosecute the insurance companies and hospitals that are allowing Americans to die right now. And that's NO ACCIDENT.
Criminal negligence. Profit over ? ...everything.
And because the investigations and prosecutions into such incidents consume long periods of time, people in the general public who are not directly involved have time to cool off from their initial outrage. That's why so many of the people who contributed to these disasters get off. A feeling of "Haven't they suffered enough? They'll have to live with their guilt forever!" takes over. And consequently, they only get fined or minimal jail sentences.
Of course, environmental damage and lost lives don't get slaps on the wrist, do they?
The citizens of the United States is crying foul over Immigration issues, Health care and this oil spill and yet it still sits on it's ass when it comes to accountability for crimes against our own!
I may be wrong here but you can not expect an Oiler to understand the repercussions and ripple effects of why he has to maintain the lubrication of machinery when it's the mechanics job to maintain the efficiency of a motor. I guess what am trying to say here is do you expect all personal on an Oil Rig to know the IN's and OUT's of the internal workings on such a rig? Of course not !
That in itself is impossible unless he/she has had an interest on their own time. Safety rules and regulations have to be followed at the Supervisory level and upwards and overseen by them.
Interestingly, for murder, where the jury must find intent or knowing behavior to find the person guilty, it is nearly impossible to have "vicarious" intent. For involuntary manslaughter, which I think this is, reckless indifference can be a corporate policy, and be spread among many actors who a) knew or should have known; and b) were in a position to do something about it. Of course, the reckless indifference needs to be specific for the current Gulf Disaster, and not just a general phenomenon although a pattern of behavior can be used to show that, in this particular case as well, the corporate policy--promulgated by specific individuals, not some vague entity that now has the right to buy our political campaigns directly--led directly to the tragic event.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=123948850964348