As you probably know, civil service bureaucrats and elected officials are very difficult to sue because they have an absolute legal defense called "sovereign immunity" which means in most cases they skate. That's on the civil side. On the criminal side, I'm not aware of any provisions which would force elected officials to talk truthfully about some issue such as Y2K. (Let me know if something is already on the books.)

Here's my proposal. Glickman, Koskinen and countless other keep spouting this 72 hour preparation which means little or no preparation for most people. Essentially, they're advising that you do nothing.

To highlight that people are serious about getting full information, I propose that any high level government official or corporate president who recklessly (ie., without having clear and convincing evidence from impartial sources) causes people to limit their preparation shall be guilty of a crime against humanity if the y2k glitches cause substantial harm to the physical health and physical welfare of citizens of the United States of America.

Punishment would be stiff.

Would it pass. Obviously not. But it might help to get their attention.

Any thoughts?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 07, 1999

Answers

Here's an example from history of a government official who recklessly caused people to limit their preparation:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/pelee/pelee.html

30,000 people died.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 07, 1999.

Proposed Text

YEAR 2000 CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY There is a well-known issue facing the United States known as the Year 2000 Problem. This issue involves whether computers and integrated circuits will operate properly in the face of a common design practice which may prevent programs and circuits from operating when confronted with a date ending in year 2000. There is great public concern about whether this widespread problem could cause failures which would significantly disrupt commerce causing harm to the public health. It is recognized that the public health could be significantly protected if citizens were able to prepare properly for such disruption. It is recognized that reckless statements which understate the possible severity of the problem could cause significant harm to the public health by causing citizens to forego proper preparation. It is recognized that if the United States would to undergo widespread disruption of commerce which prevented to provision of goods and services necessary to sustaining the public health, that no nation or military organization would be capable of properly responding to that emergency. In such an emergency individual preparation would be the most important protection for the public health.

If the President, or any member of Congress or any Cabinet member or anyone who shall testify before Congress or any president of a business corporation with annual revenue of over $1,000,000,000, or any officer of a company which generates, transmits or distributes electrical power shall, make any statement or cause another to make a statement which recklessly diminishes the expected severity of the effect of the Year 2000 problem, then that person shall be guilty of a crime against humanity if the Year 2000 problem causes significant harm to the public health of the citizens of the United States.

A reckless statement is one which is made without clear and convincing evidence. Evidence cannot be clear and convincing if it is based solely on self-reported information from business corporations.

A retraction of a reckless statement shall operate to shield any person from liability, but only if such retraction is publicly issued before March 1, 1999.

Punishment shall be . . .

Ok folks, especially all you legislative staff attorneys out there, rewrite this stuff to make it short readable and newsworthy.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 07, 1999.

Puddi;

Consider subtracting three zero's from the annual sales figure. Keps em a bit more honest. LOTS of industries use spokesfolks whose companies are less than a bil in sales.

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 07, 1999.

So, we will give them a fair trial by a jury of their peers and then hang them? Seems to me that we don't need a new law for that.

Even if the federal govt politicians/officials told the truth as we see it, a large percentage of people would not believe them.

For example, my brother-in-law has problems powering up his p.c., and can not envision a different type of computer.

We can not hold politicians accountable for the stupidity of the people at this stage of the game.

See you on the other side.

-- areseejay (areseejay@aol.com), February 07, 1999.

Good posts. However, one question. Who will pass bills to enable their own hanging?

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), February 07, 1999.

The same ones who vote their own pay raises....nice thought, but it will only happen when hell freezes over.

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), February 07, 1999.