another valid point Sua, if the aim is to seriously reduce the terrorists funding (and as you say if the courts find that they have been) then i can see it being a worthy cause.
i think i get youir point now, I was taking the ‘We want to do something to get at these people’ to mean they wanted to punish the funders whilst you read it differently (and more likely correctly as ‘these people’ being the terrists themselves who would be seriously affected by their funding being hit in such a way. sound about right or am i still missing your point ?
This argument works against you. We don’t have to buy Arab oil. If We live off of our reserves and bicontinental production, and stop purchasing Arab oil, the price goes down.
**
Please show me where in the economist it says that European bonds are just as safe as Treasuries, because I’ll bet a month’s donuts it says no such thing. And what European bonds are you talking about? Euro bonds, Yankees, or sovereign debt? The reason the bonds pay more is because they are not considered as secure.
**
Do you have a cite for me showing that 500 billion dollars is the dollar amount of assets held in the US by the parties named in the suit? I don’t think it is.
This is all kind of beside the point. The mideast is far more dependant on our economy then we are on theirs. It’s also not so easy for them to take their money and go elsewhere, as a great deal of assets tend to be tied up in products like t-bills and commercial paper which are not so easily liquid without loss when you’re dealing in vast quantities. Any speed bump that hits our bond markets hurts them a lot harder than it hurts us, as they’ll liquefy at a discount, losing money and our markets will tend to recover post exodus (and even if the number is 500 billion that’s not such a big chunk, you know.) Then once they’re out they still have to convert away from dollars and move the assets into other currencies and reinvest them in non-dollar denomintated assets, all of which is going to lose them money.
Then, how do they purchase the goods and services they need without dollars?
For all intents and purposes it is safe to consider these assets as basically inextricable from our economy.
Their assets literally can’t flee, and it would be suicidal of them to try.
“If We live off of our reserves and bicontinental production, and stop purchasing Arab oil, the price goes down.”
I think you are missing the point. Whatever oil the US that it purchases will be influenced by the world price and therefore by Saudi supply. Whether the US in fact buys Saudi oil is largely irrelevant. Increase in the world oil price increase the price of US oil as well.
“Please show me where in the economist it says that European bonds are just as safe as Treasuries…”
And please show me where it says anywhere that US treasury bonds are safer than European bonds. What exactly is your point? Do you know of any major West European government which has defaulted its debt payments or is expected to?
“The reason the bonds pay more is because they are not considered as secure.”
Bond rates depend on a number of things including expected inflation, fisal policy etc. And how would your argument apply a year ago when US interest rates were higher. Were American bonds more risky then?
“Do you have a cite for me showing that 500 billion dollars is the dollar amount of assets held in the US by the parties named in the suit?”
I never said that. I was responding to your point that the Saudis are heavily dependent on the US economy when the opposite is also true. My point was that if Saudi investors start getting freaked out about the US expropriating their assets there will be consequences for the US economy. This lawsuit along with the remarks by that Pentagon speaker about possible expropriation of Saudi assets do just that. You are right that sudden flight comes at a discount but that would be a minor matter if Saudi investors fear outright expropriation. Besides even a steady outflow over a longer period would have consequences for the ability of the US to finance its massive current account deficits.
“Then, how do they purchase the goods and services they need without dollars?”
Um we are talking about the capital account not the current account. Investors purchase investments to get a return not to buy goods and services.
“. . . operation or management of the enterprise itself.” “An enterprise is ‘operated’ not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. . . . An enterprise also might be ‘operated’ or ‘managed’ by others ‘associated with’ the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.” "
Is there any reason to believe that the defendants had these kinds of operational links with the people who planned 9-11. My source also says that defendants who don’t fall in the “organized crime” category have a variety of defences that the courts are sympathetic to.
I’m not trying to be mean, but this gets frustrating. Let me see if I can’t simplify it further. If the U.S. taps it reserves than that means more of a supply of oil on the market. That means lower prices. If the US stops buying Saudi oil, than that takes a major bidder out of the equation. Again, lower prices.
**
What’s my point? My point is that you posted a falsehood. You said European bonds were just as safe as Treasuries and paid more after you consulted The Economist. I know that it doesn’t say Eurobonds are just as safe as Treasuries in there, and I’m challenging you to show where it does or retract your statement.
**
There are some real issues in Europe right now, and you’re asking your question rather simplistically. Bonds aren’t valued by their expectation of default, but rather by the opposite, the ongoing ability of the issuer to pay. XYZ may look very strong right now, but how susceptible is that to change? With a European country with a limited economy and its own currency, that susceptibility is high. This in part is the reason behind the Euro, to stengthen all the economies through unification. That’s why I asked what kind of bonds you were talking about, because that matters as to their relative safety in relation to the dollar and the Treasury. Default isn’t the only issue as well. Inflation and currency fluctuations are also at issue.
On reflection, I’m not going to go into this any further. Trying to equate Euro bonds (and I’m still wondering which ones you’re referring to) with Treasuries in terms of security is a boneheaded and indefensible position. Its a basic fact of the global financial markets that Treasuries are the securest and most liquid form of debt, and not really comparable to European debt any more than a Skyscraper is comparable to a bungalow. That fact is why so much of European debt is in the form of Yankee (dollar denominated) bonds.
**
It would have held just fine a year ago. I don’t recall any huge disconnect between Euro bonds (and you really will have to tell me which ones you are referring to specifically as there are all kinds, with their own peculiarities,) and the Treasury. These things tend to trade on a yield curve, with the whole shebang moving more or less in sync except for local vagaries.
This is why all other bonds in the entire world are universally quoted as a spread vs. the representative treasury. For example, a Kingdom of Sweden 5 year note might be quoted as 175 basis points over (meaning it pays 1.75% more than a five year treasury.) The fact that treasuries are the standard by which all other currencies are measured should tell you something about its preminent position in terms of security and liquidity.
**
Yes you did. Well you implied it anyway when you said:
“500 billions dollars or so is roughly the same as the assets of a big bank and if it all flees the US quickly it will certainly have a big impact on the financial system.”
I take it that your 500 billion is conceded as a WAG and not an actual defensible figure?
**
Yes, I know what you are saying, and I’m not being mean, but you have not qualified your statement to the point where it is meaningful. How big an impact? What kind of consequences?
I happen to think (and I’ve made the argument) that it may not even be possible for the interests named in the suit to extricate their assets from our economy. I also mentioned if they did, the primary consequence would be that Treasury yields would increase, and dollars would ease relative to world currencies. The Saudis would take a bath getting out (and where would they go oce out,) and the resultant higher interest rates and weaker dollar would be a positive boon. Noted economist Dick McCabe has recently pointed to 3.2 trillion dollars in U.S. money market fund assets.
Lest you haven’t noticed, Treasury rates are horrendously low. More liquidity and higher rates would be a boon to those US money market dollars on the sidelines making 1.2% and a weaker dollar relative to foreign currencies would be a strong incentive to foreign dollars to fill the gap created by the exiting Saudis.
In other words, at this particular time and place, a Saudi currency exodus, would hardly cause a ripple, and would likely even benefit our current predicament, by adding some much needed liquidity. Treasuries are at quite a premium, and there’s a lot of dollars searching for yield.
**
If you wish to argue that mideast representation carries that kind of clout, you’re gonna need to back it up, and again, I’ll bet a month’s donuts you can’t because it’s simply a ridiculous proposition. What you beleive is unimportant as I’m sure the oil producing nations have little illusion regarding the vulnerability of their single commodity based economies.
Without our dollars they collapse in months. The U.S. has over two years in reserves right now plus it’s own significant production. Our allies face higher prices and or more dependant, but we could subsidize the oil markets and provide supply for quite some time.
The simple and logically undeniable truth is that financial isolation of the mideast oil producers results almost immediately in the total collapse of their economies and countries, while life is substantially unchanged in the US. We face moderately higher oil prices and the rest of the world faces severe oil price increases for some time. OPEC has only barely been able to hold itself together from internal squabbling in recent years. We’d see it’s instant collapse and very quickly we’d find that the new powers in the mideast desperate to sell oil to us.
Surely you see that a threat of a pullout of Arab investment is a paper tiger of the flimsiest kind. At best they cause us and our allies temporary inconvenience by self-destructing.
The idea is tantamount to a bank robber putting a gun to his head and holding himself hostage.
**
Yes, but they still need to spend their oil money to get the goods and services that they are unable to produce on their own. It’s difficult to do that without dollar denominated assets.
It’s the exact same problem that McDonalds had in Russia. Yeah, the Russians loved the product and lined up to buy it. That much is great, but what do they do with all this shitty Russian currency? What can you buy with it?
The point is that no matter what they do with both capital and current accounts, they are going to have to do it in terms of world markets, and that’s going to mean a significant representation in US dollar denominated assets and securites.
If they pull out and go elsewhere they ultimately hurt themselves more than us. We see a short increase yields (which we need) and a short weakness in the dollar. The Saudis then reinvest elsewhere increasing the prices of whatever they choose. That increase in price drives investment away from those securities and that money hunts for yield finding it in the recently vacated position the Saudis have just left.
The Saudis take take both barrels of the shotgun, they buy and sell-sides as they move the market, and the money they push out floods back in.
It’s like taking a bucket of water out a swimming pool. It doesn’t leave a hole, the rest of the water in the pool fills it, and when you dump the money back in some other part of the pool the net effect is zero.
No matter how much money the Saudis pull out of the deep end of the pool and pour in the shallow end, the deep end isn’t getting any shallower.
They destroy themselves by trying and at worst cause us only ripples.
The idea that we should be worried about the Saudis upsetting our economy by pulling out because we’re suing them is an absurd proposition. They wouldn’t even threaten such a thing. To even try brings on their economic destruction and doesn’t even give us the sniffles.
“. . . operation or management of the enterprise itself.” “An enterprise is ?operated? not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. . . . An enterprise also might be ?operated? or ?managed? by others ?associated with? the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.” "
Is there any reason to believe that the defendants had these kinds of operational links with the people who planned 9-11. My source also says that defendants who don’t fall in the “organized crime” category have a variety of defences that the courts are sympathetic to. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m not trying to be mean, but this gets frustrating. Let me see if I can’t simplify it further. If the U.S. taps it reserves than that means more of a supply of oil on the market. That means lower prices. If the US stops buying Saudi oil, than that takes a major bidder out of the equation. Again, lower prices.
**
What’s my point? My point is that you posted a falsehood. You said European bonds were just as safe as Treasuries and paid more after you consulted The Economist. I know that it doesn’t say Eurobonds are just as safe as Treasuries in there, and I’m challenging you to show where it does or retract your statement.
**
There are some real issues in Europe right now, and you’re asking your question rather simplistically. Bonds aren’t valued by their expectation of default, but rather by the opposite, the ongoing ability of the issuer to pay. XYZ may look very strong right now, but how susceptible is that to change? With a European country with a limited economy and its own currency, that susceptibility is high. This in part is the reason behind the Euro, to stengthen all the economies through unification. That’s why I asked what kind of bonds you were talking about, because that matters as to their relative safety in relation to the dollar and the Treasury. Default isn’t the only issue as well. Inflation and currency fluctuations are also at issue.
On reflection, I’m not going to go into this any further. Trying to equate Euro bonds (and I’m still wondering which ones you’re referring to) with Treasuries in terms of security is a boneheaded and indefensible position. Its a basic fact of the global financial markets that Treasuries are the securest and most liquid form of debt, and not really comparable to European debt any more than a Skyscraper is comparable to a bungalow. That fact is why so much of European debt is in the form of Yankee (dollar denominated) bonds.
**
It would have held just fine a year ago. I don’t recall any huge disconnect between Euro bonds (and you really will have to tell me which ones you are referring to specifically as there are all kinds, with their own peculiarities,) and the Treasury. These things tend to trade on a yield curve, with the whole shebang moving more or less in sync except for local vagaries.
This is why all other bonds in the entire world are universally quoted as a spread vs. the representative treasury. For example, a Kingdom of Sweden 5 year note might be quoted as 175 basis points over (meaning it pays 1.75% more than a five year treasury.) The fact that treasuries are the standard by which all other currencies are measured should tell you something about its preminent position in terms of security and liquidity.
**
Yes you did. Well you implied it anyway when you said:
“500 billions dollars or so is roughly the same as the assets of a big bank and if it all flees the US quickly it will certainly have a big impact on the financial system.”
I take it that your 500 billion is conceded as a WAG and not an actual defensible figure?
**
Yes, I know what you are saying, and I’m not being mean, but you have not qualified your statement to the point where it is meaningful. How big an impact? What kind of consequences?
I happen to think (and I’ve made the argument) that it may not even be possible for the interests named in the suit to extricate their assets from our economy. I also mentioned if they did, the primary consequence would be that Treasury yields would increase, and dollars would ease relative to world currencies. The Saudis would take a bath getting out (and where would they go oce out,) and the resultant higher interest rates and weaker dollar would be a positive boon. Noted economist Dick McCabe has recently pointed to 3.2 trillion dollars in U.S. money market fund assets.
Lest you haven’t noticed, Treasury rates are horrendously low. More liquidity and higher rates would be a boon to those US money market dollars on the sidelines making 1.2% and a weaker dollar relative to foreign currencies would be a strong incentive to foreign dollars to fill the gap created by the exiting Saudis.
In other words, at this particular time and place, a Saudi currency exodus, would hardly cause a ripple, and would likely even benefit our current predicament, by adding some much needed liquidity. Treasuries are at quite a premium, and there’s a lot of dollars searching for yield.
**
If you wish to argue that mideast representation carries that kind of clout, you’re gonna need to back it up, and again, I’ll bet a month’s donuts you can’t because it’s simply a ridiculous proposition. What you beleive is unimportant as I’m sure the oil producing nations have little illusion regarding the vulnerability of their single commodity based economies.
Without our dollars they collapse in months. The U.S. has over two years in reserves right now plus it’s own significant production. Our allies face higher prices and or more dependant, but we could subsidize the oil markets and provide supply for quite some time.
The simple and logically undeniable truth is that financial isolation of the mideast oil producers results almost immediately in the total collapse of their economies and countries, while life is substantially unchanged in the US. We face moderately higher oil prices and the rest of the world faces severe oil price increases for some time. OPEC has only barely been able to hold itself together from internal squabbling in recent years. We’d see it’s instant collapse and very quickly we’d find that the new powers in the mideast desperate to sell oil to us.
Surely you see that a threat of a pullout of Arab investment is a paper tiger of the flimsiest kind. At best they cause us and our allies temporary inconvenience by self-destructing.
The idea is tantamount to a bank robber putting a gun to his head and holding himself hostage.
**
Yes, but they still need to spend their oil money to get the goods and services that they are unable to produce on their own. It’s difficult to do that without dollar denominated assets.
It’s the exact same problem that McDonalds had in Russia. Yeah, the Russians loved the product and lined up to buy it. That much is great, but what do they do with all this shitty Russian currency? What can you buy with it?
The point is that no matter what they do with both capital and current accounts, they are going to have to do it in terms of world markets, and that’s going to mean a significant representation in US dollar denominated assets and securites.
If they pull out and go elsewhere they ultimately hurt themselves more than us. We see a short increase yields (which we need) and a short weakness in the dollar. The Saudis then reinvest elsewhere increasing the prices of whatever they choose. That increase in price drives investment away from those securities and that money hunts for yield finding it in the recently vacated position the Saudis have just left.
The Saudis take take both barrels of the shotgun, they buy and sell-sides as they move the market, and the money they push out floods back in.
It’s like taking a bucket of water out a swimming pool. It doesn’t leave a hole, the rest of the water in the pool fills it, and when you dump the money back in some other part of the pool the net effect is zero.
No matter how much money the Saudis pull out of the deep end of the pool and pour in the shallow end, the deep end isn’t getting any shallower.
They destroy themselves by trying and at worst cause us only ripples.
The idea that we should be worried about the Saudis upsetting our economy by pulling out because we’re suing them is an absurd proposition. They wouldn’t even threaten such a thing. To even try brings on their economic destruction and doesn’t even give us the sniffles.
“. . . operation or management of the enterprise itself.” “An enterprise is ?operated? not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. . . . An enterprise also might be ?operated? or ?managed? by others ?associated with? the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.” "
Is there any reason to believe that the defendants had these kinds of operational links with the people who planned 9-11. My source also says that defendants who don’t fall in the “organized crime” category have a variety of defences that the courts are sympathetic to. **
[/QUOTE]
. “If the U.S. taps it reserves than that means more of a supply of oil on the market. That means lower prices. If the US stops buying Saudi oil, than that takes a major bidder out of the equation.”
The US reserves are at best a short run measure since they have only about half a billion barrels in it. Your point about not buying Saudi oil doesn’t make any sense since presumably the US will buy its oil from somewhere else which will mean world demand is the same.
Your whole point seems to be premised on the notion that there are two oil markets a US one and the rest of the world and beause the US buys relatively less Saudi oil , the Saudis can’t affect US prices. This is just bogus. Like I have said oil is a pretty fungible product with largely a single world market.
“My point is that you posted a falsehood”
I did nothing of the kind. The Economist reference was to the higher interest rates. The fact is that big West European bonds are just as safe as American treasury bonds is common knowledge.
“Trying to equate Euro bonds (and I’m still wondering which ones you’re referring to) with Treasuries in terms of security is a boneheaded and indefensible position”
The figures are basically German 2-year and 10 year govt. bonds. Once again just asserting that US treasuries are the safest investment in the world is no argument. Why do you think the Germany treasury bonds are any less safe. Besides if your argument is that European bonds pay a higher rate because they are riskier that would compensate for the extra risk wouldn’t it and make it just as attractive as an investment?
You still haven’t explained your interpretation for why the European bonds paid a lower rate a year ago. By your (hopelessly crude analysis) that would mean they were safer a year ago right?
“I take it that your 500 billion is conceded as a WAG and not an actual defensible figure?”
I think the Saudis have about 700 billion dollars in the US. The 500 was a hypothetical figure about what would happen if the majority of that money would leave because of a threat of large-scale expropriation. The point is that Saudi investments are big in relation to the a)entire capital account surplus of the US b)the assets of a big bank. Those would be two indicators of the relative importance of Saudi investments.
“If you wish to argue that mideast representation carries that kind of clout, you’re gonna need to back it up, and again, I’ll bet a month’s donuts you can’t because it’s simply a ridiculous proposition”
What kind of argument is this? You just keep repeating your argument and saying any other argument is ridiculous.
I have already given my two main arguments which you haven’t refuted in the least:
1)US oil prices are determined on the world market on which the Saudis are the biggest producer.
2)The Saudis have assets worth more than one year’s capital account surplus and could take that money to Europe if they wanted to.
“How big an impact? What kind of consequences?”
No one can predict in advance what the quantitative effect of a big Saudi capital flight would be of course and that is an irrelevant standard for this debate because you have given zero evidence of the quantitative dependence of the Saudis on the US which you keep repeating.
In particular the Saudis can get by perfectly fine by selling oil to the Europeans and the Asians and investing their proceeds in either market.
“Yes, but they still need to spend their oil money to get the goods and services that they are unable to produce on their own. It’s difficult to do that without dollar denominated assets.”
Huh? The current account covers Saudi needs for goods and services. The capital account by definition is used to by assets and not goods and services. If the Saudis need to invest in non-US assets they don’t need to put that money in dollar-denominated investments.
"The Saudis would take a bath getting out (and where would they go oce out,) and the resultant higher interest rates and weaker dollar would be a positive boon. "
Higher interest rates are supposed to be a “boon” at a time when most economists are worrying about a double-dip recession? Saudi capital flight is supposed to be irrelevant at a time when most economists are scared witless about the US current account deficit (projected to got to about 600 billion dollars in 2003) and how it will be financed.? That’s just silly.
I am not going to bother about the rest of your “argument” except to correct a fallacy:
"The U.S. has over two years in reserves right now "
Wrong. The US strategic petroleum reserve has less than 60 days worth of oil.
My crude analysis? I spent two years as a bond trader. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s not worth the effort to try to inform someone who is both clueless and thinks they know it all.
That Robert Scheer article has been so thoroughly debunked since it was first published that I am amazed someone would even think to cite it. That money, as stated in the original State Department announcement, didn’t even consist of money; it consisted of $28 million worth of surplus wheat, $5 million in other surplus food commodities, and $10 million in other aid. And it never saw the Taliban – it was distributed directly to the people of Afghanistan via NGOs. According to Colin Powell:
Robert Scheer is nothing more than a gutter-journalism liar who got his ass fact-checked and was caught. And he’s never retracted it, either. Meanwhile, conspiracy-theory far-left dolts like Michael Moore publish this baloney as if it were revealed gospel.
“My crude analysis? I spent two years as a bond trader”
Sorry but that doesn’t make you arguments any less crude. It would help next time if you actually learnt about the distinction between the current account and capital account, the meaning of a **world ** market and price about which you are so obviously confused. In any event I have spelt out my position in greater detail and with more thoroughness than your “arguments” merit.
Scylla wrote: “No we don’t rely on the oil. The fact is that we could do without Mideast oil. The problem is that our allies can’t.”
I am absolutely not an expert on this, so I do not even know how many zero’s a trillion has, but I think it is 12.
I also think Scylla is very right!
Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment:
If the Saudi Princes has to pay a trillion and that the US government forces them, their best ally after Israel in the area, to pay, even if the lawsuit is of privet nature.
Now I, the Saudi prince will sell all my bonds, shares, castles or whatever in France and Germany.
Next move: I tell France and Germany that they can buy their oil wherever they want: Russia or US. And I do not lose a fuck of oil. It is still in the ground, isn’t it.
I lose in the way that I put the European business in immediate crisis, but “You fuck my wife, I fuck Yours”. Can I afford it? Of course I can, even if I do not know how the people is suffering, but they do not have votes.
In fact we have never even had an
election. Will they riot? Why should they? They never got the oil-money so far…
(OK, I’m a little bit exaggerating here)
So I decided to half my production for one month. What’s the big deal? If I have one zillion dollars or 1,06 zillion? The price will rocket, just on the rumor…
The (unsold) oil is save in my ground and I gain the lost money back within the next month anyhow.
The others takes the market? Well, there will be market enough in the next 30 years…
The price goes higher every decade, and believe me, I have money to survive…
Read this above, not as “maybe it can work”- but more like “the Saudis or whoever with trillions have whatever they want, and thus surely something in their sleeve”.
Anyhow, they are able to ruin, either the economy of Europe or maybe Japan-Korea.
Either way, where would the US business be after that? Back in the 50ties, relaying on the home-market, I think.
Scylla wrote (much later, down the thread): “It’s the exact same problem that McDonalds had in Russia. Yeah, the Russians loved the product and lined up to buy it. That much is great, but what do they do with all this shitty Russian currency? What can you buy with it?”
I understand what You are speaking about, but it is not so shitty anymore, You can go with roubles to the bank and buy US dollars. Or You can buy metal, wood, whatever and export it to the west.
The profit is good, I can tell You. That is btw. what I am doing here in Russia, even if I am making the other way around = I am investing everything I get. Investing in Russia.
But when I read the OP, I was naturally clicking on the “A link to the ABC News story here.”
Well, I did not come to the page, I came to the front page of ABC News the 16th, of yesterday.
But there I found an interesting article about how evidence is collected.
I do not try hijack this OP, but in the beginning many asked for evidence in this World Trade Center-disaster.
Please read the article: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront.html
of 16th of August 2002.
I try to not violate the copyright laws so I will minimize and partly rephrase the info.:
The headline is: Judge Says Gov’t Misled Him in Terror Probe
An Egyptian student, Abdallah Higazy, was suspected of involvement in the Sept. 11 attack.
<rephrased and a snip>
He was detained after an aviation radio was found in his hotel room overlooking the World Trade Center. Higazy was held without bail for 30 days before being released.
<rephrased and a snip>
Everything centered on prosecutors’ descriptions of a confession obtained from Higazy.
<rephrased and a snip>
First Higazy denied the radio was his, even though a hotel security guard told the FBI he found it in a safe in his room. The radio could be used to communicate with commercial pilots.
<rephrased and a snip>
Prosecutors said Higazy, 31, later confessed during a polygraph examination that the radio was his, and he was charged in January with lying to investigators.
<rephrased and a snip>
The charges were dropped after a pilot came forward to say the radio belonged to him and the security guard withdraw his statement.
<rephrased and a snip>
Higazy and his lawyer charge an unidentified FBI agent extracted the confession by making veiled threats against Higazy’s family in Egypt.
<snip>
The transcripts show a senior prosecutor had concerns about the false confession.
<snip>
Higazy’s lawyer, Robert Dunn, said the documents show authorities are not conducting a thorough investigation. “I have no faith in the government’s resolve to get to the truth here,” he said, adding that prosecutors have only recently asked to talk to Higazy about what happened.
The story comes from The Associated Press
So obviously an American citizen, who is not guilty, says: “I take the fifth!”, and an Egyptian, who is not guilty, says: “I take the chair!”
Or maybe the FBI really threatened this guy. Threats against his family in Egypt.
And maybe the hotel security guard was just an evil man…
What is Your opinion?
Just for the records, it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the above described methods of how the “evidence” was produced in US:
In the Stalin time there was many top-level communists that admitted in the court that they were spies, the were plotting against The Sunny Father (Stalin) etc.
How did the secret police get these confessions?
They just took some relatives to the jail where the “suspect element” was kept, and told that they will shoot them in front of him, if he doesn’t confess. If the “guilty fool” did not believe them, they shot some relatives and told: “If You do not confess, we kill
18 more of Your family”.
So they confessed. Source: The books, not translated into English, by the Finnish top-communist In Soviet Union, (in the 30ties), Arvo Poika Tuominen. I could not find any sites on this.
I hope You just believe me.
I can’t beleive I wasted my time with somebody who thinks Bundesbonds are Pari Passeu with Treasuries.
::Shakes head::
This is why I’m getting to hate GD.
You’re right Cyberpundit. We better be real careful that we don’t offend the Saudis, or they might take away all their money, and our tiny fragile economy will simply collapse.
And I can’t believe I wasted my time with someone who believes that the US has two years of oil reserve and that a weak economy needs higher interest rates.
Oh and next time you want to argue about bonds,interest rates and such you might consider arguments other than your not-terribly-compelling personal authority. You know things like default risk, currency risk,inflation risk etc.
as ‘these people’ being the terrists themselves who would be seriously affected by their funding being hit in such a way. sound about right or am i still missing your point ?