BP admits to lobbying for release of terrorist prisoner

On paper, companies would be banned if more than 10 workers are killed at any of their facilities or they have been fined more than $10m for polluting waters, over the previous seven years. Firms would also have to prove they have paid in full for any damages or cleanup costs resulting from an oil spill.

In reality, however, this would only apply to BP. The company is expected to face billions in fines for the Gulf disaster, and had a history of safety and environmental violations well before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion killed 11 works and ruptured the wellhead in April.

Congressional hearings have since focussed on BP's history in the US, which include more than 700 safety and environmental violations over the last five years – compared with fewer than 10 for the other big oil companies.

Most of those violations were unrelated to offshore drilling, including a 2005 explosion at a Texas refinery that killed 15 workers and a badly maintained pipeline that spewed 200,000 gallons (910,000) of oil along Alaska's North Slope.

The ban would not apply to existing leases, and would still allow BP to act as a minority partner on leases.

But another amendment, due to be taken up today, would require the US government to consider an oil company's safety record before awarding offshore contracts rather than choose the highest bidder.

"We allow them to drill no matter what their environmental, safety or public health record may be," Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who proposed the amendment, told the Platts Energy forum."I think we have to give the secretary the discretion to say: 'Look you have got such a history here. You are not going to be allowed to drill unless you clean up your act'."

Quote:

point back to American support of terrorism

Finally, an admission that you were mistaken. It would have been nice if you had been a little bit more honest about it, but hey, if that's how you want to handle it, Cy.

The shocking contents of this report ... were summarized in an November 1989 Toronto Star article headlined "Pan Am bomb linked to double -dealing CIA drug plot". According to the Star, the groups of CIA agents who died on Flight 103 were en route to the US to personally inform their superiors about another CIA clique (dubbed "CIA-1" in the Pan Am report) involved in an illegal arms and drugs operation to secure the release of American hostages held in Leabanon.

A pivotal figure in the hushed up affair was Manzar Al-Kassar, the Syrian heroin dealer who supplied weapons to the Nicaraguan contras (at Oliver North's behest) [which of course had nothing to do with US government terrorism. I know this because Cycloptichorn tells me that the US government doesn't do terrorism] and to Arab terrorists.

...

At one point, said the Star, CIA-1 learned from Al-Kassar of a plot by [Ahmed] Jibril to bomb Pan Am Flight 103, but CIA oficials, fearing they might blow Al-Kassar's cover and jeopardize the hostage rescue scheme, never conveyed this information to the appropriate authorities.

Unreliable Sources - by MA Lee and N Solomon

Cameron said at a joint White House news conference with Obama that any role that BP may have played in the Lockerbie release "is a matter for BP to answer." But he went on to say there was no evidence that Scotland's decision was swayed by BP.

Cameron said he and Obama were in "violent agreement" that the release was a mistake.

However, they did disagree slightly over the issue of an investigation. Several U.S. senators have proposed an investigation, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called on both British and Scottish officials to review the situation.

Obama said he welcomed such a probe and that it was important that all facts be released to the public. Cameron said he, too, agreed that all the facts should released. But, he added, "I don't think there's any great mystery here. ... I don't need an inquiry to tell me it was a bad decision. It was a bad decision." more

US senators seem to think they can require British politicians to come and give evidence to a congressional committee.