French President Warns Of Immediate Military Intervention Hours After Reporting Soaring Unemployment

While we are sure it is just a coincidence that hours after his nation reports record and soaring unemployment rates, French President Hollande announces a doubling of troops in Central African Republic (CAR) deciding to “intervene immediately” after the UN authorization, adding “this intervention will be quick. It has no vocation to last and I’m sure it will be a success,”

  • *FRANCE HAS DUTY TO INTERVENE, HOLLANDE SAYS
  • *HOLLANDE SAYS CENTRAL AFRICA MASSACRES CONTINUING
  • *HOLLANDE SAYS SITUATION CENTRAL AFRICA `ALARMING, FRIGHTENING’

The US State Department “welcomes France’s decision to reinforce its military presence,” adding that, the US is “appalled by today’s reports of the murder of innocent women and children outside of Bangui.”

Of course, it wouldn’t be the modern-day war without drones, and as IB Times reports, a fleet of five unarmed drones will help U.N. troops monitor the vast Central African country of 66 million people, which has been plagued by violent militias for decades.

 

Hollande… (via DPA),

French President Francois Hollande said Thursday he had decide to intervene “immediately” in the Central African Republic, after the United Nations authorized an intervention by African and French forces.

 

France would double its current troop deployment of 600 “within a few days, if not a few hours,” Hollande said in an address from the Elysee Palace.

 

“This intervention will be quick. It has no vocation to last and I’m sure it will be a success,” he said, pledging to regularly brief the nation on its progress.

 

Hollande emphasized that France would be acting “together with Africans and the support of European partners” and assured that the country has “no other objective than to save human lives.”

From the US State Dept.

The United States remains committed to supporting the international community’s efforts to find a solution that protect civilians, restores security, ensures greater humanitarian access, and puts CAR on a path back to democratic governance.

Drone use raises questions…(Via IB Times),

Such high-technology systems allow a better knowledge of what is happening on the ground, which allows a force to better do its job,” said Hervé Ladsous, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations.

 

 

But there are some concerns about the U.N. drone program’s transparency and regulatory framework. “Congo is in many ways a laboratory for U.N. peacekeepers with a range of equipment and a range of experiments being used,” said Phil Clark, a political professor at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, to Deutsche Welle. “But I think there are big questions here. Such as, what is it like for a non-state actor to use drones and this type of equipment, what kind of information will it be gathering, who exactly will have access to that information and what will they do with it and so I think we need a lot more clarity from the U.N. as to exactly how these drones will be used.

As the Keynesian train rolls on, when all else fails, declare war… all that non-deflatinary ammunition production and waste…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/A4fyxPsslzc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Those “Too Big To Stay In Jail” Walk: The “GE Three” Go Free

From Jonathan Weil, originally posted in Bloomberg

The “GE Three” Go Free

It wasn’t long after three former General Electric Co. executives were convicted of rigging auctions for municipal-bond investment contracts that they received the ultimate sendoff: A 7,400-word torching in Rolling Stone magazine by Matt Taibbi, the writer who branded Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with the nickname “vampire squid.”

“Someday, it will go down in history as the first trial of the modern American mafia,” Taibbi began his June 2012 opus about Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm. “Over 10 years in the making, the case allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.”

Then came a surprise last week, right before Thanksgiving. A federal judge ordered the men released from prison. An appeals court had reversed their convictions the day before, without explanation. An opinion would be issued “in due course,” it said. Bloomberg News ran a short story this week. The rest of the news media barely noticed.

Americans tend to like their crime stories simple: Good guys catching bad guys and sending them to jail. Nuances and complexities can complicate morality tales. The country is still baying for blood after the financial crisis. Folks want the people who they think helped crash the economy locked up and fed bread and water in place of Cristal and lobster.

The case against the former GE bankers is a reminder that high-profile financial-crime cases rarely are cut and dry. Even when prosecutors win, they still might lose later, especially if the defendants can afford top-notch appellate lawyers. Until last week the GE Three were considered criminals. Now they are innocent in the eyes of the law, and we don’t even know why yet. It’s possible that the government will appeal further and win in the end. A resolution seems far from final.

A reversal like this helps explain why some prosecutors might hesitate to bring difficult white-collar cases to trial. The Justice Department seemed to pull back from pursuing financial-crisis cases after two former Bear Stearns Cos. hedge-fund managers were acquitted of fraud charges in 2009. (One of the jurors said after their trial that she would invest with them if she had the money.) It’s easier to rack up wins by going after small fry for simpler crimes.

Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm each had been convicted on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors accused them of paying kickbacks to brokers hired by cities and towns to oversee the bidding on municipal-investment contracts, which local governments use to invest the proceeds from bond sales. Goldberg was sentenced to four years in prison. Carollo and Grimm got three years each.

Although the appeals court hasn’t yet explained its decision, the defendants claimed that the statute of limitations had elapsed by the time they were indicted in 2010. They also complained that they hadn’t been allowed to finish cross-examining one of the government’s key witnesses after he attempted suicide during a break. The government said he couldn’t return for further questioning.

Continue reading here


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/4kfpNP-ugjQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Those "Too Big To Stay In Jail" Walk: The "GE Three" Go Free

From Jonathan Weil, originally posted in Bloomberg

The “GE Three” Go Free

It wasn’t long after three former General Electric Co. executives were convicted of rigging auctions for municipal-bond investment contracts that they received the ultimate sendoff: A 7,400-word torching in Rolling Stone magazine by Matt Taibbi, the writer who branded Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with the nickname “vampire squid.”

“Someday, it will go down in history as the first trial of the modern American mafia,” Taibbi began his June 2012 opus about Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm. “Over 10 years in the making, the case allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.”

Then came a surprise last week, right before Thanksgiving. A federal judge ordered the men released from prison. An appeals court had reversed their convictions the day before, without explanation. An opinion would be issued “in due course,” it said. Bloomberg News ran a short story this week. The rest of the news media barely noticed.

Americans tend to like their crime stories simple: Good guys catching bad guys and sending them to jail. Nuances and complexities can complicate morality tales. The country is still baying for blood after the financial crisis. Folks want the people who they think helped crash the economy locked up and fed bread and water in place of Cristal and lobster.

The case against the former GE bankers is a reminder that high-profile financial-crime cases rarely are cut and dry. Even when prosecutors win, they still might lose later, especially if the defendants can afford top-notch appellate lawyers. Until last week the GE Three were considered criminals. Now they are innocent in the eyes of the law, and we don’t even know why yet. It’s possible that the government will appeal further and win in the end. A resolution seems far from final.

A reversal like this helps explain why some prosecutors might hesitate to bring difficult white-collar cases to trial. The Justice Department seemed to pull back from pursuing financial-crisis cases after two former Bear Stearns Cos. hedge-fund managers were acquitted of fraud charges in 2009. (One of the jurors said after their trial that she would invest with them if she had the money.) It’s easier to rack up wins by going after small fry for simpler crimes.

Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm each had been convicted on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Prosecutors accused them of paying kickbacks to brokers hired by cities and towns to oversee the bidding on municipal-investment contracts, which local governments use to invest the proceeds from bond sales. Goldberg was sentenced to four years in prison. Carollo and Grimm got three years each.

Although the appeals court hasn’t yet explained its decision, the defendants claimed that the statute of limitations had elapsed by the time they were indicted in 2010. They also complained that they hadn’t been allowed to finish cross-examining one of the government’s key witnesses after he attempted suicide during a break. The government said he couldn’t return for further questioning.

Continue reading here


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/4kfpNP-ugjQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Cops: “If we have to get a warrant…we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs”

Eric CrinnianEric Crinnian, an attorney in Kansas
City, Missouri, says police came to his door looking for parole
violators, and got upset when he refused them permission to tramp
through his house and paw through his possessions. In fact, he
claims, one cop went so far as to threaten to shoot his dogs if he
made them abide by the requirements of the law by getting a search
warrant to look through his home. Remarkably, a criminal justice
professor says the police actions may not be illegal, though they
could be awkward in court.

According to
Fox 4 News in Kansas City
:

Eric Crinnian, a lawyer,  heard a loud banging at his door
Monday night, he was instantly alarmed since a neighbor’s house was
robbed a few weeks ago, so he grabbed a crow-bar.

Crinnian said three police officers were outside his house.

“I open the door a little bit wider and he sees that I have
something in my hand, so he pulls his gun, tells me to put down
whatever I’ve got and then come out with my hands up, so I do,”
Crinnian said.

They wanted to know where two guys were, and Crinnian later
found out police believed they violated parole.

“I said, ‘I have no idea who you’re talking about I’ve never
heard of these people before,’” he said.

To prove it, he said police asked to search his house, Crinnian
refused multiple times.  He said they needed a warrant.

Then he said one police officer started threatening him saying,
“If we have to get a warrant, we’re going to come back when you’re
not expecting it, we’re going to park in front of your house, where
all your neighbors can see, we’re gonna bust in your door with a
battering ram, we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs, who are my
family, and then we’re going to ransack your house looking for
these people.”

The police department
is following the usual script, insisting it is internally
investigating Crinnian’s Office of
Community Complaints
report, so you can probably safely assume
that officials hope this case will fall into the void where most
grievances against police go to die. Then again, as a lawyer,
Crinnian may have a little more recourse than most, and perhaps a
better shot at keeping his front door on its hinges.

Eric Crinnian's dogJohn Hamilton, an
associate professor of criminal justice administration
at Park
University and a retired Major with the Kansas City, Missouri,
Police Department, told the news station that the officers’ threats
may not be illegal, though they’re inappropriate and it’s possible
they violate department policy. He also pointed to the matter of
appearances, saying that such behavior “makes it tenuous when you
appear in front of the court in a case like that.”

But Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at The George Washington
University Law School,
isn’t convinced that it’s legal to threaten to shoot people’s dogs
and otherwise humiliate them if they insist on the protections of
the Fourth Amendment
. “It would in my view be a little more
than inappropriate and could constitute a crime. While it could be
a tough case on this evidence, one possibility would be a criminal
threat.”

Turley points (accidentally, I think) to a
Kansas statute
regarding “criminal threat.” But Missouri has a
statute
that defines a “credible threat
…against the life of, or a
threat to cause physical injury to, or the kidnapping of, the
person, the person’s family, or the person’s household members or
domestic animals or livestock” as aggravated stalking and might fit
the bill in this situation. However, that law explicitly
exempts law enforcement officers “conducting investigations of
violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law,” which is
more than a little disturbing.

Really? It’s OK to threaten people’s lives, their family, and
their pets if you’re a cop?

If it is legal to threaten people with violence if they
stand on their rights, it shouldn’t be, Turley adds. I’d have to
agree.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/cops-if-we-have-to-get-a-warrantwere-gon
via IFTTT

Cops: "If we have to get a warrant…we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs"

Eric CrinnianEric Crinnian, an attorney in Kansas
City, Missouri, says police came to his door looking for parole
violators, and got upset when he refused them permission to tramp
through his house and paw through his possessions. In fact, he
claims, one cop went so far as to threaten to shoot his dogs if he
made them abide by the requirements of the law by getting a search
warrant to look through his home. Remarkably, a criminal justice
professor says the police actions may not be illegal, though they
could be awkward in court.

According to
Fox 4 News in Kansas City
:

Eric Crinnian, a lawyer,  heard a loud banging at his door
Monday night, he was instantly alarmed since a neighbor’s house was
robbed a few weeks ago, so he grabbed a crow-bar.

Crinnian said three police officers were outside his house.

“I open the door a little bit wider and he sees that I have
something in my hand, so he pulls his gun, tells me to put down
whatever I’ve got and then come out with my hands up, so I do,”
Crinnian said.

They wanted to know where two guys were, and Crinnian later
found out police believed they violated parole.

“I said, ‘I have no idea who you’re talking about I’ve never
heard of these people before,’” he said.

To prove it, he said police asked to search his house, Crinnian
refused multiple times.  He said they needed a warrant.

Then he said one police officer started threatening him saying,
“If we have to get a warrant, we’re going to come back when you’re
not expecting it, we’re going to park in front of your house, where
all your neighbors can see, we’re gonna bust in your door with a
battering ram, we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs, who are my
family, and then we’re going to ransack your house looking for
these people.”

The police department
is following the usual script, insisting it is internally
investigating Crinnian’s Office of
Community Complaints
report, so you can probably safely assume
that officials hope this case will fall into the void where most
grievances against police go to die. Then again, as a lawyer,
Crinnian may have a little more recourse than most, and perhaps a
better shot at keeping his front door on its hinges.

Eric Crinnian's dogJohn Hamilton, an
associate professor of criminal justice administration
at Park
University and a retired Major with the Kansas City, Missouri,
Police Department, told the news station that the officers’ threats
may not be illegal, though they’re inappropriate and it’s possible
they violate department policy. He also pointed to the matter of
appearances, saying that such behavior “makes it tenuous when you
appear in front of the court in a case like that.”

But Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at The George Washington
University Law School,
isn’t convinced that it’s legal to threaten to shoot people’s dogs
and otherwise humiliate them if they insist on the protections of
the Fourth Amendment
. “It would in my view be a little more
than inappropriate and could constitute a crime. While it could be
a tough case on this evidence, one possibility would be a criminal
threat.”

Turley points (accidentally, I think) to a
Kansas statute
regarding “criminal threat.” But Missouri has a
statute
that defines a “credible threat
…against the life of, or a
threat to cause physical injury to, or the kidnapping of, the
person, the person’s family, or the person’s household members or
domestic animals or livestock” as aggravated stalking and might fit
the bill in this situation. However, that law explicitly
exempts law enforcement officers “conducting investigations of
violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law,” which is
more than a little disturbing.

Really? It’s OK to threaten people’s lives, their family, and
their pets if you’re a cop?

If it is legal to threaten people with violence if they
stand on their rights, it shouldn’t be, Turley adds. I’d have to
agree.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/cops-if-we-have-to-get-a-warrantwere-gon
via IFTTT

UK Wants EU’s Free Movement Policy Changed

The British
government wants to change one of the only good things about the
European Union.

From the
BBC
:

Britain wants to change the rules governing the free movement of
people across the EU, Home Secretary Theresa May will tell European
ministers.

Mrs May will speak in Brussels, ahead of the lifting of movement
controls on Bulgarians and Romanians.

She says free access to labour markets must not be allowed to
lead to “mass migration”.

However, some countries have already vowed to defend what they
regard as a fundamental EU principle.

EU justice and home affairs ministers will meet in Brussels on
Thursday.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
 widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.


from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/uk-wants-eus-free-movement-policy-chang
via IFTTT

UK Wants EU's Free Movement Policy Changed

The British
government wants to change one of the only good things about the
European Union.

From the
BBC
:

Britain wants to change the rules governing the free movement of
people across the EU, Home Secretary Theresa May will tell European
ministers.

Mrs May will speak in Brussels, ahead of the lifting of movement
controls on Bulgarians and Romanians.

She says free access to labour markets must not be allowed to
lead to “mass migration”.

However, some countries have already vowed to defend what they
regard as a fundamental EU principle.

EU justice and home affairs ministers will meet in Brussels on
Thursday.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7
.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the
 widgets
here
. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at 
@reason247.


from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/uk-wants-eus-free-movement-policy-chang
via IFTTT

Trouble For Treasurys, The Technicals Tell

Treasuries are resuming their bear trend, with 10yr yields pushing above 2.839%, the Nov-21 high and BofAML’s MacNeil Curry warns “Treasuries are in trouble.” They continue to target a break of 3.00% in the sessions ahead. This is the September/3m range highs. However, they are most focused on 5yr yields and TYH4 (10Y March futures). Remember, Curry cautions, with the MOVE Index turning higher, Treasuries are moving into a more volatile environment. Price action in the next week or so could be explosive. Of course, while the trend (and consensus) is your friend in this view, given the Fed’s dominant position, there is always the chance of a short squeeze.

Via BofAML,

US 5yr yields are completing a 2m Head and Shoulders Base on the push above 1.449%/1.473%. A daily close above 1.449%, ideally 1.473% confirms this formation, targeting 1.670%/1.659% and potentially beyond.

We prefer to express this view by selling TYH4. It is completing a 2m Head and Shoulders Top on the break of 124-20+/124-14+. Downside targets are seen to 122-06+ in the weeks ahead. We recommend scaling into shorts at 124-14+ and then 124-20+, with a stop above the Dec-03 high at 125-07. More conservative accounts should wait for a daily close below 124-14+ (or a FRIDAY close to avoid event risk).

Sell TYH4 at 124-14+, then 124-20+, risking 125-08, targeting 122-06+


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Kzqa_QeeZ30/story01.htm Tyler Durden

About Minimum Wage and Today’s Strikes at Fast-Food Chains

In
a Daily Beast column yesterday
, I wrote about a labor action
planned for today in which protesters show up outside fast-food
outlets and clamor for a $15 minimum wage (the current federal
minimum wage is $7.25). Events are planned for 100 or more cities
and some
have already taken place
.

Here are some things to think about:

  • Fewer than 3 percent of all workers in the United States make
    the minimum wage. The percentage drops further if you’re talking
    about full-time employees.
  • 77 percent of minimum wage earners belong to households above
    the poverty line.
  • 51 percent of minimum wage earners are 24 years or younger. Of
    the minimum wage earners over 24, less than a quarter are below the
    poverty line and 62 percent live in households that are at or above
    150 percent of the poverty line.
  • Even economists who question whether hiking the minimum wage
    causes significant unemployment for low-skilled workers tend to
    agree that doubling wages will reduce jobs.
  • A recent New York Times story titled “Life on $7.25 an Hour”
    centered on a man who had a job paying $13 an hour and who owned a
    $500,000 house.
  • The protests are organized by groups affiliated with the
    Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and inlcude calls for
    unionizing fast-food workers along with the demand to double the
    minimum wage to $15 an hour.

As I write in
the Beast piece
, none of this is to minimize the difficulties
faced by many minimum wage earners and fast-food workers. But most
minimum wage earners are not supporting families and in fact, most
move up from the minimum wage with their first year on the job. As
important, doubling wages isn’t feasible from either a
political or an economic angle. The whole program reeks of cynicism
coming from the SEIU, which has a history
of organizing workers in high-turnover, low-skilled industries

and then failing to deliver on contracts that radically improve
things for its members.


Read the full Beast story here
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/all-about-todays-planned-wage-strike-at
via IFTTT

About Minimum Wage and Today's Strikes at Fast-Food Chains

In
a Daily Beast column yesterday
, I wrote about a labor action
planned for today in which protesters show up outside fast-food
outlets and clamor for a $15 minimum wage (the current federal
minimum wage is $7.25). Events are planned for 100 or more cities
and some
have already taken place
.

Here are some things to think about:

  • Fewer than 3 percent of all workers in the United States make
    the minimum wage. The percentage drops further if you’re talking
    about full-time employees.
  • 77 percent of minimum wage earners belong to households above
    the poverty line.
  • 51 percent of minimum wage earners are 24 years or younger. Of
    the minimum wage earners over 24, less than a quarter are below the
    poverty line and 62 percent live in households that are at or above
    150 percent of the poverty line.
  • Even economists who question whether hiking the minimum wage
    causes significant unemployment for low-skilled workers tend to
    agree that doubling wages will reduce jobs.
  • A recent New York Times story titled “Life on $7.25 an Hour”
    centered on a man who had a job paying $13 an hour and who owned a
    $500,000 house.
  • The protests are organized by groups affiliated with the
    Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and inlcude calls for
    unionizing fast-food workers along with the demand to double the
    minimum wage to $15 an hour.

As I write in
the Beast piece
, none of this is to minimize the difficulties
faced by many minimum wage earners and fast-food workers. But most
minimum wage earners are not supporting families and in fact, most
move up from the minimum wage with their first year on the job. As
important, doubling wages isn’t feasible from either a
political or an economic angle. The whole program reeks of cynicism
coming from the SEIU, which has a history
of organizing workers in high-turnover, low-skilled industries

and then failing to deliver on contracts that radically improve
things for its members.


Read the full Beast story here
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/all-about-todays-planned-wage-strike-at
via IFTTT