Barry Manilow, eh? If you don't think it's torture and want to make such an idiotic, asinine statement...well, to echo what someone wrote on another thread...I wonder how much you would have to be waterboarded to admit that it was torture...

See, here's the thing; by some of the definitions I've seen, being forced to listen to Barry Manilow is torture.

I understand...I wasn't so much directing my question towards you, but rather, towards anyone who doesn't think it's torture...

How, exactly, is waterboarding not torture...

I believe it is torture. What I was saying is that our society isn't close to a unanimous, or even significant majority agreement on this.

The fact that we, as a society, can't agree on whether or not water boarding is torture...

How, exactly, is waterboarding not torture...

Really? Does that mean we shouldn't see prosecutions of the people who acted on legal advice as regards interrogation procedures?

I certainly hope not. The fact that we, as a society, can't agree on whether or not water boarding is torture, then there is no reason to expect that those following the orders should have recognized them as illegal orders. Under those circumstances, "just following orders" is a valid excuse.

Likewise if DOJ and OLC lawyers were giving good-faith advice based on their understanding of the law, I don't believe they should be prosecuted. However, if the ABA wants to punish them for their decisions, that's their prerogative.

The only reason I'd want to see prosecutions is if somebody gave advice they knew was bad in order to enable someone else's personal or political ambitions, or after the fact in order to protect cover up or protect those who broke the law.

Being wrong, no matter how loudly and arrogantly wrong, still isn't a crime.

Really? Does that mean we shouldn't see prosecutions of the people who acted on legal advice as regards interrogation procedures?

While this maybe be technically correct, I believe it was the case the modifications to CRA was one of the vehicles that allowed some of the abuses to take place. IIRC, I believe that CRA was modified during Clinton's second term that incorporated some of these types of changes (the repeal of Glass-Steagall).

I'd say it was the primary cause, myself.

Or conversely, CRA has not been repealed, but all the bad loans stopped. What happened?

THey ran outta money?

That blog ran an essay a little while back about the torture memos. IIRC Ryan's cynical/scientific view was that they'd change nothing, because we've had long enough to become settled in our beliefs. New data would not be strong enough to overcome that. We aren't that rational.

That's something to be aware of, in ourselves, and be on watch for.

We wouldn't want to say "Barney Frank, Dobb and a whole supporting cast of Politicians caused this world wide meltdown" when the data has just shown otherwise. It's very human to do that, but it's wrong, irrational, biased.

Again ... It Wasn't Fannie and Freddie

"And starting in 2002, Fannie Freddie (pink line, click on chart to enlarge) lost market share to ABS (light blue line)"

Dracovert, I think that these things keep boiling down to "ecouragement" that people want to paint as "mandate." If they were mandated, they'd show up in the loan percentages, in the gross data, which they don't. See my previous link and chart.

In 1998, the Boston Federal Reserve Bank issued a summarizing paper called, “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.” The Appendix of this paper contains a (then current) list of the various laws and regulations pertaining to CRA and related ordinances. This paper from the Boston Fed was adopted throughout the federal system, and explicitly stated that “equal opportunity” (sub-prime) lending was safe, and reinforced the requirement of lending institutions to make such loans under penalty of law. The Boston FRB paper further relaxed standards for loans by reducing the down payment and the borrower’s income requirements in applying for a mortgage loan, giving specific instructions on how to make an otherwise "unqualified" borrower to appear qualified. The relaxed standards applied to everyone equally. There was an implicit assumption by the government that the value of housing would never go down, the only possible rationale for mandating mortgages for people who did not have the income to repay their note; even if the note could not be repaid the ever-increasing value of the property would cover any losses.

In summary, at the end of the Clinton Administration the government required that:

* Banks and lending institutions give mortgages to people who were previously ineligible for such mortgages due to insufficient assets (down payment) or insufficient income, or both;

* The relaxed standards for mortgage lending were extended to all;

* Mortgages were bundled and securitized without regard to quality, that is, good mortgages were bundled with bad mortgages and sold worldwide; and

* Refusal to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers could result in legal action and financial penalties.

So, were the banks "greedy"? Well, after the federal government explicitly approved loans to unqualified borrowers and required, under penalty of law, that such loans loans be issued, one cannot identify greed as a primary cause of the mortgage fiasco. The banks did exactly what the federal government mandated for them, issue loans to unqualified borrowers.

All of the subsequent trillions of dollars of mortgage problems thus hinged on government, primarily Democratic Party, actions/incompetence. Republican actions to reform the mortgage system and Fannie and Freddie were met with resistance and blocking actions by Democrats in congress, primarily Dodd and Frank.

If you want to understand how we got in this mess, the very best summary is contained in the Boston FRB paper, “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.”

"The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation."

Wikipedia

Not only that:

"The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis."

and:

"Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA."