Obama's good accomplishments and bad decisions

[chunksmediocrites]

Over in one of JEROME (Jerry) Soetoro's thrads there appears to be a discussion tangential to Donald Trump's new best buddy and his past support for Obama- that is, a discussion of the Obama presidency and the pros and cons thereof.

So I am going to outline where I am at with the Obama administration, and I am interested in your input on things I missed or am missing in my picture.

I think there is reasoned argument that President Clinton's strategy during his terms- of adopting much of what Republicans claimed as their own, and triangulating on the "centrist" voters that might vote either way in an election, while mostly (and correctly) assuming the Democratic Party base as captive voters- is exactly what Obama is doing so far. It is likely an effective strategy for getting (re)elected; it was certainly for Clinton.

The problem is that the Clinton (and now Obama) Re-election and Governance Strategy is not a good strategy for dealing with serious domestic issues, that are exacerbated by adopting Right-wing "solutions" to mostly imaginary Right-wing problems, for example OMG! the deficit. And it moves the entire conversation to the Right. Again. Which has all kinds of deleterious outcomes, at least as I see it.

Further, by continuing many of Bush II's radical activities, Obama is codifying and affirming those departures as the new norms.

The criticisms I have for Obama:

• Massive troop and contractor increase in Afghanistan;
• The continuation of Guantanamo and Bagram;
• Ongoing expansion of the state intelligence and intelligence contractor security apparatus;
• Blocking judicially confirmed FOIA request for Abu Ghraib photo release;
• The classification of some detainees as being in "indefinite detention," because they might commit "future crimes" (Orwellian and unconstitutional);
• The continuation and expansion of Executive power under Obama- including the President ordering the assassination of American citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki, for example);
• Restarted Military Commissions Trials at Guantanamo;
• Expanded use of Predator Drones in Pakistan and Yemen;
• Weak attempt at economic recovery, with said recovery aid extremely short-sighted;
• Making a deal to kill the Public Option;
• Refusal to prosecute Bush II-era torturers and refusal to uphold rule of law for the elite;
• Expansion of the "national security" rubric to attempt to avoid judicial scrutiny, and general increased opacity of government activity;
• Aggressive prosecution of whistle-blowers within the US government;
• Extension of tax breaks for those making over $250K.

I'm sure there are things I have missed on this and the next list- feel free to point 'em out!

Praise I have for Obama:

• Reducing missile defense funding;
• Ending Stop-Loss;
• Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell;
• Health Care Reform (definitely a mixed bag that fails to address root problems but does enact some positive changes);
• Economic stimulus program;
• Treaty with Russia to further reduce both nuclear stockpiles;
• Withdrawing a strong portion of US forces from Iraq;
• Re-involvement in international attempts to address Global Warming/ greenhouse gas emissions;
• Ban on export of cluster bombs (though we still use them on Yemenis);
• Changed back/ re-involved US with international family planning programs through UN;
• Paid the owed US dues to the UN;
• Appointing Elizabeth Warren;
• Consumer protections in regard to credit card company abuses;
• Extended unemployment benefits;
• Moved full war appropriations and other "off-budget" items back into the regular budget;
• Federal support/ end of ban on stem-cell research;
• FDA regulates tobacco and no longer under unreasonable Bush-era restrictions;
• Enforcement for equal pay for women codified;
• Fair Sentencing Act;
• Increased funding for student loans;
• Increased infrastructure spending.

Obama doesn't get all the credit or blame for everything that occurs during his administration. But he certainly get a portion, as the president decides what to champion, what to fight, and what stances the administration will take.

I also didn't give credit for proposals or things not implemented, or voted down. I'm primarily interested in outcomes, rather than the theater about intentions or the words offered up for consumption. Things like DOMA are gray and unresolved, so don't go on either list. Failure to fulfill or even reversal of campaign promises could be an issue, but that goes back to words rather than accomplishments. I also don't take the lists one-for-one; the plus of student loans doesn't cancel out the minus if Military Commissions, etc.

I didn't vote for Obama before and most likely won't vote for him this time around either*, but I am interested in seeing both the positives and negatives.

*I vote waaaaaaaaay Left. And yes, I know, I'm throwing my vote away and why do I hate America, and not voting for Obama is voting for Teatards, but that's another subject.

[chunksmediocrites]

I forgot to add under negatives:

• Failed to enact meaningful reforms in the wake of the Housing Bubble economic collapse, or prosecute rampant fraud among the financial class architects/ predators of the same.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I vote waaaaaaaaay Left. And yes, I know, I'm throwing my vote away and why do I hate America, and not voting for Obama is voting for Teatards, but that's another subject.

It's not like your presidential vote matters in Oregon anyway. Your presidential vote only matters if you're in a swing state. If I lived in Oregon or some other non-competitive state I'd vote for the closest thing to an anarchist I could find, but living in Florida makes me quite a lot more reluctant to vote third party. My vote in the election most likely depends upon who the Republican nominee is and what trends are indicated by polling. If the polling indicates a massive blowout one way or the other I'll be voting third-party but I haven't made up my mind what I'll do if the race is close.

Anyway Obama's basically a terrible president but the only way you could realistically say he's worse than Bush is if you actually agreed with things like global warming denialism and curtailing of reproductive rights. (Speaking of reproductive rights, I believe there are accomplishments on that front missing from your list, but I cannot remember what they are). There are so many things about Bush that were so much worse than Obama it isn't even funny.

That said, I will add that Obama's handling of gambling has been pretty atrocious. Apparently he has indicted the owners of the three largest online poker sites.

[Vivisectus]

I do not agree with you chunks. Voting for someone outside the 2 party system is something many more people in your country should do, and is not throwing your vote away. Having only 2 parties is not that different from having only a single one - the dems and reps have gotten so used to sorting things out between them that, seen from the outside, there really isn't much difference. Both are more or less centre-rightwing parties, with the dems leaning more tot he centre and some of the reps falling off the scale at the right hand side. How can you call that a real democracy?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I forgot to add under negatives:

• Failed to enact meaningful reforms in the wake of the Housing Bubble economic collapse, or prosecute rampant fraud among the financial class architects/ predators of the same.

First thing I was going to add to your list. If there's any reason for me not to vote for Obama, this is it.

[Adam]

One more for the negative side:

• Failure to pass a 2011 budget while the Democrats controlled the entire government, thus setting the stage for the current round of hostage-taking shenanigans and bad faith dealmaking with Boehner and the Tea Party. This one is more or less directly attributable to the triangulating strategy and the desire not to do anything that might be perceived as controversial or *gasp* partisan right before an election.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not agree with you chunks. Voting for someone outside the 2 party system is something many more people in your country should do, and is not throwing your vote away. Having only 2 parties is not that different from having only a single one - the dems and reps have gotten so used to sorting things out between them that, seen from the outside, there really isn't much difference. Both are more or less centre-rightwing parties, with the dems leaning more tot he centre and some of the reps falling off the scale at the right hand side. How can you call that a real democracy?

Unfortunately, as long as our electoral system remains structured the way it is, we're going to have two parties, and voting for anything but those two parties (at a national level, anyway) is going to be a wasted vote. We've never had more than two competitive parties at a time because the system is structured in such a way that the only winning strategy is a big tent. When we've see a shakeup in our two party system, it's been one party being displaced by a new one, not a new party becoming co-competitive with the existing ones. We're not a parliamentary system where a minority party gets to hold some power and can sometimes leverage that into policy change. Minority parties in our winner take all electoral system get nothing and, most often, just end up helping the mainstream party least similar to themselves accrue more power by splitting the vote.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

The problem is that the Clinton (and now Obama) Re-election and Governance Strategy is not a good strategy for dealing with serious domestic issues

Agreed as far as this goes. It is also a problem that the right has as well. The problem with building consensus and compromise in order to appeal to people who aren't party-line voters is that one is managing to not do anything well at all, either a right or left wing policy, everything ends up being done in a relatively half-assed manner, thus usually scuppering the chances of success of either side's policy. If the ship is heading for a rock, and you can turn the tiller to port or to starboard to avoid it, if the two sides compromise and leave the tiller in the middle, they'll hit the rock and sink.

On the other hand, if they do nothing because they can't get the votes to agree and pass legislation, they'll hit the rock and sink anyway. There's probably a fine line in there somewhere on what you can do and get away with it politically, but I'm not paid enough money to figure it out.

that are exacerbated by adopting Right-wing "solutions" to mostly imaginary Right-wing problems, for example OMG! the deficit.

You dispute that the deficit is a problem?

[*]Massive troop and contractor increase in Afghanistan;

Depends on if you think the Afghan war is worth fighting. Obama's stance since his campaign, if I recall correctly, was that he thought it was. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, of course, but it should hardly be unexpected.

[*]The continuation of Guantanamo and Bagram;

What choice did he have? He wanted to close Guantanamo, even signed an order mandating it so, but didn't get the requisite support from Congress. (But begs the question, before dictating that something occur, isn't it a good idea to make sure that you can do it first?)

[*]The classification of some detainees as being in "indefinite detention," because they might commit "future crimes" (Orwellian and unconstitutional);

Are these detainees the ones that the Supreme Court declared should be granted POW status? How long is a POW usually kept in a war?

[*]Restarted Military Commissions Trials at Guantanamo;

See earlier. If he couldn't close Guantanamo and try the people in Federal courts in the US, it was either military commissions, indefinite hold, or unconditional release.

[*]Ban on export of cluster bombs (though we still use them on Yemenis);

I would clarify that. There is only a limitation on the export of cluster munitions. By and large the munitions currently in US production are unaffected by the limitation, what it does do is basically prohibit the US from offloading the older stocks currently in the inventory, which is fair enough. If you can have the same military benefit with less collateral risk, I don't see huge issue at the tactical level. It was a rider on a budget bill, I'm not sure who added it or that Obama should get particular credit for it. (What was he going to do, not sign the budget if it was or wasn't there?)

I'm OK with most of your other 'approvals' though.

NTM

[Adam]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

You dispute that the deficit is a problem?

Not to speak for chunks but, I, for one, dispute that the deficit is a problem to the extent that is currently said to be in our public discourse. Over the long term, yes, we need to have a roughly balanced budget. In the short to mid term, unless the federal government is having problems finding people willing to lend it money, which it isn't, then deficit concerns should take a back seat to more pressing issues like, say, economic growth (which, happily, would also serve to reduce the deficit by increasing tax revenues).

There's also the fact that the deficit problem will go away if Congress does absolutely nothing. "Nothing", in this context means, don't extend the Bush tax cuts (which, remember, were sold, in part, by arguing that the lack of a huge deficit at the end of the Clinton era was a pressing issue in need of remedy), don't monkey with the cost control provisions in the Affordable Care Act, and don't pass another Medicare "doc fix".

[California Tanker]

In the short to mid term, unless the federal government is having problems finding people willing to lend it money, which it isn't

The stock market this morning took a bit of a pounding because U.S. credit rating outlook lowered by S&P - Apr. 18, 2011

It seems to be a concern for people whose business is money on this news about the likelihood of people willing to loan the US money in the future.

I'm not a huge fan of adding to debt to get out of debt. It reminds me a bit of a gambler throwing his money into the pit in the hopes that he'll win and get back all his previous losses.

NTM

[Adam]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The stock market this morning took a bit of a pounding because U.S. credit rating outlook lowered by S&P - Apr. 18, 2011

That doesn't really contradict what I said. In the short term, S&P is leaving the US's rating at AAA. In the long term, they've announced that they may change that rating. Their assessment, it's worth pointing out, isn't based on any doubt that the US will be capable of paying its debts but, rather, doubts about Congress' ability to reach an agreement on how to do so. Further, it's not as though S&P is a completely passive observer. They know full well that their announcement will act as a political prod.

I'm not a huge fan of adding to debt to get out of debt. It reminds me a bit of a gambler throwing his money into the pit in the hopes that he'll win and get back all his previous losses.

Who is "adding to debt to get out of debt"? That is to say, who have you seen suggest that the primary purpose of deficit spending is to reduce the deficit? If you're talking about my claim that a side effect of economic growth is increased tax revenue that can be applied to deficit reduction, then I apologize if my wording was misleading, but that's not what I was claiming.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

You dispute that the deficit is a problem?

Adam covered this pretty well. In an economic collapse the only player that can spend is the government, and the rules that apply to business and personal finance don't translate well across to the state. If the task at hand is to re-float the economy and bring down the unemployment levels, then the government has as a real and powerful tool: the ability to spend, on (for example) transportation, energy, and communications infrastructure, which repays in massive dividends in the short and long term. Or on support systems like education, which help if your purpose is to be competitive in the long term as a nation (an idea no longer supported by the post-NAFTA, neo-liberal globalization race-to-the-bottom corporate model, which has less need for a highly educated populace in the US). Fiscal austerity measures belie the state of the economy. See Roosevelt, Franklin, 1937, and his attempt to balance the budget during a recovery.

To me it is a question of priorities. The US government can carry debt, and then reduce government spending as the economy and jobs are re-floated. The priority is to create jobs, that funnel money into the economy and into the treasury in the form of taxes. No jobs, no treasure, no ability to pay current government debts, welcome to long-form economic depression.

Should the costs be contained in the long term? Absolutely. Is the debt a priority? No. It is being flogged by the Republicans now because starving the states means they might be able to break organized labor in those states, because cutting social programs is the central platform of Right-wing class warfare, and because if the economy improves under Obama, then that could reduce their chances of gaining seats in congress and the presidency. Note the Republicans were just fine with spending far beyond the budget for oh, say, about eight years of the Republican Administration, as long as it was on the military and war. Now they have discovered fiscal restraint? Right.

Depends on if you think the Afghan war is worth fighting. Obama's stance since his campaign, if I recall correctly, was that he thought it was. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, of course, but it should hardly be unexpected.

Yeah, it's my list, from my point of view. I'm sure Obama would have a very different list. I wasn't surprised, Obama's voting record and his "right war" campaign made it clear. I simply see it as a negative outcome, especially since the outcome at this point in Afghanistan appears to be eventually the US leaves, the Taliban continue to hold large portions of Afghanistan, the puppet mayor of Kabul eventually gets a pink slip, and nothing of particular import changes- there are what, 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan as of last year? Mission....Exit Strategy From Iraq That Doesn't Highlight Our Failure and Make the Democratic President Open to (as much) Criticism for Not Being "Serious" About Foreign War Forever Policy...Accomplished?

Originally Posted by California Tanker

What choice did he have? He wanted to close Guantanamo, even signed an order mandating it so, but didn't get the requisite support from Congress. (But begs the question, before dictating that something occur, isn't it a good idea to make sure that you can do it first?)

Can I be president for thirty minutes? Great. Ring, ring! Hi, Eric Holder? How many of the detainees in Guantanamo are charged with something? Okay. They all go to federal court in the next three months, period. If they aren't charged, release them to their home country. If their home country won't take them, we'll use our diplomatic corps to find a country that will, or sweeten the pot until they can be convinced. If we can't get them in a court room, or have a shitty case based on torture confessions and unreliable intelligence, release them. I want Guantanamo empty within 95 days. Prioritize your cases now. Oh, and Eric? That goes for Bagram as well. Next: Press conference: "I am a President who believes in the Rule of Law. You may have heard of it. We are not tyrants or kings. People will not be held by the US without habeas corpus and a trial. Doing so undermines the very freedoms our nation purports to be about, and recruits people towards banners against us. I have courage and am not afraid that Republicans will squeal in fear that terror is waiting, like they always do. You can do what is right when you are president. Thank you and good night." Third: Note to president in 100 days to ask Congress why we are paying for the US military to guard an empty prison in Cuba. Then shut down said prison. Done.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Are these detainees the ones that the Supreme Court declared should be granted POW status? How long is a POW usually kept in a war?

IIRC, the SCOTUS did not say that they were POW. But if I am wrong, and they did, can you tell me how one declares war on not even non-state actors themselves, but on an action described as terror, that can be applied to any form of violence, implied or real, forever? Does terror sign an armistice? Has a declaration of war been made? Against who, or what group or nation, specifically? Would you be okay with the Taliban or al Qaeda or some other group holding US citizens they found near the battlefield of "everywhere on earth" until the War on Terror(TM) is over, some decade maybe? And of course, there's that whole thing about most of the Guantanamo prisoners not being guilty of anything.

It is a ploy designed to avoid rule of law, when the government makes up new status and new states of being for prisoners.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

See earlier. If he couldn't close Guantanamo and try the people in Federal courts in the US, it was either military commissions, indefinite hold, or unconditional release.

He could try them in the US courts. He chose not to. And he could give many, many of them unconditional release, since they aren't guilty of any crime that the government can provide the evidence so as to prove in court. Military Commissions didn't stand up to the last SCOTUS review, it will be interesting to see if this version does either.

[erimir]

Adding to the whole wasted vote discussion is the fact that bad as the Democrats are - the Republicans really are worse. Witness Wisconsin and the Paul Ryan budget.

Maybe to some of those far to the left (for Americans) the difference really isn't that much... But any attempt to get the Dems to move to the left either involves voting in their primaries or is a long term strategy. At least for right now, I don't think it's a good idea to do anything that helps the GOP in the short-term. In the 90s I would probably have been more amenable to voting third party.

[Stephen Maturin]

Pro: The Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Con: Allowing the Making Work Pay Tax Credit to sunset as part of the same deal that affirmatively extended the Shrub tax cuts.

And what's all this falderal about debt? In February 2001, President Bush said that all the retireable debt would be gone in ten years. The tenth anniversary of that comment just passed, so there's no more debt!

Originally Posted by Adam

In the short term, S&P is leaving the US's rating at AAA. In the long term, they've announced that they may change that rating. Their assessment, it's worth pointing out, isn't based on any doubt that the US will be capable of paying its debts but, rather, doubts about Congress' ability to reach an agreement on how to do so.

It's also worth noting that any claim of a causal connection between the S&P statement and what happened in the stock market today is the rankest of rank speculation. The only people really qualified to opine on such matters are the ones who pull the strings, and they aren't all that big on publicizing who they are.

Originally Posted by erimir

Adding to the whole wasted vote discussion is the fact that bad as the Democrats are - the Republicans really are worse. Witness Wisconsin and the Paul Ryan budget.

The only reason I remain a Democrat is the existence of real, substantive differences at the state and local levels, as opposed to the largely rhetorical differences at the federal level.

[California Tanker]

To me it is a question of priorities. The US government can carry debt, and then reduce government spending as the economy and jobs are re-floated. The priority is to create jobs, that funnel money into the economy and into the treasury in the form of taxes. No jobs, no treasure, no ability to pay current government debts, welcome to long-form economic depression.

I can agree with some of this, particularly the first line. The idea of the government pumping serious amounts of money into kick-starting the economy is reasonable. The problem is that ideally you would want a 'rainy day fund' kept aside for the purpose. Maybe the Republican policy doesn't acommodate this (increased income = opportunity for lower taxes), but as California amply demonstrates, Democrats are not amiss to failing to act responsibly either (increased income = opportunity to spend lots more). It's become a matter of 'the lesser evil,' is the speed of the job creation going to outweigh the detrements of the increase in debt (and interest payments) which will result? I'm unconvinced.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

IIRC, the SCOTUS did not say that they were POW.

I'm sorry, you are correct. Just that they should be initially treated as such.

Hamdan observes that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that if there be “any doubt” whether he is entitled to prisoner-of-war protections, he must be afforded those protections until his status is determined by a “competent tribunal.”

Doesn't say that 'competent tribunal' must be civilian, mind.

Military Commissions didn't stand up to the last SCOTUS review, it will be interesting to see if this version does either

They failed, not because they were military commissions, but because of the rules that they operated under. The ruling appears to indicate that a court fully compliant with the procedures laid out in UCMJ would be fine.

Would you be okay with the Taliban or al Qaeda or some other group holding US citizens they found near the battlefield of "everywhere on earth" until the War on Terror(TM) is over, some decade maybe?

Don't such groups do so anyway? Sgt Emilio Moncayo was held by FARC for 12 years with the release being by negotiated agreement. Exactly what Brian Keenan or the Irish Government did wrong to annoy Islamic Jihad is still something of a mystery, but that didn't stop him being held for over four years before he was handed over to the Irish ambassador in Damascus. Terry Waite at least committed the offence of working for a British church before he was nabbed.

If the Guantanamo process at least conducts the competent review of combatant status as required by Hamdan, then indefinite detention pending an agreement or exchange with whatever organisation they are affiliated with (eg Taliban) is quite reasonable, and differentiates from the hypothesis of "holding US citizens" at large.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The stock market this morning took a bit of a pounding because U.S. credit rating outlook lowered by S&P - Apr. 18, 2011

It seems to be a concern for people whose business is money on this news about the likelihood of people willing to loan the US money in the future.

Well, no. For several reasons, including:

1. Moodys - the other big credit rating agency - had the opposite conclusion from Standard & Poors; i.e., that the US was headed in the right direction, fiscally speaking and deficit-speaking;

2. If today's S&P warning were actually significant in the minds of "people whose business is money", the selloff would have been far more substantial. For example, when Lehman Brothers collapsed, the DJIA fell by over 500 points. Today at the close of the bell, after this S&P announcement, the DJIA was off by only 140 points.

3. Being down by only 140 points - the market has largely recovered from any initial selloff.

4. Contrary to expectations, US treasury bonds closed *up*.

People who expect to divine an opinion or direction from the market will largely be frustrated. It's always been that way; but lately, since 60-70% of the daily trading is handled by superfast computers acting independently of any hands-on human direction, executing trades in fractions of a second, the idea of people actually weighing decisions and creating a narrative to guide their choices is pretty antiquated. Individual market movers (Bil Gross, PIMCO) may do that. But the broad market? No.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

It's become a matter of 'the lesser evil,' is the speed of the job creation going to outweigh the detrements of the increase in debt (and interest payments) which will result? I'm unconvinced.

We'll see in about a year then. Check Britain then also while you're at it, they are also going down the austerity path. I'm betting killing the underclasses' discretionary spending while unemployment stays above 8% and costs of goods/fuel go up is going to hurt the economy. The Fed's leverage is gone because they can't take rates any lower- that's going to sour the milk as well. And then gutting social services and basic quality of life, and starving the states- that's just going to hurt people and the economy and business.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Doesn't say that 'competent tribunal' must be civilian, mind.

Israel, India, Britain, Spain, Pakistan- all used their own normal courts to try terror suspects- which is what we used to do also, until we rounded up a whole bunch of people turned in on cash rewards with no provenance by Northern Alliance guys, kidnapped a whole bunch of people including a majority on flimsy to no evidence, and then started torturing and killing them. THEN we set up "special courts" and "special rules" and "special status." Yeah, we don't have to use civilian courts, especially since most of the prisoners would be found not guilty due to lack of evidence, or tainted "evidence" gained under torture.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

They failed, not because they were military commissions, but because of the rules that they operated under. The ruling appears to indicate that a court fully compliant with the procedures laid out in UCMJ would be fine.

Does the UCMJ allow for "evidence" and "confessions" gained under torture?
Like I said, we'll see. Maybe we can convict more drivers and teenagers. Did someone cook food for al Qaeda? Maybe we can kidnap, torture, and then try their caterer six or eight years later.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

If the Guantanamo process at least conducts the competent review of combatant status as required by Hamdan, then indefinite detention pending an agreement or exchange with whatever organisation they are affiliated with (eg Taliban) is quite reasonable, and differentiates from the hypothesis of "holding US citizens" at large.

I don't think that's what indefinite detention is. Are they being charged with a crime? Are they being tried? No, and no. Their detention is illegal. The government is arguing that not only do they not have enough evidence to make a court case- in a fucking military kangaroo court- against the person they are holding, but that they also can't release these people because they know in their heart of hearts that they are baddies, and therefore are too dangerous to release. That's not going to stand any constitutional challenge if the lawyers can get the case to the venue under the right standing. There is no al Qaeda or Taliban that we recognize to release them to, nor any plans for such. Is their detention legal? Ethical? Just? No, no,and no.

[California Tanker]

Are they being charged with a crime? Are they being tried? No, and no. Their detention is illegal.

Not if they're actually determined to be POWs. Their indefinite detention would be no more illegal than the detention of PFC Bergdahl, who is likely to remain a guest of the Taliban for an indeterminate amount of time. If they don't get fed up and kill him.

NTM

[chunksmediocrites]

The point you're missing here is that the US doesn't see PFC Bergdahl's detention as legal, and they shouldn't, and the prisoners under indefinite detention aren't POWs, at least not by any judicial ruling as of yet. And to say, "But they- our enemies that we find despicable- do it," is the worst sort of argument to trot out in support.

[California Tanker]

The point you're missing here is that the US doesn't see PFC Bergdahl's detention as legal, and they shouldn't

The only official objection that I've noted is his use in propoganda videos. I'm sure you will point out if I've missed it, but a cursory search doesn't come up with a hit on the duration of detention other than that.

And to say, "But they- our enemies that we find despicable- do it," is the worst sort of argument to trot out in support.

Not insofar as I consider Berghdal, Shalit or other similarly situated captives as POWs, legitimate combatants, and thus captive for the duration. As such, they can be legally held until they die, are swapped, escape or are rescued, a side surrenders, or some negotiated agreement is reached whereby they are released. Just because the opposition are despicable doesn't mean they can't get things 'right' every now and then.

the prisoners under indefinite detention aren't POWs, at least not by any judicial ruling as of yet

This is true. Perhaps now that the whole 'military. no, civilian. No military' shennanigans are apparently over, maybe they can set about actually determining the status of the prisoners. Not sure how they plan on dealing, long-term, with unlawful enemy combatants, though. Years after this whole thing started off, there is still no movement to actually cover them under the laws of war.

NTM

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Well, no. For several reasons, including:

1. Moodys - the other big credit rating agency - had the opposite conclusion from Standard & Poors; i.e., that the US was headed in the right direction, fiscally speaking and deficit-speaking;

2. If today's S&P warning were actually significant in the minds of "people whose business is money", the selloff would have been far more substantial. For example, when Lehman Brothers collapsed, the DJIA fell by over 500 points. Today at the close of the bell, after this S&P announcement, the DJIA was off by only 140 points.

3. Being down by only 140 points - the market has largely recovered from any initial selloff.

4. Contrary to expectations, US treasury bonds closed *up*.

People who expect to divine an opinion or direction from the market will largely be frustrated. It's always been that way; but lately, since 60-70% of the daily trading is handled by superfast computers acting independently of any hands-on human direction, executing trades in fractions of a second, the idea of people actually weighing decisions and creating a narrative to guide their choices is pretty antiquated. Individual market movers (Bil Gross, PIMCO) may do that. But the broad market? No.

I would hope that the 500pt drop on the day the nation's fourth largest investment bank actually declared bankruptcy, the same day that Merill Lynch was forced to sell itself to BoA after rescue talks failed, and that AIG announced "We'd really rather like $40bn to keep us afloat, if anyone has it to spare please" would be a substantially higher drop than a day where the greatest negative occurrence wasn't S&P actually doing anything at all, except point out that it might downgrade the US's credit rating in the future. The fact that S&P's announcement had this 200-point effect (subsequently 'only' 140, with help like Citi announcing better-than-expected) even without the corroboration of Moody's people further reinforces the sensitivity that the markets have to that sort of news. In effect, S&P raised its eyebrow, and the market dropped 1.5%.

Your comment about the computers is well taken, but then the computers only do what they are programmed to do, and the people who presumably know a lot more about such matters than you or I do saw fit to program a response that "S&P doing nothing more raising an eyebrow is a bad thing." It's important to someone.

NTM

[Adam]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Your comment about the computers is well taken, but then the computers only do what they are programmed to do, and the people who presumably know a lot more about such matters than you or I do saw fit to program a response that "S&P doing nothing more raising an eyebrow is a bad thing." It's important to someone.

Do we even know that the S&P announcement is the reason for the drop, though?

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The only official objection that I've noted is his use in propoganda videos. I'm sure you will point out if I've missed it, but a cursory search doesn't come up with a hit on the duration of detention other than that.

AFP, July 20, 2009:

Clinton condemned Bergdahl's capture in an interview she gave earlier to US television network ABC while visiting India.

"It's just outrageous. It's a real sign of desperation and inappropriate criminal behavior on the parts of these terrorist groups," Clinton told ABC.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Not insofar as I consider Berghdal, Shalit or other similarly situated captives as POWs, legitimate combatants, and thus captive for the duration. As such, they can be legally held until they die, are swapped, escape or are rescued, a side surrenders, or some negotiated agreement is reached whereby they are released. Just because the opposition are despicable doesn't mean they can't get things 'right' every now and then.

You consider them POWs, fine. Is it okay that the ICRC has no access? Is it okay that Bergdahl shows signs of physical trauma in one of the Taliban videos? Are his rights under the Geneva Convention being honored? Certainly not the contravention against publicly released videos.
I'm not saying Taliban don't hold some prisoners in somewhat reasonable conditions- though some also don't. Nor did our ostensible allies like Northern Alliance General Abdul Rashid Dostum. What part of this did the Taliban and al Qaeda get right, that the US should emulate, with people who are often not soldiers, and not part of the organizations the US is supposedly at war at, again?
Do you feel the same about journalists, tourists, and civilians held in the same way? Because that's part of the legacy of Guantanamo. Most of the people there weren't- and aren't- soldiers or terrorists.
CBC, March 2009:

Many detainees locked up in Guantanamo Bay were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday.

"There are still innocent people there," Republican Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell, told the Associated Press. "Some have been there six or seven years."

Wilkerson, who first made the assertions in an internet posting on Tuesday, told the AP he learned from briefings and by communicating with military commanders that the U.S. soon realized many detainees held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were innocent but nevertheless held them in hopes they could provide information for a "mosaic" of intelligence.

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

This is true. Perhaps now that the whole 'military. no, civilian. No military' shennanigans are apparently over, maybe they can set about actually determining the status of the prisoners. Not sure how they plan on dealing, long-term, with unlawful enemy combatants, though. Years after this whole thing started off, there is still no movement to actually cover them under the laws of war.

I don't think the manipulation of status to avoid rule of law is over by a long shot, since as you point out "unlawful enemy combatants", and as I mentioned, "indefinite detention," are still not confirmed as acceptable through judicial review; as well the ICRC, Amnesty International, and other organizations have a lot of problems with these new states of imprisonment.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

"It's just outrageous. It's a real sign of desperation and inappropriate criminal behavior on the parts of these terrorist groups," Clinton told ABC.

Well, choice 1 is we can chalk that one down to another case of myself and the honourable Mrs Clinton having different opinions on something. I see no reason why this capture is not covered under the Geneva Conventions article 3 on non-internatoinal conflict if you want to look at it from the Afghan point of view, or Article 2 on international conflict from the American point of view.

Or, choice 2, it is to be noted that that her interview was made after the release of the video by the Taliban. (Video released 18July, she arrived India later 18July, the interview quoted occurred in India), in which case the inappropriate criminal behaviour could be the use of the detainee for propoganda purposes.

You consider them POWs, fine. Is it okay that the ICRC has no access? Is it okay that Bergdahl shows signs of physical trauma in one of the Taliban videos? Are his rights under the Geneva Convention being honored? Certainly not the contravention against publicly released videos.

It does appear that they are not. But if those requirements were met, that would not affect the concept of being able to hold onto them for the duration.

What part of this did the Taliban and al Qaeda get right, that the US should emulate, with people who are often not soldiers, and not part of the organizations the US is supposedly at war at, again?

Understanding that prisoners can be captured and held without a release date or trial. Makes a nice change from the summary executions which occur every now and then.

Do you feel the same about journalists, tourists, and civilians held in the same way? Because that's part of the legacy of Guantanamo. Most of the people there weren't- and aren't- soldiers or terrorists.
CBC, March 2009:

No, I don't. I would be much happier if those people are identified and released. I would have been quite happy if that had been done ages ago for several reasons.

I don't think the manipulation of status to avoid rule of law is over by a long shot, since as you point out "unlawful enemy combatants", and as I mentioned, "indefinite detention," are still not confirmed as acceptable through judicial review; as well the ICRC, Amnesty International, and other organizations have a lot of problems with these new states of imprisonment.

I'm not sure that's the case. From the ICRC's website:
The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Whether ICRC actually approves of this current legal position is another question, but it does seem to indicate an acceptance that it is the current position and not a new one. It's not a free-for-all, API (which is basically held to apply to everyone, ratified or not) does put some basic minimum requirements which are not particularly onerous or objectionable to most people, even in the Republican party.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I would hope that the 500pt drop on the day the nation's fourth largest investment bank actually declared bankruptcy, the same day that Merill Lynch was forced to sell itself to BoA after rescue talks failed, and that AIG announced "We'd really rather like $40bn to keep us afloat, if anyone has it to spare please" would be a substantially higher drop than a day where the greatest negative occurrence wasn't S&P actually doing anything at all, except point out that it might downgrade the US's credit rating in the future.

If you believe that this is the case, then you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the US dollar (and the US treasury bill, by proxy) as the world's default reserve currency. The items you listed above, in aggregate, were *not* more important than the threat of the US treasury bond no longer having a triple-AAA safety rating.

If these banks and investment firms fell, then it would have a serious effect in the particular economic circles where their influence and involvement was most pronounced. However, it would not necessarily spread beyond their immediate spheres of influence. There are other banks, insurance companies and investment houses fulfilling the same role.

On the other hand, if the USA loses its role as the reserve currency and/or its credit rating falters, that will be a menace not just to the USA, but to the entire global economy. It will affect not just banking and finance, but every aspect of the economy, and - perhaps most importantly - the ability of the US federal govt to borrow money from the bond market.

The difference between:
(a) the failure of Lehman Brothers, selloff of Merrill Lynch, etc. and
(b) the loss of triple-AAA rating for US treasuries

is comparable to the difference between the 2000 dot-com crash, and the 2008 Bush-Greenspan recession. In the 2000 dot-com crash, one sector imploded badly, but other sectors were left fairly untouched. If you were a tech worker, then hey - sucks to be you. But if you worked in finance, real estate, travel, etc. you were largely unscathed. But a downgrading of US treasuries is comparable to the 2008 mortgage banking meltdown, which was a systemic shock affecting all sectors. Likewise such a credit downgrade would affect not just the USA, but all countries who hold US treasuries as part of their sovereign account holdings; their reserves. What happens when we go to China and Japan (the two largest holders of US treasuries) that their holdings are now worth, say, 20% less than they were when they bought them? What is to prevent them from dumping those treasuries onto the broad market, selling them for whatever they can get, and shifting their reserves into other currencies?

A downgrade would have deeper impact and broader scope than the failure of any individual bank, insurance company, or mortgage firm - and would even be worse than the simultaneous failure of all three of these. And as I noted above, it would raise the cost of borrowing to the US federal government. That is significant not merely in terms of the government's ability to fulfill its commitments to the citizens, but as the largest single consumer entity in the American economy, higher borrowing costs for the federal govt also would have trickle-down effects into the Main Street economy.

In addition, even if these firms above (Lehman, AIG, Merrill-Lynch) were to collapse, there is still a back-stop, a firebreak that kicks in to limit the damage: the US government. But if the USA loses its credit rating, what is the backstop for the world's largest economy? There is none.

I'm sorry: but anyone who thinks that the loss of Lehman, AIG and Merrill is somehow worse than the scenario I painted above has no idea what they're talking about.

You likewise misunderstand - whether intentionally, or as a result of the passive/aggressive trolling that seems to characterize your posts - what the full message behind S&P's warning actually means. It is not, as you flippantly characterize it, a vague warning that S&P might downgrade the USA's credit rating. In point of fact, it equates to a probability between one-third and two-thirds that this downgrade *will*, in fact, take place. And not just in some far distant future, but by a specified date (2013). That is a far cry from some vague "the sky is falling" warning.

You also ignored one particular other bit of evidence that I listed: contrary to expectations, US treasury bonds closed *up* after this announcement from S&P. Feel free to explain that, in light of your belief that the market movement indicated that "people whose business is money" thought this was important.

Or, let's take your assumption that this is a concern for "people whose business is money". Are you assuming that only Americans know about money, and the rest of the world is ignorant? The reason I ask is because European markets practically shrugged off this announcement from S&P when their markets opened. Don't they have people in Europe whose 'business is money"??

Some additional thoughts:

A little over a year ago, one of the banks that had taken TARP money reported to the market that it was paying off the remaining balance that it owed the US government. This would have been welcome news, since the rules associated with TARP required greater disclosure of activities, placed limits on executive compensation, and set guidelines for how revenue could/could not be spent. So the expectation was that when this particular bank finally finished paying off the TARP loan, that it would be free to conduct business as usual, out from underneath the watchful eye of the federal government. Generally, that's a good sign for business. Yet when the bank reported the final payment of their TARP funds, their stock *fell*.

I also remember a three-week period where Sandisk, the South Korean manufacturer of flash memory, saw its stock price rise 75% for no apparent reason. Even Sandisk was baffled.

And of course, at a higher level - if the market were actually a good indicator of purpose or intent, then why was the market at sky-high valuations during the exact same time that the global economy was built on the fabricated phoniness of these exotic mortgage products?

Again: anyone who tries to extract meaning out of the day-to-day swings of the market is going to be frustrated in such attempts.

The fact that S&P's announcement had this 200-point effect (subsequently 'only' 140, with help like Citi announcing better-than-expected) even without the corroboration of Moody's people further reinforces the sensitivity that the markets have to that sort of news. In effect, S&P raised its eyebrow, and the market dropped 1.5%.

Well, again - no. Here's another example for you: on March 19, 2008 when Bear Sterns finally collapsed, the Dow Jones fell by almost the same amount as it fell after this S&P downgrade announcement

3/18/2008: 12,392
3/19/2008: 12,099

By your logic, then, the market views:
(a) the loss of Bear Sterns

as having the same level of seriousness as it does
(b) a 1-in-3 (or 2-in-3) publically announced threat cut the sovereign credit rating of the largest economy in the world.

That is simply not tenable.

Your comment about the computers is well taken, but then the computers only do what they are programmed to do,

And last I checked, there is no way to program for intuition or experience, which is how many (if not most) of the human-initiated trades are done. Setting aside the quant jock calculations, this programming is not AI nor is it prescient. The most that has been programmed is a sort of pattern matching and trend monitoring.

Disagree? Then feel free to explain the divergence between computer based trading results and human trading results. For example, index funds - those whose goal is merely to track the broad market as closely as possible - why such funds beat the performance of actively managed (human managed) funds almost 70% of the time. In fact, that is the founding principle of Vanguard Investments. I trust you have heard of them. If these humans were programming computers with the same level of intuition, insight, and experience that you seem to believe, then why are so many actively managed funds falling behind even the broad average of the overall market? In fact, why even *have* human-managed funds, if the computerized trading can replicate the human judgment, as you seem to believe?

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Sauron

If you believe that this is the case, then you fundamentally misunderstand the role of the US dollar (and the US treasury bill, by proxy) as the world's default reserve currency. The items you listed above, in aggregate, were *not* more important than the threat of the US treasury bond no longer having a triple-AAA safety rating.

<snip>

On the other hand, if the USA loses its role as the reserve currency and/or its credit rating falters, that will be a menace not just to the USA, but to the entire global economy. It will affect not just banking and finance, but every aspect of the economy, and - perhaps most importantly - the ability of the US federal govt to borrow money from the bond market.

You speak the truth. Fortunately, for those of us who are more reliant on things like the CNN Moneywatch report than intrinsic knowledge (Yes, there are things that I don't consider myself overly well versed in and have to be learned), the experts have not been remiss in telling us of these effects.
Dow Jones Suffers Big Drop After S&P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating

Apart from the political implications, though, this credit downgrade could spell bad news for business around the globe. "A downgrade by S&P is the first step in a series of steps that could have catastrophic effects of the cost of doing business domestically and globally," Peter Kenny, managing director at Knight Capital Group, told Fox Business.

Stocks drop most in month on S&P move Market Snapshot - MarketWatch

“It also increases the chances of the dollar losing its status as the reserve global currency,” Nolte added.

S&P Downgrade Watch Spoils Dollar Rally

If the U.S. is stripped of its AAA rating, not only would it deal a big blow to American pride but borrowing costs would soar leading many investors (large and small) to dump U.S. dollars. At the same time, a higher default risk could mean the dollar would no longer be perceived as the ultimate safe haven.

You likewise misunderstand - whether intentionally, or as a result of the passive/aggressive trolling that seems to characterize your posts

As an aside, even as we have sparred on many occasions, have I ever criticised or called into question the manner of or motivation behind your posts? Would it be too much for me to ask that you at least treat the honourable member on the other side of the aisle with respect, even if you vociferously disagree with what I have to say?

- what the full message behind S&P's warning actually means. It is not, as you flippantly characterize it, a vague warning that S&P might downgrade the USA's credit rating. In point of fact, it equates to a probability between one-third and two-thirds that this downgrade *will*, in fact, take place. And not just in some far distant future, but by a specified date (2013). That is a far cry from some vague "the sky is falling" warning.

It should also be taken into context with the statement by S&P which was released with the outlook change. Overall, it was a 'might', and the markets seem to have reflected this.

Or, let's take your assumption that this is a concern for "people whose business is money". Are you assuming that only Americans know about money, and the rest of the world is ignorant? The reason I ask is because European markets practically shrugged off this announcement from S&P when their markets opened. Don't they have people in Europe whose 'business is money"??

Interestingly, we seem to have something of a conflict of reports as to how the world markets have reacted.

GLOBAL MARKETS-Stocks fall after S&P warning; bonds recover

The weakness started in European markets on fears that Greece will have to restructure its debt possibly as early as the summer. That put the euro on track for its biggest one-day decline in five months against the U.S. dollar.
The sell-off picked up pace later when rating agency Standard & Poor's revised its outlook on the United States to negative from stable, citing the risk that policymakers would fail to agree on proposals to cut its large budget deficit over the next two years

<snip>

MSCI's all-country world stock index started what is in many places a holiday-shortened week by losing 1.5 percent.

European shares sunk to a three-week closing low, with the FTSEurofirst 300 off 1.7 percent.

Asian markets don't seem to have done any better.
Asian Market Tumble after S&P Warning US Debt | World Trade and Market News

Japan and Korea both lost more in percentage value than NY did.

You also ignored one particular other bit of evidence that I listed: contrary to expectations, US treasury bonds closed *up* after this announcement from S&P. Feel free to explain that, in light of your belief that the market movement indicated that "people whose business is money" thought this was important.

That's the interesting bit. From one of the earlier linked articles:

However even though Moody's and Fitch will most likely follow S&P and change their outlook for U.S. debt, the risk of a downgrade remains low. The reason is because the Obama Administration will take this warning seriously and use it as leverage to push through a budget consolidation plan

Or from your article

BEARD: Yes. In fact two rating agencies put the U.K. on negative watch, saying it could loose its AAA rating. That was back in May 2009. There was an election later, a new government came to power, and brandishing this threat of a downgrade, the new government pushed through a pretty severe deficit reduction plan.

Steven Lewis of Monument Securities thinks Obama may be able to do the same. Because his opponents won't want to take the blame for the humiliation of a U.S. downgrade.

Fundamentally, our positions are not exclusive. After a little time to think about it, the money people have decided that the one-in-three to two-in-three / might chance probably isn't going to happen, because they have faith that the US government will actually sort itself out. That does not detract from the fact that the reason that the stocks went down before recovering was that S&P dared to speak aloud the possibility that they might not. And with the political climate as fractious in D.C. as it is recently, that possibility, though slim, is most certainly viable. If everyone had full, unanimous confidence that the US both could and would be able sort itself out, there wouldn't have been any cause to even issue the outlook change to begin with. Regardless of what the computers did for instant action on the stock market upon the release of the S&P outlook, I think it unlikely that S&P themselves came to the conclusion that a warning was warranted by computer analysis alone.

Again: anyone who tries to extract meaning out of the day-to-day swings of the market is going to be frustrated in such attempts.

This is fair enough. But are there any analysts at all out there not attributing the drop on the 18th to the S&P outlook downgrade?

By your logic, then, the market views:
(a) the loss of Bear Sterns

as having the same level of seriousness as it does
(b) a 1-in-3 (or 2-in-3) publically announced threat cut the sovereign credit rating of the largest economy in the world.

That is simply not tenable.

I think the crux on this is down to how much weight you want to put on a possibility. It's something which warrants concern, something which warrants keeping an eye on. So is that rock two miles ahead of your ship. Because you see it, and have the ability to steer around it, the chances of your hitting it are pretty slim. But it would be foolish to ignore the fact that the rock exists and can sink the ship. Most all the articles are referencing this warning as a 'wake-up call', not 'impending doom.' Hence why the drop was not as significant as it would be had S&P come out and said "We think we will drop the rating," which, I think we can agree, would have had an effect substantially larget than the 200 points it did have. The text that came with the change likely had a moderating effect.

And last I checked, there is no way to program for intuition or experience, which is how many (if not most) of the human-initiated trades are done. Setting aside the quant jock calculations, this programming is not AI nor is it prescient. The most that has been programmed is a sort of pattern matching and trend monitoring.

Disagree?

Not to any huge extent. But I think there are going to be a few hard-coded principles in there as well. As a credit rating is quantifiable, it being the purpose of the rating, it would not take a programming genius to put in a statement of 'if this happens to a rating, do this/that'.

NTM