The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
By John Yoo
During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.
It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2009 10:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
#2
That's a "ballsy" op-ed considering it is coming from a guy with a target on his back placed there by the Obama nuts who want him given a war crimes trial.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
01/30/2009 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The "O" has authorized continued missile strikes against top turbans, turning them and those with them into human goo and mud hut stew. But at least if they're capture they won't suffer coercive interrogation.
Now here's my solution: If they are in American prisons we can provide them with conjugal visits with their favorite goat. Then we can use a waterboard to clean them up so they don't contract any STGD.
#4
I do not know about water boarding, but the fuzzy wuzzies do look like they need a bath, a shampoo, a haircut, and a shave. In their formative years, they also needed a face slapping, butt kicking, head knocking, no nonsense mother.
#5
So, Barry, what happens if we capture Bin Laden or Doc Knothead or Blinky? Do we sit them down and offer up milk and cookies in exchange for what they know?
The despicable act of mass-casualty terrorism carried out by Pakistan sponsored terrorists on November 26, 2008, in Mumbai, and subsequent denials by our neighbour have revealed that Indias policy of appeasing Pakistan in the hope of peace had the opposite effect of what this country had hoped for.
Our often misplaced generosity had emboldened our neighbour to redouble its mischief with impunity, proving thereby that there is no short-cut to peace with Pakistan.
Unless Pakistan is made to realise that such acts of theirs against India would harm them more than hurting India, engaging them in the so-called peace process would ultimately turn out to be an exercise in futility.
Many retaliatory actions have been proposed and considered in the agonised deliberations subsequently held in India such as snapping tourism and trade, recalling our High Commissioner and even war.
Certainly war is not an option. But there is one option which can hurt Pakistan most that of announcing Indias intent to withdraw from the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, signed between the two countries allocating the Indus waters .
As per the IWT, while Pakistan got the entire waters of the western rivers (The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) , India got the eastern rivers (The Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) ie; only 20 per cent of the total water resources of the basin against its rightful share of more than 40 per cent.
If India walks out, the collapse of this Pakistan-biased treaty would trigger serious problems of water shortages there since India would then be having the option to divert and use its equitable share of Indus waters, which was denied all along due to the existing treaty provisions.
Internationally, an impression has been created by vested interests that the treaty is a model for trans-boundary river water agreements because of its in-built resilience and since it has survived two wars between the countries.
However, the fact is that even in spite of the unfair water allocations and treaty provisions, India has been always accommodating Pakistans unreasonable demands in the interest of peaceful neighbourly relations.
The reduced allocation has caused water shortages in our states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan seriously affecting irrigated agriculture.
Also, endless arguments raised by our neighbour to delay every project planned by India, have grounded the pace of infrastructure development, particularly in J&K.
The treaty does not explicitly provide for an exit option or a mechanism to withdraw from the agreements. The only possibility is to modify the provisions by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two countries; but, this would remain a distant dream in view of the prevailing circumstances.
The time has, therefore, come to put an end to the covert wars waged by that country against India and the option available to us is by justifying Indias right to withdraw from the treaty citing Pakistans non-compliance with the UN Security Councils Resolution 1373 on denial of terrorist sanctuaries and support.
Any pronouncement to walk out of the treaty would need to be followed by requisite actions to show that India means business since pious declarations alone would not stop the flow of the river. Hence, we must be ready with our plans to control and divert the river flows.
In this connection, available data indicate that, in the past, India had planned many schemes across the western rivers to tap the hydropower potential as permitted in the treaty. However, not much has been done to study the diversion possibilities of water from the western to the eastern rivers to augment the flows in the Indian side.
For example, there is a possibility of diverting the Indus at a point upstream of the Stakna hydro power project to a tributary of the Sutlej through a tunnel.
Similarly , the Chenab waters could be diverted from the river Chandra, a tributary of the Chenab, to a tributary of the Beas and from the Chenab main at Marlu to a tributary of the Ravi through tunnels.
A possibility also exists for constructing large dams on the Jhelum to facilitate the diversion of waters to the Chenab and to the Ravi.
In view of the large irrigation water demands made by Indian states, field surveys and sub-surface investigations should be taken up urgently and detailed project reports got ready for implementation of various diversion proposals.
It is, therefore, for India to take the lead in its own defence so that Pakistan would be forced to abide by the UN Security Council Resolution for ending terrorism.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/30/2009 14:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Water is life. Many have died because of it and for lack of it. Ask anyone in the Rural Western US (other than recent Coastal Imports).
Lebanese Author Farid Salman: 'Obama Was Brought To Power By the Jews... Before They Establish the Semitic Middle East, They Want to Tear America to Shreds... Obama Will Be the Cause...'
Following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese author Farid Salman, which aired on OTV on November 25, 2008.
"In Lebanon, We've Become Accustomed to Refraining From Speaking the Truth"
Farid Salman: "In Lebanon, we've become accustomed to refraining from speaking the truth, in order to avoid provoking zealousness - whether sectarian, political, or anything. Only in Lebanon do you hear such a thing. Lebanon has been destroyed. We have been fighting and slaughtering one another for 30 years - but God forbid there should be any zealousness... Provoke zealousness?! Even rocks we've provoked against us.
[...]
"Our president goes to New York, and suggests that Lebanon become a center for dialogue between civilizations. For 30 years, the name of Lebanon has not appeared in any newspaper, in any symposium, university, or any place in the world, unless it is to say that the Lebanese are fighting among themselves in the name of sectarianism and all that - yet we are not ashamed to present ourselves as the venue of dialogue between civilizations. Are we capable of even conducting a dialogue among ourselves, before we embark on a dialogue of civilizations?" [...]
"The Sunni Muslim Sect... Was the Occupier... By the Sword"
"We have the two founding sects [of Lebanon] - the Druze and Maronite. Then we have the Shiites. Like the other two minorities, the Shiite sect was also a victim. The Sunni Muslim sect, on the other hand, was never a victim. This sect was the victor, the occupier..."
Interviewer: "Maybe we should call it 'conquest' instead of 'occupation'?"
Farid Salman: "Why not? It was an occupier. Why mince words? It was an occupier. By the sword. This is the truth. It was just like all the other occupying empires in the world.
[...]
"The Sunni Muslims in Lebanon are not in need of a homeland. The Middle East is Sunni in its entirety..."
Interviewer: "Maybe that was in the past, but now... That's not the issue..."
Farid Salman: "They are more than welcome here. I accept and recognize their Lebanese identity, but under one condition - that they accept the complexity of the Lebanese fabric, and be aware of its original and historical causes. They did not come to a new land, which had no history. They tried to impose their rule on this land, and eventually, they bought this rule, and today, they rule this land. That's what I am against." [...]
"Sunni Islam Has Collapsed... The Islam That... Cannot Possibly Collapse... is Shiite Islam"
"Sunni Islam has collapsed. Look around you - it has collapsed in all the countries. It has failed. The Islam that has survived, the Islam that looks towards the future, and cannot possibly collapse, because it is an ideology - is Shiite Islam.
"If the Shiite revolution had not taken place... Maybe some consider the revolution of Khomeini and Iran to be a tragedy, but one of these days, we will all have to acknowledge that if not for the new Shiite revolution in Islam... Before that, Islam was gone. Where is there Islam? In Saudi Arabia? In Pakistan? In Egypt? Where is there Islam?"
Interviewer: "You are talking in the sense of belonging to a faith..."
Farid Salman: "...and to a civilization, and to the world. When a Saudi mufti says that we should fight Mickey Mouse..."
Interviewer: "Not the Mufti, just one of their sheiks."
Farid Salman: "Okay, but the Mufti said something else. With the Wahhabis... He talked about the moon, and said that Man only imagined landing on the moon. Satan inflated himself, turning himself into a moon between Earth and the real moon. Thus, he deluded Man that he landed on the moon, but in fact, he landed on Satan.
[...]
"In the July [2006] war, wasn't it Saudi Arabia that assigned Israel the mission of driving the Shiites out of Greater Beirut? Who assigned the mission of this war? Who financed it? Saudi Arabia. Who collaborated with [Israel] on the ground? The allies of Saudi Arabia." [...]
"The Jews Brought Obama to Power In Order to Take Revenge... They Hate America"
"Obama will not complete the plan of George Bush Senior. Obama was brought to power by the Jews. Let me tell you something. In my view, and I might be mistaken, the Jews brought Obama to power in order to take revenge... Before they establish the Semitic Middle East, they want to tear America to shreds, because they hate America. Obama will be the cause..."
Interviewer: "They want to rule..."
Farid Salman: "Of course. Obama will be the cause of internal strife in the U.S. In addition, they want to destroy the European Union, and thus, the Semitic Middle East will be established. It's the Jews, not the Zionists, that are doing this."
In his first week and a half in office, US President Barack Obama has proven that he is a man of his word. For instance, he was not bluffing during his campaign when he said that he would make reconstituting America's relations with the Islamic world one of his first priorities in office.
Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader was to PLO chieftain Mahmoud Abbas last Wednesday morning. And this past Tuesday, Obama gave his first television interview as president to al-Arabiya pan-Arabic television network.
In that interview Obama explained the rationale of his approach to the Muslim world. "We are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest," the new president said.
Obama distanced his administration from its predecessor by asserting that rather than dictate how Muslims should behave, his administration plans, "to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs."
In short, Obama argues that the root of Islamic world's opposition to the US is its shattered confidence in America's intentions. By following a policy of contrition for Bush's "cowboy diplomacy," and acting with deference in its dealing with the Muslim world, then in his view, a new era of US-Islamic relations will ensue.
Most of my friends know, I have tried to stop thinking about it, but I can'thelp it in the wake of all the recent economic news. My banking career started in 1970 and ended in 1993, but I stillkeep close ties to the industry. During my banking years I did learn one or two things along the way. The problem with our economy today is from a liberal-thinking congress, senators, and presidents, as well as greed and dishonesty. When you put these together, it spells disaster in any area of our life.
Ask any banker (just walk in and ask one who has been there for 15 yearsor more)
* Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. This law says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced many lending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenders would not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (SubPrime Loans). This was in 1977.
In 1980 president Carter and a Democratic controlled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal ReserveBoard of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation toset the interest rates of savings accounts. A sad fact is we areall still feeling the effects of his policies and decisions 30years later.
* Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the numberof loans to these people and the aggregate dollar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans to people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down instead of up. ( Clinton should havehad his mind on the long range effects of this instead of Monicaand a good cigar.) This was in response to pressure from 'community organizers.' Can you think of a former community organizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat
* In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act whichhad protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.* In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory control over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under the control of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal democrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one of Obama's top two economic advisors. The other is Jim Johnson who was the head of Freddie Mac and walkedaway with $24,000,000.
* Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts soyou will believe that all our financial problems are because ofBush's failed economic policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO HIS CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac- Jim Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae -Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6 years).
In addition, since 1989 there have been several politicians who have received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner up is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second largest amount of donations (over $500,000)which is phenomenal because he has only been in the Senate for 3 years.
When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearings and investigations. Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies? But, oh yeah, I forgot. It is Bush's fault! (Yeah, Right, Sure it is). Just ask a banker.
I am Jerry Teasley, banker, and I approved this email.
Buried deep inside the massive spending orgy that Democrats jammed through the House this week lie five words that could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.
The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.
But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new "stimulus" bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.
"Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund," Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.
"This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place," said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.
In addition to reopening the floodgates of dependency on federal welfare programs, the change once again deepens the dependency of state governments on the federal government.
President Obama won on promises of changing the way Washington works.
Gripped by perhaps the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans of every political stripe opted for "change."
Sick of reckless government, sleazy lobbyists, wild spending and deep borrowing that has scuttled America's great economic engine, voters embraced Obama's promise to be "post-partisan" and usher into the government a new era of responsibility and common sense.
But his presidency isn't two weeks old, and already warning flags have gone up.
Obama is wallpapering his administration with lobbyists, installed a tax cheat to run the Treasury Department and is pushing Congress to pass a massive, wildly unaffordable "stimulus" bill loaded with pork and reckless spending that plunges Americans even deeper into debt.
Even worse, the bill every day looks more like 15 years of pent-up big-government liberalism than an economic "stimulus" plan.
Ever since his election, many Americans have wondered which Barack Obama would show up at the White House: the most liberal member of the Senate or the post-partisan bearer of change we could all believe in.
One thing is clear: His "stimulus" bill is not change we can believe in. It's a return to big-government welfare that we will choke on.
I love this. The new kind of politics of hope. Eight hours of debate in the HR to pass a bill spending $820 billion, or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.
Only ten per cent of the "stimulus" to be spent on 2009.
Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.
This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.
For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.
We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.
There has been pork barrel politics since there has been politics. The scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before -- and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation.
Further, no one can be sure that we are not already at the trough/inflection point of the recession such that this money will be spent mostly after the recovery is well under way.
How long until the debt incurred under this program is so immense that it causes a downgrade in the sovereign debt of the USA? What happens to us then?
This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America. This is more than the pork barrel. This is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day.
Unfortunately, it is only the latest in a long series of such days stretching across decades of rule by both parties, to the point where truly responsible government is only a distant echo of our forgotten ancestors.
#1
The described situation is the result of decades of irresponsible government & private financing, not just this incident. Congress never reads the bills it passes, this is not new.
I very much doubt that the sovereign debt of the USA, as it stands today, can ever be paid back. The country's credit is now at the mercy of foreign lenders. At the moment they are all worse off than the US.
#2
How long until the debt incurred under this program is so immense that it causes a downgrade in the sovereign debt of the USA? What happens to us then?
I don't think they'll quit spending money like drunken sailors until they do downgrade our debt rating. This stimulus contains every democrat pork dream for the last 30 years. We're going to have to run THEM broke before this stops, mark my words.
#3
Those who live in hope usually end up dying in shit.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
01/30/2009 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There's one easy, fast way to put a stop to all of the sh$$ in Washington. All you have to do is take about 250 congresscritters and 60-70 senators - from both parties - and hang 'em on the Mall. Do the same thing to a few dozen top "civil servants" and all the appointed heads of cabinet-level offices. Threaten to do it again if things don't improve DRASTICALLY. Then follow through. You may have to do it twice, but you won't have to do it three times. Of course, you've got to have the POWER to do it, or it's all for nothing. You also have to have the integrity to actually do ONLY what has to be done, and not start being power-hungry yourself. That limits the number of people you can turn to to do the job.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/30/2009 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OP, get out of my head. I've been saying what you said for years, and people look at me like I am crazy.
Posted by: Marilyn Elmeger8261 ||
01/30/2009 22:54 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Unless Rubin and others are required to return their bonuses or are punished in some way, Taleb said a regrettable system emerges where profits are privatized and losses are nationalized.
That just about sums it up. I'm all for bonuses, for everyone, from the janitor who swabs the toilets, to the CEO, when the company makes money.
Not when the US taxpayer is footing the bill. I hope they clawback every dime of bonus money. They still haven't gotten it through their heads on Wall Street, life as they know it is over.
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using
the Q and A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic). If you buy a car it will go to Japan. If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.
And none of it will help the American economy.
We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.
#4
Since September 2008, keeping your friggin six digit jobs is the "Bonus" for the next 24 months if there is a turn around. If they're kept afloat with taxpayer money, all salaries should be capped at the SES/GS level.
#7
re:Congress. Well, given that we hold them responsible for a multi-trillion dollar international economy, a multi-billion dollar international security operation, multi-billion dollar health, safety and commerce regulation programs, and what ever multi-million dollar natural disaster relief effort we face nearly every year, it appears we're getting what we pay for in talent. You pay cheap, you get cheap. So, they hire themselves out to higher bidders who plow better wages into their reelection fund coffers. Some of this is a self inflicted wound we've engaged in by being cheap on what we'll pay for as well. What do you think it would take to attract good talent to run against these smucks cause for the 'good of the community' certainly hasn't worked?
#9
When I was working in the corporate (Engineering/Construction) world we calculated our bonus pool into every proposal as part of price which also included our burden, risk and profit. Some jobs out-performed others. Some lost money. The way of that particular world. But if the company did well then the bonus pool was a percentage of that performance and based on individual performance allocated that way. Wall St. bonuses and others in the financial industry are usually calculated as 1) part of a specific deal like an M&A or IPO, or 2) based on corporate performance, or 3) as part of earnings and multiples. Non-performance based bonuses or those sucked out of TARP are rewarding failure and need to be withdrawn. They set the wrong standard for any competitive company.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
01/30/2009 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Wall Street Bonuses May Go Way of Dodo Amid Bailouts"
Not going to happen. The Democrats need their campaign contributions - a lot of which they get from New York. Besides, the New York metro real estate market needs propping.
#12
Not only do they make big campaign contributions to Dems, the "greedy Wall Street Fat Cats" are themselves mostly Democrats. Living in NY, it's hard not to be.
#16
Ala FREEREPUBLIC, it appears that Wall Street Executives [troubled companies]have [pre-emptively]rediscovered eating at MCDONALD's, etc.
OTOH, WORLD MIL FORUM [paraph = GOOGLE Chinglish translation] > US STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S STATE BUDGET GAP/DEFICIT IS US$42.0BILYUHN, GOVERNATOR IS OVERWHELMED. State Controller JOHN CHI NGONG -California + USA is experiencing an UNPRECEDENTED FINANCIAL CRISIS - US BANKING INDUSTRY IS ALSO VERY UNSTABLE AT THIS TIME [ read, CA CANNOT BORROW = CANNOT BORROW AS MUCH AS CA STATE GOVT DESIRES]
#17
WORLD MIL FORUM > VARIOUS > IIUC JAPAN'S ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, SERVICES INDUSTRY HAS COLLAPSED, NEC PREPARES TO LAYOFF UP TO 20,000 JAPANESE WORKERS. HITACHI, TOSHIBA, etc. MORE LAYOFFS, LOSSES EXPECTED.
HITACHI per se reportedly saw a NET COMPANY LOSS of 700.0TRILYUHN YEN???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
