Fuck its silent in here.......

[Quality Start Machine]

This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

[Quality Start Machine]

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

This.  If an American citizen enlisted in the Iraqi army and he was killed by an American tank shell, good work tank crew.  Now, Al Quida doesn't wear uniforms like traditional military of sovereign nations.  But this guy was clearly part of an organization that has attacked the US Government in multiple locations.

Good job drone. Good job military.  Good job Obama for signing off.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.

Okay. But you seem to be arguing in favor of this.

[Quality Start Machine]

This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.

Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.

Okay. But you seem to be arguing in favor of this.

I am. He was within the law. Doesn't make it a good law.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Doesn't make it a good law.

But that's precisely the point.

[Quality Start Machine]

Doesn't make it a good law.

But that's precisely the point.

It's been the law for a decade. Now the people who rammed it through are butthurt because it's not one of their own using it.

Maybe the authors of the law should sue the US Government, to get SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of it.

[morpheus]

Speaking of ramming through... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65383.html

Regardless of anyone's opinions on the merits of the proposed amendments in question, I wonder how Harry will feel about this precedent after the 2012 elections?

[flannj]

The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ

Edit: for those who can't get in...

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

[morpheus]

The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ

Edit: for those who can't get in...

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.

[flannj]

The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ

Edit: for those who can't get in...

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.

I agree that part doesn't address the underlying reasons for the financial crisis. And that's the point, those underliers have nothing to do with proprietary trading desks.

Edit: Additionally, a fair amount of that "misunderstanding" done by Washington has been on purpose. Because that's a lot easier than self analysis and owning up to your own mistakes.

[morpheus]

Also,

The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ

Edit: for those who can't get in...

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.

I agree that part doesn't address the underlying reasons for the financial crisis. And that's the point, those underliers have nothing to do with proprietary trading desks.

(||)

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Finally, an Occupy Wall Street scheme that even Gil can get behind...

http://www.suitsforwallstreet.org/