|
dcnovice -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (4/28/2012 6:25:07 PM)
|
quote:
If we take him at his words though, that a few random executions by slow torture was the idea, then it all becomes rather suspect, doesn't it?
I'll probably regret wading into this, but here goes.
After watching the video twice now, I would divide "his words" into two parts: the crucifixion analogy and the "example" message that followed. The analogy, no doubt about it, was boneheaded. As Armendariz himself said, it was "crude" and of dubious appropriateness, and he apologized for using it. Obviously, the EPA should not be prosecuting "random" folks as a terror tactic.
Nor, honestly, do I think that's what Armendariz said they were doing. He talked about prosecuting those who were not complying with the law, which has been the goal of judicial systems for centuries. Making an example of those who violate environmental laws strikes me as akin to making examples of those who violate securities laws or antidiscrimination laws or plain old criminal laws. I wish we could count on everyone to obey the law because it's the right thing to do, but not even my naivete stretches that far. Sad as it is to say, knowing the consequences of law-breaking does, I think, help impel some folks to abide by the law. (Whether we like every law by which they must abide, which may not be the case on the environmental front, is another story.)
At the risk of sounding Clintonian, I'm not sure you mean by "all" when you ask if "it all becomes rather suspect." The cases Armendariz filed? Every case Region 6 filed? The entire work of the EPA? Those seem like heavy conclusions to support with a single analogy (introduced as imperfect and later apologized for) by a single (of ten) regional administrator, particularly when we don't know what proportion of cases are actually being dismissed for lack of evidence.
Edited for typo and pronoun imprecision.
|
|
|
|
