Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"I say you go to jail." (Original Post) Scuba Jan 2014 OP
I thought she was great on GP6971 Jan 2014 #1
And she said she was on her way back to WV n/t ReRe Jan 2014 #15
"Corporations are people my friend" Ohio Joe Jan 2014 #2
$$$$$$$$$$$ orpupilofnature57 Jan 2014 #3
Yup BrotherIvan Jan 2014 #4
That's why indicting a corporation for criminal behavior is steer manure Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #47
They cash out, declare bankruptcy, and start over again under a new name. alfredo Jan 2014 #55
Let's save them some trouble Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #59
They used to call it "fiduciary responsibility." klook Jan 2014 #60
They feel they are sovereign, they answer to nobody. alfredo Jan 2014 #61
This one was bled nearly dry by the Koch boys Warpy Jan 2014 #51
Yup madokie Jan 2014 #5
Wow. They haven't murdered her yet? Of course, when you own the media, you can kill Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2014 #6
Your comment made a cold chill run up my spine. Cracklin Charlie Jan 2014 #7
Sorry. I am pretty darn cynical, but not without reason. I haven't seen Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2014 #8
Silkwood. eggplant Jan 2014 #13
and thousands of others have been targeted, jobs taken away, reputations ruined, AikidoSoul Jan 2014 #53
Wow, that's some serious shit... druidity33 Jan 2014 #56
She also said Nevernose Jan 2014 #9
Absoutely...Go Straight To Jail, Do Not bkanderson76 Jan 2014 #10
And just because I'm in that kind of a mood this morning, a little A Simple Game Jan 2014 #22
I so agree. SoapBox Jan 2014 #11
if you could prove some kind of Niceguy1 Jan 2014 #12
Why? If my septic tanks leaks into the neighbor's yard, no "gross negligence" need be proven. El_Johns Jan 2014 #19
Well your septic tank is not mentioned in Dick Cheney's "Oil and Energy Act" truedelphi Jan 2014 #49
Oh, I know. Corporations are people except when they do something wrong. Then they are too El_Johns Jan 2014 #63
It'll never happen, but I 100% agree! When will this finally start happening? tofuandbeer Jan 2014 #14
When Congress overturns the provisions inside Dick Cheney's 2005 "Oil And Big Energy Act" truedelphi Jan 2014 #50
Thanks for the info! tofuandbeer Jan 2014 #62
Only people who break laws should go to jail, not just people we don't like. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2014 #16
Isn't there negligent assault laws? uponit7771 Jan 2014 #17
I don't believe so, no. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2014 #18
5 Minute Law School-Knowing/Reckless Assault Laxman Jan 2014 #23
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2014 #46
As far as I am concerned, we should throw out every single truedelphi Jan 2014 #48
Sorry, Erin, jail is for the little people. Enthusiast Jan 2014 #20
Maybe I've missed it but, Hotler Jan 2014 #21
I missed the part where the President was a sheriff Progressive dog Jan 2014 #24
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. Did you miss that part? Scuba Jan 2014 #26
And the Attorney General exists to enforce the President's whims. Progressive dog Jan 2014 #27
No, if the President ordered the AG to prosecute criminals, it would be Constitutional. Scuba Jan 2014 #28
Not if he picks which specific persons to prosecute Progressive dog Jan 2014 #29
Did you see the part about a lack of prosecutors for Wall Street? Apparently there's no shortage .. Scuba Jan 2014 #30
There is a shortage for both, Progressive dog Jan 2014 #31
By executive order, the president could reclassify marijuana from Schedule I ... Scuba Jan 2014 #32
Actually there is a mechanism in law Progressive dog Jan 2014 #33
The presence of the petitioning provision does not prohibit the existence of other means. Scuba Jan 2014 #34
I don't see the part about Executive Order, Progressive dog Jan 2014 #35
Did you see the part about the AG? Do you know who the AG takes orders from? The Executive. Scuba Jan 2014 #36
No I'm just reading the whole thing Progressive dog Jan 2014 #37
OK, I'll try to explain this to you once more ... Scuba Jan 2014 #38
Or the underling can just resign like Progressive dog Jan 2014 #39
What makes you think such an EO would be illegal? Scuba Jan 2014 #40
I don't think so, I know so Progressive dog Jan 2014 #41
Certainly not obvious to the folks at Fire Dog Lake, or me, and we all read. Scuba Jan 2014 #42
Oh Oh, a million FDL's can't put "executive order" Progressive dog Jan 2014 #43
Can't say I see it either dreamnightwind Jan 2014 #54
....... Hotler Jan 2014 #65
Not far enough... you are a corporation, you kill people, you get the Corporate Death Penalty JCMach1 Jan 2014 #25
Now this would make an interesting discussion. CrispyQ Jan 2014 #44
Same thing that happened to AT&T and Standard Oil sell it off JCMach1 Jan 2014 #45
I'm waiting for some CEO to get the "needle" for their crimes against America. alfredo Jan 2014 #57
Standard Oil & ATT are very much alive. Just in altered form. Rockefellers made bank on the El_Johns Jan 2014 #64
If corporations are people leanforward Jan 2014 #52
From your lips... MrMickeysMom Jan 2014 #58

Ohio Joe

(21,731 posts)
2. "Corporations are people my friend"
Mon Jan 27, 2014, 10:15 PM
Jan 2014

Unless they do something that should send them to jail... Then suddenly they get some kind of out.

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
47. That's why indicting a corporation for criminal behavior is steer manure
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 03:43 PM
Jan 2014

What are they going to do if the corporation is convicted? Relocate the plant to Leavenworth?

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
59. Let's save them some trouble
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:15 PM
Jan 2014

We determine who allowed the crime. If it is corporate policy to dump toxic waste into the environment or to go lax on occupational health and safety, resulting in deaths in oil rig fires or mine cave ins, then the chief corporate officers or perhaps even members of the board of directors should go to jail. The corporation is just an institution and go on with new corporate officers, who hopefully are better and more responsible citizens than the old ones. In any case, the corporate officers and their political allies won't be able talk about how much the litigation is going to hurt their employees, since the corporation doesn't go out of business.

Corporate personhood makes sense in only one area that I can think of: business law. In this case, corporate personhood allows the corporation, through an authorized representative, to enter a contract as if it were an individual, with the same rights and obligations under the contract. If Wylie Coyote doesn't perform his end of the agreement, the Acme Corporation gets to sue him. If the Acme Corporation doesn't perform, then Mr. Coyote gets to sue it. It is ridiculous to extend civil rights, such as the right to participate in the electoral process, to a corporation as if it were a person. If a corporate officer wants to vote for candidate X, then I doubt there's any one here would stand in his way. If he wants to fund candidate X's political campaign, that's fine with me, too, as long as he does it with his own money and not the corporation's.

Discussion?

Warpy

(111,169 posts)
51. This one was bled nearly dry by the Koch boys
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:12 PM
Jan 2014

so there's no money for bribes or payoffs.

What they need to do is jail anyone with a carpeted office.

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,760 posts)
6. Wow. They haven't murdered her yet? Of course, when you own the media, you can kill
Mon Jan 27, 2014, 11:10 PM
Jan 2014

the facts, so, I guess that explains it. Better ignored than dead, I guess. But can we really expect the "job creators" to be held responsible for any harm they do anymore? Any fines or penalties are just part of the very low cost of doing business.

AikidoSoul

(2,150 posts)
53. and thousands of others have been targeted, jobs taken away, reputations ruined,
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:37 PM
Jan 2014

also harassment, also targeted and poisoned....

Poisoning is an old CIA tactic.

I have been targeted repeatedly for my activism against the use of thousands of toxic chemicals that have not even basic testing done. Only a handful have had adequate testing.

But the big event was in 1991 after I saw a tape of a speech given by Ross Perot at the National Press Club... got incredibly excited and motivated. I called the Perot Group in Dallas and told them I thought he would make a very good president and that I was getting into the car to drive all over Florida to show the tape to various groups asking them whether they would support such a guy for president. When I got to Tampa I met Jack Gargan and he helped get the ball really rolling.

I ordered a hundred copies of the tape and mailed them to key people.

After the movement really started my husband and I were initially at the center of activity even though it was in the isolated island of Key West. We were inundated with people who were covert ops types who kept knocking at our door and offering "to help". They a woman claiming to be a retired CIA operative said she was setting up an office in Miami for me with multiple phones, etc. I declined. Our phones were tapped. We were followed everywhere. Someone climbed our high fence late at night and put weird looking sharp metal shards in our underwear that was hanging there! How strange is that. Then we started getting sick. And then very, very sick. After a few months of this my spouse found me uncoscious on the floor. I had to be rushed to the hospital for what turned out to be organophosphate poisoning. I was the color of cement when I arrived and the emergency room. The ER staff said if he hadn't gotten there when he did that I only had a few minutes to live. They brought me back with atropine but I was deathly ill for five months, and even today have serious neurological issues.

I can never prove that I was purposefully poisoned, as was my husband, but one thing is for sure -- we never used pesticides in our house, so it had to come from another source.

druidity33

(6,445 posts)
56. Wow, that's some serious shit...
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:57 PM
Jan 2014

i'm sorry that my government may have done that to you. Be well. Keep standing up for what you believe in, but be careful!

:hugs:

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
9. She also said
Mon Jan 27, 2014, 11:41 PM
Jan 2014

"If terrorists had poisoned the water supply of a large American community, we'd be going to war right now."

(Not a verbatim quote)

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
22. And just because I'm in that kind of a mood this morning, a little
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 09:53 AM
Jan 2014

food coloring in the water, you know just to set the mood.

 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
19. Why? If my septic tanks leaks into the neighbor's yard, no "gross negligence" need be proven.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:22 AM
Jan 2014

I can be completely unaware of my leaky septic system and still have to pay to clean up my neighbor's yard.

Negligent, schegligent. They poisoned the public water system.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
49. Well your septic tank is not mentioned in Dick Cheney's "Oil and Energy Act"
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:08 PM
Jan 2014

of 2005. You are just a "little person" (like the rest of us) and so you have liability.

In that law, the Big Energy firms were given a "Get out of reparations and get out of jail" free card, as the law includes an entire provision that excludes Big Energy companies from any and all liability.

 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
63. Oh, I know. Corporations are people except when they do something wrong. Then they are too
Wed Jan 29, 2014, 12:22 AM
Jan 2014

big to fail.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
50. When Congress overturns the provisions inside Dick Cheney's 2005 "Oil And Big Energy Act"
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:11 PM
Jan 2014

that offer complete liability to any energy company that pulverizes, pollutes or otherwise destroys an entire eco system.

Since lobbyists pull the strings over the puppets we refer to as Congressional "leaders," I am not holding my breath.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
16. Only people who break laws should go to jail, not just people we don't like.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:18 AM
Jan 2014

If she can provide a clear example of a specific law that has been broken, sure, but "assault" clearly won't cut it.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
18. I don't believe so, no.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:22 AM
Jan 2014

There are laws against *negligence*, but I think that assault requires mens rea. IANAL, though.

Laxman

(2,419 posts)
23. 5 Minute Law School-Knowing/Reckless Assault
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 09:56 AM
Jan 2014

Standard of Conduct

(2) Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct if he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. "Knowing," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

(3) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. "Recklessness," "with recklessness" or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

(4) Negligently. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. "Negligently" or "negligence" when used in this code, shall refer to the standard set forth in this section and not to the standards applied in civil cases.


and what is assault

2C:12-1. Assault. a. Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he:

(1) Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or

(3) Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.


and corporate liability

a. A corporation may be convicted of the commission of an offense if:

(1) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation unless the offense is one defined by a statute which indicates a legislative purpose not to impose criminal liability on corporations. If the law governing the offense designates the agents for whose conduct the corporation is accountable or the circumstances under which it is accountable, such provisions shall apply;

(2) The offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on corporations by law; or

(3) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested, commanded, or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation.



And-Under the correct circumstances there is criminal liability for violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. People have gone to jail under those provisions. If Freedom Industries and their management were reckless in their conduct, or if there was a repeated pattern of conduct, there is Federal criminal liability. It requires "Human Endangerment" which certainly exists here.

You'll get my bill in the mail.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
48. As far as I am concerned, we should throw out every single
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:05 PM
Jan 2014

Person in Congress who have refused to do anything about the re-writing our laws, that are responsible for enabling such a thing to happen.

Dick Cheney saw to it that in 2005, the "Oil reform" measure he was pushing for was passed by Congress. The law was totally supported in Congress. One of its provisions is that energy firms, including the coal industry, do not have to worry about any liability at all in terms of damaging an eco system.

Did the Democratic Congressional critters take some time and re-write the section of the bill once they were in the majority, from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011? Nope, they couldn't be bothered.



Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
20. Sorry, Erin, jail is for the little people.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 06:29 AM
Jan 2014

If we have learned anything since 2008, we learned that the wealthy connected can get away with treason, war crimes and theft and fraud on a grand scale.

Hotler

(11,396 posts)
21. Maybe I've missed it but,
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 09:02 AM
Jan 2014

I have yet to read or hear our president speak up about the WV spill. Oh never mind. Wall St. is still walking free the CEO of the chemical company will walk free also. But if you smoke pot you go to jail.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
24. I missed the part where the President was a sheriff
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:09 AM
Jan 2014

or a member of the judiciary. I'm trying to think of why you would expect to hear from him.
He arrests people for pot? When did that happen?

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
27. And the Attorney General exists to enforce the President's whims.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jan 2014

In fact, if the President ordered the Attorney General to prosecute, it would probably be an impeachable offense.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
28. No, if the President ordered the AG to prosecute criminals, it would be Constitutional.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:34 AM
Jan 2014
Nov 12 (Reuters) - The federal judge who oversaw the recent civil fraud trial against Bank of America Corp criticized the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday for failing to prosecute high-level executives over the financial crisis.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan said while companies have been prosecuted for causing the 2007-2009 financial meltdown, Wall Street executives have escaped justice.

"The failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible for such a massive fraud speaks greatly to weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed," Rakoff said.

Rakoff, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, blamed the lack of criminal cases on a shortage of investigatory resources coupled with an over-emphasis on bringing cases against companies rather than individuals.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/13/financial-judge-idUSL2N0IX1B620131113

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
29. Not if he picks which specific persons to prosecute
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jan 2014

He is supposed to enforce laws equally.
I agree that we don't devote the resources to prosecution that we should. I want to see investigation and prosecution, but the investigation has to come first.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
30. Did you see the part about a lack of prosecutors for Wall Street? Apparently there's no shortage ..
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:49 AM
Jan 2014

... for cannibus crimes, which he could legalize with a stroke of the pen.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
31. There is a shortage for both,
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:08 AM
Jan 2014

and he cannot change laws with a stroke of the pen. He is not a dictator.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
32. By executive order, the president could reclassify marijuana from Schedule I ...
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jan 2014
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/03/a-president-alone-can-end-the-federal-drug-war/


... written into our drug laws is a mechanism for the executive branch without Congressional involvement to move drugs to a lower “schedule” of oversight or remove them from federal control all together. It is not uncommon or unusual for the relevant executive agencies to use this power to change the scheduling of different controlled substances.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
33. Actually there is a mechanism in law
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:27 AM
Jan 2014
The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II.

from wikipedia.
I don't know where the "executive order" fantasy came from, but not from any actual law.
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
34. The presence of the petitioning provision does not prohibit the existence of other means.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jan 2014

Nor does your lack of knowledge.

You can read the relevant provisions of the law here.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
35. I don't see the part about Executive Order,
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:44 AM
Jan 2014

I keep reading over and over again. Maybe you need to read it.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
36. Did you see the part about the AG? Do you know who the AG takes orders from? The Executive.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:52 AM
Jan 2014

Are you just being obstinate?

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
37. No I'm just reading the whole thing
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:58 AM
Jan 2014

You seem to not know what the President's authority is. The law explains how drugs are moved to different schedules.You should read it for understanding. The President is not given authority to move them. Period, Executive orders cannot circumvent the law. The president is not a dictator.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
38. OK, I'll try to explain this to you once more ...
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:04 PM
Jan 2014

The President can issue Executive Orders to his underlings (e.g., the US Attorney General).

The underling is required to comply.

So if the President issued an EO that said, for example, "Hey Eric, take cannibus off the Controlled Substances Schedule" Eric would be required to comply.


See, it's not that complicated?


Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
39. Or the underling can just resign like
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jan 2014

they did when Nixon gave illegal orders to his AG and Asst. AG.. He can give all the illegal orders he wants, I thought we were talking about what he could legally do.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
43. Oh Oh, a million FDL's can't put "executive order"
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:24 PM
Jan 2014

into that law. You can't even put "assume dictatorial powers in." FDL isn't there, either.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
54. Can't say I see it either
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:53 PM
Jan 2014

I just read the FDL article, and also the law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811). While I'm entirely on the side of legalization, the FDL article is a very sloppy one written by a Rand Paul supporter who is getting everyone excited that President Paul can and will repeal the drug laws via executive order.

I see nothing in the the FDL article nor the law that supports this about an executive order.

I think the AG is supposed to be independent of the POTUS.

There are other points of leverage in the law (besides the Attorney General). One is the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently Sebelius) may request a rescheduling. She actually does work for Obama, it would seem appropriate to me that he could make such a request of her.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.


The other points of leverage have to do with international standards:

Whenever the Secretary of State receives notification from the Secretary-General of the United Nations that information has been transmitted by or to the World Health Organization, pursuant to article 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which may justify adding a drug or other substance to one of the schedules of the Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules...


...

Whenever the Secretary of State receives information that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations proposes to decide whether to add a drug or other substance to one of the schedules of the Convention, transfer a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or delete it from the schedules, the Secretary of State shall transmit timely notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services of such information who shall publish a summary of such information in the Federal Register and provide opportunity to interested persons to submit to him comments respecting the recommendation which he is to furnish, pursuant to this subparagraph, respecting such proposal. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal...


It looks to me like Sebelius could get it done, and Obama could tell her he wants it done. They'd have to be able to show the science behind legalization (which should be quite easy, marijuana is one of the more harmless things I know of). If I'm not mistaken, such a review was recently done, and incredibly didn't give marijuana a clean bill of health, so it was not rescheduled. I'm not very clear on the details of this, could be wrong. And regarding my reading of the law above, I'm not a lawyer so there are probably some things I missed.

But it really looks to me like the key to the whole situation is getting an honest scheduling evaluation done by the Dept. of Health and Human Services, and President Obama could unilaterally make such a thing happen. Not the same as an executive order for rescheduling though, I don't see anywhere that such an order would be appropriate under the law.

CrispyQ

(36,424 posts)
44. Now this would make an interesting discussion.
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:55 PM
Jan 2014

What exactly would a corporate death penalty look like?

Realistically, you could not have just shut BP down. You'd leave employees without jobs, customers without service/product. I say socialize it - the government takes it over. Of course, our government is so corrupt & tied to corporate America that wouldn't work.

I'd love to hear other ideas.

Corporations have become nothing but a front for rich people to profit by behaving contrary to the common good, all without consequence.

JCMach1

(27,553 posts)
45. Same thing that happened to AT&T and Standard Oil sell it off
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 01:03 PM
Jan 2014

BP would no longer be allowed to operate in the US. Their assets here would have to be sold.

Does anyone believe they have 'really' changed how they operate? So yeah, if it reaches the level of grievous corporate negligence, or malfeasance there should be a corporate death penalty law at the Federal level that can be applied.

http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/07/bring-back-corporate-death-penalty.html

 

El_Johns

(1,805 posts)
64. Standard Oil & ATT are very much alive. Just in altered form. Rockefellers made bank on the
Wed Jan 29, 2014, 12:33 AM
Jan 2014

break-up of SO.

leanforward

(1,076 posts)
52. If corporations are people
Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:22 PM
Jan 2014

then the people that run them should go to jail. A person or group of "wise men" (co-conspirators) decided not to perform tank maintenance. Send'em all to jail.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"I say you go to jai...