President Obama held a press conference this afternoon and gave the White House press corps an opportunity to gain more information on the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama announced four key oil explorations/operations moratoriums (both temporary and possibly permanent) during the press conference. He did not, however, announce a permanent end to offshore drilling or an end to domestic oil production.

The four key “moratoriums” announced were: a suspension of planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska, the cancellation of a pending lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico and the proposed lease sale off
the coast of Virginia, a continuation of the moratorium on the issuance of permits to drill new deepwater wells for six months, and a suspension of action on 33 deepwater exploratory wells being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.

While such action is commendable and a necessary response to the disaster, how long will these “moratoriums” last?

The way Obama framed the situation, it seems like the future of the oil industry and when these “moratoriums” are lifted or not lifted will rest in the hands of the independent commission the

Obama Administration is organizing (former Sen. Bob Graham and former head of EPA William K. Reilly were recently appointed to head the commission; five more members will be added to the commission soon).

Obama repeated four times the reality that domestic oil production was ”important” and not going to become a thing of the past as a result of the disaster.

After outlining failures of oversight among members of the Minerals Management Services (MMS), the federal regulatory agency taking the fall for most of the negligence within government prior to this disaster, Obama said, “I continue to believe that oil production is important, domestic oil production is important. But I also believe, we can’t do this stuff if we don’t have confidence that we can prevent crises from — like this from happening again.”

Obama did not discuss the reality that accidents will happen again. He did, however, suggest that something must be done to ensure that “worst-case scenarios” do not happen again. But, how can government reasonably assure that something like this will not happen in the future? What does federal government have to do to
regulate the wider oil industry properly?

Obama and others involved in the response effort are presumably aware of what went on between BP and government. Obama said during the conference, “the oil industry’s cozy and sometimes corrupt relationship with government regulators meant little or no regulation at all.” Members of the administration may not publicly admit it, but they know such a cozy relationship cannot continue if accidents are going to be prevented (and, right now, there is little sign that the close ties government enjoys with oil companies like BP are going to be severed).

And, supposing the MMS, Environmental Protection Agency, and other regulatory agencies involved in regulating did bring an end to their practices of negligence and facilitation, which contributed to the BP oil disaster, is that really enough to ensure future disasters do not happen? All too often the leadership in government is willing to let corporations like BP practice self-regulation, a dangerous policy as evidenced by it’s decisions to take cost-cutting measures over safety measures that would have contributed to the prevention of the disaster.

Capitol Hill has been teeming with hearings, which anyone can watch on C-SPAN. Executives and lawyers affiliated with Transocean, Halliburton and BP (and other companies with connections to the disaster and cleanup effort) have all been appearing before political leaders to answer questions about what their company
did and did not do. Many are forcing executives to address the $75 million liability cap, a cap that is part of a law known as the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, which was passed after the Exxon Valdez disaster. Political leaders want to know if BP and all those involved are going to pay damages over the cap to people most affected by the disaster.

Of course, all are willing to commit to pay over. They’re willing to make that corporate promise. They’re even willing to change the law so the companies they work for will have to give up more of their profits. How surprising…

Congressmen ask what they would suggest the law be changed to and executives indicate that they have suggestions on what would be good alterations to the cap and the entire law.

Isn’t this backwards? Why should the corporations responsible for this get to suggest what the new laws should be? But, that’s the way it goes and why corporate promises to pay “legitimate claims” over the liability cap in the law deserve a certain level of skepticism. What’s to say that these tacit commitments become anything more than tacit commitments? What keeps these executives and politicians from going to a back room to negotiate ways to externalize the costs and pass it off to Americans, the consumers and
taxpayers?

Obama was unwilling to ask citizens to consider the costs of oil consumption or oil as a key energy source used in America. Instead, he said, “And in the meantime, I should also say that Americans can help by
continuing to visit the communities and beaches of the Gulf Coast. I was
talking to the governors just a couple of days ago, and they wanted me to
remind everybody that, except for three beaches in Louisiana, all of the Gulf’s
beaches are open, they are safe and they are clean.”

Obama would rather citizens be consumers than conservationists conscientious and concerned about their impact and America’s impact on the globe.

People know the corporations are willing to take risks. Like corporations on Wall Street, they find it entirely acceptable to gamble and let citizens suffer the consequences of their greedy or negligent business practices. And, if government is going to have such a “cozy relationship,” they know their will be no repercussions for their behavior.

Oil companies in America involved in domestic oil production and offshore drilling will always be cutting corners. In this moment, Obama and most politicians are content with reassuring concerned citizens that from now on the federal government will be properly enforcing regulations. Unfortunately, this has been said before and warrants skepticism.

If government regulation of oil corporations is what stands between us and another worst-case scenario oil disaster, than it’s perhaps necessary to rethink the notion of drilling and producing oil in this country altogether.

So, on domestic oil production and the idea that it must be part of the energy mix in America, is that really how it has to be? This editorial — “12 Steps to Get U.S. Off Oil” —offers some ideas worth considering. And, this
from the National Journal titled, ”How Can the U.S. Wean Itself Off of Oil?” has some good insight too.

Unfortunately, in the same way that shopping wasn’t an acceptable citizen response to 9/11, going to the beach is not an acceptable citizen response to this disaster. Finding the collective will within our country to get off oil so as to actually help prevent future BP oil disasters is a much better response instead.

CNN’s Rick Sanchez showed footage of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward on a Louisiana Beach yesterday. The footage appeared to show Hayward directing the media and telling them not to shoot certain aspects of the devastated beach.

Sanchez said of the footage, “There have been some questions as to whether BP has been transparent enough and allowed media to go in and take pictures that they probably don’t want you to see,” the anchor said. “Um, but, you and I both heard the ‘Get ‘em outta there,’ not on one occasion but it seemed like two occasions.”

ABC News was there on the beach as well. The news station produced this video report, that can be viewed on YouTube. However, as one might expect, ABC News’ access to the BP CEO led them to produce a news segment that justified everything Hayward has been saying about the disaster. They produced a public relations video that would help him take on critics. And, they showed no footage of conflict on the beach where Hayward was directing media to not film certain aspects of the beach. (ABC News turned off comments and turned off the ability for one to embed this report on blogs or other websites.)

So, the question must be asked: Can media go on to this public beach without permission or do they have to embed with BP executives or BP contractors now? And, if they embed, what press freedom do they give up? If this video is any indication, they give up a lot—for example, the right to get in close to the oil washing up on to the beach.

BP continues to “muddy” what is really happening. It has done everything it can to challenge access to data and video related to the disaster that would give regulatory agencies and government officials the ability to make accurate conclusions about the situation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Today, BP will try what they call a “top kill.” Below is an animation demonstrating how this could potentially help the situation (however, Al Jazeera English has a report on how it could potentially worsen the leak):

BP was going to cut the live feed yesterday and not allow anyone to see the “top kill” executed. Pressure mounted, however, and BP relented. Anyone who wants to will, presumably, be able to view this “top kill” procedure as it is carried out.

Sure, one can argue BP has a right to have its contractors and authorities limit access to information, limit media access to devastated areas of the Gulf coast. But, Reuters reports the cost of the oil leak could exceed $14 billion.

BP’s liability cap is at $75 million. How much it pays over that cap depends on the information government officials involved in billing BP for the damages are able to gather.

BP is trying to cover up negligence and utter disdain for the ecological ramification of this disaster. And, that’s why BP’s limiting of press freedom and the public’s right to film is unacceptable.

(*See here for previous coverage of BP’s limiting of press freedom.)

Flickr Photo by Kevin Gosztola | You may know Gen. David Petraeus. You may even know Jack Bauer. But, do you know Gen. Jack Petraeus?

Gen. Jack Petraeus favors secret military operations. He is the leading cause of death in Middle Eastern men and, when taking action, he doesn’t need a translator. Torture is the same in every language (except maybe American English which refers to torture as “enhanced interrogation techniques”).

The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti reports Gen. David H. Petraeus has signed a “secret directive” that orders a “broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region.”

According to Mazzetti, the directive was signed in September and would send “small teams of American troops” to “both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.” More importantly, “the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.”

Gen. Petraeus suggested at the bottom that this would give troops, foreign businessmen, academics and others “persistent situational awareness.” This may be something like “total information awareness.”Most likely it’s the general’seuphemism for paranoia.

Out of context, it might seem like permission for secret operations is going in a direction that America may want to consider not going in. Secret operations, especially if so-called terrorists knew to expect them, might lead to more destabilization of the world, more deaths and destruction. Do people really want that?

This would be a huge revelation if history didn’t indicate that departments handling foreign and domestic defense or security operations have claimed the authority to engage in covert activity time and time again.

Mazzetti ends the article reminding Americans, “During the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld endorsed clandestine military operations, arguing that Special Operations troops could be as effective as traditional spies, if not more so.”

In 2004, The Jerusalem Post reported that Rumsfeld considered provoking Syria by deploying U.S. Special Forces to attack Hezbollah bases near the Syrian border. It outlined how this could satisfy U.S. strategy by pressuring Damascus into ending support for anti-Israel Palestinian groups, persuade Syria to abandon its WMDs and withdraw troops from Lebanon, stimulate a situation where Syrian leader Bashir Assad could be ousted, and crush Hezbollah and end Syria’s connections to al Qaeda.

Such a plan can be linked to those within the Pentagon who believe in order to fight the “war on terror” elite secret armies with permission to use all covert capabilities must be utilized. In 2002, William Arkin reported for the Los Angeles Times on Rumsfeld’s fetish for black ops and a briefing drafted by the Defense Science Board called the “2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism.”

The Board recommended, according to Arkin, the “creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it [dubbed] the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

P2OG would “launch secret operations aimed at “stimulating reactions’ among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction — that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to “quick-response’ attacks by U.S. forces.”

One might remember news from June 2009 uncovered by Seymour Hersh that an “executive assassination ring reporting directly to Vice President Dick Cheney” existed.

Of the ring, the Guardian reported, “Dick Cheney, the former vice president, ordered a highly classified CIA operation hidden from Congress because it pushed the limits of legality by planning to assassinate al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries without the knowledge of their governments.” The “hidden operation [also] involved plans by the CIA and the military to launch operations, similar to those by Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, to hunt down and kill al-Qaida activists abroad without informing the governments concerned, even though some were regarded as friendly if unreliable.”

The news made headlines for a day or two and then quickly dissipated as everyone went back to viewing their regularly scheduled programming. Most probably assumed that the program was over. No. Glenn Greenwald reported for Salon in January and April of this year that the Obama Administration was claiming the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without according U.S. citizens who might be terrorists due process.

“No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he [American-born Anwar al-Awlaki] has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in BarackObama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that thePresident, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America’s newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they’re granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist”involved in plots.” These newspapers then print this ExecutiveVerdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed:this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because BarackObama has ordered that it be done.What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?”

Presumably, the same infrastructure, individuals, and teams that were employed for Cheney’s assassination squads would be used for Obama’s assassination squads. And, this type of activity by government in the name of freedom and preservation of national security has been a feasible option for decades.

ABC News officially reported in 2001 (although it had been known long before 2001) that back in the 1960s, under President Kennedy, “America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.”

The plan known as Operation Northwoods “included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.” All of this was to be done “to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.”

Perhaps, thirst for glory, super-patriotism, and the hyper-masculinity of all those involved in the military and defense agencies that put together secret operation plans has something to do with the willful disregard of human life and rule of law.

Members of the Pentagon and CIA probably view themselves as players in a Tom Clancy novel, stars in a Hollywood espionage-action-thriller, or perhaps consider their selves to be Jack Bauer-like heroes. They see themselves as actors who could be thrown into a ticking time bomb scenario at any moment.

Whatever motivations within defense and intelligence departments may be, it’s important to understand that Gen. Petraeus isn’t abruptly taking the Pentagon in a questionable direction; the Pentagon (and other parts of government) have been supportive of murky and illegitimate operations as long as the end justified the means for some time.

Allowing Gen. Petraeus to do this isn’t a mistake by President Obama either. This is what conventional wisdom within military and defense deems permissible in the “war on terror.” This is what Congress allows to go on without any noticeable objection at all (that is, unless the public becomes aware of it. Then they can’t wait to put a stop to secret operations that have been happening without proper oversight.)

And, Congress wasn’t always this permissive of secret operations. Stephen F. Knott, author of Secret and Sanctioned: Covert Operations and the American Presidency wrote, “in the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate, and revelations of CIA assassination plots and domestic spying, Congress moved in the mid-1970s to “reassert’ its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert action.”

“Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement that “rogue” agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional intelligence oversight argued that openness and accountability were the cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy, and it was believed that Congress, due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive branch. Spurred on by the sensational revelations of the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House, both bodies established permanent intelligence committees.

It is still widely believed that the Church and Pike reforms were an attempt to cure a “cancerous” growth on the Constitution that had developed during the Cold War, an era which witnessed an increasing reliance on executive secrecy and the creation of a “private army” for the president in the form of the CIA”

…”On some occasions, members of Congress threatened to leak information in order to derail covert operations they found personally repugnant. Leaks are a recurring problem, as some member of Congress, or some staff member, demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11th attack. President Bush’s criticism of members of Congress was fully justified, despite the protests from Capitol Hill. Leaks have occurred repeatedly since the mid-1970s, and in very few cases has the offending party been disciplined. One of the Founding Fathers of the new oversight regime, former Representative Leo Ryan, held that leaks were an important tool in checking the “secret government.”

Until the “war on terror” comes to an end, any number of fantastical and reprehensible plans will be drafted and implementedin secret until someone like Mazaretti publishes information about the plans. Then, they will be stalled, redrafted, altered, and reformed to seem new and different and unlike anything done before. This will go on and on and on as long as we are fighting “terrorists” over there so we don’t have to fight them over here or as long as we are accepting less liberty for more safety from people above described operations have radicalized.

From where I’m sitting, it looks like America’s going to be fighting this “perpetual war for perpetual peace” for the next century, which means anyone the U.S. wants to target will be put in the crosshairs.

Flickr Photo by Kevin Gosztola | Former Sen. Bob Graham & former head of the EPA William K. Reilly were appointed by Obama to head a commission and investigate the BP oil disaster.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, May 22nd, President Obama selected the two men that will be leading an independent commission that will examine the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, find the “root causes” of the disaster, and produce a report in six months. Those men were former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and former head of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under George H.W. Bush, William K. Reilly, a Republican.

President Obama said in his address, “If the laws on our books are inadequate to prevent such an oil spill, or if we didn’t enforce those laws — I want to know it…I want to know what worked and what didn’t work in our response to the disaster, and where oversight of the oil and gas industry broke down.”

BP has been hiding reports and video on the disaster, low balling estimates on the amount of oil that has leaked into the Gulf, and ignoring orders or requests issued by federal agencies dictating recommendations and guidelines for the cleanup. The government has allowed BP to continue to handle this disaster in this manner, which might lead one to believe this commission might simply be one where oil & gas companies involved in offshore drilling (especially BP) could use the disaster to re-brand their company’s image, regain the confidence of politicians, up their contributions to key political leaders, and continue to obstruct movement toward clean, renewable energy in America. With Graham and Reilly on the commission, it’s far more likely that this commission will advance a much different agenda—a nuclear energy agenda.

Both Graham and Reilly have records that show each possesses some level of interest in confronting environmental issues. Graham developed a reputation for being outspoken against offshore drilling in the early 1990s. Reilly was a leader of the World Wildlife Fund and has the distinction of being the first head of the EPA to actually “come from a job in the environmental community.”

In addition to being involved in policymaking related to oil energy and offshore drilling, both Graham and Reilly have supported the nuclear industry financially and politically.

Obama said of the two in his address, “I can’t think of two people who will bring greater experience or better judgment to the task at hand…In the days to come, I’ll appoint 5 other distinguished Americans including scientists, engineers, and environmental advocates to join them on the commission.”

Those who would like to see individuals without business ties to an industry that could benefit from this commission might be able to think of two better people.

Fmr. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) Opposed to Offshore Drilling,Very Much for Nuclear Energy

Upon becoming the chairman of the Senate Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee in August 1990, Graham began to give speeches suggesting “nuclear energy should play a “significant role” in meeting America’s long-term energy needs.” (St. Petersburg Times – Tuesday, February 12, 1991)

In a speech given in February 1991, Graham remarked to the American Nuclear Energy Council, a Washington-based trade group, “There are no black-and-white courses in a national energy policy…Every option has both assets and liabilities.” He acknowledged that nuclear energy had cost and environmental drawbacks but also said that it could be a key way to solve the country’s energy problems.

Graham recommended plant licensing procedures be streamlined to make it “no more difficult to permit a nuclear plant than it is [to permit] an electric plant.”

Graham suggested dealing with the question of how to dispose nuclear waste was just as significant as figuring out a way to handle the environmental and health issues that carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from fossil fuels presented Americans and he cited the war in the Persian Gulf as even more reason to pursue nuclear energy.

In November 1990, Graham said on CNBC that America was “too reliant on petroleum as our source of energy” and he noted while 75 percent of all energy in France is nuclear, only 15 percent of U.S. energy is nuclear. He also added that Florida’s energy consumption was 20 percent nuclear, which was above the national average. (The Tampa Tribune – Monday, November 19, 1990)

The same month he visited a nuclear power plant owned by Florida Power & Light Co. and argued that rising oil cost and clean air legislation would make nuclear energy more important, practical by 2010. He claimed nuclear power was no longer a source of “environmental anxiety” and had become an “environmental asset” because it does not dirty the air like coal does. (The Palm Beach Post – Friday, November 2, 1990)

In the midst of all the posturing in favor of nuclear energy, Graham made it plain that he could not unequivocally support the interests of oil and gas companies. When President Bush was considering requests to drill for oil and gas off the coast of Florida, Graham opposed the requests cited an audit that found the federal government had “done a poor job of enforcing regulations at onshore oil and gas wells.” He noted that the environment had been damaged as a result and taxpayers would probably have to pay “millions of dollars to clean up abandoned wells” as a result. (St. Petersburg Times – Wednesday, December 27, 1989)

Earlier in June, a study had found that “the Interior Department had not levied a single civil penalty in six years, despite finding 16,000 violations in that period of time.” Graham presumably understood what could happen to Florida if oil and gas companies were able to open shop in certain protected areas and he suggested that if offshore drilling moved forward Florida’s coast could be impacted like areas in the western United States.

He continued to defend areas of Florida from oil interests by spearheading an effort to “kill a little-noticed amendment” to the National Security Energy Act of 1990 that would “reverse President George H.W. Bush’s moratorium on oil drilling off the Florida Keys.” (The Orlando Sentinel Saturday Sept. 29, 1990). He signed on to a statement declaring that he and twenty-six other senators were unable to support “oil and gas leasing in wilderness and other environmentally sensitive areas now protected from intrusion, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Florida Keys, and the National Marine Sanctuaries.” This statement was made as oil prices rose and conflict in the Gulf between Iraq and Kuwait (that the U.S. became heavily involved in) increased.

Graham was even one of the senators very much opposed to the Cheney energy bill. He and Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote an editorial published by the Sun-SentinelonJuly6,2003,saying the “basic philosophy behind this bill is to ignore alternative energy issues and drain the nation first — to make it easier and less expensive to extract oil and gas from publicly owned lands, regardless of environmental costs.” The editorial also stated:

…It includes a provision that would open the door to offshore oil drilling by requiring a survey of the oil and gas resources under the outer continental shelf. The language in the bill is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to disparage — and even undermine — long-standing, bipartisan moratoriums that protect our coastline from offshore drilling.

It is important to put the drilling issue into historical perspective. On Jan. 29, 1969, a Union Oil Co. platform experienced a blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara. Over 11 days, about 200,000 gallons of crude oil spread into an 800-square-mile slick that coated 35 miles of beachfront. Thousands of oil-soaked birds — along with dolphins and seals and other mammals — washed up dead on the shore.

A total of $17.3 million in damages was paid to local residents and boat owners, as well as the state of California, Santa Barbara County and the cities of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria.

This tragedy convinced Californians that they were not willing to assume the risks associated with offshore drilling.

Inarguably, Graham has a record that many environmentalists have found praiseworthy. But, when his opposition to oil drilling is considered in the context of his support for nuclear energy, one must ask if Graham is simply a nuclear energy salesman who knows how to play the game.

In 2003, Broward-Palm Beach New Times looked at who “really had a friend in Bob Graham.” They published information on energy and oil markets that Graham had investments in. In 2001, Graham began to shift from investments in Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and health care firms and put $34,000 to $145,000 in seven energy and oil companies, three with nuclear energy interests. (He invested in Vice President Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton, which may present a conflict of interest since the BP oil disaster can be linked to Halliburton).

The New Times pointed out “Graham served on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he crafted and voted on legislation that directly affected the companies on which he was betting.” They cite a front-page report published by the Washington Times on March 18, 2001, “Energy needs spur rebirth of nuclear power,” where Graham was quoted as saying, “Nuclear power is not a magic bullet, but it should also not be a poison pill.”

Graham also added, “The technology exists to make nuclear power–already one of our cleanest energy sources–also one of our safest, most reliable, and least expensive.”

The New Times reported that Graham co-sponsored the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act, “an industry-backed bill designed to encourage expansion of nuclear power after 20 years of stasis.” The contents of the measure included “large incentives and subsidies to nuclear companies like Exelon,” a Chicago-based company and one of the top nuclear energy producers in the nation which had just developed technology in South Africa that the company was hoping to utilize in the United States.

Graham’s PAC contributions from nuclear companies were also detailed:

“The stock buys weren’t the senator’s only financial connection with nuclear power players. From 1998 to 2002, he received $46,287 in PAC contributions from nuclear companies. During his 1998 campaign, when he really needed the money, Graham ranked sixth in the Senate in contributions from nuclear industry PACs, raking in $28,787 during that year’s election cycle, according to the Washington, D.C.-based consumer lobby group Public Citizen.

The single largest nuclear industry contributor to Graham’s campaign was Exelon, which has provided him with $19,000 since 1998. Exelon, in fact, is a particularly generous donor, giving a total of $588,044 to members of Congress in 2002 alone. That makes it the kindest nuclear company to politicians, according to a Public Citizen report issued this past May 20 titled “Hot Waste, Cold Cash.” Duke was ranked seventh, with $376,000, and TXU was sixth, with $394,828.” click here

Former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly: A Chum for Nuclear Energy

In Reilly’s career, he has demonstrated significant support for nuclear energy while also talking tough on environmental issues. Reilly’s experience writing up a report on the Exxon Valdez oil spill certainly makes him seem like the right person to ask questions of BP and offer recommendations on how to move forward and best address the disaster in the Gulf. But, Reilly is currently the co-chair for theNational Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), a project of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The Commission was, according to Chemical News & Intelligence, “founded in 2002 and financed by five major US charitable funds.” It “drew on expertise from a diverse group of energy issue stakeholders, many of whom, Reilly said, ‘otherwise might never have found themselves in the same room.’”

One of those energy issue stakeholders that the Commission brought Reilly in contact with is also a chairman of the Commission and CEO of the Exelon Corporation, John W. Rowe.

In 2004, the Commission released a report that called for the expansion of energy technologies to keep up with requirements for “substantially increased quantities” of energy over the next twenty years and address the challenges that “climate change” presented the energy stakeholders and those with the power to create and influence energy policy.

One of the technologies the Commission recommended be expanded was nuclear power. It urged the U.S. to fulfill existing federal commitments on nuclear waste management, provide $2 billion over ten years from federal research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RD&D) budgets for the demonstration of one to two new advanced nuclear power plants, and significantly strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.

Moreover, the report called for “government intervention” that would address key issues and “improve prospects for an expanded, rather than diminished, role for nuclear energy.” It further claimed that this expanded role was warranted by “several policy objectives” including the needs to reduce greenhouse gases, enhance energy security, and alleviate pressure on natural gas supplies in the electric-generation sector.

He became the leader of the Sustainable Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) in 2008. The board was formed by Energy Future Holdings (EFH) to represent the environment, customers, Texas economic development and reliability/technology interests.

Prior to October 2009, EFH was formerly known as TXU Corporation, an energy company. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., the Texas Pacific Group (TPG Capital), Goldman Sachs acquired EFH and EFH made a “range of commitments aimed at providing a more affordable, more reliable, more environmentally friendly and more sustainable supply of energy to the citizens of Texas.”

Energy Future Holdings describes itself as “a Dallas-based energy holding company with a portfolio of competitive and regulated energy subsidiaries, primarily in Texas, including TXU Energy, Luminant and Oncor.” Reilly happens to have connections to all of these companies.

Additionally, EFH’s PAC, the Power Political Action Committee of Energy Future Holdings Corporation, contributed $10,000 to Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Nuclear Energy Institute in the 2010 cycle (so far). EFH definitely intends to shape the political agenda so that nuclear power is included.

Reilly was at the center of this deal especially because he is a senior advisor to TPG Capital, a leading private investment firm with $48 billion across a family of funds.”

The deal was used by Reilly to get TXU to, according to the New York Times, “commit to [scaling] back significantly on [plans] to build 11 new coal plants and adhere to a strict code of conduct.” The move demonstrated that Reilly was willing to make moves to get industry off carbon. And, it also showed that companies like TXU, a company that operates nuclear power plants, could be convinced to give up carbon if they were pomised the opportunity to expand their nuclear energy assets.

Reilly did not have a record of being pro-nuclear energy before becoming EPA Administrator under President George H.W. Bush, but in March 1989, as reported by the Austin American-Statesman, Reilly was involved in the production of an EPA report that said if one wanted to help slow the warming of the atmosphere, one needed to drive a small care that was able to get 40 miles per gallon, pay a higher tax on coal and oil, plant lots of new trees and, finally, give up opposition to new nuclear power plants.

The EPA under Reilly specifically called for “the construction of 600 more 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants around the world.”

And, since then, Reilly has disappointed many conservationists by championing nuclear energy as a clean energy that can address many problems of the future.

Obama Administration’s Ties to Nuclear?

The selection of Graham and Reilly would be just another anomaly if it weren’t for all the clear ties the Obama Administration has to the nuclear energy industry.

On January 24th, 2010, Judy Pasternak published an investigative news story on nuclear energy’s lobbying push. Pasternak reported, “The Obama administration may soon guarantee as much as $18.5 billion in loans to build new nuclear reactors to generate electricity, and Congress is considering whether to add billions more to support an expansion of nuclear power.”

Pasternak detailed, specifically, nuclear power’s ties to the Obama Administration and wrote, “The industry is plugged in on its own at the White House through labor groups and Exelon. Exelon CEO John W. Rowe is NEI’s past chairman and a current director.”

Pasternak added:

“The company, based in the president’s home state of Illinois, has funded Obama campaigns since his Senate run, when employees contributed more than $48,000, according to CQ Moneyline, and Exelon’s political action committee gave the maximum of $10,000. Exelon employees gave Obama nearly $210,000 for his presidential campaign, according to CQ Moneyline.

Exelon’s management includes two Obama bundlers who are friends of the president. One, director John W. Rogers, helped direct Obama’s Illinois fundraising during his presidential race and helped plan the inauguration. The other, Frank M. Clark, has lobbied on nuclear issues for the company.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is close to Exelon, too. The merger that created the utility was the biggest deal of Emanuel’s brief but lucrative investment-banking career. Another White House connection is strategist David Axelrod, whom Exelon subsidiary ComEd once hired to create a fake grass-roots organization supporting higher electricity rates.”

Exelon’s Rowe, who co-chairs an energy commission with Reilly, knew that this moment in history would come — the moment when a price on carbon would be instituted to curb global warming; he just didn’t know when. Rowe told Forbes in a report called “Exelon’s Carbon Advantage, “I thought climate legislation would come sooner or later and that I’d rather have my money in the nuke fleet.”

Rowe is probably right if he has anything to do with it because the same report by Forbes says Rowe has been lobbying for climate legislation that would put a price on carbon. And, according to Public Citizen’s Tyler Slocum, it looks like Rowe’s and other members of the nuclear lobby’s efforts have paid off.

Public Citizen reports the current climate legislation is a “nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting” piece of legislation “with a weak carbon pricing mechanism thrown in.” The public interest groups warns against the nuclear power incentives currently in the climate change bill:

At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider:

- Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their communities.

- Section 1102 increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a jaw-dropping $54 billion. These loans are a terrible deal for the taxpayer, especially considering the high risk of default that even the government acknowledges.

- Section 1103 provides $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance for 12 new nuclear reactors.

- Section 1121 allows nuclear power plant owners to write off their depreciation much faster. Section 1121 provides a 10 percent investment tax credit for new reactors.

- Section 1123 extends the Advanced Energy Project credit to nuclear reactors.

- Section 1124-6 allows municipal power agencies to derive certain tax, bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power.

If nuclear energy interests have been able to influence the climate change bill in Congress this much, there’s little reason to not believe that nuclear energy lobbyists and others related could influence the commission to investigate the oil leak in the Gulf. In fact, it’s even possible nuclear energy interests played akey role in Obama’s decision to appoint both Graham and Reilly.

Conclusion

There may exist the potential for former Sen. Bob Graham and former head of the EPA William Reilly to uncover all that BP has been hiding from the public and government and why it has taken BP so long to stop the oil from further gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. There is the potential for it to provide great insight into the impacts of offshore drilling and whether America should have a future where offshore drilling is part of a national energy strategy. Given Reilly’s experience writing a report on the Exxon Valdez spill, his knowledge of what worked and didn’t work then should be an asset when investigating and putting together a report on the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf.

However, as demonstrated in this article, both Graham and Reilly have strong ties to nuclear energy interests. They are spearheading a so-called independent commission that has the capacity to determine the future of not only oil and gas in this country but clean energy in this country.

During the weekend, Graham publicly assured BP and Big Oil that they would get a fair hearing.Because of BP’s and Big Oil;s influence on political leaders in Washington, the Commission is unlikely to suggest that America pursue an energy future free of oil and gas; the Commission will probably not ban offshore drilling permanently. However, what the Commission will likely do is suggest recommendations on how the U.S. can become less and less dependable on carbon energy sources, which contribute to climate change. And, if they do that, they will open a big window for the expansion of the nuclear energy industry in America.

CBS journalists were filming a beach in South Pass, Louisiana, when, according to CBS, a “boat of BP contractors and two Coast Guard officers told them to turn around or be arrested.” The incident is thought by bloggers tracking the oil leak in the Gulf to not be the only time that BP has challenged the right of journalists to film.

If in fact BP has instructed crews to specifically regulate and turn away groups with video cameras or even still cameras, this raises many questions about what Americans are able to access and not access, what they are able to document and not document.

Should a person have to be embedded with authorities, corporations or organizations at the center of a disaster in order to document a disaster? Must a person be with a recognized news organization that regularly gets into press conferences in order to film critical events like the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico right now?

RAW STORY noted the effect of BP’s restrictions on reporting on the disaster and leak so far and mentioned how anecdotes from bloggers have become “a primary source of additional information.” Keep in mind the videos released by BP so far have only been released as a result of pressure from Congress and other organizations.

Journalists were told by “someone aboard the boat” this is BP’s rules, not ours. That alone would be enough to seriously question the situation and ask why citizens should have to follow rules and only document what authorities, corporations, or organizations involved grant citizens permission to document. But, the Coast Guard was present and they released a statement on the matter that was published by the Mother Nature Network.

“CBS Evening News reported they were denied access to oiled shoreline by a civilian vessel that had clean-up workers contracted by BP, as well as Coast Guard personnel on board. CBS News video taped the exchange during which time one of the contractors told them (on tape) that ” … this is BP’s rules not ours.”

Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date. Just today 16 members of the press observed clean-up operations on a vessel out of Venice, La.

The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations. This did occur off South Pass Monday which may have caused the confusion reported by CBS today.

The entities involved in the Deepwater Horizon/BP Response have already reiterated these media access guidelines to personnel involved in the response and hope it prevents any future confusion.” [emphasis added]

That the Coast Guard, a national military organization, is going along with whatever happened between BP and the CBS journalists should lead those involved in the creation and production of media to be even more concerned. The Coast Guard is, with this statement, legitimizing BP’s right to limit the privileges of those wishing to document the destruction.

When one breaks down the “400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date” the Coast Guard claims BP has allowed, it comes out to approximately 13 embeds per day in the month since the oil rig explosion occurred. And, if each embed is one journalist, this means 13 journalists per day have been allowed (on average) to document the disaster and response efforts/failures.

Is this satisfactory? Have all those interested in documenting been allowed to embed and see the devastation? Who has been turned away because BP didn’t agree with the intentions or motivations of a videographer or how a journalist wanted to frame the story?

Read between the lines. In the U.S. war in Iraq journalists have been embedded and they have followed instructions on what to cover and not cover. Such embedding has become standard procedure. Embedding socializes those engaging in media coverage. It leads them to see what is happening from the official point-of-view that those at the center may want media coverage to come from.

The Coast Guard statement also says, “The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations.” What constitutes a safety concern or interference with response operations? If that is up to BP’s discretion, it seems like anyone deemed to be a “threat” to BP could be deemed a “safety concern” and directed to leave.

It’s unlikely that CBS will push back against BP if they have in fact been restricted from filming areas of destruction on the Gulf coast. The news organization risks access privileges if they challenge authorities. The news organization also risks advertising dollars if it mounts a campaign against BP for restricting journalist access to the Gulf.

That does not mean there should not be an increased effort to track BP’s restriction of access to the Gulf. In a time when any person should be able to be a blogger, photographer, or filmmaker and can be a blogger, photographer, or filmmaker, pushing back against a corporation’s attempts to hide what is really happening in the Gulf is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, there is no record of incidents of this nature. Despite the fact that countless journalists or videographers might share anecdotes about trying to film or document corporations like Monsanto before being threatened with arrest for filming, this is not a trend that can be discussed quantitatively yet (and certainly an organization should consider tracking this comprehensively). But, when put into a world context, it makes one wonder just how much freedom people really have in this country.

Reporters Sans Frontieres, an organization that tracks the state of press freedom around the world, consistently reports on incidents like what happened between CBS, BP and the Coast Guard.

In February 2007, journalism student Mehrnoushe Solouki, who has dual French and Iranian nationality, was arrested and held in Evin prison for a month for filming “the families of the victims of violence in the 1980s and her notes and film were confiscated.” She was in Tehran with the intention of producing a documentary on the 1988 ceasefire between Iran and Iraq.

In April 2005, CBS cameraman Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein was filming a ceremony at Mosul University and was shot by U.S. troops “during an exchange with rebels.” He was arrested and held by the U.S. military for a year before being released. Charges were eventually dropped making it even more likely that the fact that he was there filming with a camera was why he was ultimately arrested.

In December 2005, three television crews were prevented from covering the third round of voting in Egypt’s parliamentary elections.

In March 2004, Pakistan engaged in efforts “to stop foreign and local journalists from freely covering an offensive against Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters in the Wana region of South Waziristan.”

In November 2002, prior to the U.S. invasion, French TV reporters in Iraq were preventedfrom filming. The reporters attempted to report on the “Oil Road” but were bullied and censored. Reporters Sans Frontieres reported, “Police even banned them from filming rubbish on the grounds saying “this is not good for the government’s image.”

In February 2002, Palestinian police prevented journalists from covering the trial of three Palestinians charged with murder. The journalists managed to film a part of the trial but the “cassettes of the television teams were forfeited by police.” This happened less than a year after a photographer and an editor for Reuters, a cameraman for APTV, the satellite television correspondent of Abou Dhabi and a photographer for the AFP had been arrested and forced to forefit their footage of a demonstration in a refugee camp in Nusseirat.

It may seem over-the-top to place the incident between BP and CBS in the context of incidents between governments and press in other countries. But, with the consent of a military organization like the Coast Guard, threats of arrest made against journalists or individuals seeking to conduct coverage of a situation especially in public areas like beaches must be compared because, if it is not challenged, the repression could rise to the level of actual arrest and detention of individuals on a regular basis.

Either journalists and individuals who believe in their right to document and gather information allow authorities, corporations or organizations to place restrictions on access or they challenge it. If challenged, invariably one must expect incidents like the ones covered byReporters Sans Frontieres to occur. If BP is serious about controlling the images and words seen in relation to the oil leak, they will have to repress people.

At a time when surveillance is entirely acceptable and normal, when cameras at traffic intersections photograph those running red lights, when cameras watch your every move in city, state, federal or private buildings, when street cameras track movements of people in areas thought to have high levels of crime, the public must decide whether it will or should assert its right to survey and cover anything in the same way that authorities, corporations or organizations would assert their right to survey and cover anything.

The democratization of media makes it possible for all of us to be, at least, amateur journalists. Coverage of events no longer has to be left up to officially recognized news organizations (see OpEdNews.com and countless other Internet news sites for further examples).

This is more than an issue of press freedom. This is an issue that concerns the public’s right to share and disseminate information.

In the next few days, President Obama will announce the formation of an independent commission to investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster. The commission will likely be similar to previous commissions convened by presidents to investigate the space shuttle Challenger disaster and the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island.

The commission convened will likely face tremendous pressure from BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other oil and energy company interests who wish to ensure the commission organized by the Obama Administration does not come to a decision that puts further constraints on offshore drilling or drilling for oil altogether.

McClatchy Newspapers reported May 18, 2010, that BP is withholding facts about the oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico and the Obama Administration is allowing BP to withhold facts. The story said:

“… the results of tests on the extent of workers’ exposure to evaporating oil or from the burning of crude over the gulf, even though researchers say that data is crucial in determining whether the conditions are safe.

Moreover, the company isn’t monitoring the extent of the spill and only reluctantly released videos of the spill site that could give scientists a clue to the amount of the oil in gulf.

BP’s role as the primary source of information has raised questions about whether the government should intervene to gather such data and to publicize it and whether an adequate cleanup can be accomplished without the details of crude oil spreading across the gulf.

Private assurances to not follow all the data and testimony from workers, researchers, and scientists on the disaster may also be made so that information in any published report will have a limited negative impact on oil companies like BP.

Time constraints will likely be placed on the commission that will impact or hurry the work of the commission like time constraints did for the commission that investigated the Three Mile Island accident.

A “Supplemental View by Bruce Babbitt,” former governor of Arizona who served on the commission that investigated the Three Mile Island accident stated:

“We had a real problem coming to grips with this issue because of the time constraints on examining the characteristics of other utilities operating nuclear power plants. I can, therefore, understand the difficulties in formulating a specific recommendation at this time.

Yet I must believe that our findings do support more than what we have said here by way of recommendations. We cannot simply urge the utility, industry, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to pay more attention to safety and to establish higher standards.

While this Commission has clearly addressed the institutional shortcomings of the NRC in its recommendations, it has not addressed the institutional problems of the industry.”

The likelihood that the commission will not investigate the full extent of the accident and address the systematic or institutional failings of oil companies certainly exists.

The Three Mile Island Commission was a decent selection of individuals that combined a diversity of institutional perspectives. In addition to Babbitt, Patrick E. Haggerty, co-founder of Texas Instruments, Inc., Carolyn Lewis, Assoc. Prof. of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, Paul A. Marks, Vice President for Health Sciences and Frode Jensen Professor at Columbia University, Cora B. Marrett, Prof. of Sociology and Afro-American Studies at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Lloyd McBride, President of the United Steelworkers of America, Harry C. McPherson, a partner with Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, and McPherson, Russell W. Peterson, President of the National Audubon Society, Thomas H. Pigford, Prof. and Chairman of the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering at U.C. Berkeley, Theodore B. Taylor, visiting lecturer at the Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, and Anne D. Trunk, a resident of Middletown, Pennsylvania, all served on the Commission.

Voices present on that commission that should be present on the one convened by the Obama Administration include a health scientist, a voice who can speak about the impact oil has on wildlife, a union leader who can speak on behalf of the workers, an engineer who can discuss the reality of oil drilling, and, most importantly, a resident from the Gulf coast who can testify on the impact of the oilrig disaster in his or her community.

There is a small likelihood that the Obama Administration convenes a truly diverse panel on the oil rig explosion and leak in the Gulf. As Politicoreports, there are at least two investigations that have been started on the disaster: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is leading a study of the causes of the oil rig explosion; Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is working on how to split up the Minerals Management Service (MMS) into two agencies so oil drilling can be better regulated and reviewing the rules for drilling. Those investigations may be continued and finished and become the extent of the commission’s investigations; whether new, original investigations are launched for the purposes of a comprehensive public report on the disaster is probably unlikely given the track record of presidential commissions in the past decade.

Finally, it is possible that voices will not be as independent as the administration would like us to believe. Players appointed to investigate will likely be from institutions that sound like good organizations that conduct good research and studies. Upon further investigation, they will probably be revealed to have ties to the very companies or industry being investigated.

The public should hope the Obama Administration surprises those concerned about the future of the Gulf of Mexico, the people in communities on the Gulf coast, the nature and wildlife in the region, the wellbeing of workers who are employed by energy companies, and the impact on oil on planet Earth. But, the reality is that President Obama made an announcement calling for new areas to be open for offshore drilling weeks before the oil rig disaster.

Be weary of the fact that companies could use this disaster to re-brand their companies, regain the confidence of politicians, up their funding of key political leaders in shrewd manners that are not altogether obvious when campaign spending reports are disclosed, and continue to obstruct movement towards dependency on clean, renewable energy in this country.

The oil rig disaster was tragic. The aftermath could be even more tragic if the people are not vigilantly following the work of all those involved in investigating the tragedy.

________________________________________________________

If you enjoyed this article and would like to support me, please consider following this linkto my Democracy for America Scholarship for the 2010 Netroots Nation Conference application. Please voice your support so I can attend and enhance my ability to effectively compel artists and media makers to be aware of how the use of Internet technology can enhance their craft and ability to connect and mobilize people for social change.

Thank you

Flickr Photo by bobster855

A Supreme Court decision on Monday stated that federal official could hold people who are considered “sexually dangerous” indefinitely even if their prison terms have been served completely.

The idea of keeping sexually dangerous people off the streets is not a bad one until you think of the enforcement mechanisms. Who gets to decide who is sexually dangerous and who is it? Aren’t these the same people who go to work with politicians who themselves have committed sex crimes?

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion:

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented (not because he found indefinite detention to be a violation of one’s civil liberties but because he found it to be a violation of state’s rights):

“The historical record thus supports the Federal Government’s authority to detain a mentally ill person against whom it has the authority to enforce a criminal law. But it provides no justification whatsoever for reading the Necessary and Proper Clause to grant Congress the power to authorize the detention of persons without a basis for federal criminal jurisdiction.”

What exactly does it mean to be “sexually dangerous”? Is this strictly a designation based on a perceived mental illness by psychiatrists?

Text of the Court opinion, (posted here by Georgetown University professor and lawyer Jonathan Turley) states, “Congress could have reasonably concluded that federal inmates who suffer from a mental illness that causes them to “have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct…would have especially high danger to the public if released.” Furthermore, it states, “Congress could also have reasobnably concluded that a reasonable number of such individuals would likely not be detained by the States if released from federal custody.”

The argument appears to be that the federal government must intervene and do what state governments are not properly doing. Yet, it’s hard to believe that there is any place in the United States where government is not tracking sexually violent predators — people who would most likely be designated as “sexually dangerous.”

Under Megan’s Law, all 50 states are supposed to have laws that require sex offenders to register with police and report where they are living after leaving prison or when being convicted of any crime. The public also must be able to access this information.

However, a distinction should be made: This decision probably has more bearing on sexually violent predators and little bearing on sex offenders. While research polls and reporters may rarely differentiate the two and while the public may not either, there is a definitive legal differentiation that is made by the Sexual Violent Predator Act of 1995.

“Sexually violent predators” are strictly people deemed to have a mental disorder that would lead them to “re-offend.” It “requires anyone convicted of two sexually violent offenses to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if a mental disorder makes it likely they will re-offend. If they are classified a [sexually violent predator], the district attorney can file a petition to commit. If a court or jury finds evidence is strong, the person may be committed to a secure state hospital for an indeterminate amount of time.

The Supreme Court decision reinforces public attitudes toward sex offenders (which are probably similar if not more lenient than attitudes toward sexual predators). A Gallup poll in 2005 found that at least two-thirds of Americans support the use of the registry to track sex offenders and have little sympathy for arguments against the registry that would suggest the lists would lead to harassment of people.

Presumably, the same group that expressed little concern about the registry is the same group that is significantly afraid of child molesters in their community. The poll found two-thirds think a convicted child molester probably lives in their neighborhood. And, even more important is the fact that this Gallup poll found that 65% think sex offenders (or child molesters) cannot be rehabilitated.

There is little concern for the rights or civil liberties of anyone committing foul sex acts.

It’s not surprising that Americans would be so afraid that “sexually dangerous” people are out there waiting to get them or believe that offenders or predators could not be rehabilitated. Popular shows like all the versions of “Law & Order” (especially “Law & Order: SVU”), all the versions of “CSI,” and any true crime show on television sensationalize the danger of “sexually dangerous” criminals.

So, does this decision hold any implications for politicians who may use their money and power to seek licit and illicit pleasures?

Republican and former U.S. Representative Donal “Buz” Lukens of Ohio was accused of “fondling and propositioning a young woman who worked as an elevator operator at the Capitol. He was jailed in 1988 for paying a 16-year-old girl to have sex with him and was convicted the next year of having sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl. Maybe this is not the behavior of a sexually violent predator but certainly a predator. Yet, he is now retired and not serving time in prison.

Democrat and U.S. Senator Brock Adams used drugs and alcohol as aids in sexual abuse of female employees in 1992. He drugged and raped his employees, according to eight signed statements. Adams was not charged. Is this because of his social status? Wouldn’t anybody else have been sent to jail and possibly been labeled mentally ill?

Democrat and former U.S. representative Mel Reynolds engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer during a 1992 campaign and was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. If he committed another sex crime and went to prison, would he be deemed a sexually violent predator and held indefinitely?

Former Republican mayor Philip Giordano had a prostitute arrange meetings with her daughter and niece so he could have oral sex. The girls were 8- and 10-years-old. Giordano was convicted and sentenced to 37 years. Is there any chance that he will be deemed a sexually violent predator and held indefinitely?

It’s highly unlikely. And, that’s the problem with decisions like this.

Who gets to decide who is a “sexually dangerous person” and who isn’t? Most likely the Courts, which hold offices and regularly interact with city, state and federal officials. And quite simply certain people with the social status of holding public office will never be held to the same standards as average community residents who can be found all over this country.

Authorities would have to find that these individuals were immoral individuals and people who were not one-time offenders. It would have to be concluded that they could not be rehabilitated and most likely politicians with public personas would be able to craft this idea that they would never commit a crime again—that they might find Jesus or God and become puritanical and properly bourgeois once again.

Politicians have the ability to use their image to combat prosecution. They have the ability to pay off people. And, while it’s possible that politicians have been wrongfully accused of sexual conduct before, it’s also a huge possibility that politicians have used their power to intimidate women (or men depending on how evangelical you claim to be) and threaten them with violence if they tell anyone that they engaged in sexual abuse or conduct with one another.

The label of “sexually dangerous” can be attached to people like “terrorist” can be ascribed to people. Nobody can know if they will commit a sex crime again any more than they can know if they will commit a terrorist act.

What this decision does is impose morality (as the Supreme Court likes to do), further criminalize people, and increase suspect culture in America.

If the intention of this decision is to prevent sex crimes in the long term, it’s next to impossible to prove this will have any impact. The decision gets America no closer to solving the problem sexual predators present to society.

—————————————————

If you enjoyed this article and would like to support me, please consider following this link to my Democracy for America Scholarship for the 2010 Netroots Nation Conference application. Please voice your support so I can attend andenhance my ability to effectively compel artists and media makers to be aware of how the use of Internet technology can enhance their craft and ability to connect and mobilize people for social change.

Thank you

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Federal District Court in New York granted Chevron’s request for a subpoena, which demands access to over 600 hours of footage from “Crude,” a documentary that chronicles a legal battle being supported by 30,000 Amazonian settlers hoping to hold Texaco (now owned by Chevron) responsible for environmental devastation in Ecuador.

Joseph Berlinger, the filmmaker behind “Crude,” claimed he was protected by “journalistic privilege,” but, according to the New York Times, he qualified for the privilege but “the conditions for overcoming that privilege had been met” by Chevron.

Berlinger plans to ask the judge to “stay the subpoena” so the decision can be appealed.

Many in the documentary filmmaking community have indicated that they will support Berlinger’s effort to appeal and resist this decision. Filmmakers understand what this decision could mean for the future of documentary filmmaking.

Gordon Quinn, artistic director and founder of Kartemquin Films in Chicago, said, “My experience is that the ‘outs’ of a film usually show the big and the powerful to be worse than they are portrayed in our films, but if we have to turn over footage and spend time in court and defend ourselves for expressing our First Amendment rights it can be an overwhelming burden for a small organization like ours.”

Quinn added, “It has the feel of intimidation and using the legal process to let us know don’ttake onthe big guys or they can drive you crazy and drain your resources by tying you up in court.”

Documentary instructor at Columbia College Chicago and director of “The Return of Navajo Boy,” a film that touched upon the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo, Jeff Spitz, had not heard about it. He noted from his experience making “Navajo Boy, “The extraction industries have absolutely no interest in the safety and/or benefits of their work for indigenous people. Indigenous people pay the hidden price of our energy.”

An Associate Professor at Columbia College Chicago with forty years of documentary filmmaking experience, Russell Porter, reacted, “The reported federal judgment that filmmaker Joe Berlinger must turn over his outtakes to Chevron’s defense lawyers strikes me as an arbitrary and dangerous interpretation of the First Amendment.”

“The role of independent documentary filmmakers has almost totally replaced what was historically the function of investigative journalism,” said Porterin fact there is no difference between the methodology and social/political function of filmmakers like Berlinger and that of – say – Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward during the Watergate scandal.”

New York Times writer for the ArtsBeat Blog diligently followed this story conducting interviews with filmmakers Michael Moore and Ric Burns (the director of “Andy Warhol” and PBS’ “New York”) on Thursday.

Burns reacted, Chevron is “really saying ‘O.K., pal, drop your drawers, and with it, 600 hours of film.’” And added, “That’s insane. That’s a weapon so blunt that it’s impossible not to feel that Judge Kaplan doesn’t care about the impression that is conveyed.”

Burns added this “contributes to a general culture of contempt for investigative journalism” and next time someone goes to make a “Crude” the group that provides information on the subject will be a “much leerier group of informants.”

Michael Moore had “never heard of such a ruling.” Moore told the ArtsBeat Blog he never had to deal with any corporation suing him to find out how he gathered his information.

“Obviously the ramifications of this go far beyond documentary films, if corporations are allowed to pry into a reporter’s notebook or into a television station’s newsroom,” said Moore.

Moore hoped the decision would be overturned on appeal and, if not, Berlinger should “resist the subpoena.” He also said that “hundreds of filmmakers” would support Berlinger’s fight to not turn over his footage to Chevron.

Documentary as Journalism?

The New York Times put together an article that suggested this decision re-ignites a debate over whether a documentary filmmaker should have journalistic privileges or not.

In his interview with ArtsBeat Blog, Moore said, “Documentaries are a form of journalism.”

The lawyer for Chevron, Randy M. Mastro, according to the New York Times, firmly believes that “Crude” should not be considered journalism. And, Mastro claimed that this decision is not about “the First Amendment” or journalistic privilege.

Mastro said, “This is about a plaintiffs’ lawyer who decided he wanted to star in a movie and gave a sympathetic filmmaker extraordinary access to the plaintiffs’ case and strategy.”

Porter said of this statement, “The cynical dismissal of the film “Crude” as ‘…a case of a lawyer who decided he wanted to be a movie star’ would be laughable if it were not so obviously disingenuous, self-serving and untrue.”

A key problem is the fact that documentary filmmakers are expected to have subjects sign releases that they agree to appear in the film. With “Crude,” pact agreements were actually formed between the filmmaker and the settlers and those agreements would clearly be violated if Chevron was able to use the footage for their own agenda.

What are documentary filmmakers supposed to do in the future if this stands? What will filmmakers need to look out for and do to protect themselves? What additional amount of self-censorship will filmmakers have to engage in?

Will filmmakers have to begin to destroy all of their footage that they have left over once their film is complete? How are filmmakers going to handle a reality where corporations can force filmmakers to compromise their sources and turn over unused footage to them?

At a time where BP is responsible for the leaking of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, what should those documenting the destruction be weary of if a precedent is set that corporations like Chevron can subpoena unused footage to take down plaintiffs who are challenging business practices and suggesting corporations should be held responsible or accountable for their actions?

There are many more questions about the ramifications of this decision on filmmaking. The issue of journalistic privilege and documentary should be the subject of conversation for the next months especially if filmmakers unite and mount a visible effort in support of Berlinger’s right to not hand over the footage to Chevron.

———————————————————————————————

The following is Associate Professor of Columbia College Chicago and documentary filmmaker Russell Porter’s full response to the decision.

I am an Associate Professor at Columbia College Chicago with almost forty years experience as a documentary filmmaker, journalist and teacher on five continents. I have extensive experience of working with indigenous people and their struggles to maintain their traditional ways of life in the face of ever more destructive encroachment by extractive and environmentally damaging industries.

I first visited the upper Amazon region of Ecuador in 1969-70 when I lived and traveled through the then pristine Amazon regions bordering the Napo River, and was privileged to visit several indigenous communities (including the Huaorani/ Waorani and Achuar people).

I returned to the region on a research trip in 1999 to see for myself how this unique world had changed during my lifetime. I was appalled buy what my Huaorani hosts showed me as a result of the impact of oil exploration and extraction on their health and environment. I traveled with them to several sites that were at least as damaged by oil spills and dumps (in “piscinas”) like those shown in the film “Crude” – which, in my my view, if anything understates the impact on the culture, environment and the ecosystems that have sustained these communities for millennia.

The Huaorani community I visited (in the remote Shiripuni region) had been forced to relocate there since their traditional homeland had become unsustainable as a result of the massive intrusion of oil industry machinery and associated contamination and deforestation. I also visited the regions around Lago Agrio featured in the film, and witnessed the total transformation that the oil industry has cause to the environment integrity, health and well-being of traditional indigenous people there, with the associated often violent social destruction of their way of life.

The reported federal judgment that filmmaker Joe Berlinger must turn over his outtakes to Chevron’s defense lawyers strikes me as an arbitrary and dangerous interpretation of the First Amendment. The role of independent documentary filmmakers has almost totally replaced what was historically the function of investigative journalism – in fact there is no difference between the methodology and social/political function of filmmakers like Berlinger and that of – say – Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward during the Watergate scandal.

Without such scrutiny, It is my opinion that the ever-increasing corporate malfeasance would go unchecked, to the detriment of society as a whole. It is an intrinsic facet of our democratic system that such independent scrutiny is allowed the full protection of the law.

The cynical dismissal of the film “Crude” as “…a case of a lawyer who decided he wanted to be a movie star” would be laughable if it were not so obviously disingenuous, self-serving and untrue.

Documentary filmmakers of course have the right to include, structure and interpret their raw material in any way they chose – just as a journalist will draw on his or her research notes to compile a coherent narrative story. Film material is edited in just this way, and for whatever reason some footage may be left out, it remains the intellectual property of the filmmaker and he or she is under no obligation to hand it over to anyone. It is a right – just as that held by journalists – protected under the First Amendment. Whatever the legality of the case against Chevron, the principle is unchanged.