Thursday, May 30, 2013
Fearing Recession, France Hits Brakes on Austerity (analysis of a Wall Street Journal paper, written for my Financial Derivatives Class)
Fearing Recession, France Hits Brakes on Austerity
Last Year, Francois Hollande was merely a candidate in the French elections. At the time, the public debt was 90% of the GDP. Growth had been had been dormant for five years. High unemployment had become the norm. Mr. Hollande claimed to want return France to its triple-A rating and reduce its massive debt. He promised to add new jobs and increase the retirement age. Mr. Hollande also planned to raise taxes on the wealthy to decrease the deficit. He was elected, but he has not improved the French economy, despite his promises.
The President started increasing taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit. This failed, as he had to abandon his vow to reduce the deficit by 3% of annual output. He explained that additional tax increases and spending cuts could make things worse. France is suffering from an unanticipated weaker recovery. Mr. Hollande promised to tackle shortfalls in the pension and unemployment benefit programs, however it does not appear, that he accomplished this. Currently, President Hollande is backing away from more austerity programs as per his recent statements documented in the Wall Street Journal. He said that he “regards more austerity at this stage as a risk, not a remedy”. However, slowing the deficit reduction will increase France’s debt, which is being observed by credit ratings agencies.
The fear is that reducing budget deficits at this time may launch France into a recession. Mr. Hollande may have made this decision based on observation of the debacle that was the US fiscal policy. The US government tried to fix the country’s economic problems by introducing a series of stimulus packages. As a result, US deficit increased and is projected to continue to increase. Instead of fixing things, the stimulus made things worse. It seems that for both the US fiscal policy (the stimulus) and the French government’s failure to restructure its economy, turning around a country’s economy is ‘easier said than done.’
Analysis of the Dodd–Frank Act (Paper written for my Financial Derivatives Class
Congress responded to the economic crisis by enacting the most comprehensive financial reform legislation since the Great Depression. Congress members Barney Frank and Chris Dodd proposed the Act. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on July 21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act introduces significant changes in how over the counter derivatives are regulated. Title VII, the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010 refers to over the counter (OTC) swaps markets, credit default swaps and credit derivatives regulation. The purpose of the legislation is to limit extensive risk in the financial system and to solve the problems of "too big to fail." It also creates consumer protections.
According to the Act, a derivative transaction is “any transaction that is a contract, agreement, swap, warrant, note, or option that is based, in whole or in part, on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities, securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, or other assets.”(Section 610 of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Securities and Exchange Commission). Title VII of the Dodd- Frank Act seeks to avoid systemic risk and increase transparency in the OTC derivatives market. It aims to decrease systemic risk by demanding central clearing of unregulated derivatives and by requiring more capital and liquid collateral to back derivative trades.
This allows regulators to monitor and respond to excessive risk taking. Central clearing systems would give regulators and clearing houses the ability to decide which contracts should be cleared. In section 610, the Act discusses lending limits applicable to credit exposure on derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing transactions. It will create stronger lending limits by making derivatives part of the bank’s lending limits. Non-financial companies will not be allowed t have counter party credit exposures. Threats to the financial systems in large volumes of activities in derivatives purchased or sold is subject to capital requirements. A new rule known as the Volcker rule has been added to the Dodd–Frank Act in 2012. This new legislation separates investment banking, private equity and proprietary trading sections of financial institutions from their consumer lending support. Insured depository institutions are not allowed to engage in proprietary trading. Proprietary trading occurs when occurs when a company trades stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, or their derivatives with the company's own money, instead of its profits from services rendered, to generate income for the company itself.
According to section 611, which refers to the consistent treatment of derivative transactions in lending limits, an insured state bank may engage in a derivative transaction in the state in which the bank is chartered. The transaction will be subjected to the credit exposure of a member bank from a securities borrowing and lending transactions. Hedging and other traditional bank activities are permissible.In 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) conducted a study, which is recorded in section 719.b of the Dodd-Frank Act, on the "feasibility of requiring the derivatives market to adopt standardized computer-readable algorithmic descriptions which may be used to describe complex and standardized financial derivatives." Based on feedback from the public and an investigation and analysis from the staff, the joint study concludes that current technology is capable of representing derivatives using a common set of computer-readable descriptions. These descriptions can be used for calculations of net exposures and to serve as part or all of a binding legal contract. These descriptions will also be used by commercial use and traders, clearing houses, trade repositories and other regulators.
The Dodd-Frank Act regulates both the swap transactions and the parties that enter into swap transactions. The Act has deemed it “ unlawful for any person to receive money, securities, or property (or to extend any credit in lieu of money, securities, or property) from, for, or on behalf of a swaps customer to margin, guarantee, or secure a swap cleared by or through a derivative clearing organization (including money, securities, or property accruing to the customer as the result of such a swap), unless the person shall have registered under this Act with the commission as a futures commission merchant, and the registration shall not have expired nor been suspended nor revoked” (section 724 of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Securities and Exchange Commission).
Financial institutions that engage in a substantial amount of derivative activity will be heavily affected by this rule, more so than companies that only use OTC derivatives to hedge commercial risk. The CFTC defines a swap as almost every OTC common derivative in the market. This definition includes interest-rate swaps, forwards, and options commodity swaps forwards and options and many types of foreign currency forwards options and swaps. Credit default swaps will be regulated by both the CFTC and the SEC. The Dodd-Frank does not regulate every swap transaction. Interest-rate swaps are transactions that fall under the rules and regulation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Other types such as forward transactions however, may be harder to determine if they are swaps or a type of derivative outside the umbrella of the Dodd-Frank. In keeping with the consistent treatment of derivative transactions, there will be limits on swaps or security based swap activities to hedging and other similar risk avoiding activities. This will be equal to acting as a swaps entity for swaps or security based swaps involving rates or reference assets. Credit risk of asset-backed securities is considered a bank permissible activity unless the swaps or securities are cleared by a derivative clearing organization. Most swaps were privately negotiated transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act imposed a mandatory clearing requirement that these types of transactions are to be cleared in clearing houses.
A clearing house is a financial institution that provides clearing and settlement services for derivative transactions. Derivative transactions such as ones executed on futures or securities exchanges as well as the OTC. The clearing house acts as a middle man, receiving and distributing payments after forming a contract between the original parties. Its purpose is to decrease the risk of any clearing firm or exchange that is not compliant with rules in its trade settlement. It reduces the settlement risks by demanding margin deposits as collateral, providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, monitoring the credit worthiness of the clearing firms, and by providing a guarantee fund that covers losses that exceed a defaulting clearing firm's collateral deposit.
Clearing houses are responsible for settling trading accounts, clearing trades, and regulating delivery and reporting trading data. Swaps or other derivatives that have not been accepted are to be reported to the CFTC. Reduction of systemic risk to financial structure will occur only if clearing houses refrain from accepting the counter party credit risk of another clearing house. Section 731 of the Dodd- Frank act refers to registration and regulation of swap dealers and major swap participants. It states that it will be illegal for any person to act as a swap dealer unless the person is registered as a swap dealer with the commission. It will also be unlawful for any person to act as a major swap participant unless the person is registered as a major swap participant with the Commission.
Any swaps or other derivatives that have not been accepted must be reported to the CFTC to reduce systemic risk. Reduction of systemic risk to financial structure will occur only if clearing houses refrain from accepting the counter party credit risk of another clearing house. Section 731 requires the adoption of capital requirements for swap dealers that are not subject to the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration or the Federal Housing Finance Agency regulation. Creating capital requirements ensures the safety of the swap dealers and protects the funds of the consumer. The CFTC and the SEC has consulted these regulators while developing these requirements. The suggested capital requirements also affects swap dealers that may be registered as futures brokers. Margin requirements provided by the capital requirements are designed for risk management purposes in order to protect the financial integrity of transactions and not margin accounts.
There are always advantages and disadvantages that come with any major decision. However it seems that when the US. Government steps in to create, control or correct certain reforms certain weakness or loopholes become exposed. The purpose of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was to eliminate the risky and abusive practices for OTC derivatives, asset backed securities, hedge funds and mortgage brokers that were unregulated. It implemented new rules for clarity and accountability for credit rating agencies that are tough, in order to protect companies and investors. It enforced need for reporting all derivative transactions. It seeks to strengthen oversight and empower regulators to aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation discovered in the system that may benefit special interests groups at the expense of Americans and their businesses.
The financial industry can make use of the new computer readable descriptions which will give both traders and regulators easier access to the transactions that are happening expose where there might be chances of higher risk taking. Bail outs are not an option under the Dodd-Frank act. Institutions, after having being registered under the Dodd-Frank Act, are going to be held accountable for its actions. Now that the exchange markets must be registered, they have to follow rules enforced by the CFTC. Failure to follow these rules may result in these companies having their licenses revoked or they can simply be fined. Clearing houses as mentioned before will have to report all transactions within a certain time period. The clearing house will also have to report any swap that they did not clear, to the CFTC. The CFTC will then review the un-cleared swaps and serve final judgment.
The benefits of more derivative regulation include better risk management. Companies and banks can hedge against the sudden rise or fall in the value of currencies or commodities. More information will be available, thus leading the way to better risk reduction. Another benefit is prevention of a collapse of the economy. More transparency allows for identification of systemic risk build ups. This helps in averting an economy crisis. With more regulation comes more responsibility. This includes more and better tracking of the derivatives market where in the investors can see an assortment of trading in real time, higher levels of clarity concerning the complexities of the derivatives market and regulation facilities for buyers and sellers of such instruments to trade in more regulated exchanges.
Although the Dodd-Frank contains rules that go further than regulating banks in order to prevent another financial crisis, Mitt Romney, a presidential candidate in 2012 wanted to repeal the Act. He claimed that it designated a number of banks as too big to fail and rendered them effectively guaranteed by the federal government. In my opinion however, the Dodd-Frank didn’t create “too big to fail” institutions. The banks themselves did because it made them money. Banks are banks, they will continue to grow larger and have actually become more concentrated since the recession. No President was going to let trillion dollar financial institutions go down. The economy would be in shambles. However, the economy is still not at its greatest. The negative aspects to more derivative regulation unfortunately include the very purpose of the bill, the reduction of risk. Most investors are attracted to derivative transactions because of its well-known characteristic of being high risk. To them the risk implies greater reward, higher profit potential. The introduction of more regulation, to the investors means undermining the very concept of derivatives, which are disguised bets. Investors are likening derivative regulation to playing poker while everyone can see your hand. More regulation might mean the shrinking of the derivatives market. Transparency within the market can lead to more liquidity, making the market more competitive. High levels of competition will result in dealers of derivatives experiencing low profits yields.
Another undesirable effect is that the amount speculation within the market has increased. Speculators do not mind risk. They prefer to bet on a price of an asset, on whether it will go up or down. The joint transactions of hedgers and speculators create the advantage of price discovery. By including all data and expectations concerning future costs, derivatives markets generate prices that usually function as indicators for transactions within the underlying money market.
Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is apprehensive about increased speculation. He said that “Despite a clear directive from Congress to rein in excessive speculation, regulators still are listening too much to Wall Street and not acting quickly enough to protect American consumers.” Unfortunately people will always find a way to do what they want, to bend the rules. The Dodd-Frank Act certainly cannot combat human nature. According to the Dodd-Frank Act, investors must retain large amounts of money to cover any derivative losses.
Traders are now repackaging swaps into futures. Since futures are less regulated, some investors are taking larger positions while reserving smaller amounts of money. Some investors are exploiting the commodities market by way of buying and selling swaps without having to report it. When the rules in the Dodd-Frank Act became effective, exchange markets that operate a futures marketplaces, introduced commodities that enabled swaps traders to become futures traders. In a survey conducted by the Swiss Bank of UBS, it is expected that investors may replace 20-25% of their swaps with futures. The trend of turning swaps contracts futures undermines the purpose of the rules of the Dodd-Frank, rendering them unreliable. Congress felt that the lack of regulation of derivatives added to the 2008 fall of the financial industry. Warren Buffet was quoted in 2003 as saying that “Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction”. Prior to the economic downfall, a lot of large financial institutions experienced a lot of unrealized losses from highly leveraged speculative positions in OTC markets. This lead the government to then hand down a series of stimulus packages, and bail-out ‘Too big to fail’ companies such as insurance company American International Group Inc. (AIG) The company nearly collapsed under the weight of losses on credit derivatives Since the trades were not regulated, the exposures of investors throughout the entire system could not be quantified. Coincidentally, there are commonalities between the Great Depression of 1929 and 2008's recession. The Dodd-Frank Act was formed to prevent repeating history. I fear however that it was just a hasty reaction and the quest to regulate everything will not work fully. When a crisis affects an economy, investors end up being more wounded than the rest of society. With that fact, more regulation of the derivatives market does bring added benefits to the investors, but the question is does the good outweigh the bad. I do not think so. For the past several decades, Wall Street told the government that if it cannot do things the way it always has, and if the government changes the rules to mandate greater transparency and consumer protection, they will not be able to make money and it would stunt the industry. That is a bit extreme, but I do believe there should be some regulation, just not one of a constricting nature.
The reason behind regulating derivatives is that they stimulate systemic risks within the financial system. However some derivatives, like interest rate swaps, have not been known to cause systemic risk because their values change slowly and seasoned investors understand its characteristics. Even though there has been no indication that interest rate swaps played a part in the economic downturn of 2008, Congress has suggested more regulative rules for physical commodities and stock. Thoughtlessly grouping commodity regulation with financial derivatives applies the wrong tool within the wrong application. The result would be ineffective regulation Congress should consider searching for proof of the actual derivatives that caused the financial crisis. They should then create specific rules to tackle specific problems instead of trying to regulate everything, apply the new regulation to the derivative products, institutions, or market systems that caused economic harm. These rules should drive them investors rather than discourage them into risk-mitigating uses of financial derivatives. The Dodd-Frank Act is a reform that is a little more than a frantic resolution to do anything to regulate financial derivatives. Congress must figure out a way to show why particular derivatives need to be more closely regulated and that the rules they propose will actually reduce risks in financial markets.
Is the Dodd-Frank Act a good thing? It could do one of two things, perfect the system or it could drive the whole derivative system to fall apart. I don't think the bill should be repealed, but it should definitely be reworked. It seems that the Act will be left to serve its purpose. Whether the Act will, and the degree to which the reform will reduce systemic risk is a mystery. We will have to wait and see.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
All’s fair in war?
Danatra Taylor
Did this soldier receive just reward for his crime, or did he deserve more. I believe rape, especially of a 14 year old is a heinous crime, premeditated murder is equally wrong. The average verdict of the premeditated murder (first degree murder) is 25 to life. Should he have received a heavier sentence? I believe so. I am not saying that anybody the kills another person deserves the death penalty, but this crime is among those that do. This crime included hatred/discrimination for and against a certain people because of the situation he was placed in. Many including myself, believe this crime was deserving of the death penalty, however many can also argue that the sentence he received was just. There are many elements to cover. Like the psychological strains of the war, the mental stability of the soldier at the time of the crime. What frame of mind was he in, can he claim temporary insanity. Can an ‘I was drunk’ excuse certify that the crime as a spur of the moment type or did his inebriety heighten his quest. Then there were many warning signs detected and overlooked by the army.
According to the army stress counselor, Private Green wanted to take revenge on Iraqis including civilians. The counselor labeled Green’s unit ‘mission incapable’ because of poor morale, high combat stress and anger over the deaths of their fellow soldiers. The counselor said that it needed stronger supervision and rest. It received neither, testimony revealed. The counselor told the Kentucky jury that most of the soldiers have thoughts like this and dismissed it thinking that Private Green knew that the killing of innocent civilians was wrong. Obviously the neglect and overlooking of the army resulted in those innocent deaths in part. Looking back however showed that Green was considered very impulsive. He only got into the army on a so-called moral waiver because he had had problems with drugs and alcohol.
Could these murders have been prevented by denying his entry into the army way back when? The army recruited a highly volatile person. Impulsive people do not think about their actions before the do them nor do the show much remorse for doing so; instead they try to justify it. However I do not believe that the tragedy that occurred would have been prevented just by the denial of entry of one soldier. Any of the soldiers that claimed to want to harm civilians could have done it. The army having had privy to feelings such as those of the Ex soldier, should have made some attempt immediately, at extensive therapy for him, and others like him. In my opinion there were enough warnings to suggest that Private Green was a volatile soldier. Private Green had left after being given an honorary discharge on a diagnosis for a personality disorder just weeks before his arrest. The mere fact that he received the honorary discharge showed that they knew this all along. He should have been evaluated and diagnosed after the visit with the counselor. I know of therapy treatment for soldiers when the return home, however there should also be effective modes of therapy for soldiers still abroad.
Although I do think the Army could have prevented this tragedy, most the blame must of course goes to the perpetrator. This crime however many people contributed was solely the result of an impulsive angry man. The punishment for his crime was indeed lighter than he deserved. He raped a child, killed another child and both their parents, regardless of their nationality. The Iraqi authorities were outraged and felt if he had been tried in Iraq he would have gotten a heavier sentence. I have not doubts about that and I do believe that is why it was not. This crime is the first since 2000 that has been tried in America that was done overseas. I do not know if premeditation has levels but the way this crime was done clearly showed that the ex soldier was very much aware of what he was doing, not mentally challenged.
According to the New York Times (pub may 21 2009) on the night of May 11th 2006, after drinking Iraqi whiskey, Mr. Green, along with other soldiers, wearing civilian clothing, broke into the home of the Iraqi girl who lived nearby. The soldiers that were with Private Green, testified that the soldier killed the girl’s parents and younger sister, before raping her. Then the soldier shot the girl in the head with an AK-47 that was in the family’s possession. According to both Iraqi and American authorities, the murders/murder scene was so bloody that they thought it was done by insurgents. A fellow soldier acknowledged Private’s Green and the others as the criminals. This was malicious and heinous, he knew what he was doing and he wanted to do it. The crime was vengeful, and in my opinion showed more of his impulsive nature than.
The Kentucky jury after 12 hours of deliberation ended up being hung, which resulted in the lesser sentence. If not would he have gotten the death penalty? Whatever the case, it is what he really deserves? I do believe Private Green was given grace. I guess he should thank his lucky stars, because the Iraqi judges feel that death was the only retribution. Of course we can argue that the Iraqi government just wants the serve the death penalty because perpetrators are American. I am on the fence about that because it could be true, but a premeditated murder is wrong no matter who does it, or who the victim is. He raped a 14 year old and killed her whole family. I believe had he done this in America, the American public would feel the same as the Iraqis. This was a vengeful act yet it cannot be based on vengeance alone. This man, regardless of his trauma, was clearly racist and discriminating. They jury and Judge allowed a man to live and be eligible for parole after taking 4 innocent lives, purposefully and maliciously. Not punishment enough in my opinion. Why is his life being spared after he decisively and vengefully disregarded the lives of others? Fair is fair, yet as the saying goes, life is not fair.
Reference:
https://online.valenciacc.edu/webct/ Discussions, Current events: Ex Soldier receives capital punishment for killing Iraqi citizen http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22soldier.html?_r=2&hpw
Did this soldier receive just reward for his crime, or did he deserve more. I believe rape, especially of a 14 year old is a heinous crime, premeditated murder is equally wrong. The average verdict of the premeditated murder (first degree murder) is 25 to life. Should he have received a heavier sentence? I believe so. I am not saying that anybody the kills another person deserves the death penalty, but this crime is among those that do. This crime included hatred/discrimination for and against a certain people because of the situation he was placed in. Many including myself, believe this crime was deserving of the death penalty, however many can also argue that the sentence he received was just. There are many elements to cover. Like the psychological strains of the war, the mental stability of the soldier at the time of the crime. What frame of mind was he in, can he claim temporary insanity. Can an ‘I was drunk’ excuse certify that the crime as a spur of the moment type or did his inebriety heighten his quest. Then there were many warning signs detected and overlooked by the army.
According to the army stress counselor, Private Green wanted to take revenge on Iraqis including civilians. The counselor labeled Green’s unit ‘mission incapable’ because of poor morale, high combat stress and anger over the deaths of their fellow soldiers. The counselor said that it needed stronger supervision and rest. It received neither, testimony revealed. The counselor told the Kentucky jury that most of the soldiers have thoughts like this and dismissed it thinking that Private Green knew that the killing of innocent civilians was wrong. Obviously the neglect and overlooking of the army resulted in those innocent deaths in part. Looking back however showed that Green was considered very impulsive. He only got into the army on a so-called moral waiver because he had had problems with drugs and alcohol.
Could these murders have been prevented by denying his entry into the army way back when? The army recruited a highly volatile person. Impulsive people do not think about their actions before the do them nor do the show much remorse for doing so; instead they try to justify it. However I do not believe that the tragedy that occurred would have been prevented just by the denial of entry of one soldier. Any of the soldiers that claimed to want to harm civilians could have done it. The army having had privy to feelings such as those of the Ex soldier, should have made some attempt immediately, at extensive therapy for him, and others like him. In my opinion there were enough warnings to suggest that Private Green was a volatile soldier. Private Green had left after being given an honorary discharge on a diagnosis for a personality disorder just weeks before his arrest. The mere fact that he received the honorary discharge showed that they knew this all along. He should have been evaluated and diagnosed after the visit with the counselor. I know of therapy treatment for soldiers when the return home, however there should also be effective modes of therapy for soldiers still abroad.
Although I do think the Army could have prevented this tragedy, most the blame must of course goes to the perpetrator. This crime however many people contributed was solely the result of an impulsive angry man. The punishment for his crime was indeed lighter than he deserved. He raped a child, killed another child and both their parents, regardless of their nationality. The Iraqi authorities were outraged and felt if he had been tried in Iraq he would have gotten a heavier sentence. I have not doubts about that and I do believe that is why it was not. This crime is the first since 2000 that has been tried in America that was done overseas. I do not know if premeditation has levels but the way this crime was done clearly showed that the ex soldier was very much aware of what he was doing, not mentally challenged.
According to the New York Times (pub may 21 2009) on the night of May 11th 2006, after drinking Iraqi whiskey, Mr. Green, along with other soldiers, wearing civilian clothing, broke into the home of the Iraqi girl who lived nearby. The soldiers that were with Private Green, testified that the soldier killed the girl’s parents and younger sister, before raping her. Then the soldier shot the girl in the head with an AK-47 that was in the family’s possession. According to both Iraqi and American authorities, the murders/murder scene was so bloody that they thought it was done by insurgents. A fellow soldier acknowledged Private’s Green and the others as the criminals. This was malicious and heinous, he knew what he was doing and he wanted to do it. The crime was vengeful, and in my opinion showed more of his impulsive nature than.
The Kentucky jury after 12 hours of deliberation ended up being hung, which resulted in the lesser sentence. If not would he have gotten the death penalty? Whatever the case, it is what he really deserves? I do believe Private Green was given grace. I guess he should thank his lucky stars, because the Iraqi judges feel that death was the only retribution. Of course we can argue that the Iraqi government just wants the serve the death penalty because perpetrators are American. I am on the fence about that because it could be true, but a premeditated murder is wrong no matter who does it, or who the victim is. He raped a 14 year old and killed her whole family. I believe had he done this in America, the American public would feel the same as the Iraqis. This was a vengeful act yet it cannot be based on vengeance alone. This man, regardless of his trauma, was clearly racist and discriminating. They jury and Judge allowed a man to live and be eligible for parole after taking 4 innocent lives, purposefully and maliciously. Not punishment enough in my opinion. Why is his life being spared after he decisively and vengefully disregarded the lives of others? Fair is fair, yet as the saying goes, life is not fair.
Reference:
https://online.valenciacc.edu/webct/ Discussions, Current events: Ex Soldier receives capital punishment for killing Iraqi citizen http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22soldier.html?_r=2&hpw
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Closing of Guantanamo bay Pros and cons.
Danatra Taylor
July 19, 2009
The Guantanamo Bay Detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been the subject of many news columns. (Such as CNN news articles to articles from the New York Times talking about the treatment of prisoners, to the recent talks of closing the Facility. Established in 1903, it is a detainment facility operated by the Joint task Force, Guantanamo of the United States Government. It houses prisoners found guilty of supporting and engaging in terrorism. The type of people detained have either been people suspected of having key roles in terrorism, moles, messengers or even chauffeurs, for instance, A man named Salm Hamdan had been imprisoned at GITMO for being a driver for Osama Bin Laden.(Adapted from Wikipedia.com article on Guantanamo bay Detention facility.)
There have been many allegations that suggested that the Guantanamo bay prison was very inhumane prison. There have been a number of complaints from the prisoners, citing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution. There have also been a substantial amount of Suicides and Suicide attempts. In 2004 Three Muslims prisoners from Britain, commonly known as the Tipton three (because they hailed from Tipton England), were released without being charged. These three men complained of experiencing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution, from the U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay. According to Wikipedia’s article on the Guantanamo bay’s detention camp, former prisoners, upon their release have talked about their horrible situation there. Mehdi Ghezali whom was also freed without charge in 2004 claimed that he was the victim of repeated torture. Other former detainees Omar Deghayes, Juma Al Dossary and David Hicks have claimed to have suffered being blinded by pepper spray, being interrogated hundreds of times, beaten, tortured with broken glass, barbed wire, burning cigarettes, and being sexually assaulted.
According to CNN, during the first 100 days of his presidency, President Barak Obama proposed an order to close Guantanamo Bay prison. However his plan was beyond being set in stone. This proposal has induced strong opinions from people both for and against the closing of the prison facility. In a New York Times article, it was revealed that the proposal to close the Prison and relocate the detainees into the United States, provoked a bipartisan Congressional protest, And after Lawmakers expressed alarm, over the fact that detainees, considered not to be security threats, might be resettled in the United States, the House and Senate voted to bar the resettlement of the detainees in this country. However the Obama administration is obviously for the effort of closing the prison, but they are worried that with all the problems against them, they might not make the January 2010 deadline for closure. Senior officials believe that the treatment of detainees at The Guantanamo Prison symbolizes the excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies.
I believe that before the prison is closed, some pros and cons should be written to determine whether it is a profitable proposal or an arduous situation. According to one of the officials close to the transition (one who was not authorized to speak of the proceedings), one of the reasons for closing military prison was that “the legal framework at GITMO has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists”. Closing the prison will indeed place a strain on those who must decide the fate of the prisoners. President Obama has said that ‘although it is difficult, it is going to be done, but part of the challenge is that a number of persons have been detained at the prison facility in Cuba, many of whom have not been put on trial for their alleged crimes. I fail to see how the closing of the facility in Cuba will solve the problem of a speedy and fair trial for detainees who are enemies of these United States. In fact the United States of America is now faced with the problem of possibly housing significantly dangerous terrorist on her own soil, bringing the enemy within striking distance. If the problem is just that prisoners have not been granted a speedy trial, how is closing the whole facility going to guarantee justice for the detainees of Guantanamo Bay detention centre or peace and safety to the people of the United States of America?
The closing of the prison should be because of the torture and inhumane treatment. The fact the some of the prisoners are being detained without having had a proper trial is wrong, but no grounds for closing down the prison. We must ask how safe is it to close a facility that contains some of the world’s most dangerous and formidable criminals, terrorists. In CNN news article on His proposed closer of the Guantanamo prison, President Obama has also stated that he was trying to develop a process that, "doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.” How does closing the maximum security prison that detains such vile people fit into this process? Is it then safe to assume that these detainees will be in a prison while waiting and during their trial somewhere else? If so, it will obviously have to be a local American prison that pales in comparison, to the security of Guantanamo bay.
In my opinion, the president should instead implement ways and means by which the prisoners at Guantanamo prison are treated as humanly as possible, while keeping the fact that they are extremist killers in perspective. Although there should not be any rendering of evil for evil, it is quite ironic for these detainees to be complaining of the same injustices that they bestow upon their victims. In the interest of justice and democracy the voices of the detainees need to be heard and those who are guilty of inhumane acts against them be made to answer for such evil. However one must ask how many of Americas own dangerous criminals are released because of inhumane acts of prison officers? Could be very or few none. Consequently they should not have a right to be released just because of ill-treatment, its prison, they need to adapt, and as the old saying goes ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.’
It is difficult for prison guards to realize that these are indeed people (people who view the average American as casualties to their just cause). Yet I don’t believe that there will be any less torture if they were in gismo or any federal prison. We must consider that the terrorist are not remiss in their effort to undermine the security of the United States. They do their homework well in studying and analyzing the security system of their target the fact that they are multifaceted, intelligent and educated makes them infiltrate society unnoticed. Subsequently the complaints of torture may be another ploy for early release. I believe that lower security prisons are inadequate hence dangerous for holding extremists and terrorist. Terrorist have a hatred for America and the absence of torture will not change their attitude. Guantanamo bay should stay open because, regardless of what goes on there, it is safer for the average American to facilitate these detainees at Guantanamo bay prison, but the torture should not be allowed.
Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Prisoner_complaints
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/
July 19, 2009
The Guantanamo Bay Detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been the subject of many news columns. (Such as CNN news articles to articles from the New York Times talking about the treatment of prisoners, to the recent talks of closing the Facility. Established in 1903, it is a detainment facility operated by the Joint task Force, Guantanamo of the United States Government. It houses prisoners found guilty of supporting and engaging in terrorism. The type of people detained have either been people suspected of having key roles in terrorism, moles, messengers or even chauffeurs, for instance, A man named Salm Hamdan had been imprisoned at GITMO for being a driver for Osama Bin Laden.(Adapted from Wikipedia.com article on Guantanamo bay Detention facility.)
There have been many allegations that suggested that the Guantanamo bay prison was very inhumane prison. There have been a number of complaints from the prisoners, citing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution. There have also been a substantial amount of Suicides and Suicide attempts. In 2004 Three Muslims prisoners from Britain, commonly known as the Tipton three (because they hailed from Tipton England), were released without being charged. These three men complained of experiencing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution, from the U.S. forces at Guantánamo Bay. According to Wikipedia’s article on the Guantanamo bay’s detention camp, former prisoners, upon their release have talked about their horrible situation there. Mehdi Ghezali whom was also freed without charge in 2004 claimed that he was the victim of repeated torture. Other former detainees Omar Deghayes, Juma Al Dossary and David Hicks have claimed to have suffered being blinded by pepper spray, being interrogated hundreds of times, beaten, tortured with broken glass, barbed wire, burning cigarettes, and being sexually assaulted.
According to CNN, during the first 100 days of his presidency, President Barak Obama proposed an order to close Guantanamo Bay prison. However his plan was beyond being set in stone. This proposal has induced strong opinions from people both for and against the closing of the prison facility. In a New York Times article, it was revealed that the proposal to close the Prison and relocate the detainees into the United States, provoked a bipartisan Congressional protest, And after Lawmakers expressed alarm, over the fact that detainees, considered not to be security threats, might be resettled in the United States, the House and Senate voted to bar the resettlement of the detainees in this country. However the Obama administration is obviously for the effort of closing the prison, but they are worried that with all the problems against them, they might not make the January 2010 deadline for closure. Senior officials believe that the treatment of detainees at The Guantanamo Prison symbolizes the excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies.
I believe that before the prison is closed, some pros and cons should be written to determine whether it is a profitable proposal or an arduous situation. According to one of the officials close to the transition (one who was not authorized to speak of the proceedings), one of the reasons for closing military prison was that “the legal framework at GITMO has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists”. Closing the prison will indeed place a strain on those who must decide the fate of the prisoners. President Obama has said that ‘although it is difficult, it is going to be done, but part of the challenge is that a number of persons have been detained at the prison facility in Cuba, many of whom have not been put on trial for their alleged crimes. I fail to see how the closing of the facility in Cuba will solve the problem of a speedy and fair trial for detainees who are enemies of these United States. In fact the United States of America is now faced with the problem of possibly housing significantly dangerous terrorist on her own soil, bringing the enemy within striking distance. If the problem is just that prisoners have not been granted a speedy trial, how is closing the whole facility going to guarantee justice for the detainees of Guantanamo Bay detention centre or peace and safety to the people of the United States of America?
The closing of the prison should be because of the torture and inhumane treatment. The fact the some of the prisoners are being detained without having had a proper trial is wrong, but no grounds for closing down the prison. We must ask how safe is it to close a facility that contains some of the world’s most dangerous and formidable criminals, terrorists. In CNN news article on His proposed closer of the Guantanamo prison, President Obama has also stated that he was trying to develop a process that, "doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.” How does closing the maximum security prison that detains such vile people fit into this process? Is it then safe to assume that these detainees will be in a prison while waiting and during their trial somewhere else? If so, it will obviously have to be a local American prison that pales in comparison, to the security of Guantanamo bay.
In my opinion, the president should instead implement ways and means by which the prisoners at Guantanamo prison are treated as humanly as possible, while keeping the fact that they are extremist killers in perspective. Although there should not be any rendering of evil for evil, it is quite ironic for these detainees to be complaining of the same injustices that they bestow upon their victims. In the interest of justice and democracy the voices of the detainees need to be heard and those who are guilty of inhumane acts against them be made to answer for such evil. However one must ask how many of Americas own dangerous criminals are released because of inhumane acts of prison officers? Could be very or few none. Consequently they should not have a right to be released just because of ill-treatment, its prison, they need to adapt, and as the old saying goes ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.’
It is difficult for prison guards to realize that these are indeed people (people who view the average American as casualties to their just cause). Yet I don’t believe that there will be any less torture if they were in gismo or any federal prison. We must consider that the terrorist are not remiss in their effort to undermine the security of the United States. They do their homework well in studying and analyzing the security system of their target the fact that they are multifaceted, intelligent and educated makes them infiltrate society unnoticed. Subsequently the complaints of torture may be another ploy for early release. I believe that lower security prisons are inadequate hence dangerous for holding extremists and terrorist. Terrorist have a hatred for America and the absence of torture will not change their attitude. Guantanamo bay should stay open because, regardless of what goes on there, it is safer for the average American to facilitate these detainees at Guantanamo bay prison, but the torture should not be allowed.
Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Prisoner_complaints
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Media in American Politics.
Danatra Taylor
July 25, 2009
The Media in American Politics
According to the online Webster dictionary, the media, or mass media are the Verbal visual numerical, written and audio transmissions that are extensively distributed to the public. The Person Text, Government by the people, defines media as a means of communication that has been called “the other government’ or the fourth branch of government’. Media includes Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Cinema, the World Wide Web, Television and all other electronic devices of communications. Modern Americans can get the news from a variety of available sources of media; however the television is the major form of news broadcasting. From my observation, the importance of media coverage regarding politics to the American public is that the media greatly influences the opinions of the people. During the presidential Elections, for instance, the media is saturated with commentary coverage of the candidate’s campaigns to give voters both positive and negative view of their aspiring representatives.
Advantages and disadvantages of the media in American Politics:
Advantages: 1) during era when America was establishing herself as a nation, there were limited news sources/media, and many people, especially in rural areas were ignorant of the happenings in their own country. Therefore, only town meetings, letters, and local news paper were available information to the public. Nowadays, the political arena is a stress filled race whereby the American Public are attacked by countless amounts of information via television coverage of rallies and campaigns, radio, internet, newspapers and billboards, all contending for the attention of the general public with hopes of winning their admiration and support. 2) The President has the right to receive mass media news /television coverage, in the interest of informing the public of issues that will undoubtedly affect our lives in our country. This also gives the American public firsthand knowledge of the presidency. 3) Allows viewers to see every aspect of the campaign journey of the candidates.
Disadvantages: Unfortunately, the general public has to wade through the bog of negative advertisement to find the issues important to their convictions while trying to find the best person that would provide the best representation to all the peoples of the United States 1) The Private lives of the President and other politicians are often public knowledge. 2) The fact that the lives of politicians are always in the media leaves little room for past or present mistakes or acts of impropriety, for instance, the presidential candidates or other politicians are often discovered in illegal or immoral behavior. The media will ensure that the American public and the world at large will know of the act(s) within a few days. This sort of information impedes the campaign journey, reputation and reelection potential for any hopeful politician. For example, President Clinton’s stint with Monica Lewinski, John Edward cheating on his wife, not to mention the many governors that have been caught soliciting prostitutes. 3) Certain news carriers may be biased towards a particular party. For example, in my opinion, FOX news is particularly republican whereas CNN by my own observation has a tendency to be categorically democrat. 4) The media inadvertently or perhaps intentionally by design lead people to view political campaigns as just a contest rather than the engagement of serious discussion of issues and concerns that affect us all.
The different attitudes on the media in politics: According to the Pearson Text, Government by the People; the television has changed the nature of American politics, the instant coverage of the happenings in the world increases the pressure on leaders to respond quickly to crises, permits terrorists to gain widespread coverage of their actions, and elevates the role played by the president in both domestic and international politics. Noam Chomsky of the Chomsky reader stated that “the entire American broadcast media and most of the print media as well, are owned primarily by wealthy individuals. Direct ties to the biggest of big businesses are almost unbelievably extensive and we believe these ties cannot help but seriously bias and compromise news coverage. Moreover, the media empires are, first and foremost, profit-making corporations that conduct themselves much like other corporations with the understanding of ‘he who has the gold rules’.
I believe both the media and politicians do their fair share of damage to the political process. However the media is not going away, Face it, politics is big business. Responsible news providers make it their business to get important information to the general public with the expectation that people are wise enough to make up their own minds about who is best to represent their interest and that of the country. Politicians need to realize that in the political arena, your life and your words are not confidential; therefore one in politics must strive to be politically and morally upright. Of course we know that human nature will cause them to slip up, but a slip up should not be a month long stint with a prostitution ring or the hiring of call girls. Knowledge of right and wrong must be in mind at all times. As far as campaigns go, the American public cannot be blamed for treating the campaigns like competitions because the politicians do it also. All politicians should realize and want what is best for the country and push themselves in that regard.
Recently, President Barak Obama got caught up in an ongoing and side taking battle, when he learnt that a friend of his Professor Gates, from Harvard University, a black man was arrested in his own home by a white officer. The President stated that although he did not have all the details, the Police acted stupidly and racial profiling is still running rampant in the country. This caused a major upsets in the police department, colleagues of the officer that made the arrest, as well as other members of the American public. Another disadvantage of the media is that after statements have been made, that could possibly upset a number of people, no matter how many retractions, and your statements almost always live on in the minds exposed to the information. Politicians need to have major levels of discernment, and decide when to speak out and when to keep mum on the matter. Not knowing all the details is grounds for the latter. It is much more sensible to wait until one is privy to all of the facts before one can carelessly make statements that will stir up strong emotions among people who still experience what was implied or the people who want to believe that such acts are in the past. However we also need to realize that President Barak Obama is a man entitled to his own opinions like the rest of us. His opinion may be influenced by the fact that he is a black man who grew up in an era when being black did not always work in a young man’s favor whether rich or poor, educated of ignorant the eyes of prejudice saw only ‘black’. Perhaps the outraged people do not want to believe that such prejudice still exist in this day and time. But the Black and Latino population knows that such a thought is wishful thinking.
Reference: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_burns_govbrief_5/0,7874,770542-,00.html
U.S. Government: A Look Inside. Thomas Byrnes
http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/index.html
NOTE: This is a little old but I used it for my starter since this is my first time blogging
July 25, 2009
The Media in American Politics
According to the online Webster dictionary, the media, or mass media are the Verbal visual numerical, written and audio transmissions that are extensively distributed to the public. The Person Text, Government by the people, defines media as a means of communication that has been called “the other government’ or the fourth branch of government’. Media includes Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Cinema, the World Wide Web, Television and all other electronic devices of communications. Modern Americans can get the news from a variety of available sources of media; however the television is the major form of news broadcasting. From my observation, the importance of media coverage regarding politics to the American public is that the media greatly influences the opinions of the people. During the presidential Elections, for instance, the media is saturated with commentary coverage of the candidate’s campaigns to give voters both positive and negative view of their aspiring representatives.
Advantages and disadvantages of the media in American Politics:
Advantages: 1) during era when America was establishing herself as a nation, there were limited news sources/media, and many people, especially in rural areas were ignorant of the happenings in their own country. Therefore, only town meetings, letters, and local news paper were available information to the public. Nowadays, the political arena is a stress filled race whereby the American Public are attacked by countless amounts of information via television coverage of rallies and campaigns, radio, internet, newspapers and billboards, all contending for the attention of the general public with hopes of winning their admiration and support. 2) The President has the right to receive mass media news /television coverage, in the interest of informing the public of issues that will undoubtedly affect our lives in our country. This also gives the American public firsthand knowledge of the presidency. 3) Allows viewers to see every aspect of the campaign journey of the candidates.
Disadvantages: Unfortunately, the general public has to wade through the bog of negative advertisement to find the issues important to their convictions while trying to find the best person that would provide the best representation to all the peoples of the United States 1) The Private lives of the President and other politicians are often public knowledge. 2) The fact that the lives of politicians are always in the media leaves little room for past or present mistakes or acts of impropriety, for instance, the presidential candidates or other politicians are often discovered in illegal or immoral behavior. The media will ensure that the American public and the world at large will know of the act(s) within a few days. This sort of information impedes the campaign journey, reputation and reelection potential for any hopeful politician. For example, President Clinton’s stint with Monica Lewinski, John Edward cheating on his wife, not to mention the many governors that have been caught soliciting prostitutes. 3) Certain news carriers may be biased towards a particular party. For example, in my opinion, FOX news is particularly republican whereas CNN by my own observation has a tendency to be categorically democrat. 4) The media inadvertently or perhaps intentionally by design lead people to view political campaigns as just a contest rather than the engagement of serious discussion of issues and concerns that affect us all.
The different attitudes on the media in politics: According to the Pearson Text, Government by the People; the television has changed the nature of American politics, the instant coverage of the happenings in the world increases the pressure on leaders to respond quickly to crises, permits terrorists to gain widespread coverage of their actions, and elevates the role played by the president in both domestic and international politics. Noam Chomsky of the Chomsky reader stated that “the entire American broadcast media and most of the print media as well, are owned primarily by wealthy individuals. Direct ties to the biggest of big businesses are almost unbelievably extensive and we believe these ties cannot help but seriously bias and compromise news coverage. Moreover, the media empires are, first and foremost, profit-making corporations that conduct themselves much like other corporations with the understanding of ‘he who has the gold rules’.
I believe both the media and politicians do their fair share of damage to the political process. However the media is not going away, Face it, politics is big business. Responsible news providers make it their business to get important information to the general public with the expectation that people are wise enough to make up their own minds about who is best to represent their interest and that of the country. Politicians need to realize that in the political arena, your life and your words are not confidential; therefore one in politics must strive to be politically and morally upright. Of course we know that human nature will cause them to slip up, but a slip up should not be a month long stint with a prostitution ring or the hiring of call girls. Knowledge of right and wrong must be in mind at all times. As far as campaigns go, the American public cannot be blamed for treating the campaigns like competitions because the politicians do it also. All politicians should realize and want what is best for the country and push themselves in that regard.
Recently, President Barak Obama got caught up in an ongoing and side taking battle, when he learnt that a friend of his Professor Gates, from Harvard University, a black man was arrested in his own home by a white officer. The President stated that although he did not have all the details, the Police acted stupidly and racial profiling is still running rampant in the country. This caused a major upsets in the police department, colleagues of the officer that made the arrest, as well as other members of the American public. Another disadvantage of the media is that after statements have been made, that could possibly upset a number of people, no matter how many retractions, and your statements almost always live on in the minds exposed to the information. Politicians need to have major levels of discernment, and decide when to speak out and when to keep mum on the matter. Not knowing all the details is grounds for the latter. It is much more sensible to wait until one is privy to all of the facts before one can carelessly make statements that will stir up strong emotions among people who still experience what was implied or the people who want to believe that such acts are in the past. However we also need to realize that President Barak Obama is a man entitled to his own opinions like the rest of us. His opinion may be influenced by the fact that he is a black man who grew up in an era when being black did not always work in a young man’s favor whether rich or poor, educated of ignorant the eyes of prejudice saw only ‘black’. Perhaps the outraged people do not want to believe that such prejudice still exist in this day and time. But the Black and Latino population knows that such a thought is wishful thinking.
Reference: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_burns_govbrief_5/0,7874,770542-,00.html
U.S. Government: A Look Inside. Thomas Byrnes
http://www.progressiveliving.org/mass_media_and_politics.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/index.html
NOTE: This is a little old but I used it for my starter since this is my first time blogging
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)