I'm getting tired of all this "Coast Guard under 'BP control'" crap based on the CBS video

[time_has_come]

If you watch the video and listen to the reporter, she says "a boat of BP contractors with two Coast Guard officers on board, told us to turn around under threat of arrest."

She's not saying the boat is a coast guard boat, as I'm seeing some DU'ers now start claiming, and it obviously isn't. As well, if you look at the people on the boat it appears the coast guard officers are standing in the rear...the guy leaning out the window who says "these are BP rules, not ours" is almost certainly not even a coast guard officer. Watch the video.

The coast guard has responded, according to Rawstory, as follows:

The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations. This did occur off South Pass Monday which may have caused the confusion reported by CBS today.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0520/coast-guard-bps-rules/

And the Coast Guard has also clearly stated who's in charge. From AP:

That sense of frustration is shared by an increasing number of Gulf Coast residents, elected officials and environmental groups who have called for the government to simply take over.

In fact, the government is overseeing things. But the official responsible for that says he still understands the discontent.

"If anybody is frustrated with this response, I would tell them their symptoms are normal, because I'm frustrated, too," said Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.

....

He and Coast Guard Adm. Mary Landry, the federal onsite coordinator, direct virtually everything BP does in response to the spill — and with a few exceptions have received full cooperation, Allen said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was even more emphatic.
"There's nothing that we think can and should be done that isn't being done. Nothing," Gibbs said Friday during a lengthy, often testy exchange with reporters about the response to the oil disaster.
There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_in_charge


What you have is some contractor on a non-government boat telling a news crew to stay away from a beach under the auspices of "BP rules" and there happens to be two coast officers on board. I assume the officers were the ones who threatened arrest...we don't see that on video (strangely), but if the beach should not have boats coming to shore because there's oil on it and a boat driving a wedge into the sand could hamper clean up efforts or WHATEVER, then the order makes sense.

What we DON'T have here is a takeover of the coast guard by BP, or a "media blackout" of a BP coast guard takeover, or any real evidence of anything of the sort. There's just no evidence of it.

I think CBS did a crappy job on this report. The reporter didn't bother to clarify why they were being kept from the beach...leaving all the conspiracy theists to assume it's so the oil can't be filmed. As if everyone's not already seeing the oil, and as if the oil couldn't be seem from their boat. The idea that BP would commandeer coast guard officers to chase around in an effort to hide oil from the media is beyond ludicrous.

alright, i'm done.

[ProSense]

1. The CBS report was bogus. The full statement

Media Access to Impacted Areas

Can the media access any of the impacted areas?

Tonight CBS Evening News reported they were denied access to oiled shoreline by a civilian vessel that had clean-up workers contracted by BP, as well as Coast Guard personnel on board. CBS News video taped the exchange during which time one of the contractors told them (on tape) that " ... this is BP's rules not ours."

Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date. Just today 16 members of the press observed clean-up operations on a vessel out of Venice, La.

The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations. This did occur off South Pass Monday which may have caused the confusion reported by CBS today.

The entities involved in the Deepwater Horizon/BP Response have already reiterated these media access guidelines to personnel involved in the response and hope it prevents any future confusion.

[time_has_come]

8. Thank you. I hope DUers catch on soon that it wasn't a USCG officer who made the comment

CBS, on their own video caption (which is written by some web person who seldom understands the story), claim a USCG officer told them the BP rules comment.

It's obvious that it was not, and this seems to further verify that.

It was some idiot contractor.

And this further verifies what appears obvious...it was a civilian vessel.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. The fact remains

That BRITISH Petroleum does not own the fucking Gulf of Mexico, and they have NO GODDAMNED RIGHT TO CENSOR NEWS COVERAGE OF THE FUCKING DISASTER THEY CAUSED, whether backed by the Coast Guard or not. :grr:

[time_has_come]

11. And that fact would be relevant IF

THEY WERE CENSORING THE NEWS, WHICH THEY WEREN'T.

Maybe, just maybe what the USCG is telling us is true...that boats (media or not) were being kept from the beach for some valid reasons?

And maybe, just maybe, they ARE in fact letting piles of journalists embed themselves with cleanup operations...with oil in full view of cameras.

Seriously, just think about it. What possible reason would they have to try and "censor" an oily beach from a media crew when there's miles of oily beaches all over the place? Just think about that for one second. Are they REALLY giving orders to contractors to try and stop media from taking pictures of oily beaches? You believe that? Really? I mean, really?

[hayu_lol]

3. And, you are correct...

had that been a Coast Guard boat, it would have been crewed by Coast Guard personnel. The two officers were probably observers.

The more boats that run through this oil just spread the stuff and make the situation worse.

***Note: Journalists have been known, in recent times, not to know their asses from a hole in the sea-bottom.

[tammywammy]

4. k&r n/t

[Bluebear]

5. There are many things we once thought were beyond ludicrous. Sorry you're getting tired.

An informed populace asks questions and demands answers.

[time_has_come]

12. Yeah, and I've given you some answers. Sorry if you don't like them.

It was not a USCG boat, it was not a USCG officer who said "these are BP rules," and to any reasonable person thinking logically nobody was trying to prevent the media from seeing an oily beach. There's f#$king oily beaches everywhere, so it makes no sense for them to prevent it.

An informed populace demands answers to things that need answering. The answers here are in front of our collective nose.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. Key words here: "these are BP rules"

Who the FUCK gave these foreign polluting criminal pieces of shit the right to make "rules".

I do not obey "rules" made by British Petroluem, or any other goddamn corporation. And I do not expect ANY governmental body or agency to enforce their "rules". To do so is TREASON.

[Canuckistanian]

22. +1

The very mention of the word "rules" in regard to DOMESTIC journalists collecting news by a FOREIGN-based corporation should make any American bristle.

I'm not even American and I can understand the outrage.

[time_has_come]

26. It was because they were journalists? On what do you base that assumption?

I'll wager a years salary that ANY boat trying to approach an oil slick running up against a beach in the vicinity of the USCG or BP contractors or (in this case) both would be told the same thing.

[time_has_come]

24. sigh. it was a contractor who said that, not the USCG. And...

...and the USCG has said there are reasons to keep boats away from an oily beach. Can you think of any legitimate reason for keeping a boat away from an oily beach? I can. Many, good ones.

So, wherever that contractor got the idea that they were "BP rules," does it really matter? Nope. What matters is that the common sense thing, and the rule I'm sure EVERY agency involved in the multi-agency response is to keep boats away from oily beaches. Besides making the beach harder to clean up, they may set it on fire.

Treason? Give me a break.

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. I don't give a pig's ass WHO said it, it's bullshit.

And nobody - not the Coast Guard, not CBS reporters, not mercenary thug pieces of shit "contractors", not DLC suckup apologists, has any business acting as if there were any validity to these criminal polluting treasonous foreign bastards making "rules".

Yes, treason. Anyone who pisses all over the constitution (including Freedom of the Press) for their own gain is guilty of it.

[emulatorloo]

17. I'm all for answers. But mostly,DU takes half-truths, misinterpretations, and flies off the handle.

[Codeine]

27. There is no particle of half-fact

that we cannot twist into a conspiracy of galactic proportion in the space of a few posts. It's almost genius.

[Bluebear]

28. I know, Codeine, thank god you're here to set us all straight

[Codeine]

32. It's the price I pay

for being Made of Win.

[emulatorloo]

49. ...

:toast:

[time_has_come]

37. yeah. well. this is supposed to be the smart board. People are understandably upset and frustrated..

...so am i. But i hope more can have the sense to ignore the misinformation.

I mean, we've got a map with no credibility being pushed on us, and what's worse is a news organization has taken it and misinterpreted it to announce oil has landed up and down the Florida coast. And this idea that BP is giving the USCG marching orders, based upon two words from some simple-minded boat operator. There's plenty to be outraged and frustrated about without cooking up extra garbage.

[Catherina]

6. Hey hey are you ready to clap?

Let's get physical
Get down, get hard, get mean
Let's get physical
And beat that other team!

Hey, Hey
Hey hey are you ready?(clap, clap)
Are you ready?(clap,clap)
To play(clap)
Say go team(clap)
Go team(clap)
Panthers all the way!

You might be good at basketball
You might be good at track
But when it comes to football
You might as well step back
Might as well step back
Say what?
You might as well step back
Can't hear you
Might as well step back
Gobama!

[leftstreet]

14. ...

:spray:

(You rock)

[QC]

18. +1000000

[RoyGBiv]

7. Don't confuse people with facts ...

And definitely don't try to start a rational dialogue.

What people want is OUTRAGE!

RAAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEEEEE!!!!!

[pscot]

9. Maybe so

But if you've seen the coast guard commander mouthing the BP talking points it lends credibility to the idea the the service is shilling for big oil. BP and the coast guard are doing their best to keep the story under wraps; low balling the scale of the disaster. The guard is acting like a captive organization.

[bananas]

10. Are those Blackwater contractors?

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

16. And of course if those reporters or anyone else gets hurt

the Coast Guard will be blamed for not preventing that! Honestly!

[Jamastiene]

19. CBS is pushing ALL my hot buttons this week.

They're full of shit.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. That's quite a gusher of words. Oddly I have only one question.

When arrest was threatened by the 'contractors', whose authority was being invoked if not the Coast Guards?

[truedelphi]

21. Sshh! Nothing to see here, now please move along... n/t

[FBI_Un_Sub]

23. The intimidating power of

1. "Dickies" Rent A Cop uniform
   
2. A badge and police whistle from Gall's mail order cop store.
   
3. A white hard hat.
   

It works every time.

[Bonobo]

29. Checkmate. nt

[time_has_come]

31. Who said the arrest was threatened by the contractors? If you had read the "gusher of words"...

...you'd see I said the USCG was probably the ones who did so.

Keep your f'n boat out of oily beaches. If that's not the "rule" then it bloody well should be. Idiots taking their boats into the oil should be arrested.

All this stink is over some nameless contractor choosing to use the phrase "BP rules." Whether BP told him that or not, it wasn't the USCG saying it was a "BP rule," that is clear. So, if the USCG is threatening arrest, then it's obviously a USCG rule. And anyone with half a brain would admit that it's a pretty obvious and necessary rule.

[Bonobo]

34. Ah, the mask comes off!

"Keep your f'n boat out of oily beaches. If that's not the "rule" then it bloody well should be. Idiots taking their boats into the oil should be arrested."

[time_has_come]

38. Uh, yeah. mask. ok. I've revealed myself as having common sense?

What would you call someone driving their boat through oil washing onto a beach? You can use my word if you want - idiot.

Maybe I'm being an asshole about making this point. yeah, I am, but I don't care. I'm not suffering fools over this anymore.

[Bonobo]

39. Let me applaud you for standing up and spending your Sunday not suffering fools.

What is the point of someone driving their boat through oil washing onto a beach? Let me give you several.

1. To document the level of damage. This can be either to document it for the first time or to document it to serve as a reference point to compare against later damage and thus establish how MUCH damage was done/is being done. You see, if no one knows, that would be umm, like bad.

2. To help clean up the oil.

3. TO report on the oil spill or the clean-up efforts.

I could probably go on, but I do not think you are very likely to listen, so I will drink my morning coffee instead.

[time_has_come]

41. it really is no trouble.

But in your case, I'm just going to let you argue that driving a boat (one that's not doing any cleaning or testing) through oily water near a beach is a good idea.

That speaks for itself.

[Bonobo]

45. You never answered the above question.

"When arrest was threatened by the 'contractors', whose authority was being invoked if not the Coast Guards?"

[time_has_come]

47. I did actually. In the OP, and in my response to it.

Kind of flabbergasted you're asking it again, but oh well. Strange days here on DU. Anger inhibits comprehension and reason, which is no surprise I guess.

[Bonobo]

51. The thing is, your answer contradicts your whole point.

On the one hand, you try to claim that it wasn't the coast guard acting in any official capacity, that in effect "they were just passengers on the boat."

I quote your OP:
"She's not saying the boat is a coast guard boat, as I'm seeing some DU'ers now start claiming, and it obviously isn't. As well, if you look at the people on the boat it appears the coast guard officers are standing in the rear...the guy leaning out the window who says "these are BP rules, not ours" is almost certainly not even a coast guard officer. Watch the video." "What you have is some contractor on a non-government boat telling a news crew to stay away from a beach under the auspices of "BP rules" and there happens to be two coast officers on board."


So you say that it is just the contractors "warning off" people and the coast guard officers are just "standing in the rear". But now you are saying that the Coast Guard threatened them with arrest even though the video (strangely) never shows this. Anyway, wtf is your point?

Let me state this clearly so even you can understand.

The collusion and buddy-buddy nature between BP and the Coast Guard shown in this video, specifically with the context being that REPORTERS (not bloggers btw) who were trying to report on this disaster were chased away from a public site, is deeply disturbing.

What was the threat of arrest for? Why did Coast Guard officers stand by dumbly and watch BP contractors warn off a group of reporters? If it was under threat of arrest, why did we SEE the BP contractor doing the talking and say "It's BP rules"? That doe not sound like the rule of law to me?

Do you even understand the danger here? The conflict of interests? The constitutional problems here? It seems you do not.

[time_has_come]

57. Right off the bat, first sentence. I didn't say coast guard wasn't acting in any official capacity

And your quote of me doesn't support that. I said they were on the boat. They were. From that you extrapolate that I'm saying that they weren't there in an official capacity.

And yeah, I assume it was the coast guard that threatened arrest, because a BP contractor can't arrest people. So it would be dumb for them to threaten arrest.

Your beef is with the contractor who opened his mouth. And your big misconceptions are that the boat was turned away because it's media, and that the coast guard shouldn't work with/be seen on a boat with BP contractors or it automatically makes them "buddy buddy."

And finally, the threat of arrest is for disobeying a law enforcement officer. Stay out of the oil with your boat, or be arrested. The coast guard has even clarified this.

Constitutional problems? No, don't see that.

[Bonobo]

60. No, you don't see it.

And thus, it is a complete waste of time to talk to you.

I can't believe I wasted my time. I won't make the mistake again.

Fortunately, it is obvious that the rest of DU is smarter than me in this regard.

You are being widely ignored, and rightfully so.

[time_has_come]

62. yeah

trying to bullshit me is a waste of time. don't waste any more of it.

[Bonobo]

64. None of that changes the salient facts.

Major news reporters were turned away, on domestic soil, from covering a news story under threat of arrest.

Clarifications by the Coast Guard contain thinly veiled implications that reporters should be "embedded" if they want free access.

Your lame rationalizations about "dangers to the water quality" resulting from a small boat in the water do not change that.

Your lame attempts to pretend that we didn't SEE BP contractors warn off reporters in full view of complicit coast guard members do not change that.


"Don't trust your lying eyes"

[Ani Yun Wiya]

66. It would seem..

that you accept "rules" in place of information.
The information that the CBS crew was seeking is the story we will NOT hear.
(It is that story we will not hear that was censored)

It does not matter which set of clowns was "in charge"; if bona fide network reporters were prevented from gaining the imagery and story details that they sought because of the threat of arrest then there is information which we the people were denied.

It would appear that BP, as well as the monied interests of our government, would prefer to continue treating the citizens of this country like mushrooms...

[havocmom]

35. Video here, contractors AND USCG personell

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/coast-guard-and-bp-threaten-journalists-with-arrest-for-docume

...
But today CBS News got it on video, along with a bone-chilling statement by a Coast Guard official:

"These are BP's rules. These are not our rules."

...

Since I'm from Missouri, there is a tendency to be a bit slow to believe. Hey, watch the video. I do believe the reporters were turned back by people who included members of the United States Coast Guard. Now, if that wasn't OK with the President, I suppose we and everybody else will hear about that, but for now, looks like the CIC is ok with BP's rules.

The choir can sing no no no all damned weekend. The video says 'Oh yeah, they went there.'

[time_has_come]

40. That is NOT a USCG official saying that, in spite of what that outraged blogger says

That blogger also says this:

"From my viewpoint, it looks as if the Coast Guard* has been given direct orders to protect BP's PR interests above safety concerns over air and water quality"

yeah, well maybe that's because that blogger is not too smart. Keeping boats away from oily water and beaches IS a safety concern and a water quality concern.

Look at the video. Tell me if you think that's a USCG official saying it. Pay attention to the other persons you see on the boat, and also consider that the USCG has responded to this BS by stating plainly that it was a contractor who said it.

That blogger is wrong. That is a BAD blogger. They give blogging a bad name, and allow journalists to say "see! that's the problem with bloggers, they don't take any pains to get their facts sgtraight!" It's sad, because many bloggers to excellent journalism. This one, however, is BAAAAAAD.

[havocmom]

43. FACT: contractors do not get to be cops on the seas. Coasties there to make it official

Get it yet? of course not. Contractors running things, USCG there to make CONTRACTOR wishes official enforcement action. THAT means the Coast Guard is complicate and who is in charge of the Coast Guard?

run along. Don't want to make you late for choir practice.

[time_has_come]

46. So then bitch about the contractor, don't make a baseless claim that the USCG takes orders from BP

n/t

[Bonobo]

52. You say the Coast Guard threatened the arrest.

There is no evidence to support such a claim.

The video shows the BP contractor making the threats and it appears that the Coast Guard allowed them to do so.

And then, oddly, you are trying to establish the baseless claim that it was the coast guard that made the legitimate threat of arrest.

Your statements stand on their head.

[havocmom]

65. Contractors were accompanied by USCG personnel

Contractors have free speech, but the Coasties have an obligation to uphold law on the seas. Their presence conferred official sanction to the event. I will complain mightily when a Federal Officer fucks up. And the coasties on that boat, condoning with their failure to correct, fucked up.

[Bonobo]

25. "we don't see that on video (strangely)" LOL.

He smells coffee, but he just won't wake up (strangely).

[time_has_come]

33. You got a point then make it, otherwise.....

lol

[Bonobo]

36. The point is obvious to anyone with a mind capable of critical thought. nt

[TheWatcher]

30. Yes, I'm Sure You Are.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Sounds like shill, baby, shill for drill, baby, drill to me

[time_has_come]

55. There are over 4000 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico

where were you when they were being drilled?

And what part of my OP is shilling for more oil drillin'?

Don't waste our time.

[Swamp Rat]

48. You won't be posting this crap when you choke on a tar ball.

[time_has_come]

50. uh, yeah...i will.

and in case you missed it...my expectation of what a conversation with you would be like:

Me - "So, did you think it was a USCG officer that told the CBS boat they were 'BP rules'?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "You do see the sense of keeping boats out of oily water, unless there's an urgent need for them to be there, don't you?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "I mean, whatever that dunderhead contractor might have said, it's probably the USCG rule also, and for obvious reasons, right?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "And if it's a USCG rule as well, which it bloody well better be, then a threat of arrest from the USCG makes sense, right?"

You - {holds up picture of oily bird]

Me - "And if the rule seems logical, for safety and damage mitigation reasons, then it's obviously a rule for all, not just the media. Like, this is obviously not media censorship, huh? LOL! What a dumb idea, hey? I mean, there's oil for the media to photograph everywhere! Why would they try to hide a beach which is so obviously oily even from a short distance? funny, huh?"

You - {holds up picture of mother-in-law]

Me - "Nice talking to ya, professor. Yer a real smart dude."

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

58. truly devoted to ensuring BP is not "smeared" in any way

that would be so unjust :cry:

[time_has_come]

63. Actually...

If the account of the rig worker is true, and it hasn't been disputed at all, BP should be brought up on criminal charges. Probably Transocean also.

And they should be forced to release all their video/data to independent scientists

And the liability cap needs to be dropped.

And rig oversight should become independent and audited regularly.

And the USCG shouldn't be accused of taking orders from BP because some non-USCG member tells a news crew not boating in oily water is "BP rules"

Justice and truth, how sweet it is.

[time_has_come]

59. I plan to reuse it. And no need to thank me, just trying to inject a little politeness and reason.

you know, lift the veil.

[Swamp Rat]

56. You just don't get it.

[time_has_come]

61. yes i do

[TheWatcher]

70. No you don't.

And you can make whatever point you are trying to make without being an obnoxious, inconsiderate boor to people who are actually LIVING very close to what is going on. (SwampRat)

You should take your abrasive self down to the Gulf Coast and try this attitude with the people down there face to face.

I "envision the conversation" would very unlikely end with you being conscious.

And rightfully so.

[Bonobo]

54. I think you have been fed enough. You should be full soon, no?

Tororu.

[readmoreoften]

67. Oh look, it's not just CBS, but oil production experts calling for the arrest of Coast Guard head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_enCDXmVj0

Check towards the end of the clip. I think the person in this post knows a hell of a lot more about what's going on than you may ever.

Guess it ain't just CBS. :eyes:

[laughingliberal]

68. A little inconvenient, that. nt

[TexasObserver]

69. The Coast clearly allowed its personnel to be used by BP contractors.

Two Coast Guard officers said nothing while a private company threatened media members covering the biggest environmental disaster in America's history.

And all you can do is come to BP's defense and make excuses for the Coast Guard.

You're upside down on this issue and don't even know it.