Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant oil skimmer makes stop in Norfolk on way to Gulf oil cleanup

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes. I read that. You have posted in numerous times. I see that there are silly, outdated laws that are preventing solutions from being utilized.

What SPECIFIC mechanisms do you think the POTUS or Congress has to subvert these existing laws?

And if/when they do subvert these laws, will you defend that decision against those who will seize the opportunity to claim out government is acting outside the law?




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



The reason for not 'accepting' help was just posted above. The current law, as silly as it is, is an obstacle. Complaining about the law seems silly. This is how these things work. Unfortunately, they take time. Hindsight being 20/20, its kind of easy to say "oh they should have thought of that" from the sidelines.


That doesn't make me feel better, but I do understand where you are coming from, our hands are tied, and it doesn't matter much to me who is in charge, this is a nightmare.

I am really stressing today.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Thats nonsense. And you are engagng in ad hom attacks to avoid the real issue.

I am not a 'partisan' and have said nothing in support of Obama, specifically. Didnt vote for the guy. Irrelevent, anyway.

I am defending the limitations of the office of POTUS, in direct response to those here who are saying the President should BREAK THE LAW.

You say he is 'doing nothing' but he isnt a dictator. He is bound by existing laws.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes. I read that. You have posted in numerous times. I see that there are silly, outdated laws that are preventing solutions from being utilized.



I have no idea.

What do you suggest?

frick!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well,the vindictive Obama administration feels that the 5 Republican led gulf states have not been punished enough just yet.

Maybe in a month or so after more citizens are sick,more commit suicide and more are employed cleaning this up.

Then they can claim all the jobs created on their jobs created numbers and how the economy is rebounding.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 






My prediction is that this ship will never make it to the Gulf.





I don't know , all I can do is cry.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well, anger and stress dont help any situation.

My point is that there are existing laws on the books that prevent the action you desire from occurring. Now, unless you suggest the POTUS break the law, then there is little to be done.

Too many people have been shaped by the Bush Administration's precedent of giving the Executive Branch unlimited power. That is DANGEROUS. While I am no big Obama fan or supporter, I do respect that he is far more tempered in his execution of the power of his office.

Americans are slwoly being conditioned to accept a Disctator with all these calls for Obama to "do" all kinds of things he does not have the leagl authority to do. And the VERY SAME people who are criticizing him for essentially FOLLOWING THE LAW are the ones calling him a dictator.

Living in a nation of laws is annoying. Things take time. People approved of Mussolini because he 'made the trains run on time'. People prefer swift, decisive action of a dictator to the slow, reasoned debate of a healthy democracy. think about that next time you are clammouring for 'someone to do something".

Remember, when we elect someone along the lines of Palin, or someone even more dictatorial, it will be because we didnt have the intelligence or patience for Democracy.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


seriously?

I can't believe what you just posted.



[edit on 013030p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Oneolddude
 


So, your claim is that the "Vindictive Obama Administration" went back in time and put those maritime laws on the books to subvert the GOP?

Wow. I had no idea rahm emanuel had a time machine


Those rascally Dems and their desire to follow the law! If this were Bush, he'd just disregard all laws and do whatever the # he wanted!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Why? What, specifically, are you confused by?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


And as demonstrated the laws, especially the Jones Act, can be waived. And it doesn't takes months to do despite what people such as yourself are saying.


Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case-by-case basis. Waivers have been granted in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to September 19, 2005.

Source.

Katrina struck Louisiana on August 29th, and the Jones Act was waived on September 1st, 3 days later. So please stop trying to defend this regimes actions by saying they don't want to break laws.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

Americans are slwoly being conditioned to accept a Disctator with all these calls for Obama to "do" all kinds of things he does not have the leagl authority to do.


I was just thinking the very same thing.

I think they could be trying to force Obama to declare Martial law.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Is that the only law standing in their way? I'm not trying to defend "Obama", by the way. My point is let's discuss the specific laws and issues, and do away with the "Obama wants this to happen" speculation.

I'm more interested in defending the limitations of the office of Executive Chief, being a fan of Democracy, and all.

Perhaps you prefer the trains run on time.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


That's what they want. They WANT Obama to break laws and continue the Bush trajectory of making the POTUS have unlimited power.

The Italians turned a blind eye to mussolini's abuses of power, as long as the trains ran on time! Americans will embrace a strong dictator who subvert stupid 'laws' in favor of decisive 'action'.

America will get a military dictatorship soon enough.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 



Katrina struck Louisiana on August 29th, and the Jones Act was waived on September 1st, 3 days later. So please stop trying to defend this regimes actions by saying they don't want to break laws.



Oh that's right I had forgotten about that, thank you.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Is that the only law standing in their way? I'm not trying to defend "Obama", by the way. My point is let's discuss the specific laws and issues, and do away with the "Obama wants this to happen" speculation.

I'm more interested in defending the limitations of the office of Executive Chief, being a fan of Democracy, and all.

Perhaps you prefer the trains run on time.


Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this exempt ships, responded to an oil spill, from the Jones Act?


"§ 55113. Use of foreign documented oil spill response vessels "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an oil spill response vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country may operate in waters of the United States on an emergency and temporary basis, for the purpose of recovering, transporting,
and unloading in a United States port oil discharged as a result of an oil spill in or near those waters, if--
"(1) an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels documented under the laws of the United States cannot be engaged to recover oil from an oil spill in or near those waters in a timely manner, as determined by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for a discharge or threat of a discharge of oil; and
"(2) the foreign country has by its laws accorded to vessels of the United States the same privileges accorded to vessels of the foreign country under this section.



www.1800jonesact.com...





[edit on 27-6-2010 by mhc_70]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Interesting. Thanks for that. I am curious about all of this, and would love for specific legal info, instead of this nonsense "Obama did it" partisan duechery.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


As of right now, a U.S. Coast Guard certification, a waiver of the Jones Act and maybe one from the EPA, and a contract with BP is what this ship needs to go down to the Gulf and start helping in the cleanup.

The biggest one is the Jones Act, as demonstrated by the Federal refusal of help from the Dutch back in April.

We'll see how it works out then.


But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

To join the fight, the ship also might require separate waivers from the Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

After the separation process, the oil would be transferred to other tankers or shore-based facilities while the remaining water would be pumped back into the gulf.

Because the process wouldn't remove all traces of oil from the seawater, TMT will likely have to gain a special permit from the EPA, said Scott H. Segal of the Washington lobbying firm, Bracewell &Giuliani, which TMT has retained to help negotiate with federal regulators.

"The simple answer is, we don't know what the discharge will look like until we can take A Whale out there and test it," Segal said. TMT will work with regulators to determine an appropriate level of oil that can be contained in the ship's discharge.

TMT also is firm is working with the Coast Guard to gain approval to operate in the gulf, which may require a waiver from a 90-year-old maritime act that restricts foreign-flagged vessels from operating in U.S. waters, said Bob Grantham, a TMT project officer.

Connaughton, the former federal Maritime Administrator, said he doesn't believe the A Whale would require a waiver from the Jones Act, a federal law signed in 1920 that sought to protect U.S. maritime interests.

Coast Guard inspectors toured the ship for about four hours on Thursday to determine the ship's efficacy and whether it was fit to be deployed, said Capt. Matthew Sisson, commanding officer of the Coast Guard's Research and Development arm in New London, Conn.

"We take all offers of alternative technology very seriously," Sisson said. The ship, he said, is "an impressive engineering feat."

He would not offer a timetable for Coast Guard approval of the vessel, but said he will try to "turn around a report … as soon as humanely possible."

Of course, even if the ship gains approval to operate in the gulf, its owners expect the company to be paid for its efforts.

"That's an open question," Segal said. "Obviously, (TMT) is a going concern and its people would need to be compensated for their time and effort."



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


But that STILL doesnt answer my very specific question asking if disregarding the jones act would be sufficient to allow all of these actions to occur.

It is just partisan lazyness to claim this is all "Obama's" fault. Let's look at the specific laws in question, not the partisan speculation meant to fan the GOP's flames.

YES!!!, I believe 'the government' are lazy and cumbersome. I am not arguing that. I am questioning those who are claiming that "Obama" is doing this on 'purpose' to, to paraphrase on poster in this thread 'to punish the Gulf states for voting GOP.' That sounds awfully hyperbolic.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


So, in other words, it is NOT "just" the "Jones Act" that is standing in the way?

What legal precedent gives the POTUS the authority to disregard the jones act?

If the Bush Admin did so during Katrina, what legal precedent did they base their decision on?





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join