# U.S. pledges $1.15 Billion to rebuild Haiti...



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 31, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36114594/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/?GT1=43001



> The Obama administration is to pledge $1.15 billion over the next two years to help with Haiti's post-earthquake reconstruction, according to a senior U.S. official.


 


> Barack Obama has asked Congress for a total of $2.8 billion in funds for Haiti relief
> 
> and reconstruction costs.


 
This irritates me. This is the kind of crap that should be approved of by the American people first and foremost. I understand and agree with the initial surge for us Americans to send rescue, aid, and take care of immediate problems like we did.. I am all for that, but to pledge $1.15 Billion dollars when we have so many problems at home right now is horrible. I do not know the legalities of this, but it seems to me that other then immediate humanitarian aid to protect lives, long term projects like this should be paid for by the government of the country involved, and any help should be given with consent from the people.... This just seems wrong to me


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 31, 2010)

Wonder what it would cost to rebuild New Orleans......


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 31, 2010)

It's less than half the cost of one B-2 bomber from the initial run of 20.  I don't remember getting to vote on that one.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 31, 2010)

Don't worry about it.  If they need more money, they'll just raise taxes.  It's like a magic bag of money, it never runs out!


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 31, 2010)

I think some help is warranted.  I don't know about 2.8 billion.

I also understand there's a real issue of OUR money simply vanishing in thin air thanks to the endemic corruption in Haitian governmental institutions.  That would hack me off to no end, knowing that my tax dollars are lining the pockets of some Haitian politician.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 31, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It's less than half the cost of one B-2 bomber from the initial run of 20. I don't remember getting to vote on that one.


 
I am not to happy with the cost overruns and waste in military spending but at least thats not money that is going away from the American Public... This moeny is being stolen from American Tax Payers and given directly to another country all together...

I might not have as much of a problem with it if all the work that the money was to be spent on was guaranteed to be given to American Contractors who hire American Workers.... other then that its a rip off.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 1, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> This moeny is being stolen from American Tax Payers and given directly to another country all together...



"Stolen"...interesting choice of words.  What about the members of the public who approve of the expenditure, are they being stolen from?  Is every financial decision made by our duly elected representatives theft?  Or is it only theft when you disagree with it?  You have a vote, if you don't like it, vote for those who promise to do otherwise.  But don't pretend that a legitimate government expenditure is somehow immoral or theft, especially when it is being used to save lives.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> "Stolen"...interesting choice of words. What about the members of the public who approve of the expenditure, are they being stolen from? Is every financial decision made by our duly elected representatives theft? Or is it only theft when you disagree with it? You have a vote, if you don't like it, vote for those who promise to do otherwise. But don't pretend that a legitimate government expenditure is somehow immoral or theft, especially when it is being used to save lives.


 
It is not being used to save lives, the initial response was what saved lives. this money is basicly a redistribution of wealth, taking from Americans and giving to Haitians.  Like I said I would not feel so bad about it if the caveat was that all the money had to be accounted for before it was given to them, all the work had to be done by American Contractors, and using American workers to complete. I can only imagine how it will go now given the history of that craphole.. Over a billion goes in, maye a 1/4 of that is actually spent on rebuilding, and a few years later some wealthy Haitians end up in the Europe on permanent vacation.

If you want to pull the wool over your eyes and actually believe that then there is nothing I can do to convince you  until you decide to actually look at the truth...
I am against all forms of corruption regardless of where it comes from.
I do not side with anyone who breaks the law, or uses their office for their own gain. I just see absolutely nothing of value coming from this. It is not our responsibility to rebuild Haitian homes and businesses when our own country has so many problems... Saving lives? yes like I originally said, this is not saving lives. and yes this money is being stolen from every American, even those that might agree with the idea of rebuilding Haiti. Thats what we have been having these enormous charity drives for, and that is a great thing, and should continue. Our government should not be in the business of giving away our money.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2010)

Read somewhere that most of the grain bought by the USA for Africa money was either stolen or rotted in warehouses......seems appropriate here....


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 20, 2010)

America burns and Obama keeps on playing his fiddle!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> "Stolen"...interesting choice of words. What about the members of the public who approve of the expenditure, are they being stolen from? Is every financial decision made by our duly elected representatives theft? Or is it only theft when you disagree with it? You have a vote, if you don't like it, vote for those who promise to do otherwise. But don't pretend that a legitimate government expenditure is somehow immoral or theft, especially when it is being used to save lives.


 
I call it illegitimate because there is no where in the U.S. Constitution that says they can spend tax money like this.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 21, 2010)

Hell... let BP pay for it.... 

Where are they going to get it... oh yeah... borrow it from the Fed Reserve AT INTEREST and then work on paying back the interest until we have to borrow (AT INTEREST) to pay off the interest loan...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 21, 2010)

Not like that money would be better spent rebuilding OUR ECONOMY.


----------



## crushing (Jul 21, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> It is not being used to save lives, the initial response was what saved lives. this money is basicly a redistribution of wealth, taking from Americans and giving to Haitians. Like I said I would not feel so bad about it if the caveat was that all the money had to be accounted for before it was given to them, all the work had to be done by American Contractors, and using American workers to complete. I can only imagine how it will go now given the history of that craphole.. Over a billion goes in, maye a 1/4 of that is actually spent on rebuilding, and a few years later some wealthy Haitians end up in the Europe on permanent vacation.


 
Happier Haitians make better baseballs, and besides the Stars and Stripes itself, what is more American than baseball?


----------



## MJS (Jul 21, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36114594/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/?GT1=43001
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Can't say I disagree.  I know that this country has pretty much nothing, but IMO, we need to take care of OUR issues first, and then worry about others.  I'm sure some will disagree and thats fine.  That is how I feel, and unless I saw something that drastically changed my mind, thats what I'm sticking with.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 21, 2010)

celtic_crippler said:


> Not like that money would be better spent rebuilding OUR ECONOMY.


 
Sshhh!  Don't give them ideas.  It would cost 1.15 TRILLION and wouldn't work.  Better we give it to someone a bit more competent.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I call it illegitimate because there is no where in the U.S. Constitution that says they can spend tax money like this.



The President is specifically authorized to make treaties which must be ratified, and Congress is specifically authorized to make law regarding "commerce" between the nations.  Sounds like they have the power to me, and it's pretty notable that I have never heard an argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional.  Is building the White House with government money unconstitutional because it was never specifically mentioned?  We approach the realm of absurdity.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 21, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I call it illegitimate because there is no where in the U.S. Constitution that says they can spend tax money like this.



Sure it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause



> *Power of the purse, generally*
> 
> Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
>  No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.    The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, prohibiting any spending that does not have broad support.



Which brings us to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act

Which means that yes, the Congress has the Constitutional authority to spend money in this way.

As noted, if one disagrees with how this money is spent, one has recourse to the ballet box.  But it is both legal and Constitutional.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 21, 2010)

In truth I am sick and tired of seeing the tax payers money go to any forgin country.  We give billions upon billions  around the world each year to help out outher countries but I have to wonder how much of that actualy gets to the people in those countries and not the leaders pocket or big industry.
We are in so much need in this country it should be a crime to not give equal amounts to help our country as we give out to others. 
Our schools have less and less in the way of music, sports, science equipment, etc.  Our citizens have no work and what they do find many times will not cover the bills. ( I wonder how many unemployed are not listed in the ranks of unemployed because their benifits have run and and they are no longer counted.)
 More buisnesses close every day because they can not compete with what is being brought in from other countries. Yet big businesses send products over seas for a larger profit.
For those with lower income the price of insurence gets much higher each year and they get less coverage.
Our cities are over run with gangs, and crime is always on the upswing.

If we spent an equal amount to help rebuild this country from building better roads to makeing  sure citizens ( not illigals) have full coverage insurence we   might start to make this look like a country that cares for its people not it's CEO's.

Now do not get me wrong I have no problem helping people in other countries rebuild after a disaster but I do think we need to take care of the people in this country first.

Please forgive spelling mistakes my comp is in the shop and this one has no spell check. and I spell for crap


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 21, 2010)

Ok, so we spend billions to help them rebuild... 
Question is... will they help us should we need them in times of war? Will they send their young men/women to fight/die for us ... I mean geez... seems only fair right?

Seems to me that for a while ( a long while) we've been the billionaire that walks down the street passing out wads of cash to everyone he meets irregardless. Question is... will those who gotten the cash from the man help him should he cry out loudly for help while getting mugged?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 22, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> The President is s+pecifically authorized to make treaties which must be ratified, and Congress is specifically authorized to make law regarding "commerce" between the nations. Sounds like they have the power to me, and it's pretty notable that I have never heard an argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional. Is building the White House with government money unconstitutional because it was never specifically mentioned? We approach the realm of absurdity.


 
Let's examine this argument.

First, I don't know what treaty that we have with which says we will give you X amount of dollars for disaster relief.  Not saying that there isn't one, I just don't know of any.  If you could be so kind as to point one out, I would appreciate it.  

Secondly, Congress cannot make law "regarding" commerce between nations.  It can make law *regulating *commerce between nations.  Now, let's look at some definitions from Websters: 



> regulate:  to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc
> commerce: The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale.


 
So, according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, based on the dictionary definition of the above words, Congress shall have the power to control or direct by a rule the buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, with foreign nations.

So you tell me, where exactly is there any regulating going on about buying and selling things in the giving away of $1.5 billion?

You may have never heard of the argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional, but I wonder if you're looking.  In getting quotes for my rebuttal, I found several.  You only have to look.

Now, about the Constitution's giving the President the power to negotiate, and the Congress' authority to authorize treaties. I am first going to make a principle based argument, then deal with some legalities later.  Remember, this power is there because the Constitution gives the authority to the government to do so.  Therefore, no treaty can nullify any part of the Constitution.  As an example, the Third Amendment says:



> _No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law._




No treaty, therefore, can authorize the quartering of soldiers in any private citizen's house in time of peaces without that owner's consent.  The Supremacy is in the Constitution, not the treaty, as all treaties are authorized by the Constitution.  

Legally this is protected based on case law in the Reid v. Covert ruling, to wit, Justice Hugo Black writing the opinion stated:



> *There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.* These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rightslet alone alien to our entire constitutional history and traditionto construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.





I will expand upon this in response to Bill's post next.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause


 
The power to tax is granted the Federal government under Article 1, Section 8.  No arguing with that.  The only problem with your argument is that, in that same article, it tells the Federal government what it may then spend tax money on.  No where does it state that it may be given for foreign aid.  If you want to use Clause 1, see above.  The very definition of the words used in the Constitution rule out this argument.

So, even though the Congress does have the "power of the purse", the Constitution limits what that "purse" may be used for. 

One of the cases used for authorizing many types of spending done by Congress is the wording of "general welfare".  Here, I'm going to take my shot against it by quoting some founders:



> It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
> *''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? *
> 
> Federalist #41
> ...


 
Don't think I could have made a better argument then that.



> Which brings us to:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act
> 
> Which means that yes, the Congress has the Constitutional authority to spend money in this way.


 
So, we come to the Foreign Assistance Act.  Since Congress has no enumerated Constitutional authority to spend money on (this type of) foreign aid, then this law, on it's face, is unconstitutional.  

Just because it's being done, doesn't make it legal.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 22, 2010)

Forgot to mention this part, that the authority to build the White House is in the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18



> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


 
It is not even a stretch to believe that this would not include the ability of the government to construct buildings to be able to administer it's self in an efficient manner.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 22, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Ok, so we spend billions to help them rebuild...
> Question is... will they help us should we need them in times of war? Will they send their young men/women to fight/die for us ... I mean geez... seems only fair right?
> 
> Seems to me that for a while ( a long while) we've been the billionaire that walks down the street passing out wads of cash to everyone he meets irregardless. Question is... will those who gotten the cash from the man help him should he cry out loudly for help while getting mugged?



That is really not an appropriate comparison.

The reason practically noone offered help for Iraq was that it was an illegal war, based on lies. You might as well say that if you give someone money to help him, he is obliged to help you mug someone else. Because that was what was / is happening. You'll also remember that virtually every country offered support for the war in Afghanistan. Besides, the US spends more on defense (bit of a misnomer there ) than the rest of the world combined. You hardly need anyone to help you bomb the crap out of some underdeveloped nation.

If the US needs help, plenty of countries are willing to offer it, like the Dutch and others who offered help with the oil cleanup when the US lacked the right equipment and trained personnel. It's not our fault that the US was too arrogant to accept it. Despite the popular notion, the US is not the best in everything.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is really not an appropriate comparison.
> 
> The reason practically noone offered help for Iraq was that it was an illegal war, based on lies. You might as well say that if you give someone money to help him, he is obliged to help you mug someone else. Because that was what was / is happening. You'll also remember that virtually every country offered support for the war in Afghanistan. Besides, the US spends more on defense (bit of a misnomer there ) than the rest of the world combined. You hardly need anyone to help you bomb the crap out of some underdeveloped nation.
> 
> If the US needs help, plenty of countries are willing to offer it, like the Dutch and others who offered help with the oil cleanup when the US lacked the right equipment and trained personnel. It's not our fault that the US was too arrogant to accept it. Despite the popular notion, the US is not the best in everything.


 

Good post Bruno!


I don't suppose anyone wants to look at Haitian history and understand exactly why Haiti is now so poor after being quite a well off country, embargoes, interfering in foreign affairs, invasions etc ring a bell?

We offered help too, a lot of money was raised here for New Orleans and was churlishly turned down. We offered to help clean up the oil but the offer was refused by the American government. Much easier to ***** about us instead?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7149576.ece

_"A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which was also involved in drafting the plan, said that the US had chosen not to accept the offer. Officials said the US claimed that the chemicals held in Britain did not have the correct paperwork but the spokeswoman said: We are not aware of any problems with licensing. I cannot say why they have not accepted the offer. That is a question for the US State Department. _
_One person familiar with the discussions said that the US decision seemed odd, given the severity of the crisis and the fact that the offer had been made in good faith. The Times understands that the rejection of Britains offer came after the US had accepted similar offers from other countries, including Saudi Arabia."_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So, we come to the Foreign Assistance Act.  Since Congress has no enumerated Constitutional authority to spend money on (this type of) foreign aid, then this law, on it's face, is unconstitutional.
> 
> Just because it's being done, doesn't make it legal.



Everything Congress does is legal unless challenged and defeated in court.  Therefore, it is legal.  It is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case challenging the law for constitutionality and finds that it is not constitutional.

What you're expressing is an opinion.  What Congress does is a law, until and unless found to be against the Constitution.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 22, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everything Congress does is legal unless challenged and defeated in court.  Therefore, it is legal.  It is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case challenging the law for constitutionality and finds that it is not constitutional.
> 
> What you're expressing is an opinion.  What Congress does is a law, until and unless found to be against the Constitution.



It surprised me to learn this, but it does seem to be the case.

So what you or I personally think (well, not me because I'm a Belgian) doesn't matter and pointing at clauses in the constitution also does not mean anything unless there is already a previous challenge before the supreme court where a decision was made one way or the other. You may hold an opinion, but without relevant case law or constitutional challenges, an opinion is worthless.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It surprised me to learn this, but it does seem to be the case.
> 
> So what you or I personally think (well, not me because I'm a Belgian) doesn't matter and pointing at clauses in the constitution also does not mean anything unless there is already a previous challenge before the supreme court where a decision was made one way or the other. You may hold an opinion, but without relevant case law or constitutional challenges, an opinion is worthless.



I have opinions about the Constitutionality of many laws Congress has passed to.  And like 5-0 Kenpo, I often tend to express them in absolute terms as in _"This is unconstitutional"_ or _"that's not legal."_  But it's really just opinion.

Fortunately, we have two tools available to us as US citizens.  The ballot box and the Supreme Court.  Either one can cure problems with the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Many people forget that all elected politicians are temporary workers.  They treat their jobs as permanent, and we tend to go along with that.  But really, they're just temps.  We fire temps when they do a bad job.

By the way, in a nutshell, the US government is three branches.  Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  Ideally, there is a balance of power.  The Legislative makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial ensures that neither the Executive nor the Legislative exceed their Constitutional boundaries.  It may not always work like that, but that is the basic intent.


----------



## MJS (Jul 22, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Ok, so we spend billions to help them rebuild...
> Question is... will they help us should we need them in times of war? Will they send their young men/women to fight/die for us ... I mean geez... seems only fair right?
> 
> Seems to me that for a while ( a long while) we've been the billionaire that walks down the street passing out wads of cash to everyone he meets irregardless. Question is... will those who gotten the cash from the man help him should he cry out loudly for help while getting mugged?


 
In one word...No.


----------



## MJS (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is really not an appropriate comparison.
> 
> The reason practically noone offered help for Iraq was that it was an illegal war, based on lies. You might as well say that if you give someone money to help him, he is obliged to help you mug someone else. Because that was what was / is happening. You'll also remember that virtually every country offered support for the war in Afghanistan. Besides, the US spends more on defense (bit of a misnomer there ) than the rest of the world combined. You hardly need anyone to help you bomb the crap out of some underdeveloped nation.
> 
> If the US needs help, plenty of countries are willing to offer it, like the Dutch and others who offered help with the oil cleanup when the US lacked the right equipment and trained personnel. It's not our fault that the US was too arrogant to accept it. Despite the popular notion, the US is not the best in everything.


 
I agree...many countries do help.  What Mac is saying is...are the countries that we help, going to return the favor?  Something happens in the UK, we offer help, and viceversa.  Something happens in Haiti, the US and others go to their aid.  Is Haiti offering any help to the US for anything?  Of course, whats the old saying...you cant get blood from a stone.  That being said, thats why I replied with my 1 word answer...NO.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is really not an appropriate comparison.
> 
> The reason practically noone offered help for Iraq was that it was an illegal war, based on lies. You might as well say that if you give someone money to help him, he is obliged to help you mug someone else. Because that was what was / is happening. You'll also remember that virtually every country offered support for the war in Afghanistan. Besides, the US spends more on defense (bit of a misnomer there ) than the rest of the world combined. You hardly need anyone to help you bomb the crap out of some underdeveloped nation.


 
While I agree witgh you in part, I have to take issue with:



Bruno@MT said:


> If the US needs help, plenty of countries are willing to offer it, like the Dutch and others who offered help with the oil cleanup when the US lacked the right equipment and trained personnel. It's not our fault that the US was too arrogant to accept it. Despite the popular notion, the US is not the best in everything.


 
THis is not a valid comparison. In the first place, by law, the response to this event is _BP's_ responsibility. It was they who refused the Dutch offer for help, for the most cynical of reasons. There were also maritime legalities involved that have everything to do with national security, and nothing to do with unions, as some have said-though the unions do, naturally, favor those measures.  

In any case, it was BP that refused help, and not the US.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> While I agree witgh you in part, I have to take issue with:
> 
> THis is not a valid comparison. In the first place, by law, the response to this event is _BP's_ responsibility. It was they who refused the Dutch offer for help, for the most cynical of reasons. There were also maritime legalities involved that have everything to do with national security, and nothing to do with unions, as some have said-though the unions do, naturally, favor those measures.
> 
> In any case, it was BP that refused help, and not the US.



I was told that help was offered both to BP and the US (in the person of the president), and that both refused. If I am wrong, I will gladly retract that statement.


----------



## crushing (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I was told that help was offered both to BP and the US (in the person of the president), and that both refused. If I am wrong, I will gladly retract that statement.


 
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/660195/



> To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations International Maritime Organization and the European Unions Monitoring and Information Centre. In some cases, offers of international assistance have been turned down because the offer didnt fit the needs of the response.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I was told that help was offered both to BP and the US (in the person of the president), and that both refused. If I am wrong, I will gladly retract that statement.


 
As I posted and quoted _it was_ the Government who refused help from the UK... the "_Department of Energy and Climate Change"._


Did the American taxpayer agree to the invasion and occupation of Haiti by any chance? Twenty years is a long time to occupy a foreign country.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> As I posted and quoted _it was_ the Government who refused help from the UK... the "_Department of Energy and Climate Change"._
> 
> 
> Did the American taxpayer agree to the invasion and occupation of Haiti by any chance? Twenty years is a long time to occupy a foreign country.


 
No-by U.S. law the responsibilty for spill response planning, plan execution and spill mitigation lies entirely with the leasee-in this case, BP.



			
				el Oso de Dios said:
			
		

> No, there isn't, as this U.S. Department of the Interior Webpage demonstrates: spill response and control is the responsibility of the facility owner,in this case, BP, according to 30 *CFR* Part 254.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> No-by U.S. law the responsibilty for spill response planning, plan execution and spill mitigation lies entirely with the leasee-in this case, BP.


 

So why accept help from other countries and not the UK then?


----------



## crushing (Jul 22, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> So why accept help from other countries and not the UK then?



From the link you provided earlier in the thread:


> A few days after the BP-leased rig sank on April 22, the Cabinet Office made a direct offer to the US State Department to airlift half of Britains 1,200-tonne stockpile of chemical dispersants, The Times has learnt.



From the link I provided:


> In some cases, offers of international assistance have been turned down because the offer didnt fit the needs of the response.



Perhaps the administration (and BP) felt they already had enough chemical dispersants and didn't see the need for more?

But, I still can't help but wonder if there is more to it than that given the present US administration's mis-handling of several other events related to dealings with the UK.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2010)

crushing said:


> From the link you provided earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> From the link I provided:
> ...


 

The latest thing is that BP is being linked to the release of the Lockerbie bombing chap and there's suggestions that the British Government took bribes. Jack Straw who was the Home Office Minister at the time has been 'invited' to America to be questioned which tells me someone somewhere doesn't understand the situation as he would have had nothing to do with it. The Scottish government released the man and it's the Scottish Justice Minister they should question but there you go, as you say things aren't very rosy between us officially at the moment.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everything Congress does is legal unless challenged and defeated in court.  Therefore, it is legal.  It is presumed to be Constitutional unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case challenging the law for constitutionality and finds that it is not constitutional.
> 
> What you're expressing is an opinion.  What Congress does is a law, until and unless found to be against the Constitution.



You do realize that what you said makes no sense.  What you have basically said is that every individual act of Congress is legal until its not.  So if Congress made a law forcing people to house soldiers in time of peace, though its expressly forbidden in the Constitution, then it is legal. I don't think so.

So though it may be law, that doesn't make the law legal, or Constitutional.  Congress has passed many an unconstitutional law, as have state and local jurisdictions.

The other issue is that though a law may be presumed to be legal, that doesn't necessarily mean it is Constitutional until ruled on by a court (notice that it doesn't have to be the Supreme Court, any Federal Court will do).  If a law is unconstitutional now, then barring that some Amendment to the Constitution was enacted since the law was enacted, then it was ALWAYS unconstitutional.  It just hadn't been ruled as such.

So, for example, anyone who was convicted  under the Chicago statute recently ruled unconstitutional, was imprisoned illegally.  It was a violation of their rights no matter when it happened.

What you are arguing is a practical application of the idea of law, which has only a sometimes association with the logical philosophy of law.

But yes,  in regards to foreign aid, what I am expressing is an opinion.  One backed up by many of the Founders, it so happens.  You go ahead and choose to believe what some political appointees say it means, rather than the people who wrote it.  We'll just see how that turns out for us in the long run.  

It's not looking good so far.


----------

