It is rare for me to get a reader interchange in the
comments section of this blog and rarer still for those comments to be about my
politics. But, an anonymous reader (apparently the owner of a small CFATS
covered chemical facility) responded to my
Sunday post about the chemical accident this weekend in Texas. Actually I
think that maybe his comments were to/about me and were merely connected to the
most recent blog. In any case, he noted:
“People like you have
made America a regulatory nightmare. You're an apologist for a CFR police
state, and when confronted about this you drop fear bombs to justify your point
of view.”
He then goes on to complain about “Soviet-style
bureaucrat from DHS” and the unconstitutionality of the CFATS program under the
4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
I have some objections to both claims. First and foremost, the CFATS inspectors
that I have talked with and corresponded with were not bureaucrats in any form,
but were rather hardworking, caring and professionals who were primarily
interested in helping facility owners keep their facilities safe from terrorist
attack in the most efficient manner possible. There may be bureaucrats in ISCD
Headquarters (though the ones that I have met certainly do not meet the
classical soviet stereotype), the folks in the field are so far from that
description to bear comparison by the most near-sighted citizen.
As to the second, [STADARD LEGAL CAVEAT: I AM NOT A
LAWYER] that does not bear close scrutiny either:
4th
Amendment – Search and Siesure – The Supreme Court has often held that regulatory
inspections do not constitute searches.
5th
Amendment – Self-incrimination – CFATS regulations are not criminal in nature
so there can be no self-incrimination. Upheld in numerous instances for all
sorts of regulatory programs.
9th
Amendment – Rights not enumerated are protected – See next comment.
10th
Amendment – States rights. Commerce clause and common defense clause of the
constitution both provide the legal framework for the CFATS program.
The second anonymous commenter (with the nom de chem
of Common Sense from the South) was rather blunt in responding to the first
commenter and certainly more personally directed than I would have done. I do
appreciate the characterization of this blog as “a respected professional blog”.
Posts
2 comments:
Hey Patrick -
Don't forget the first rule of the Internet: Don't Read the Comments (the second rule is 'Don't Feed the Trolls').
I've always found CFSN an interesting read. Your opinions are clearly labelled as opinions, and as an admittedly non-chemical guy your views on what should be done to improve chemical plant safety make sense to me.
Anyway, keep up the good writing and don't let the trolls weigh you down...
Reid
I second Reid's sentiments. There are likely many of us out here who know and appreciate your blog for what it is - a professional, objective, and well-commented catalogue of all things concerning the safety and security of hazardous chemicals. It takes a certain type of person to spend the time sifting through the regulatory and legislative flotsam and jetsam to cull what is useful and germane...and do it all on a volunteer basis! Thank you for all you do.
Stu Fischbeck
Post a Comment