November, 15 2012, 03:11pm EDT

A BP Settlement Should Ensure Criminal Liability, Permanent Sanctions and a Full Public Accounting
WASHINGTON
Update (1 p.m. Nov. 15). The following is an addendum to Tyson Slocum's statement below:
Stunning: BP Settlement Is Worth a Fraction of Last Year's Profits
We're stunned. This settlement is pathetic. The $4 billion penalty is equivalent to just a fifth of the company's 2011 profits.
The point of the criminal justice system is twofold: to punish and to deter. This does neither. It is a weak-tea punishment that provides zero deterrence to BP or other companies. Consider that after the 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 people, BP pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and paid a fine. Now, after a 2010 event that killed 11 people, BP is again pleading guilty and paying a fine. Zero deterrence.
Although the government is right to pursue manslaughter charges against two individuals BP employees, the settlement is inadequate to address BP's repeated criminal conduct.
The government must impose more meaningful sanctions. Nothing in this settlement stops BP from continuing to get federal contracts and leases. BP will earn more in annual federal contracts than it will pay in penalties as a result of this. That's appalling.
Nov. 15, 2012
(Issued before the settlement was announced.)
Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen's Energy Program
The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly has reached a multibillion-dollar settlement with BP in which the company will plead guilty only to obstruction of justice for lying to Congress in the disaster's aftermath. The reports suggest that DOJ will not pursue criminal charges against BP for the events that led to the April 20, 2010, disaster. While civil violations of the Clean Water Act are still pending against the company after this settlement, the lack of criminal sanctions for conduct up to April 20 would be a defeat for the communities and families harmed by the disaster. The single criminal charge is inadequate; remember that two BP subsidiaries were under criminal indictment at the time of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Claims arising from the Gulf disaster, which killed 11 workers and did untold damage, puts the company's liability at a minimum of $51.5 billion.
Any settlement must allow for full recovery of the Gulf Coast region and its communities; deter other companies from putting profits before safety; and involve the disclosure of all information gathered by the government, so the public has a complete understanding of the wrongdoing that killed workers and continues to wreak havoc on the environment.
The following terms should be applied:
- The settlement should include criminal penalties for the company. The settlement should not resolve the criminal penalties for individuals, including for their roles in the Deepwater oil rig explosion that resulted in the deaths of 11 men. The prosecution of individuals should proceed separately.
- A settlement must place financial responsibility on BP for future environmental and economic costs caused by still-undiscovered damage. The costs to the environment from the release of more than 5 million barrels of oil and hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical disbursement may not be known for decades.
- Permanent sanctions must be part of the settlement. For example, the government should restrict BP's access to future and current government oil and gas leases, and bar it from federal contracts for good.
- BP should agree not to deduct from its taxable revenues any future costs and fines associated with the spill. The corporation wrote off nearly $13 billion in spill costs from its 2010 income, thus depriving the Treasury of much-needed money.
- All BP documents related to the disaster must be made publicly available and accessible.
- The settlement should include penalties called for by the full spectrum of laws that exist to protect our environment, wildlife and workers. Damages associated with Clean Water Act violations alone have been estimated at $21 billion. Other laws that must be accounted for include the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
- A proposed settlement between BP and the U.S. government must be placed before the public for review and comment before it is finalized. Settlement terms regarding a corporate crime of this magnitude and impact merits public scrutiny and input.
It is imperative that justice, not political expediency, be the primary consideration at the Justice Department.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid 'Criminal Aggression' by US, Israel
"Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense," said the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Feb 28, 2026
As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against "criminal aggression" and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.
The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday's attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent "a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security," reads the ministry's statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began "in the midst of a diplomatic process."
"The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war," the statement continues. "Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy's military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority."
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli "aggression against Iran" in a social media post, calling the assault a "violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force."
"All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order," Saul added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere': Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran
"The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran."
Feb 28, 2026
President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are "going all in" against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to "stay sheltered," warning that "bombs will be dropping everywhere." People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.
The assault, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury" by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump's envoys characterized as "positive." In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions."
The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as "preemptive"—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
"The term 'preemptive' is pure propaganda," wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. "The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war."
Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday's attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.
"We may have casualties," the US president said of American troops. "That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future."
Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or "face certain death."
The Iranian government's immediate response to Saturday's onslaught was a pledge of "crushing retaliation" and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that "hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says He's 'Entitled' to Illegal Third Term as Allies Draft Voter Suppression Decree
Extensions of presidential terms or abolition of limits are hallmarks of dictators and backsliding leaders of erstwhile democracies.
Feb 27, 2026
President Donald Trump raised eyebrows and angst among democracy defenders Friday for saying he deserves an unconstitutional third term in office, remarks that came a day after reporting that right-wing activists are drafting an executive order that could empower him to ban mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
"Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more?" the 79-year-old Republican president asked attendees of an event at the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, to roaring applause. "Do one more term. Well, we are entitled to it."
During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump rehashed his thoroughly debunked claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election for former President Joe Biden, saying this "should be my third term."
A third term would require a constitutional amendment, as the 22nd Amendment restricts US presidents to two terms in office.
Trump: Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more? One more term. Well, we are entitled to it. pic.twitter.com/Niue0Q75Oo
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 27, 2026
Extensions of presidential terms or abolition of limits are hallmarks of dictators and backsliding leaders of erstwhile democracies. After Chinese President Xi Jinping lifted constitutional term limits in 2018, Trump marveled, "He's great," adding, "He's now president for life."
Trump has made cryptic allusions to a third term in office on multiple occasions.
While many Trump supporters believe he should also be president for life, his allies in actual positions of power—including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and political strategist and convicted fraudster Steve Bannon, whom Trump granted clemency—have backed a third term for his administration.
A constitutional amendment enabling a third Trump term is not under any consideration and is all but impossible by the 2028 election. So Trump and his allies are working on other ways for the president to remain in office, focusing heavily on voter suppression. The Washington Post reported Thursday that a group of right-wing activists is writing a draft decree that would give the president “extraordinary power over voting." On Friday, Democracy Docket published an April 2025 version of the draft order provided by a Trump ally, which the outlet described as "riddled with errors."
According to the Post, the draft executive order would cite the pretext of alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that there was no such interference.
MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos called the draft order “batshit authoritarianism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


