Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1391.7 | -5.3 | -0.38% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2418.3 | -21.9 | -0.90% |
| Oil (WTI) | 93.16 | -0.5 | -0.54% |
| LIBOR | 0.437 | -0.001 | -0.25% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.46 | 0.247 | 0.30% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.62% | -0.01% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 188.8 | 0.3 |
Markets are weaker this morning on disappointing economic data out of Europe and earnings misses from Disney, McDonalds, and Priceline. Euro sovereign yields are generally lower and the yield on the German two-year remained negative for the 24th consecutive day. US bond yields are slightly lower, and MBS are up a few ticks.
We have had dueling Fedspeak recently, with the head of FRB Boston advocating further QE yesterday and Dallas Fed Head Fisher claiming the Fed has done its job and no more needs to be done. IMO, the Sep and October meetings will be too close to the election to expect much, if anything in the way of policy changes. The Fed is very sensitive to appearing to act politically and usually sits on its hands in the last few months before an election (2008 notwithstanding).
In economic data, mortgage applications dropped 1.8% last week. Productivity was a little better than expected, and unit labor costs increased markedly, with a big upward revision in Q1. Declining profitability and increasing unit labor costs are not a recipe for increased hiring in the near term.
Is the ECB’s version of QE actually increasing the risk of a crisis in Spain and Italy? It may in fact be doing so. By announcing a plan to buy short-term debt from Spain and Italy, it is encouraging these countries to issue more short term paper, which increases their roll-over risk. (Roll-over risk is what happens when you aren’t able to refinance maturing short-term debt).
Corelogic reported a 2.5% annual increase in home prices during the month of June. Ex-distressed sales, prices increased 3.2%. They are calling the bottom: “At the halfway point, 2012 is increasingly looking like the year that the residential housing market may have turned the corner. While first-half gains have given way to second-half declines in the past three years, we see encouraging signs that modest price gains are supportable across the country in the second half of 2012.” It is true that some of the recent home appreciation has been due to seasonal factors. but there seem to be other factors at work too – most notably a red-hot rental market. FWIW, Radar Logic (which manages the RPX index) thinks it is all a head fake.
Yet another positive data point for housing – North American rail carloads of lumber increased 10% this year as housing construction rebounds. Housing starts are still way below historical averages and have been there since the end of 2006, so a rebound in starts is nothing to get too excited about. But every little bit helps.
Texas Instruments just issued 7 year paper at 1.65%. After tax, that cost is 1.24%. TXN’s dividend yield is 2.33%. Is there an arbitrage here? Is that what is getting the stock market excited? Food for thought…
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
oh no optimism has left the building and pessimism has taken over today.
anybody else remember when stocks were bought and sold based on intrinsic value?
Brent and scott, how is it in the bond field? do you see the same momentum based trading now as with stocks?
LikeLike
banned:
Brent and scott, how is it in the bond field?
I don’t know because…
LikeLike
John, I don’t really know. I focus on MBS, and that is being driven by the perception that the bottom is in. My gut tells me that the action in the big sovereigns is driven by central banks and sovereign wealth funds, neither of which are short-term momentum traders. I don’t think hedge funds have any effect on something like the 10-year – they are just too small to push it around.
LikeLike
ty
I sense that commodities are still hot today propping up any serious fall in the market.
In other news housing is all the rage again.
The last thing we need is to try to boost the housing market to unsustainable levels again and home ownership beyond an economically sensible proportion of the population. Let those underwater be foreclosed with no action taken on their credit history. Get the houses back on the market at new values. Had we done it three years ago, we would be in a helluva lot better position today.
There really is no good reason that a 20 something couple just out of college and strting careers should try to own a home. 65% was way to high as a home ownership rate.
It’s the correction that will finally get the housing market working again.
LikeLike
James Downie must have been reading us yesterday in the conversation that jnc started:
“Obama administration continues disappointing on civil liberties:”
LikeLike
FWIW, the homeonwership rate up to the mid 90s was 64.3%, after which it rose to just over 69%. At 65.5%, it is more or less in line with historical averages, though a tad high if you take out the bubble years.
LikeLike
That’s too high. It’s very restrictive on the purcahsing power of both young and old to have (usually too large) homes impeding their spending.
It would be different perhaps if we had variations on the size of homes, but of course outside the city nothing is less than 2000 sq ft unless it was built before the war.
LikeLike
bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 7:57 am said:
“Let those underwater be foreclosed with no action taken on their credit history.”
Why would that be desirable, let alone feasible? It’s certainly something worth noting for future creditworthiness.
LikeLike
I am being overly broad of course, 1950s housing will usually weigh in about 1200-1500 sq ft. or so.
LikeLike
jnc:
Everybody has to give a little something in this mess. We’re way past the moral argument stage. Bankers got away with a lot and some shady homeowners will have to also, to get past this.
LikeLike
BTW
I’m guilty as sin in this too. I’m at about 3500 sq ft, some I which I added, but like all of you I’m sure I have rooms that we never even sit down in.
LikeLike
I’ve got a 1950s mid-century modern. probably about 1300. but that’s rare in my area. we’ve thought about adding on, but came to the conclusion that any addition would be a needless luxury.
LikeLike
My favorite is the sitting area inside the master bedroom. Our ancestors who had 5-7 kids were the ones that needed that refuge, not those of us today with 1-2!
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 8:18 am said:
jnc:
Everybody has to give a little something in this mess. We’re way past the moral argument stage. Bankers got away with a lot and some shady homeowners will have to also, to get past this.”
I’m all for bankruptcy cramdown, but the idea that foreclosures aren’t going to be reported and noted on credit histories strikes me as unrealistic.
LikeLike
jnc
Point taken
LikeLike
We turned our home into a compound of sorts about six years ago. The house is about 2300 sq ft but two of the five bedrooms are offices now. Sitting on a half acre we were able to build a permitted 2100 sq ft warehouse in our back yard without interfering with the pool area, and still have room for a veggie garden on the side of the house and a bigger front yard than we need. About two years after we finished our warehouse the city changed the building codes and so we were lucky to sneak in before that.
I don’t really think there’s much will in Treasury, F&F, Congress or the WH to actually do anything to help underwater homeowners so I think we’re just stuck with the slow recovery and more foreclosures and ruined credit. Whatever is going on now is just a ruse to act like someone wants to do something. IMO
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 8:01 am said:
James Downie must have been reading us yesterday in the conversation that jnc started:
“Obama administration continues disappointing on civil liberties:””
Quote from Downie:
This is wrong. “Continuing” the Bush administration’s policies would have been exactly that. President Obama’s policies have gone further than President Bush in the disregard for civil liberties.
The constant need to make excuses for President Obama by referencing Bush is one of the most tiresome aspects of the current administration and it’s defenders.
LikeLike
jnc & banned
I’m curious what conservatives (not libertarians) think about this aspect of Obama’s Presidency.
LikeLike
I can’t recall seeing much criticism of it, other than “obama’s a liar” on the issue.
but you might find this interesting — http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/19/fusionism-revisited
it’s reason and national reivew talking about the overlap and how the two fit/don’t fit together.
LikeLike
Lms,
My guess is that the conservatives would criticize Obama for taking credit for Bush’s actions, most notably in the Iraq drawdown realm. All that was put in place by Bush before he left office. In regards to Afghanistan, I think there has been very little criticism after the so-called surge there. The conservative base has, I think, become very disillusioned with Afghanistan (or at least the lack of progress under both administrations) and would push for an immediate withdrawal if it could find a way to rationalize our loss of service people (their sacrifice) and find some sort of victory. Placing a pro-American thug in charge who can keep things under control and be an ally, a better one than Karzai anyway, probably would do it. Do not underestimate the desire of many American’s to believe, and want to stick with something, so as not to have to believe that those lives were wasted. I also think that it is a laudable attribute of the American people.
As for the escalation of the drone attacks, you hear no complaints from the conservatives. What’s interesting to me is the Tea Party influence in Congress (Rand Paul for example) demonstrating real concern over the use of drones here on US soil.
Finally, I think the conservative (and you have to include myself in this) could give a shit about Gitmo and the precious civil liberties of non-American terrorists. In a lot of ways, Nurenmburg was wrong and Churchill was right. What these people deserve (and I hope they get) is a bullet in the back of the brain and a body dump at sea.
My opinion, anyway, on what conservatives think of Obama’s FP.
LikeLike
Romney is missing the boat on this one.
What could Obama say if the huge gap between rhetoric and reality were pointed out?
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on August 8, 2012 at 9:01 am said:
jnc & banned
I’m curious what conservatives (not libertarians) think about this aspect of Obama’s Presidency.”
They view it as complete vindication of Bush/Cheney. One thing you can’t accuse them of is hypocrisy. They supported the policies during the Bush administration, and they support them during Obama’s term. That’s why there’s no push back at all. Glenn Greenwald, as he often does, says it quite well:
See also:
LikeLike
Nova, I’m still reading but this totally made me spit my herbal tea out. God I miss coffee.
But whenever a major political party loses power, libertarianism looks a lot more dreamy than it did before.
Thanks McWing.
Do not underestimate the desire of many American’s to believe, and want to stick with something, so as not to have to believe that those lives were wasted.
I’m glad you included all Americans in that group as it’s a universal pride in our soldiers and the work they do that sometimes makes it difficult to unwind ourselves from these conflicts without claiming “victory”.
I think Obama has been a stronger than expected President on foreign policy but the civil liberties issues really gnaw at me, not for terrorists so much as for Americans. I sure didn’t cry when Bin Laden bit the bullet but I do worry about collateral damage, especially in countries we’re not at war with. It was something my father even worried about while dropping bombs over Germany in WW2. They didn’t always hit the target.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on August 8, 2012 at 9:21 am said:
…
Finally, I think the conservative (and you have to include myself in this) could give a shit about Gitmo and the precious civil liberties of non-American terrorists. In a lot of ways, Nurenmburg was wrong and Churchill was right. What these people deserve (and I hope they get) is a bullet in the back of the brain and a body dump at sea.”
It is however important to put the bullet in the back of the correct person. The primary problem with using the Federal Court system for terrorist trials is the Exclusionary Rule. Get rid of that, and a lot of problems go away.
“It Matters Not How You Get It”
Ahmed Ghailani’s trial shows that courts should admit all reliable evidence.
By Akhil Reed Amar|Posted Friday, Nov. 19, 2010, at 12:48 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/11/it_matters_not_how_you_get_it.html
LikeLike
Thanks for all the links, some I’ve already read but others are new. I’m still working through Nova’s……………….back later.
LikeLike
jnc:
As a former attorney couldn’t disagree with you more on how evidence is obtained. This is one of the few times when we don’t have each other’s back.
LikeLike
Nova, I know I’m picking and choosing things here that I like but this cracked me up as well.
Goldberg: Richard Hofstadter, I’m not a huge fan of his, but his description of third parties is basically right: “They’re like bees. They have their impact by stinging and then they die.” And if you had a Libertarian Party form in 2012, it would be—other than Mitt Romney’s personality—the most important guarantee that Barack Obama will win.
I think they’re right though that Libertarians don’t really have a home in the Democratic party and vice versa because economic and size of government issues are just more important than the social issues to them. We may agree on some social and civil liberty issues but the rest is where we part ways and they’re important, especially in times of economic stress such as we’re under right now. It’s the reason I can’t make myself vote for Johnson, no matter how many assurances I get that Medicare and SS will remain safe, I don’t believe it.
LikeLike
Enjoy it Scott……………………….
Nova, I managed about five pages then gave up. Ann Coulter is just too out there for me to take seriously.
I need to get some work done so will continue my reading other links at lunch.
Edit: Also we just had a decent earthquake that I want to check out the location and size of.
Update: 4.5 about 20 miles from us in Yorba Linda, same place as last night’s 4.4. I thought it might be a larger magnitude but a little further away. No biggie.
LikeLike
i forgot the second half of that piece had Coulter. should have provided a warning.
LikeLike
One odd side effect of Obama continuing or extending Bush/Cheney policies on civil liberties and war powers issues, particularly in reference to Gitmo, Afghanistan, and drone attacks is that conservatives are now attacking him from the left on these topics. I found the conservative criticism of his policy during the Libya revolution particularly hypocritical in light of previously supporting the invasion of Iraq. I don’t know how much of that is pure tribalism and how much is a re-evaluation of these practices and realizing that they were always the wrong thing to do.
LikeLike
I forgot to mention to everyone that we took our grandson to the movies on Sunday before taking him home and saw the new Ice Age movie, really bad I thought, but he loved it of course. Anyway, they searched my purse and my husband had to empty his pockets. That’s the first time that ever happened to me. Then I saw this yesterday. I guess it happened Sat. night in Ohio somewhere.
The potential for a tragedy on par with the Aurora, Colo., shootings was “definitely” there Saturday night, Arcuri said.
After he had gotten his Maxpedition waist pack past a Regal Cinema manager who didn’t see a zippered compartment, Smith went into the theater where The Dark Knight Rises — the same movie that was playing during the Aurora shootings — had a 10 p.m. showing.
No one else was in the theater when Smith sat down in the middle of the back row, Arcuri said.
“Where he was sitting, he had the tactical advantage,” Arcuri said. “He had targets to the left, to the right, and straight ahead.”
While the manager had let Smith through, off-duty Westlake police officer Jeremiah Bullins grew suspicious of Smith and followed him into the theater. When he spotted Smith in the back row, Smith had removed the bag from his waist and placed it on the floor.
Bullins asked Smith if he could search the bag and Smith agreed. That’s when Bullins opened the zippered compartment and found a loaded 9MM Glock semiautomatic handgun, two additional fully loaded magazines, and three knives. A fourth knife was found elsewhere on Smith.
Also in the bag, Arcuri said, were a flashlight, medicated bandages that help clot blood, and a capsule that is dropped in fresh water to make it safe to drink.
LikeLike
It used to be that couples sat in the back row so they wouldn’t be seen. Now shooters go there for the sight lines.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 8, 2012 at 11:39 am said:
One odd side effect of Obama continuing or extending Bush/Cheney policies on civil liberties and war powers issues, particularly in reference to Gitmo, Afghanistan, and drone attacks is that conservatives are now attacking him from the left on these topics. I found the conservative criticism of his policy during the Libya revolution particularly hypocritical in light of previously supporting the invasion of Iraq. I don’t know how much of that is pure tribalism and how much is a re-evaluation of these practices and realizing that they were always the wrong thing to do.”
A chunk of that was the fact that President Obama felt it was necessary to get United Nations, but not Congressional approval prior to the attack on Libya.
LikeLike
saw that
There is a copycat quality to these things as all law enforcement knows. It’s like one nut provides courage in some weird way for another.
LikeLike
why would he agree to the search? assuming he had ill intent.
LikeLike
From the NYT
“Corporate Fraud Cases Often Spare Individuals”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48568410
Ya think?
LikeLike
nova
the intimidation factor of a badge, which is a subject that has been the subject of extensive crim pro litigation.
LikeLike
I don’t know Nova, another whackjob maybe. I think his lawyer claimed he had the stuff for self defense, which could be true I guess. I’m wondering when we’re going to pass through metal detectors going to the grocery store.
LikeLike
guess that’s why they have TSA wear badges.
“subject of extensive crim pro litigation.” how so?
i’m I the odd one? I was pulled over on the PA turnpike years ago and the trooper asked if he could search my car. “No.”
LikeLike
nova
That gets to the heart of what is and isn’t voluntary consent. Many cases have argued that suspects are too intimidated to give a knowing vluntary consent in the presence of a police officer.
LikeLike
A chunk of that was the fact that President Obama felt it was necessary to get United Nations, but not Congressional approval prior to the attack on Libya.
Valid distinction. But Dubya also got a fig-leaf from the UN. He just ignored any rescissions of it.
LikeLike
yello
I don’t know why Dems are attacking Romney. His campaign is like getting a picture of Mike Dukakis riding in a tank . . . every week!
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 9:52 am said:
jnc:
As a former attorney couldn’t disagree with you more on how evidence is obtained. This is one of the few times when we don’t have each other’s back.”
I would replace the Exclusionary Rule with a system of civil liability for the police and other government officials who violate the civil rights of suspect. The current system has the perverse result of only benefiting those who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
I.e. if the police perform an illegal search of someone who broke the law and the evidence is excluded at trial, then the person benefits with a get out of jail free card.
If the police perform an illegal search of someone who is innocent of wrongdoing, then they have no recourse.
Thus it actually serves to undermine the establishment of justice by allowing the clearly guilty to go free.
See also:
Click to access Rychlak.pdf
The exclusionary rule is also why some terrorists will never be allowed in a federal court. The risk of an acquittal due to a “technicality” is too great for the political system to permit it. It’s tolerable for various run of the mill individual criminals, but not for terrorists.
Hence Eric Holder’s statements that he can not envision a court decision that would actually allow a suspected terrorist to be released.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547933018090304.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805020.html?sid=ST2010111806024
This conundrum also informs the Obama administration’s preference for killing, rather than capturing suspected terrorists. Get rid of the Exclusionary Rule, and you make it more likely that a suspected terrorist would get a day in court rather than summary execution by drone strike.
LikeLike
lms, that’s just sad. I’m truly sorry for kids today when I compare to my relatively safe childhood 50+ years ago.
jnc: ““Continuing” the Bush administration’s policies would have been exactly that. President Obama’s policies have gone further than President Bush in the disregard for civil liberties.” Yes! I did not read all of the PL comments on this, but I did not see a single comment pointing out how much further Obama has taken this. Sigh.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm said: Edit Comment
A chunk of that was the fact that President Obama felt it was necessary to get United Nations, but not Congressional approval prior to the attack on Libya.
Valid distinction. But Dubya also got a fig-leaf from the UN. He just ignored any rescissions of it.”
Yes, but George W. Bush got Congressional authorizations for both Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama’s decision to just get UN, but not Congressional approval can be taken to mean that he views the UN Security Council as sovereign and determinative over and above the United States Congress in the use of military force.
LikeLike
i may be mistaken, but did Obama link Libya to some sort of national security issue? I can’t recall the justification. was it humanitarian?
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm said:
nova
That gets to the heart of what is and isn’t voluntary consent. Many cases have argued that suspects are too intimidated to give a knowing vluntary consent in the presence of a police officer.”
This goes to our discussion on the Exclusionary Rule. Should the search be suppressed and the potential shooter go free as a result?
LikeLike
“The exclusionary rule is also why some terrorists will never be allowed in a federal court. The risk of an acquittal due to a “technicality” is too great for the political system to permit it. It’s tolerable for various run of the mill individual criminals, but not for terrorists. ”
I’m sorry no. Among the problems with terrorist trials, the exclusionary rule is the least of them. EVERY right they have was violated if you view them as criminal defendants, speedy trial, attorney, right to remain silent, unlawful seach, you name it. Holder is simply lying or willing to subvert the criminal justice system in an effort to produce a Stalinist show trial.
Given the record of the Obama administration, you don’t have to ask which one
LikeLike
jnc, interesting post re exclusionary rule and I’ll read the links. At first blush, I can think of some equally serious problems with your proposed substitution, but I’ll read up first. Regardless, I most definitely agree right now with john. Any revision would have to come first and it still would matter how evidence was obtained.
LikeLike
I don’t know why Dems are attacking Romney. His campaign is like getting a picture of Mike Dukakis riding in a tank . . . every week!
He is three months out and Romney is already vying for Most Incompetent Campaign Ever. He has advisors out there touting Romneycare. I can’t imagine how much traction Obama is going to get out of that one.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on August 8, 2012 at 12:37 pm said:
i may be mistaken, but did Obama link Libya to some sort of national security issue? I can’t recall the justification. was it humanitarian?”
RTP: Responsibility to Protect.
See the detailed Rolling Stone piece on the decision making:
“Inside Obama’s War Room
How he decided to intervene in Libya – and what it says about his evolution as commander in chief
By Michael Hastings
October 13, 2011 8:00 AM ET”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013
See also the origin of “leading from behind”
“The Consequentialist
How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.
by Ryan Lizza May 2, 2011
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Why RTP isn’t considered determinative for Syria is a whole separate question.
LikeLike
“Hence Eric Holder’s statements that he can not envision a court decision that would actually allow a suspected terrorist to be released.”
This is a true statement and perhaps the primary reason why he is one of the worst AG of our lifetime. Reno and Gonazles were limited people in way over their heads. Holder is not. He doesn’t care about the law. He only cares about results, which is a helluva shcoking thing to say about an AG
LikeLike
In Libya, Obama spent a lot of time paying lip-service to the War Powers Act (although, like all previous presidents, he refuses to acknowledge its authority) while avoiding boots on the ground. IIRC, Reagan never went to Congress for Grenada.
LikeLike
“This goes to our discussion on the Exclusionary Rule. Should the search be suppressed and the potential shooter go free as a result?”
This is really an almost never happens scenario because the overwhelming prejudice is that anybody on trial is guilty, even sad to say among judges, though not as much as juries which are a nightmare. Here’s a hint. if you’re innocent NEVER take a jury trial, because they probably won’t believe you but a judge just might. On the other hand if you’re guilty ALWAYS take a jury trial because judges will see through you most likely but juries do crazy things if they find the defendant personally likeable.
LikeLike
yello:
If you had to draw up a candidate to oppose Obama, you hit the lottery (since Bachmann is now a Swiss citizen!)
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm said:
“I’m sorry no. Among the problems with terrorist trials, the exclusionary rule is the least of them. EVERY right they have was violated if you view them as criminal defendants, speedy trial, attorney, right to remain silent, unlawful seach, you name it. Holder is simply lying or willing to subvert the criminal justice system in an effort to produce a Stalinist show trial. ”
The American public will not stand for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be allowed to go free, regardless of how the evidence against him was obtained, even if through torture.
The Ahmed Ghailani case was pretty much the end of Federal trials for most terrorist suspects after his acquittal on all but one charge after evidence was suppressed.
See also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111707280.html
Again, the resulting bi-partisan establishment consensus is to dispense with trials all together and instead substitute summary execution based on a secret kill list run by the executive branch based on evidence/intelligence that will never be challenged by anyone.
This is the logical result of the Exclusionary Rule. It demands a perfection that is not tolerable where national security is concerned.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 8, 2012 at 12:43 pm said: Edit Comment
In Libya, Obama spent a lot of time paying lip-service to the War Powers Act (although, like all previous presidents, he refuses to acknowledge its authority) while avoiding boots on the ground. IIRC, Reagan never went to Congress for Grenada.”
Correct, however if I recall, Reagan actually managed to end the operation before the War Powers Act would have kicked in and notified Congress after the fact. Libya went a lot longer than the administration planned on, and there’s no reason that a public debate couldn’t have been held ahead of time, just like there was prior to Iraq. Reagan also had the justification of potential American hostages in Grenada for acting prior to notification.
LikeLike
jnc
Yes thank God for that judge. The most fundamental right you have is to not be a witness against yourself. That means no torture of you and no introducing testimony of others who have been tortured against you.
God forbid we should ever change that.
LikeLike
john, good advice on jury trials, IMO. In the 80’s I served on a civil jury, and it was quite an eye-opening and illogical experience.
LikeLike
Hey I’m fine with simply executing those in GITMO who have killed Americans. That’s what could have and should have happened to them at the time. However if you put them in a US Crimiinal Court in the US you follow the rules.
LikeLike
I listened to the first half of Rachel Maddow’s book and her description of the Grenada invasion clusterfuck is both hilarious and depressing.
I don’t really blame Obama for end-running Congress on Libya. More so than Grenada which was a trumped up cause belli, Libya was subject to a rapidly changing situation we had little control over. Yes, he did run out the clock on his War Powers authority but he did keep us out of a quagmire. So far.
LikeLike
“okiegirl, on August 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm said:
jnc, interesting post re exclusionary rule and I’ll read the links. At first blush, I can think of some equally serious problems with your proposed substitution, but I’ll read up first. Regardless, I most definitely agree right now with john. Any revision would have to come first and it still would matter how evidence was obtained.”
The solution to the police violating a suspects civil rights is to hold those individual officers responsible via administrative and, if necessary, criminal and civil liability. Letting a guilty man go free isn’t a significant deterrent to police misconduct, especially if the police themselves believed that they were acting in good faith.
See Hudson v Michigan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan
LikeLike
banned,
There are a lot of books and articles out there about military lawyers and judges who held to their convictions rather than go along with a kangaroo court. Good for them.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:
Hey I’m fine with simply executing those in GITMO who have killed Americans. That’s what could have and should have happened to them at the time. However if you put them in a US Crimiinal Court in the US you follow the rules.”
Fair enough, and that’s the conservative position that Federal Courts are an inappropriate venue for suspected terrorists. However, it does mean that those targeted will have less of an opportunity to ever prove their innocence.
Edit: See Jack Goldsmith:
LikeLike
okie
Quick true story. I had to get called even though I would never get picked for jury duty. So I sat through voir dire one day, spacing out. Little white haired lady about 65-70 sat in front of me looking sweet as can be. The judge gave us a quick break and about 4 of us are in line at the water cooler. She turns to another lady in the pool and says “I don’t know why they’re bothering with a trial, you know he’s guilty”
This was at voir dire! When we got back in the courtroom, I told the judge I needed to speak to him who looked very annoyed of course. He called her up and she admitted it and got dismissed.
the only unusual part of the story is that I reported her I would guess.
LikeLike
paramedics in VA are required to hold liability insurance. cops should have to do the same.
LikeLike
“A further problem with high-stakes terrorism trials is that the government cannot afford to let the defendant go. Attorney General Eric Holder has made clear that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 plotter, would be held indefinitely in military detention even if acquitted at trial”
Somewhere Stalin is smiling.
LikeLike
“paramedics in VA are required to hold liability insurance. cops should have to do the same.”
Many of them do, but you are talking about a different kind of liabilty.
LikeLike
john, that’s a good story. The jury I served on was a commercial landlord-tenant dispute. The parties were classic — plaintiff was the stereotypical heartless landlord (complete with polyester suit); defendants were a sweet elderly couple who were disabled and in poor health. Pltf had actually served an eviction notice on them at the hospital where the husband dft was in intensive care. Landlord was suing for back rent.
All the jurors were attentive throughout the 2-3 day trial and took copious notes. In the deliberation room, we all read the jury instructions in silence. Then one juror threw the jury instructions across the table and announced that he did not give a GD what those instructions or the law said, he was not going to give that sleazy bastard landlord one cent. Almost all other jurors agreed immediately. The landlord (who clearly IMO was legally in the right) did not get one cent just because the jurors did not like him.
LikeLike
He looked like this didn’t he. Well, he has impeccable taste.
LikeLike
hmm — probably am.
what i’m thinking of is holding the individual involved liable — not the taxpayer — when there’s a screw up. and getting rid of immunity. everyone involved with this needed be held responsible: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011805125.html
LikeLike
okie:
That’s called jury nulliification and it’s perfect example of what I wrote above. If you’re guilty, go ahead and take your shot with the jury if you decide to go to trial at all. You’ve got nothing to lose.
LikeLike
nova:
Police are entitled to quallfied immunity for many of their acts, and the state is always on the hook even if they’re actions are egregious and outside the scope of employment as long as it can be tied to their employment.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm said: Edit Comment
I listened to the first half of Rachel Maddow’s book and her description of the Grenada invasion clusterfuck is both hilarious and depressing.
I don’t really blame Obama for end-running Congress on Libya. More so than Grenada which was a trumped up cause belli, Libya was subject to a rapidly changing situation we had little control over. Yes, he did run out the clock on his War Powers authority but he did keep us out of a quagmire. So far.”
Why don’t you blame Obama for end-running the Congress on Libya? There wasn’t any sort of filibuster, just the possibility that the wouldn’t vote for war. What was the casus belli in Libya?
For future reference, if President Obama should decide to order a military strike on Iran should there be a Congressional debate and vote? Should there have been one if it had been President Bush ordering a military strike on Iran?
The unfortunate truth is that when it came to the use of military force President Bush had more respect for the Constitutional requirement of involving Congress than President Obama does.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm said:
nova:
Police are entitled to quallfied immunity for many of their acts, and the state is always on the hook even if they’re actions are egregious and outside the scope of employment as long as it can be tied to their employment.”
For all intents and purposes, the state is immune for police misconduct tied to illegal searches. It has to be pretty egregious.
“Police Raid Berwyn Heights Mayor’s Home, Kill His 2 Dogs
By Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008 ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html?sid=ST2010091302597
“Prince George’s settles suit by Berwyn Heights mayor over storming of home
By Ruben Castaneda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 24, 2011; 7:29 PM ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/09/13/ST2010091302597.html?sid=ST2010091302597
LikeLike
jnc:
We’re talking apples and oranges. I was referring to who pays for the defense and the award if there is one. You are talking about the likelihood of the claimant prevailing.
LikeLike
Best laid plans:
But as we all know from the Plum Line debates, a rudimentary knowledge of economics has no place in policy discussions, especially about the environment or health care.
LikeLike
“Somewhere Stalin is smiling.”
So, we’re now the equivalent of the former USSR? When do the purges begin? Prepare the camps! Remember, I’m a great scrounger, I’ll always have booze, cigarettes and rubbers.
LikeLike
There’s a fair point to be made that putting someone on trial who won’t be released even if acquitted is worthy of Stalin, but I’m not sure how summary executions are a better alternative than indefinite incarceration without trial.
Banned’s legitimate point (correct me if I’m wrong) is that contorting the Federal court system with these trials does lasting damage to the system itself that will bleed over into the regular criminal trials of U.S. citizens.
Jack Goldsmith makes a similar point in his op-ed that I quoted previously in advocating for dispensing with criminal trials as unnecessary to begin with in light of the authority to hold the detainees under the laws of war as military prisoners.
LikeLike
Romney’s conservative mask slips revealing him as the moderate he always was:
LikeLike
“If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” she explained earlier today. “There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President [Barack] Obama’s economy.”
WMR’s pretzel problem. Run on his mandatory health care while running against federally mandated health care of the same design. Had to happen.
Back to the many reasons to vote Libertarian.
BTW, I have written as much as George about how I do not have patience for niceties on the battlefield. I believe in the laws of war, but we are not precluded from killing the enemy in his tent. Or wandering around in the desert. AQ has proven an especially implacable foe.
I believe our laws and our treaty obligations hold us to a fundamental fairness standard [not quite as high as the BoR standards, but certainly precluding torture] when we have POWs in custody under American jurisdiction. The tribunals are supposed to meet this standard. When we view the Afghan war as over, we will be under an obligation to return those we cannot try to Afghanistan. I am sure they will be welcomed home in various ways.
LikeLike
Mark:
WMR’s pretzel problem.
I’m certainly no fan of Romneycare, but if the argument Romney is going to forward is that the/a problem with Obamacare is it’s nature as a federal rather than a state dictum, I certainly think that is a legitimate argument and not one that turns him into a pretzel. It also has the benefit of being a conservative argument.
LikeLike
I’m not talking about American citizens not even on US soil. Frankly, I just don’t care about them. Are we going to execute innocent people? Probably. Have we in the past executed innocent Americans? Obviously we have. Will we do so again? I say obviously yes, but I do not advocate the abolition of the death penalty.
Most people in the decision making process are going to be reasonable and conscientious, and some will not be. Such is it always the case.
LikeLike
Interesting polling about the “Mediscare” tactic and battleground House races. Upshot according to this poll (a Democracy Corps poll) is that the tactic is not working. I’m not so sure of that yet, we’ll have to see what September and October bring in terms of real “Mediscaring.” I am surprised at the increasing approval of the Ryan budget plan though.
http://toplinetranslator.com/index.php/reports/186-democracy-corps-house-battleground
LikeLike
“when we have POWs in custody under American jurisdiction”
You would agree though that many of these terrorists are not following the traditional rules of war, not wearing uniforms, targeting, purposefully, civilians, etc. . Given that, why should they then be entitled to any protections whatsoever?
LikeLike
George, my suggested solution in legal circles 8 years ago was to extend the Piracy laws to them. 9-11 was of course traditional air piracy. It is under piracy law that we get to chase bastards into other countries, and terrorists, like pirates, are private militia killers who roam as they please. Under piracy laws you can shoot an unarmed pirate running away from you.
You can execute him upon his being found to be a pirate. Before that, you have to treat him as a prisoner, however, provided he gives you no crap. I still think the piracy standard works and I think the western nations should back it.
As for Bn Ladn, we had his admission of piracy and could chase him and kill him anywhere. Pakistani sensitivities be damned.
LikeLike
George
If you would rather a Kafka reference than Stalin, I won’t quibble.
LikeLike
NoVA:
He looked like this didn’t he. Well, he has impeccable taste.
Yes, he did. Quite dapper!
LikeLike
scott
Truthfully health care delivery is one subject that makes derivatives appear simple. My efforts to get my arms around the basic economics remain elusive.
Single payer.
LikeLike
“Single payer.”
Because all things work better and are more economically efficient when they are controlled by the Federal government.
LikeLike
lol, nova. If you are talking about the plaintiff in my story, that is an astounding likeness.
mark, I like your piracy laws idea.
LikeLike
Huh, okie. I thought he was talking about Don Juan. Dang it!
Speaking of Don Juan, a spammer on PL today posting with the moniker “hatebigots” managed to get himself banned around noon, and came back around 2:00 as “BannedAgain”. Confused a few folks for a bit, but he managed to get himself banned again by 4:00! I think that may have been some kind of PL record!
LikeLike
george
Social Security
LikeLike
Michi, earlier I sped through some of the comments on the PL post on the Soptic ad. I saw that brigade/brennan got banned again and was back as harrypowell within about an hour. I’m not sure if dhart got banned. That thread was pretty wild. I just now peeked at it again and it’s still going strong. Ugh.
Speaking of which, does anybody know the ins-and-outs of criminal collusion between campaigns and PACS? The new complaint about the Soptic ad seems to be an allegation about that. All I have found is a boatload of hard right wing sites talking about an Obama campaign staffer on a recent CNN interview refusing to comment on the ad and saying she did not know the details of Soptic’s wife’s death; there purportedly is a taped conference call with her on it in which Soptic related his story to the press back in May. Even if she lied on CNN, all of the campaigns better hope that does not constitute criminal activity. But I don’t know if the conference call would constitute coordination between the campaign and the PAC.
LikeLike
“george
Social Security”
Hah, what a great system! Totally solvent and well run! I tell yah, nothing more pleasurable than time spent in a SS office!
I stand corrected and humbly bow my head.
LikeLike
It actually IS solvent and is likely to stay that way with a fe minor adjustments
LikeLike
banned:
It actually IS solvent and is likely to stay that way with a fe minor adjustments
A few “minor” adjustments, like, for instance, forcing some people to pay more than originally required while receiving less than originally promised. If private businesses had the ability to unilaterally make such “minor” adjustments to their contracts, none of them would ever be insolvent either.
Highlighting a government run ponzi scheme as evidence of why a single payer health care system is the way to go doesn’t seem like the best of strategies to me.
LikeLike
forcing some people to pay more than originally required
The generic Austrian school criticism of taxes, carried to its extreme requires no taxation, ever. Thus its selective application is dependent upon the desirability of the goal to the writer.
while receiving less than originally promised.
Here another objection applies. OAB pay out far more than ever before, even adjusted for inflation in recent years. There is good reason to rein it in somewhat on my [recipient] end. Of course I am still paying in, too.
Not fixing the SS Trust Fund will turn it into a Ponzi like scheme. As long as people work and pay in for 45 years to collect for 15, with limits of collecting for zero [early death] or 40 with extreme longevity, a social insurance scheme can be approximated.
LikeLike
Mark:
What I was challenging was the notion that SS is a viable, “solvent” economic model. In terms of the strict economics of the SS model, it it is detined to become insolvent just like any other Ponzi scheme. The only thing that can and will save it from insolvency is its nature as a government program. That is, the government’s unique ability to legally and unilaterally alter the terms of the “deal” that it has made is the only thing that keeps it “solvent”. If any private organization offered a service based the SS model, its owners would eventually be put in jail because the plan would fail economically and they would be rightly accused of running a Ponzi scheme.
LikeLike
What a strange election. The Democrats are embracing Nixon and the Republicans are embracing Clinton.
LikeLike
The Democrats are embracing Nixon and the Republicans are embracing Clinton.
Yes. That Romney welfare ad (which uses the word ‘welfare’ six times in 30 seconds, nothing subliminal there) is aghast at compromising the integrity of the Clinton-era law. Who knew they were so deferential to that policy. If only they were that enamored of the tax rates during that era.
LikeLike
“A few “minor” adjustments, like, for instance, forcing some people to pay more than originally required while receiving less than originally promised. If private businesses had the ability to unilaterally make such “minor” adjustments to their contracts, none of them would ever be insolvent either.”
That happens all the time. I’ts called renegotiation and Donald Trump among others has made his whole fortune out of it.
LikeLike
banned:
That happens all the time. I’ts called renegotiation…
No. If it is a negotiation, it isn’t unilateral.
There is no denying that the government has legal powers that non-governmental entities do not have, and it is the existence of those powers, and those powers alone, that make SS “solvent”. In economic terms, the SS model that you tout must inevitably fail in the absence of those powers, and if any private organization established an “insurance” program utilizing the same model, it could never, ever be sustained, and would probably be illegal.
LikeLike
As someone who believes voting should be easy and accessible a link like this over at the PL really bothers me. I think it’s difficult to argue against the picture ID voter laws because it sounds reasonable until you find out they’re maybe making it a little more difficult or expensive than we imagined. But when Ohio extends the early voting hours in predominately Republican districts and curtails them in predominately Democratic ones I think it’s time to just go ahead and admit what’s really going on.
The average citizen has very few options to influence the direction of the country and the vote is the most reliable. Disenfranchising voters because of a statistically infinitesimal number of cases of voter fraud is at least as criminal if not more so.
Now, in heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Akron and Toledo, early voting hours will be limited to 8 am until 5 pm on weekdays beginning on October 1, with no voting at night or during the weekend, when it’s most convenient for working people to vote. Republican election commissioners have blocked Democratic efforts to expand early voting hours in these counties, where the board of elections are split equally between Democratic and Republican members. Ohio Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has broken the tie by intervening on behalf of his fellow Republicans.
‘I cannot create unequal access from one county board to another, and I must also keep in mind resources available to each county,” Husted said in explaining his decision to deny expanded early voting hours in heavily Democratic counties. Yet in solidly Republican counties like Warren and Butler, GOP election commissioners have approved expanded early voting hours on nights and weekends. Noted the Cincinnati Enquirer: “The counties where Husted has joined other Republicans to deny expanded early voting strongly backed then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, while most of those where the extra hours will stand heavily supported GOP nominee John McCain.” Moreover, budget constraints have not stopped Republican legislators from passing costly voter ID laws across the map since 2010.
LikeLike
This should attract a lawsuit, lulu.
LikeLike
Separate but unequal voting hours. Nice precedent. Democratic precincts also tend to run out of ballots and other voting supplies sooner than suburban areas as well.
LikeLike
If SS is such a great example of Central Authority, and is being used as an example of why Single Payer Government Run Healthcare should be the One Size Fits All solution for the US, why does is keep needing “minor fixes” to stay, you know, solvent?
LikeLike