I'm new here from NYC, thoughts about the "War"

[bezzer]

This kind of reminds me of the Paddington rail crash a few years ago in London. The crash happened because railtrack the private regulator of the UK train networks (a company which has since, ceased to be, as of late, thankfully) decided that installing a multimillion abs signalling system, that would have prevented the train crash happening, should not be installed, so they did not install it (unlike railtracks European equivalent network regulators < state owned >, which had long had the signalling and breaking system installed)

How did they come to this decision? Well they calculated the cost of the abs system to be installed, and came to the conclusion that a couple of million pounds, per human life was too much of an expense…. It never got installed and as a result many people lost their lives.

So in industrial accidents, is it ever purely down to health and safety negligence, or do a number of factors come into play? Is there calculated risk assessment to how much life is worth in comparison to profit? And is that called murder? Not just negligence?

The American multinational in Bhopal was fully aware that the chemical make up of the pestersides that it was producing were dangerous. But by an upper management decision it was deemed cost effective to close down refrigeration units in may of 1984, that were used to disserpaite heat from the chemical reactions, of the chemical ( m116 not sure ) stored in huge tanks. To they blatantly got rid of the this safety measure, and this was (one) of the factors that resulted in the gas cloud that was produced on the 2 of December in Bhopal India, resulting in, 10.000 uncompensated deaths to this date. (Saw a program on it the other night)

Before the 2 December 1984 people had died from the chemicals that were being produced from the factory in Bhopal. So why did they carry on producing chemicals? (And producing chemicals via slashing important health and safety regulations). When you have negligence to this degree, it is an act of murder ? They (knew the quantities of the chemicals they were producing, they knew the potential loss of life, that it could cause). Is there calculated risk assessment to how much life is worth in comparison to profit? And is it intentional murder ?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

JC

Also, I am not as convinced as you, that a connection to OBL has not been established.

Isn't that the whole point though? If evidence is doubtful, or people disagree about it, then in a democracy we have what is called a trial.

Just because you assert that something is the case, doesn't mean it's true. If you've had any basic legal training or knowledge of the law then you would know that.

There is not a single lawyer here in Britain who will condemn Bin Laden on the basis of this so-called 'evidence' they've seen. All the top lawyers have dismissed it as junk. You need better evidence to convict someone on shoplifting charges.

The only people making a big fuss about it are politicians (surprise, surprise) and misled portions of the public. And if you're going to believe that polticians are honest and don't lie and they're legal experts then why bother having the court system? It's really very naive.

And you DO defend ignorance and hate, and have justified this as a reason for the attacks on the Afghans. See your posting on the top of page 5.

[Edited to add]

Demanding a fair process is not the same as appeasement.

The reasonable chain of events is this:

Something happened.
Find out who did this.
Try that person in a court.
If guilty, then take action against the person and his/her organisation. there is no appeasement.

From a public policy view, you're also interested in finding out why this happened. I refer to my points on American 'interference' above.

I also refer you to my points on the alternative way to handle this. If you're read it then you wouldn't be talking about appeasement here.

In Northern Ireland, we have terrorist groups that have been funded for years by America. We don't appease them. But neither do we bomb Ireland, or America for funding these groups. We take action against the perpetrators. We realise that terrorism won't be solved by bombing, even though we know who is responsible. That's why we've started talks with ALL parties and even now the IRA is talking about decommissioning weapons. This is the only way forward.

[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Bezzer,

In India there are some people who are trying to lay a charge of corporate manslaughter on Union Carbide. They haven't succeeded - yet.

Isn't it funny how people are prepared to justify their actions away? For example, the American missile bombing of an Iranian airjet was an 'accident'. But the Lockerbie disaster was the 'worst act of terrorism perpetrated on British soil', even though similar numbers of people died in exactly the same circumstances in both cases.

In the Lockerbie case however, the British did carry out a legal process. All the way through, the CIA were adamant that Libya was behind all this. They named dozens of people who they charged with the same thing that they're charging Bin Laden with. As now, the evidence was supposed to be overwhelming.

Most of this evidence was rubbished at trial and dismissed as being irrelevant or simply made up. Even so, to the astonishment of many legal experts, one of the defendants was convicted, some think because of political pressure applied to the jusges.

An appeal has been granted (in itself an acknowledgement that the evidence is questionable) on the basis that evidence which would have proved the innocence of the convicted was deliberately witheld.

Some of the families of the Lockerbie victims have been accusing the American and British governments from witholding important information. Most of the British families think the conviction was a 'set-up' and the real perpetrators haven't been found.

For more information on how to apply the law in situations like these, go to:
http://www.ltb.org.uk

 

[System of a Down]

Johnny: I didn't tried to attract pity by my affirmations, although it is perhaps not really what you wanted to say; I mean those are not the reasons I would spit to the terrorist pointing his AK in my direction. I'm only experimenting all the possibilities that could lead to a democratic decision. Times are critical, and even worst since most people dont even realize that. Only a group of civilan who compose the majority can have the chance to reach the roots of decisions.
Maybe it wont lead to anything, but it is certainly not worthless...

Isn't it funny? This war is against terrorism in general and, on the other side, against exageration in general. I could understand terrorists attacks on the US, directly source of any exagerations, but the US actually keep bombing Afghanistan only, as if it was the source of terrorism.
I'm truely tired of discovering new idioties every damn day...

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Patel: I can't recall the trial where the workers of the WTC were condemned to execution-I must have missed the paper that day. I think they should have hired a better lawyer.

I remember someone saying that war crimes trials are merely showpieces for the victors, something akin, I suppose, to a Roman triumph. 'Justice' is determined by the army that has prevailed on the battlefield.

While perfectly suitable for everyday life, perhaps the justice system is not expansive enough to deal with conflicts between ideologies, where millions are involved. Surely in such situations, an attempt to apply the legal procedures implemented to deal with individuals or small groups, is somewhat farcical.

Even if we accept that a trial is the way to go, and we get enough evidence against OBL to hold a trial, how do you propose getting him out of (Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Chechnya, wherever) without an armed conflict. Do you have something to show that he would give himself up.

Patel and Bezzer: you are saying that multinational executives make decisions to trade lives for profit.

I can't say that doesn't happen. But if it does, I don't think they want to be hamfisted or shortsighted about it.

I'm not sure where Bezzer became privy to the deliberations of the railroad execs, but their decision seems a little foolish. They apparently calculated the value of a number of human lives, compared it with the cost of the system, and opted to forgo the system.

The problem is, if you have an accident (as did happen), you are faced with the cost of the lives/lawsuits, plus, as a result of public outcry, you now must pay for the system as well. In other words, double the expense.

I don't know why the Bhopal victims haven't been paid, although I thought they got a settlement a number of years back.

If they didn't it was not due to lack of legal representation. A number of prominent US lawyers rushed to India to sign up clients, including F Lee Bailey, one of OJ's lawyers.

Anyway, I think we're veering off point...

Patel, by appeasment, I mean giving the terrorists what they want. I thought they wanted the US to examine its foreign policy, recognize its mistakes, and stop acting in a heavy handed manner in a number of countries.

These are the things you are advocating as a response to Sept. 11. In other words, for executing innocent people, the US would respond by giving the terrorists the things they have been asking for.

Aside from the fact that this wouldn't play well in Peoria, I think it is the wrong way to try to stop, as opposed to fuel, terrorism.

 

[johnwisehammer]

"I remember someone saying that war crimes trials are merely showpieces for the victors"

Well, they're an idiot, then, as the recent trials of Croatian Croats, Bosnian Croats and Bosnjaks has shown - these people were the 'victors' (ignoring the question as to whether anyone ever really wins a war).

Johnny - your faith in the rigidity and fairness of the legal system in dealing with corporate manslaughter is somewhat misplaced. Near me, a construction compnay dropped a door off the top of a building onto the head of a 7 year old boy. Despite the fact he's died, nobody has been charged over 15 months later. You can bet your life that if the workie had killed the boy 'off-duty', he would have been locked up before the day was out.

 

[bezzer]

... they had the statistical evidence from othere europeon countries that had installed the train breaking system, and had seen the potential it had, in saving lives and then they came to this decition ...

"Thames Trains refused to pay £5.26m for a train protection scheme which could have prevented the Paddington train crash, the Cullen inquiry into the disaster was told yesterday."

"Yet within a year of rejecting the idea, the company paid out a dividend of £4.23m to shareholders, and a year later paid another dividend of £3.25m, John Hendy QC, said on behalf of 148 people involved in the crash, including 21 bereaved" (gurdian may 2000)

sorrey it was thames trains not railtrack, but railtrack were resonsible for the signilling of track, that resulted in the crash.

[ 24 October 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]

 

[Johnny Canuck]

J dub er....JWH: What does your example prove? Something falls at a construction site, someone was killed. No one has been charged criminally.

Maybe the reason is that no crime was committed. If someone stands at the top of the site and deliberately chucks the door at the kid's head, that would be a crime.

If a crane operator, reaching to shut the vent in the cab, accidentally elbows the cable release, causing a door to fall on someones' head, that would be negligence, but not a crime.

Your example is missing a few relevant facts.


Bezzer: How much did the deaths cost the company? I'll bet it was, or will be, a lot. Plus, they face the cost you've set out to implement the system.

That's dumb. And that's why I don't think they made a conscious decision to sacrifice lives.

 

[kissthecat]

There was definitely a conscious decision to sacrifice lives on the railways. They have admitted to that already. They decided that it was cheaper to pay for insurance in the event of passenger deaths than to upgrade safety equipment. What is that if not a conscious decision? London underground has a similar policy. Excuse the pun.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Damn! Glad I don't live there. Businessmen do things like that here, we put them in jail and tell them to avoid the shower...

 

[kissthecat]

Some capitalist governments are worse than others JC. We happen to have one of the worst. I read somewhere today that for a government that can't manage a railway they have a bloody cheek trying to manage the world...

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Yes. Well, back to work...

Uncomfortable Thought For the Day: The Saudis are now criticizing the US for the Afghan campaign. So much for the slave states blindly following in the footsteps of the master....