Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Friday August 28 2015, @04:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the somebody-should-invent-a-cleaner-world dept.

Ever more the light seems to be shining in dark spots, and the cockroaches scatter. The Huffington Post reveals today that DuPont has knowingly been poisoning a small farm and community for decades, desperately trying to dump and hide the environmental, social, and medical fallout of their chemical C8. Despite their efforts, the scandal behind C8 cannot be so easily pushed down inside a landfill and forgotten like a painfully produced Atari video game. From the TFA:

That May, a group of DuPont executives gathered at the company's Wilmington headquarters to discuss the C8 issue. According to the minutes, attendees discussed recently adopted plans to cut C8 emissions at Washington Works, such as adding scrubbers to vents that spewed the chemical into the air. But they decided to scrap these initiatives. The additional expense was not "justified," the executives concluded, since it wouldn't substantially reduce the company's liability. "Liability was further defined as the incremental liability from this point on if we do nothing as we are already liable for the past 32 years of operation," the minutes read. "From a broader corporate viewpoint the costs are small."

One might think we would have learned our lessons from poisoning the world with lead, but clearly these executives never got the memo. Quite strange, given they're from the same company. I'm almost speechless at the scope of the harm and damage, knowingly and premeditatively, performed against all of humanity worldwide. The Chinese government announced today the arrests, and more than likely inevitable executions, of a score of executives and officials responsible for the Tianjin port explosions.

At what point does the harm that executives, in companies such as DuPont, meet thresholds high enough to discuss special prosecutions and the death penalty? When even China, who lacks a strong history of supporting human rights and consumer protections, recognizes that some executives and officials need to be "criminally detained" and ultimately dealt with, when can we in the so-called civilized Western societies perform the same? We've yet to even slow DuPont down.

[More after the Break]

DSM-IV Definition. Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

From the quote in the article (emphasis mine), can any reasonable person conclude that these executives do not need to be handed life sentences in prison at a minimum? It's not hyperbole to say that I could walk into a church, make racists statements, kill a half a dozen people, and receive a much harsher sentence than a group of executives that knowingly caused birth defects, miscarriages, cancers, among a myriad of other serious health conditions, up to and including grisly and pointless deaths. More maddeningly, to be commensurate, I would need to have children and begin a multi-generational attack on my fellow citizens to come close to what DuPont executives have done against a single community, much less the world.

It may be time to seriously, and a civilized manner, begin discussing how to bring these executives up on criminal charges, and even executing them. Especially helpful to remember in these discussions, that it is now TWICE that DuPont has knowingly poisoned the world and harmed MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of our fellow human beings . Forget about our reputation in the world now; We're the country that has deliberately been destroying the world for profit, and all of the documents and science exist to prove it.

So.... do we need a third time from the same company before we can start talking about preventative measures and justice?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 28 2015, @08:06PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @08:06PM (#229156) Journal

    Well, that's the best explanation of that mess I've heard yet. It never made any sense to me. I was certain it had to be about *some* resource, but rubber never occurred to me.

    OTOH, unless that explains the US contravening the Geneva Accord ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Agreements [wikipedia.org] ), then further explanation is needed.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:11AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:11AM (#229295) Journal

    I think that the DuPont thing was the core reason behind our government wanting to go into Vietnam. But, things never stay simple. The fear of communism played a role, in that representatives who might not have agreed to support DuPont felt like they had to go along because of the Red Threat.

    And, there were further pressures from the military industrial complex. It has often been pointed out that the US used Indochina to test weapons systems and tactics. Combat helicopters and highly mobile airborne infantry came of age in Vietnam, among other things.

    There were many motivations, none of them admirable, IMHO. Almost always, money played the deciding role in decision making. Rubber was the catalyst that led to all the rest of the decision making.

    Wasn't it Eisenhower who warned us about the military industrial complex? We permit that complex to push us into conflicts which would be better avoided.