Campaign For Liberty: omegis13

omegis13
Regular member
Location: Norman, OK
Last login: 03/23/09
RSS feed

I am a hermit.  I really should get out more.





omegis13's weblog


Bookmark and Share
Posted by omegis13 on 02/23/09


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/business/24bank.html?hp

In Latest Plan for Banks, U.S. Could Demand a Voting Stake

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: February 23, 2009


WASHINGTON - The Obama administration put the nation's biggest banks on notice Monday that the government could become their biggest shareholder if regulators decide they are not strong enough to weather a deeper-than-expected downturn in the economy.

In an unexpectedly assertive joint statement, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and federal bank regulatory agencies announced that the government might end up demanding a direct ownership stake in major banks after they undergo a tough evaluation of their strength, which is to begin shortly.

"The capital needs of major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment," the administration said. "Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted," it continued, the banks could be required to give the government a right to acquire common shares, with voting rights.

The statement came as federal regulators confirmed that they were in discussions with Citigroup over precisely that kind of swap. Citigroup, which has received $45 billion in direct assistance and given the Treasury nonvoting preferred shares that pay a guaranteed dividend - is negotiating to swap the preferred shares for common shares that would give the government a stake as high as 40 percent.

Administration officials said Citigroup had initiated the talks with federal regulators, and the new statement stopped well short of declaring that regulators were ready to partly or wholly "nationalize" any major banks.

On Wall Street, most major bank shares were higher in noon trading, while the overall market was down more than 1.5 percent.

The administration said its "strong presumption" was that "banks should remain in private hands."

But the statement also officially amounted to a road map under which the federal government could, if it wanted to, demand a major and possibly a controlling stake in systemically important banks like Citigroup and Bank of America.

The 20 biggest banks will be required to undergo a new "stress test," starting Wednesday, which is intended to determine whether each bank has enough capital to survive if the economy spirals down even more than most forecasters already expect.

Treasury officials plan to introduce details of the stress test on Wednesday, and it is expected to take several weeks to complete.

If a bank comes up short, Treasury officials said on Monday, the government will require it to raise more capital. If the bank cannot get that money from private sources, the government will demand that the bank swap out the government's existing, nonvoting preferred shares - issued during the first phase of the Treasury's $700 billion financial bailout program last September - and replace them with new preferred shares that are convertible to common stock with voting rights.

The requirements will apply both to banks that receive additional money in the months ahead and to banks that have already received money.

In the case of Citigroup, the negotiations do not involve any additional infusions of taxpayer money. Rather, the negotiations are aimed at strengthening Citigroup's capital position by replacing preferred shares, which resemble debt more than equity, with common shares.

Acquiring common stock would give the government more control, but expose it to more risk. Armed with voting shares, government officials would have more power to oust existing management and change the company's strategy. But the Treasury would also lose its claim to dividend payments, which in Citigroup's case amount to more than $2.25 billion a year.

Louise Story and Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York.

 



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by omegis13 on 02/09/09



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902423.
html

Justice Dept. Uses 'State Secrets' Defense
Obama Backs Bush Decision on Rendition Lawsuit

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 10, 2009; Page A04

The Obama administration invoked the same "state secrets" privilege as its predecessor in federal court in San Francisco yesterday in opposing the reinstatement of a lawsuit that alleges that a Boeing Co. unit flew people to countries where they were tortured as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program.

The Justice Department's stance on the case came despite a pledge by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., first at his confirmation hearing and again yesterday in a statement, to review all assertions of the state secrets privilege.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case on behalf of five foreigners who were allegedly transferred to countries where they were tortured under interrogation. One of the five, Binyam Mohammed, a British resident, claims in court papers in the United States and in Britain that he was flown to Morocco and held there for nearly two years after his capture in Pakistan. He is now in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mohammed and the others are seeking unspecified damages.

Leon E. Panetta, Obama's nominee to head the CIA, told Congress that he would end the practice of transferring suspects to countries where they are at risk of being tortured.

The Bush administration argued that the lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan, a Boeing unit based in Colorado, threatened the country's national security interests. In court yesterday, the panel of three judges asked the government if there was any change in its position because of the new administration.
ad_icon

A Justice Department attorney said the government stands by its brief, which was filed by the Bush administration.

A Justice official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing, said the new administration decided the lawsuit involves state secrets that need to be protected.

Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff lawyer who argued the case for the plaintiffs, condemned the decision as Obama's ratification of the Bush administration's "extreme policies," which he said prevent torture victims from seeking redress.

"This administration is going to have to face the issue of accountability, and the administration cannot pretend the last seven years didn't happen," Wizner said in a phone interview.

The suit was filed by the ACLU in May 2007 and was dismissed last February. The organization told the federal appeals court yesterday that the suit ought to be reinstated.

The government has invoked the state secrets privilege in a number of cases in recent years, including various suits concerning the National Security Agency's wiretapping program.

Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller declined to discuss the ACLU's suit in San Francisco, citing ongoing litigation. A decision in the case may take several months.

But he said the department will scrutinize all cases involving claims of state secrets.

"The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of state secret privilege to ensure that it is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations," Miller said. "It is vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

 



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by omegis13 on 02/03/09


From Fox Radio today.  Follow the link.  Player at the bottom.


http://libertymaven.com/2009/02/03/ron-paul-and-judge-napolitano-on-collectivism
-and-the-gold-standard/4235/



Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by omegis13 on 01/26/09
Last updated 01/26/09


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50M4BE20090126

Leaders to flock to Davos to discuss economic crisis

Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:24am EST

By Emma Thomasson ZURICH (Reuters)

 

Political leaders and central bankers will dominate this week's annual Davos forum as a chastened business elite is sidelined in the drive to reboot the world economy, improve global security and slow climate change.

More than 40 heads of state and government -- almost double the number last year -- will be joined by 36 finance ministers and central bankers, including the central bank chiefs of all the G8 group of rich countries except the United States.

About 1,400 business executives will also be in Davos but fewer top bankers and captains of industry are expected as they struggle to keep their businesses afloat -- and themselves in a job, mindful of the event's glitzy image in more austere times.

"The pendulum is swinging back to governments now we're grappling with recession," said Thomas Mayer, Deutsche Bank economist. "We're going into a period where more government involvement will mean lower growth and higher inflation."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will open the four-day meeting on Wednesday in the Swiss Alpine resort that is being organized under the title "Shaping the Post-Crisis world."

Also present will be Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as well as Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to new U.S. President Barack Obama.

It is the first time world leaders will get together to discuss the deepening crisis since a meeting of the G20 group of big and emerging countries in Washington in November.

The G20 meets again in April ahead of a G8 summit in July and before that, finance ministers from the Group of Seven nations gather in Rome in mid-February.

The World Economic Forum was set up in 1971 as a business and academic think tank whose motto is "entrepreneurship in the global public interest." Its annual Davos meeting has grown into a huge event that has become a focus of anti-capitalist anger.

The Financial Times newspaper predicted this year's meeting would be characterized by "sobriety and self-recrimination" with fewer glitzy cocktail parties and corporate skiing jaunts.

Instead, participants are invited to an event that simulates life in a refugee camp and asks them to navigate a mine field, while non-profit groups will hand out awards "for outstanding achievements in social and environmental irresponsibility."

GLOBAL RISKS ON AGENDA

A WEF report ahead of the meeting said the main risks facing the world included deteriorating government finances, a slowing Chinese economy and threats to food and health from climate change, along with a lack of global coordination to tackle them.

Worries about protectionism as a response to the downturn are also growing. Around 20 trade ministers meet on Saturday on the sidelines in Davos to discuss long-running Doha trade round talks to open up commerce.

"We have not yet seen the same protectionism in trade with beggar thy neighbor policies of the '30s. And I will fight hard to ensure we do not," Britain's Brown, who will chair the April G20 summit, said on Monday.

"But we also need to ensure we do not exercise a new form of financial mercantilism of retreat into domestic lending and domestic financial markets," he said.

G20 leaders called in November for an outline trade deal by the end of 2008 to help counter the economic crisis.But late last year, World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy decided political differences were still too wide to invite ministers to Geneva to seek a breakthrough.

While the focus will clearly be on the world economy, security challenges like ongoing tensions the Middle East will also be on the agenda, as will climate change, with about 30 energy and environment ministers in attendance.

Klaus Schwab, the forum's founder and chairman, said the meeting would be a chance for leaders to think about the kind of world they wanted to see emerge when the crisis is over.

"What we are experiencing is the birth of a new era, a wake-up call to overhaul our institutions, our systems and, above all, our way of thinking," he said. While this year's meeting illustrates a shift in the balance of power toward governments, political leaders in Davos are likely to get a reminder that the crisis also threatens their own positions after recent civil unrest in several countries.

While activists have been kept away from Davos itself after a demonstration turned violent in 2000, protestors have warned of trouble in Geneva after an anti-capitalist march planned for Saturday to coincide with Davos was banned.

"The WEF is a symbol of the neoliberal policies of the last 20 years that have caused this crisis. We have no confidence that the same people who caused the crisis can solve it," said Laurent Tettamenti, an organizer of the Geneva protest.

(Editing by Mike Peacock)





Categories: Finance, Socialism, World Affairs, Economy, Monetary Policy, Trade
Tags:

Showing comments 1—1 of 1

Posted 01/26/09

ChadSweigert
Annville, PA
"Shaping the Post-Crisis world." - If that doesn't say it all.


You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]

Bookmark and Share
Posted by omegis13 on 01/23/09
Last updated 01/23/09



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012301220.
html?hpid=topnews

 

Suspected U.S. Missile Strikes Kill at Least 20 in Pakistan

Attacks in Northwest Border Province Are First Since Obama's Inauguration

By Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 23, 2009; 1:49 PM

 

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 23 -- At least 20 people were killed in northwest Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan on Friday in two suspected U.S. missile strikes, marking the first such attack in Pakistan's tribal areas since President Obama's inauguration.

A U.S. Predator drone fired three missiles at a compound about two miles from the town of Mirali in the tribal area of North Waziristan about 5:15 p.m., according to a Pakistani security official and local residents. The precision strike leveled a compound, which was owned by local tribal elder Khalil Malik, killing at least 10 suspected militants, including five foreign nationals, according to the Pakistani security official. The site of the attack is about 30 miles east of the Afghan border.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Malik was killed along with his brother and nephew. Authorities in North Waziristan, however, said they have been so far unable to identify any of those killed because militants immediately cordoned off the area. "I suspect a high-value target may be among the dead," the Pakistani security official said.

Jan Mohammad, a local tribesman, said Malik and his relatives probably died in the strike, which sparked panic among Malik's neighbors. Mohammad said that Malik was an influential tribal elder but that he was not known to have links with the Pakistani Taliban or other insurgent groups in the area.

There were conflicting accounts about the number of casualties in the first attack. Local residents said there were at least 11 bodies, but Pakistani television channels said 10 were killed.

The second strike occurred about three hours later near the tribal capital of Wana in South Waziristan, according to a Pakistani political official in the area. A U.S. drone fired two missiles at a compound in the small village of Gangikhel, a little less than 20 miles from the border with Afghanistan. Few details of that attack were available, but local residents said at least 10 were killed and two injured.

Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistani army, declined to comment on the strike, referring calls to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry also declined to comment.

The United States generally does not comment on or confirm whether it is behind missile attacks. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to take questions about the incident at his regular briefing for reporters in Washington on Friday.

The two targeted areas are separated by about 60 miles and long stretches of rugged, ungoverned mountainous terrain. Yet they are bound together by a common allegiance among many ethnic Pashtun tribesmen to two separate insurgent networks in North and South Waziristan. In North Waziristan, hundreds of tribesman have joined a group led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a rebel Afghan fighter, and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani. The Haqqani Network has been linked to dozens of suicide and roadside bomb attacks on U.S., coalition and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan, including an assassination attempt last April on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Although Jalaluddin Haqqani, who received backing from the CIA during the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan in the 1980s, is considered the spiritual head of the group, Sirajuddin is frequently credited with being head of operations.

The Haqqani Network has been battered by missile strikes in Pakistan and aggressive U.S.-led ground raids into territory controlled by the group in the eastern Afghan provinces of Khost and Paktika. Reports of arrests of suspected operatives and strikes on bomb-making compounds have increased within in the past three months with dozens killed and scores detained by coalition forces operating near the border.

In South Waziristan, a number of missile attacks have targeted compounds linked to Pakistani Taliban leader Mullah Nazir. Nazir was appointed the top Taliban commander of the Ahmedzai Wazir tribe in 2006, two years after a U.S. missile strike killed another top Taliban leader known to foster foreign fighters, Nek Mohammed.

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August as the administration of President George W. Bush stepped up pressure on Pakistan to pursue more aggressively Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents in the country's tribal areas.

Regional and intelligence experts say the strikes have improved in precision and have hit several top insurgent commanders in recent months. The notable change in tempo and reported accuracy could be partly attributed to a growing sense of urgency inside the Bush White House as the progress in the seven-year long war in Afghanistan stalled during the waning days of the administration.

Samina Ahmed, director of the International Crisis Group in Pakistan, attributes some of the change to increased cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.

"Given the fact that the past few strikes have actually gotten their targets with minimal or no civilian casualties, there is obviously better cooperation between the U.S. military and Pakistan," Ahmed said. "Now is that coming because of better cooperation from the U.S. military and Pakistani military? That's what the U.S. military seems to be saying. But you have to also consider whether it's not just the military but better cooperation with the civilian government and better human intelligence."

Ahmed and other experts have also noted a shift among U.S. intelligence officials from the use of technology to the use of human surveillance on the ground to pinpoint militant safe havens for such strikes. Suspicions among Taliban militants that coalition forces have deployed local spies in otherwise inaccessible tribal areas has sparked a wave of public executions that have killed dozens in recent months.

"As much as there has been an increase in strikes, there has been an increase in people executed as American spies. The militants don't need to give a reason to kill someone. So that it seems they're taking the threat of possible spies in their midst seriously," Ahmed said. "That type of human intelligence was missing before and perhaps is better now."

Although the Obama administration has signaled its intention to make a sharp break with some Bush policies, including using the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a detention facility for suspected terrorists, the White House indicated that it will proceed cautiously in Pakistan and Afghanistan where the CIA has dominated U.S. strategy since 2001. Pakistani officials have said they are hopeful that the change in the White House will foster greater cooperation on security issues, particularly in the tribal areas where more than 2,000 people died last year in militant-related violence.

Zardari and other Pakistani officials were critical of the United States in the wake of several missile strikes last year. But there was notable silence in Islamabad about Friday's missile strikes with few public officials commenting on the attacks.

Special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.

 





Categories: Foreign Policy, Current Events, War/Military, World Affairs
Tags:

No comments yet.

You must be logged in to post comments.  [Become a member]


Recent Entries

In Latest Plan for Banks, U.S. Could Demand a Voting Stake
Justice Dept. Uses 'State Secrets' Defense - Obama Backs Bush Decision on Rendition Lawsuit
Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano on Collectivism and the Gold Standard
Leaders to flock to Davos to discuss economic crisis
Suspected U.S. Missile Strikes Kill at Least 20 in Pakistan
Obama sets up national network to help policy agenda
Court Backs Some Types of Warrantless Wiretapping
Death, Deficits, and Taxes
For those of you concerned about what Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have planned for your firearms....

omegis13's Blogroll

ChadSweigert
Change Everything
Edward Hipps


omegis13's contacts

Showing contacts 1—10 of 12

View all of omegis13's contacts


RJHarris


retornado30


Muaddib2


young goodman brown


Blunt


ChadSweigert


Edward Hipps


sweetliberty


AxXiom


Fu Manchu











Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org






Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no
responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as
representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]