What's worse, (1) using the power of the presidency to capture and detain dangerous terrorists or (2) using that office to negate legal, valid and binding contracts. I vote for (2).
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Comment of the Day
On MoC's fantastic post, explaining how moronic it is to go after AIG over bonus money given out because they were part of legally binding contracts, however much we don't like them, a commenter named Michael said the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What about using the power of the presidency to detain folks who may be terrorists, or maybe not, but we'll never know because we tortured them into insanity before giving them access to lawyers? I'm pretty sure that's worse than either 1) or 2).
ReplyDeleteActually, (2) would still be worse.
ReplyDeleteBut since that never happened - tortured into insanity? really? - and what was done was done legally (whether you like it or not), I find the comparison to be rather disingenuous.
I'm glad I'm not the only one disturbed by this whole hubbub over the bonuses. The bailout money was so AIG could cover its debts, and these were among them. Yes, it's tasteless, but you don't see congress getting up laws against Britney Spears.
ReplyDelete...or was that also a disingenuous comparison?
ReplyDeleteAs with anything, it's not so simple as "there were contracts." There's an excellent legal analysis here about what AIG could have done, legally and strategically to not pay.
ReplyDeleteIs it worth the government's outrage? Not sure. But I don't think it's farfetched to give the government some voice in how the billions of dollars they gave AIG gets used.
Lon - LOL
ReplyDeleteNoyam - Come on. They're saying basically that they could withhold and try to defend, or have tried to renegotiate through "cause". The odds of getting specific employees to renegotiate on cause in this type of case is basically zero, and even if they did win if sued, the costs would have been huge - and the odds are would be that they lose. It's politically expedient to say "hey, that's wrong", but when it comes down to it, this is silliness.
Ezzie....on the other hand, what would the likelihood be of even getting sued, in Connecticut and under CT law, if they did withhold? Considering that the legal arguments seem to favor them, and the public support would have favored them, I don't think they would have faced many suits at all to recover that money. And if they did, they would essentially settle/renogotiate anyway.
ReplyDeleteNoyam - I think they would have. Remember, this is a large % of these people's money, and they are counting on it. Most are not millionaires. They would go after it if they felt they had a strong case, which they would. Public sentiment doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter.
ReplyDeletebut you don't see congress getting up laws against Britney Spears.
ReplyDeleteBritney Spears wasn't paid with your money.