[Developer]

Oil companies have been grantet complete legal immunity in Iraq

Discuss this if you like to.

here:
Bush signed an executive order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality, went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for US corporations in Iraq.

Executive Order 13303 decrees that 'any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void', with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the US. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The President, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

[lil'babykitten]

How the hell can they issue an 'executive order' internationally. What damn right does the US have to interfere in a country like this? Is there no end?

[SimeyTheLimey]

We already discussed this. T_F where is the thread where you and I talked about this the other day? I'm damned if I can remember which one it was.

Anyway, its not correct the way it is being reported. The EO only bars attachment of the government funds as part of a (hypothetical) damages award. It isn't immunity for the contractors themselves as far as I can tell. It just means if someone sues the contractor for something the contractor does, the litigants can't take the government to the cleaners.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We already discussed this. T_F where is the thread where you and I talked about this the other day? I'm damned if I can remember which one it was.

Anyway, its not correct the way it is being reported. The EO only bars attachment of the government funds as part of a (hypothetical) damages award. It isn't immunity for the contractors themselves as far as I can tell. It just means if someone sues the contractor for something the contractor does, the litigants can't take the government to the cleaners.

That it's an interesting interpretation. The EO itself is titled:

Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest (emphasis mine)

So yes, it does bar attachment of the government funds and all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations [...] come within the possession or control of United States personas.

IANAL, but the interpretation offered by the article linked by Developer sounds accurate to me.

BTW.: MPRI, Vinnel, DynCorp, etc. are actively hiring mercen^H^H^H^H^H^H war-fighters to be deployed in Iraq; but that probably deserves its own topic...

[xi_hyperon]

Here's the original thread.

[Developer]

This one needs to be closed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
So yes, it does bar attachment of the government funds and all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations [...] come within the possession or control of United States personas.

IANAL, but the interpretation offered by the article linked by Developer sounds accurate to me.

No, not really.

But even taking your interpretation, are you saying that it would be a good thing for US courts to allow Iraqi property to be attached as damages in lawsuits brought in the US? That's bizarre!

To reiterate, this still allows suits against the contractors (assuming there is a case). It just restricts the source of the money for damages to the corporations own funds, not any other funds it happens to be administering. You can't take Iraqi property, and you can't take the US Iraq reconstruction fund. I can't see how anyone can seriously disagree with that.

[ambush]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not really.

But even taking your interpretation, are you saying that it would be a good thing for US courts to allow Iraqi property to be attached as damages in lawsuits brought in the US? That's bizarre!

To reiterate, this still allows suits against the contractors (assuming there is a case). It just restricts the source of the money for damages to the corporations own funds, not any other funds it happens to be administering. You can't take Iraqi property, and you can't take the US Iraq reconstruction fund. I can't see how anyone can seriously disagree with that.

Dude, Simey, you're so funny.

Whatever we say against war/Bush, you just say it's not true, the sources are not good, whatever.

The reality is sad and shocking: Bush wants Oil. Human lives are less important than Oil for him.

Oil is running low in the US. But wait, the US is also the biggest Oil user. Wait lemme do the math *comes back after 10 minutes of intensive thinking*. Well I came to the conclusion that the US must find Oil sources... But wait doesn't Iraq have one of bigg...... *comes back after 5 minutes of intense researches* Yeah it's one of the biggest Oil reserve in the world.

And, why are the US-based oil company taking Iraq's oil ANYWAY?????????? I thought they only wanted to free Iraq?????????? And now they want the oil TOO???? what's up with that????

Face the facts, Bush is an ass.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Face the facts: you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by ambush:
Dude, Simey, you're so funny.

Whatever we say against war/Bush, you just say it's not true, the sources are not good, whatever.

The reality is sad and shocking: Bush wants Oil. Human lives are less important than Oil for him.

Oil is running low in the US. But wait, the US is also the biggest Oil user. Wait lemme do the math *comes back after 10 minutes of intensive thinking*. Well I came to the conclusion that the US must find Oil sources... But wait doesn't Iraq have one of bigg...... *comes back after 5 minutes of intense researches* Yeah it's one of the biggest Oil reserve in the world.

And, why are the US-based oil company taking Iraq's oil ANYWAY?????????? I thought they only wanted to free Iraq?????????? And now they want the oil TOO???? what's up with that????

Face the facts, Bush is an ass.

HAHAHAHAHA

was school cancelled today?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Face the facts: you have no idea what you are talking about.

Simey, never mind the ambusher, he is a seperatist

[scooby snack]

> RE: We're running out of oil?

http://www.spr.doe.gov/reports/dir.htm

We currently have +600 million barrels in our strategic petroleum reserves, plus our large naval reserves (regular conventional oil fields that are now being returned to the private sector), and we also have a large reserve of home heating oil in the Northeast. On top of that we, like other countries, import and export fuel and energy out the wazoo. I really don't think we are in danger of running out, and I really don't think Iraq's oil will change the scope of things very much. In fact, some of Iraq's oil fields are old and past their prime from being pumped for so many decades.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by scooby snack:
We currently have +600 million barrels in our strategic petroleum reserves, plus our large naval reserves (regular conventional oil fields that are now being returned to the private sector), and we also have a large reserve of home heating oil in the Northeast.

Our oil reserves are huge, but so is our need for oil:

Americans face long-term energy delivery challenges and volatile energy prices
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/worki.../energycfr.pdf

Originally posted by scooby snack:
On top of that we, like other countries, import and export fuel and energy out the wazoo. I really don't think we are in danger of running out, and I really don't think Iraq's oil will change the scope of things very much. In fact, some of Iraq's oil fields are old and past their prime from being pumped for so many decades.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
HAHAHAHAHA

was school cancelled today?

Um. No. No school during summer.
Have you ever gone to school?

kvm, thanks for backing me up.

Anyway, please answer this question: Why are the American Olil Companies leeching Iraq's oil?

It belongs to the Iraqi people, no?

[scooby snack]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Our oil reserves are huge, but so is our need for oil:

Americans face long-term energy delivery challenges and volatile energy prices
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/worki.../energycfr.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/library/execsum.pdf

um, even Europe will see a increase in need for energy and face the same challenges, but duh , as the world's population increases, so does it's demand for energy.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

from this website

1 Saudi Arabia 265.3 (billion barrels)
2 Iraq 115
3 Kuwait 98.8
4 Iran 96.4
5 United Arab Emirates 62.8
6 Russia 54.3
7 Venezuela 47.6
8 China 30.6
9 Libya 30
10 Mexico 26.9
11 Nigeria 24.1
12 United States 22
13 Algeria 12.7
14 Norway 10.1
15 Indonesia 9.7
16 Angola 9
17 Brazil 8.5
18 Oman 5.8
19 Canada 5.6
19 Qatar 5.6

The US could be significantly higher. We have a lot of untapped reserves. Tens of billions under the Gulf of Mexico, and about 10 billion in ANWAR. But we don't want to dirty up our land. That's fine, if we don't mind relying on foreign oil.

I've heard grumblings that, with American ingenuity and expertise, Iraq could eventually overtake Saudi Arabia in terms of production. That would be a huge accomplishment.

Within 10 years, Iraq is going to be one of the richest nations in the world.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by ambush:
nyway, please answer this question: Why are the American Olil Companies leeching Iraq's oil?

It belongs to the Iraqi people, no?

It sure does belong to the Iraqi people. The US is investing in the Iraqi infrastructure, and Iraq will eventually be doubling what was the Saddam regime's peak oil output.

Profits from Iraqi oil will be used over the years to pay back the US for its money invested repairing and improving Iraq's infrastructure. But the US will be buying the oil from Iraq. There's no stealing or 'leaching' involved.

Your statement would look nice on a picket sign, however.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It sure does belong to the Iraqi people. The US is investing in the Iraqi infrastructure, and Iraq will eventually be doubling what was the Saddam regime's peak oil output.

Profits from Iraqi oil will be used over the years to pay back the US for its money invested repairing and improving Iraq's infrastructure. But the US will be buying the oil from Iraq. There's no stealing or 'leaching' involved.

Your statement would look nice on a picket sign, however.

Still sucks considering the infrastructure was destroyed by the US in 91 as well as last spring.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It sure does belong to the Iraqi people. The US is investing in the Iraqi infrastructure, and Iraq will eventually be doubling what was the Saddam regime's peak oil output.

Profits from Iraqi oil will be used over the years to pay back the US for its money invested repairing and improving Iraq's infrastructure. But the US will be buying the oil from Iraq. There's no stealing or 'leaching' involved.

Your statement would look nice on a picket sign, however.

I agree with you completely on this. (surprise!)
The US is investing in the Iraqi infrastructure. That is what I've said all along, you don't have to OWN the oil, you have to CONTROL the oil. Controlling the flow of oil is the whole point of the neocon agenda.

It doesn't matter who owns or buys the oil if the person at the spigot controls how, when, and to whom it flows.

That is precisely the cornerstone that the neocons hope to use to "stabilize" the middle east.

Glad to see you finally see the light.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree with you completely on this. (surprise!)
The US is investing in the Iraqi infrastructure. That is what I've said all along, you don't have to OWN the oil, you have to CONTROL the oil. Controlling the flow of oil is the whole point of the neocon agenda.

It doesn't matter who owns or buys the oil if the person at the spigot controls how, when, and to whom it flows.

That is precisely the cornerstone that the neocons hope to use to "stabilize" the middle east.

Glad to see you finally see the light.

<foreshadowing> Beats going to war with Syria and Iran next doesn't it, heh. Because (get ready, here comes a metaphor) only if you can project enough "American Light" from behind Iraq, can the people in surrounding countries see the oppression they live under. Reagan used this method to defeat communism and bring a end to the Cold War, his disciples are simply adapting his methodology to defeat democracy's newest threat - terrorism. Neocons just so happen to view unrenewable natural resources, like oil and diamonds, as, like you said, stabilizers, and oil happens to be the stabilizer for the world economy, but don't go thinking oil was the only reason behind 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' - neocons are much more evangelical than that. </ foreshadowing>

<now read between the lines> What I find particularly amusing is when people who don't like Republicians confuse this action with "colonization" and "empire building", which draws responses like "Shut up you commie bastard" from neocon supporters. </ now read between the lines>

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
<foreshadowing> Beats going to war with Syria and Iran next doesn't it, heh. Because (get ready, here comes a metaphor) only if you can project enough "American Light" from behind Iraq, can the people in surrounding countries see the oppression they live under. Reagan used this method to defeat communism and bring a end to the Cold War, his disciples are simply adapting his methodology to defeat democracy's newest threat - terrorism. Neocons just so happen to view unrenewable natural resources, like oil and diamonds, as, like you said, stabilizers, and oil happens to be the stabilizer for the world economy, but don't go thinking oil was the only reason behind 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' - neocons are much more evangelical than that. </ foreshadowing>

<now read between the lines> What I find particularly amusing is when people who don't like Republicians confuse this action with "colonization" and "empire building", which draws responses like "Shut up you commie bastard" from neocon supporters. </ now read between the lines>

crrrreeeeeppppy scenario. Is this sarcasm or your real views?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
crrrreeeeeppppy scenario. Is this sarcasm or your real views?

And the mix of red type and bold words makes it an annoyingly difficult post to read.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the mix of red type and bold words makes it an annoyingly difficult post to read.

So are the bot-threads.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
So are the bot-threads.

click...whrrrr....zing!....bot has detected...carbon-based unit....click whrr...zing! who spends more chronological units...on attacking the arguer....instead of the argument...click whrrr...zing!.,..complete waste of bandwidth......click!
Recommendation.....reprogram...whrrr..reprogram... whrrr...reprogram...whrrr...

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That is what I've said all along, you don't have to OWN the oil, you have to CONTROL the oil. Controlling the flow of oil is the whole point of the neocon agenda.

[ambush]

So wait.


At first, it was the WMD. Saddam had hidden WMDs all over the place, in CIA-invented modile labs, etc. This really was the main reason. Do you remember all those nice Satellite photos of the WMD facilities???? What ever happened to them...

Now it's Saddam. Saddam is running away! Oh no! Lets spend all our resources tryng to find him, and just hide the fact that our first goal was to find and destory WMDs.

And now, silently, Bush is apparently giving is "go" to the American Oil Corps. to just invade/ollute/do whatever they want to do with Iraq.

Nonsense!

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not really.

[...]

I can't see how anyone can seriously disagree with that.

If that is the case, I agree with you, but it does not seem as clear-cut as you make it:

http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-order7a...,4076489.story

[SimeyTheLimey]

Actually, it is exactly what I said. From your LA Times article:

Taylor Griffin, a Treasury Department spokesman, dismissed that interpretation, saying the president issued Executive Order 13303 to protect proceeds from the sale of Iraqi crude oil, which are supposed to go into a special fund that the United Nations set up in May to help rebuild the war-torn country.

"This does not protect the companies' money," Griffin said. "It protects the Iraqi people's money."

For instance, administration officials said, if an American energy company received a shipment of Iraqi crude, the money to pay for the oil would be off limits in any litigation. That way, they explained, the proceeds would be sure to find their way to where they belonged: the Development Fund for Iraq.

Administration officials said the intent of the executive order would become clear once regulations, now being drafted by the Treasury Department, were issued. "Rules are forthcoming ... that will deal with some of these issues in greater specificity," Griffin said.

And they are right. The EO is just the bare law, rather like a statute passed by Congress is just the bare law. Laws are implemented by regulations, and those regulations often clarify the meaning. And by the way, the public gets to comment on regulations before they are finalized.

In any case, the Executive Order is pretty clear to me from its plain text. As I read it, it does not provide any sweeping amnesty for the contractors and I really don't see how any objective reading could have come up with that interpretation. The language is clear. It only prevents attachment of the funds -- US government, or Iraqi -- that the firms contracted in Iraq happen to be administering. That is sensible. If somebody has cause to sue the firm, there is no just reason for them to be able to take Iraqi or US government funds as their prize.

[Spliffdaddy]

but...but, Simey, the original post clearly states that oil companies were granted COMPLETE legal immunity in Iraq.

So the original post was just plain wrong?

Is that what you're trying to say?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
but...but, Simey, the original post clearly states that oil companies were granted COMPLETE legal immunity in Iraq.

So the original post was just plain wrong?

Is that what you're trying to say?

Yes, that's basically it. But I'm fairly sure it wasn't deliberate.

I think that what happened is that whoever looked at the EO misunderstood what making attachments void actually does. Every lawyer learns in civil procedure that attachment of property in anticipation of a suit (or in satisfaction of a judgement), and the suit that is fought on the merits are two entirely different things. But it is a complicated subject to explain succinctly and it is understandable that it is confusing to the lay reader (it is to most students at first). The problem is that Executive Orders aren't intended for lay readers. They are intended to be interpreted by lawyers who understand the concepts.

What is disturbing is that allegedly lawyers for the advocacy groups have looked at this. The original press release that was posted in another thread was pretty clearly (in my opinion) not written by a lawyer. That may still be the story that is floating around the internet (these things happen in cyberspace). But if real lawyers have looked at it and still maintain that it says what to me it clearly does not say, then that makes me wonder about those lawyers. Either they are dumb, or so biased that they can't read a straightforward legal document any more without seeing things that by my reading simply aren't there. Or they are so cynical that they will put forward a mistruth knowing that a lot of their supporters will be so distrustful of anything the government does that they will support "dissenting" voices even if those voices spout nonsense.

The sad thing is that much as I an eager to join the legal profession, I have met all three kinds of lawyers. Or rather, all three kinds of people who nominally hold juris doctor degrees (many of whom will have never practiced law).

But as I say, this could simply be confusion on the part of people without legal training and who perhaps were expecting to see the US "stealing oil" or otherwise favoring oil companies. Even assuming complete honesty on their part, I can see how the language of the EO could be misinterpreted if you start with those assumptions and if you are a bit hazy about civil procedure.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, it is exactly what I said. From your LA Times article:

And they are right. The EO is just the bare law, rather like a statute passed by Congress is just the bare law. Laws are implemented by regulations, and those regulations often clarify the meaning. And by the way, the public gets to comment on regulations before they are finalized.

In any case, the Executive Order is pretty clear to me from its plain text. As I read it, it does not provide any sweeping amnesty for the contractors and I really don't see how any objective reading could have come up with that interpretation. The language is clear. It only prevents attachment of the funds -- US government, or Iraqi -- that the firms contracted in Iraq happen to be administering. That is sensible. If somebody has cause to sue the firm, there is no just reason for them to be able to take Iraqi or US government funds as their prize.

Hey hold on a sec. You are selectively quoting from that article. Unless everyone else is hell bent on badmouthing the administration (ah - those pesky liberal papers...) it is not exactly as you said.

While the interviewed government officials interpret the EO as you do, everyone else in the article does not.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
While the interviewed government officials interpret the EO as you do, everyone else in the article does not.

Correct. And guess who is right -- based at least on my reading of the original document.

It may shock you to learn this, but most journalists don't have a legal background. So this doesn't have anything to do with "liberal papers." The journalists are doing what they are supposed to, which is reporting both sides of a story. The problem is that one side of the story has the wrong end of the stick, while the Treasury Department spokesperson is accurately describing what the legal import of the Executive Order is. Unfortunately, this is one of those occasions where the truth isn't someplace in the middle. The activist's interpretation of the document is simply inconsistent with what it says (from a legal standpoint). All in my opinion, of course (although I'm pretty sure I'm correct).

[Lerkfish]

So which is it, you opinion, or the absolutely correct interpretation, no middle of the road?

those two assessments appear in conflict.

If you are hedging your bet, even a little bit by saying its your opinion, indicates to me there must be some variance in interpretation. Though I admit to having no expertise on the subject.

I don't think we can automatically believe the government's stance on anything involving Iraq until its proven true, given recent history.

After all, you have the 16 words, the Halliburton cronyism that was denied vehemently yet has proven existant....etc.,etc.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The activist's interpretation of the document is simply inconsistent with what it says (from a legal standpoint).

The article include the opinion of non-activists as well:

Treasury Department officials said the order would not protect an oil company under such a scenario.
But Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, an assistant professor of international and administrative law at Stanford University, wasn't so sure.

Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University, said the order appeared to improperly negate occupational safety laws aimed at protecting workers in the oil industry and to strip U.S. citizens of their right to sue.
He cited in particular the part of the order that says "judicial processes" are "null and void."
That language "seems to destroy the prospect of any enforcement of civil or criminal liability," Raskin said.

Again: not as clear-cut as you make it...

[SimeyTheLimey]

I don't think that is correct. However, as I stated in the other thread, the extent to which anyone cold sue these companies for their activities outside the US is unclear to me for reasons quite independent of this Executive Order. Before you get to any of these questions, you have to have jurisdiction and a cognizable cause of action. Without knowing more about what is in any case, a purely hypothetical suit, i wouldn't be able to say anything more on that.

But this is quite clearly not an sweeping as activist fear and, as the Treasury spokesperson said, that will almost certainly be clearer once regulations are promulgated.

Anyway, I'm leaving. See you in a couple of weeks.