Now please explain who thought that the federal government was at fault for not doing enough? I seem to think that both are guilty. You seem to be the one on the band wagon that it was 100% the companies fault. I seem to also remember that the link I gave you on the other page, and the one you posted here state very clearly that there were lapses on both sides.
Now if this thread is about the failure of oversight....would I be remiss to bring up the FBI failing to connect the dots with other agencies on the Boston bombers?
And shame on you for sinking to the level of the blame game by using emotional blackmail in a debate....just saying.
What seems to have occurred is politics once again running amok with oversight and regulations that in my estimation could have avoided, if not mitigated this tragedy. And again, I never asserted that the company was '100%' to blame. In fact I never said anything of the sort. I've even said there were also other factors and doorsteps to lay some of the blame and accountability on. So, you're incorrect about that. I thank you for the link you provided and linked it here for the purpose of giving people the ability to understand that there indeed were several factors and actors, including the federal gov't AND including the company, to look at.
It is a failure of oversight...but it's deeper than that, in my opinion. It's a failure of funding OSHA, it's about watering down regulations and making them oversought by different agencies. It's about a failed philosophy of governance. It's about failure to report by the company. It's about failure of zoning and ignorance by local and state officials. There's plenty of failures here, but the failures started long ago, in my opinion, when govt was hamstrung in providing regulations to industry for the safety of regular citizens by the heavily lobbied members of congress that do their best to serve their donors needs, rather than the health and welfare of their constituency.
And the FBI did not fail to connect the dots in the case of the two brothers. They simply didn't have enough to go on from Russian intelligence and after their interview to hold him, do a search, or keep the file open. At the time the FBI and still today,the FBI and nearly every federal law enforcement agency only has so many resources to investigate everyone and everything. They looked into the older brother, couldn't find any legal grounds or reasonable grounds to keep the file open on him and had to close it to pursue other threats and cases of different varieties.
What emotional blackmailing have I done?.....just asking.
There is plenty of blame to go around, unfortunately many pick sides and are more interested in an agenda than fixing a problem. Media coverage is one messed up aspect of this tragedy. The articles place a great deal of emphasis on DHS reporting requirements when proper reporting would not have changed a thing. In the real world 400lbs of fertilizer is enough for about 2-3 acres of land. The average horse owner on 5 acres of pasture would not think twice of picking up 1000lbs of fertilizer and I doubt they even know about reporting requirements, I didn’t. Another issue is anyone willing to do harm is not concerned with reporting requirements making the requirements useless. Many regulations have little to do with making anything safer, they are about covering someone’s backside. I do think there should be regulations for this type of business venture but they should be easy to access and understand. The government has become so bloated every single person is breaking a law at any given moment. Unfortunately when over regulation is brought up extremists claim business wants to do away with regs. The irony of regulation compliance is the more one tries to comply the more scrutiny one comes under, no attempt to comply can keep you off the radar.
How would proper reporting not have changed a thing? Do you think the OSHA, or DHS would have just allowed that much ammonia nitrate to sit idly by without sending in inspectors? The site had not been inspected since the 80's, and there were no reports sent in about the amounts of NH4NO3 they were storing. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for breaking the law. The company that ran this plant would have been informed long ago about the regulations. I doubt they didn't know, just because you didn't.
And these regs seems to have had a safety element to it. So i'm not sure why you'd think it was a CYA only regulation? CYA for what reason? What purpose would there have been to regulate the amount of this combustible substance if not for safety purposes...as we've clearly seen what can happen when regulations are not heeded and this substance is stockpiled to dangerous levels. I'm not suggesting that the regulations couldn't have been convoluted, but it's a pretty big company...they could have hired a lawyer to figure out the regulations for them and done their paperwork for them. And why would one want to 'stay off the radar' when one is in compliance with regulations?? Doesn't seem logical.