As ordered, it's about oil - slew of unreported Executive Orders; policy by fiat

[Guest guest]

slew of unreported Executive Orders; policy by fiat

 

 

> As ordered, it's about oil

>

> <rrosenRuth Rosen a3b00f5.jpg Friday, August 8,

2003

>

>

> AN EXECUTIVE ORDER can be a surreptitious way of making policy. It often

> makes an end-run around Congress and frequently escapes the media's

> attention as well. It is, in short, a way of making policy by fiat.

>

> President Bush has signed a slew of executive orders that have gone

> unreported for weeks or months -- most notably, changes to environmental

> regulations and restricted access to former presidential papers and

Freedom

> of Information Act information.

>

> Now, a potentially explosive executive order has just been discovered by

> SEEN, the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network. Signed on May 22, it

> appears to give U.S. oil companies in Iraq blanket immunity from lawsuits

> and criminal prosecution.

>

> Here's what happened: On May 22, the U.N. Security Council passed

> Resolution 1438, which provided gas and oil companies in Iraq with limited

> immunity until Dec. 21, 2007. Their reason? To protect the flow of oil

> revenues into the development fund that will be used to reconstruct Iraq.

> The U.N. resolution, however, did not provide immunity from human rights

> violations or environmental damage. Nor did it protect any employee or any

> company after the oil was produced and extracted in Iraq.

>

> Notice what President Bush changed when, on the same day, he issued

> Executive Order 13303 -- called " Protecting the Development Fund and

> Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest. " Unlike the U.N.

> resolution, the president's order appears to place U.S. corporations above

> the law for any activities related to Iraq oil, either in that country or

> in the United States.

>

> It also declared a national emergency as the justification for sweeping

> aside all federal statues, including the Alien Tort Claims Act, and

appears

> to provide immunity against contractual disputes, discrimination suits,

> violations of labor practices, international treaties, environmental

> disasters and human rights violations. Even more, it doesn't limit

immunity

> to the production of oil, but also protects individuals, companies and

> corporations involved in selling and marketing the oil as well.

>

> Unlike the U.N. resolution, therefore, the order provides immunity for

more

> of the industry's activities, as well as for a broader swath of

> individuals, companies and corporations.

>

> These are the kind of legal protections that most corporations could only

> dream of enjoying. If, for example, a U.S. oil company engages in criminal

> behavior in California, and its assets can be traced back to Iraqi oil, it

> could be immune from any kind of prosecution.

>

> Tellingly, the president's order provides no such legal immunity for

> companies who are helping to reconstruct Iraqi communications, computer or

> electrical infrastructure.

>

> " In terms of legal liability, " said Tom Devine, legal director of the

> Government Accountability Project, a Washington nonprofit group that

> defends whistle blowers, " the executive order cancels the concept of

> corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law. It is a blank check

> for corporate anarchy, potentially robbing Iraqis of both their rights and

> their resources. "

>

> Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, told me that this

> is a " tortured and incorrect reading of the executive order and what it

> hopes to achieve: protecting the revenue that belongs to the Iraqi

people. "

> When asked why the order did not exempt human rights or environmental

> damage, he responded, " When the regulations are written, they will address

> these. "

>

> But Betsy Apple, managing director and an attorney with EarthRights

> International, a Washington, D.C., human rights organization, thinks this

> is disingenuous and described the executive order as " an outrage " in a

> telephone interview. " It is a green light for oil companies to do business

> in Iraq, without worrying about legal liability, " she said.

>

> For some critics, the executive order supports the suspicion that the

> invasion of Iraq was always about gaining control of that country's oil.

> Jim Vallette, senior researcher at the liberal Institute for Policy

> Studies, said, " This order reveals the true motivation for the present

> occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interest over Iraqi oil. "

>

> The Institute and the Government Accountability Project have now asked

> Congress to investigate -- and repeal -- this order. The president's order

> is an outrage and Congress should act immediately. In our democracy, no

one

> is above the law.

>

> E-mail Ruth Rosen at <rrosenrrosen

>

>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/08

/ED163218.DTL

> a3b010e.jpga3b0125.jpg