Balkinization  

Friday, September 09, 2005

Padilla

Marty Lederman

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (per Judge Luttig, joined by two Clinton appointees, Judges Michael and Traxler) today upheld the detention of Jose Padilla as having been authorized by Congress's September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). (Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.) A full account from Lyle Denniston can be found here.

To the extent actual legislative intent matters, I find it very difficult to believe that Congress actually "intended," through the AUMF, to authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens captured in the U.S. under circumstances such as those in the Padilla case: Would Congress truly have intended to supersede the ordinary civil justice system for U.S. citizens who are detained here at O'Hare Airport and suspected of conspiring to violate U.S. criminal laws, so as to authorize their indefinite detention -- that is, detention until the war against Al Qaeda ends -- without trial? I must concede, however, that it's very difficult to figure out how to challenge Judge Luttig's logic about why such a conclusion follows from the plurality decision in Hamdi (and from Quirin, to the extent one thinks that case should have any precedential value), once one accepts the following alleged "fact," on which Luttig places great emphasis:

The Government's explanation of why Padilla was detained -- and why he was an "enemy combatant" covered by the AUMF -- has been a constantly moving target. At first, Padilla was detained as a "material witness." Then, if I recall correctly, the Administration alleged that he was coming to the U.S. to study possible Al Qaeda targets -- in the President's own words, "Padilla engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism." At one point, the Attorney General indicated that Padilla was detained as the alleged "dirty bomber" who was preparing to strike a U.S. city with a radiological dispersal device of some kind. Subsequently, the unclassified "Mobbs declaration" essentially reiterated this justification. Two years later, this justification morphed considerably during a press conference by Deputy AG James Comey, in which he said that Padilla's intended mission was the destruction of U.S. apartment buildings with natural gas. (If this chronolgy is wrong or incomplete, please let me know.)

Most recently, however, the Administration alleges (according to Judge Luttig) that Padilla fought on the actual battlefield in Afghanistan and that his detention at O'Hare therefore is an appropriate means of keeping him from returning to Afghanistan to fight. This strikes me as extremely counterfactual, but it looks as though that's the story the Administration is now pressing. And it's certainly the predicate on which today's decision is based. [UPDATE: The military's explanation is not quite as Judge Luttig describes it, as I discuss further in my next post.] Once one accepts that predicate -- and of course Padilla presumably will have some opportunity to challenge it -- as the court does for purposes of today's decision, then it becomes difficult to explain why Padilla ought to be treated differently from Hamdi. (If you think otherwise, please feel free to explain why in the Comments section.)

Even so, the panel had one more serious obstacle -- it had to distinguish away the Supreme Court's Nineteenth Century opinion in Ex parte Milligan. Here's what Judge Luttig writes:

Finally, Padilla argues that, even if his detention is authorized by the AUMF, it is unlawful under Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866). In Milligan, the Supreme Court held that a United States citizen associated with an anti-Union secret society but unaffiliated with the Confederate army could not be tried by a military tribunal while access to civilian courts was open and unobstructed. Id. at 6-7, 121. Milligan purported to restrict the power of Congress as well as the power of the President. Id. at 121-22 ("[N]o usage of war could sanction a military trial . . . for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life, in nowise connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power . . ."). Quirin, however, confirmed that Milligan does not extend to enemy combatants. As the Court in Quirin explained, the Milligan Court's reasoning had "particular reference to the facts before it," namely, that Milligan was not "a part of or associated with the armed forces of the enemy." See 317 U.S. at 45. The Hamdi plurality in turn reaffirmed this limitation on the reach of Milligan, emphasizing that Quirin, a unanimous opinion, "both postdates and clarifies Milligan." 124 S. Ct. at 2643. Thus confined, Milligan is inapposite here because Padilla, unlike Milligan, associated with, and has taken up arms against the forces of the United States on behalf of, an enemy of the United States.

So, here's the critical distinction: Both Padilla and Milligan allegedly took up arms against the U.S. But whereas Padilla -- not a member of Al Qaeda -- is alleged to have been "associated with" Al Qaeda, Milligan was "unaffiliated with the Confederate army," but was instead "merely" "associated with an anti-Union secret society."

It is, of course, preposterous to think that the Milligan decision actually turned on the fact that Milligan's affliations were with a secret society, sympathetic to the Confederacy, devoted to defeating the Union, rather than with the Confederate army itself. But, per Quirin, as construed in Hamdi, as construed in today's Padilla decision, that's apparently all that is left of the once-landmark Milligan ruling. [ADDENDUM: Eric Muller explains how Judge Luttig also fails to adequately distinguish the Court's decision in Ex Parte Endo.]

Comments:

In Milligan, the court rejected any interpretation of law that would grant authority to military courts over "citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed. This court has judicial knowledge that in Indiana the Federal authority was always unopposed, and its courts always open to hear criminal accusations and redress grievances; and no usage of war could sanction a military trial there for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life, in nowise connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power"

However, Padilla did not stay in the US, but rather went to Afghanistan and, depending on an interpretation of the document, either "enlisted in" or "affiliated with" Al Qaeda. Either way he went through basic training, was issued an AK 47, and acted as an infantry soldier before and during the US campaign in Afghanistan.

One of the problems in this and the Guantanamo cases is that international law and the Geneva Conventions are based on Western European conventions over many centuries that became a model for much of the world. However, Al Qaeda models itself on the Arab armies of 1500 years ago. They didn't wear uniforms and have modern ranks. More importantly, since Jihad is regarded as a duty of all believers, the transition from civilian to soldier is more informal than it is in Western armies. Just because the US only claims that Padilla is "associated with" Al Qaeda does not mean that if the evidence were put to a test, that a court would not rule that he was a full fledged enlisted soldier. However, in this set of briefs the US did not feel it needed to win that point, and the 4th Circuit did not rule that the distinction was important.
 

We need to get over the idea that Al Qaeda is some kind of state. It's a gang of criminals, and should be treated as such, with the civil law.

More constitutional doctrinal comments are here.
 

Civil law? Wow, Paul. Do you propose that we should have just filed civil complaints for damages and served subpoenas on al Queda for the time and place of the depositions? Hold them in contempt if they don't show up? Fine them? A TRO to stop killing our citizens?

Even if you mean criminal law, you must then think that rather than military intervention in Afghanistan we should have simply issued arrest warrants (assuming we could establish probable cause for each individual we wish to charge) ONLY for actual conspirators in the bombings of the WTC in 93, our embassies, the USS Cole, and 9/11, right?

We should then have them appointed counsel and have trials, right?

Please explain to curious minds how you think this ought to work.
 

On May 8, 2002 Padilla was captured. On June 9 President Bush signed a statement designating him an "enemy combatant" but otherwise leaving the impression that we really knew nothing about him. On June 10, John Ashcroft in Moscow held a press conference identify Padilla as a "dirty bomber". On Sept. 11, 2002 Pakistani intelligence raided a house where the commanders of 9/11 were celebrating the first anniversary of their attack. Ramzi Binalshibh was captured and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed just barely escaped. KSM was captured March 1, 2003.

We know that Padilla got his last assignment from KSM and that he was travelling to Chicago on a ticket purchased from $15,000 of Al Qaeda operating funds given to him directly by Ramzi Binalshibh. We don't know how much the information he provided helped the US to capture these two and the other members of their cell.

For the first year, until all these people had been rounded up, the US fought a delaying action in court to prevent anyone from gaining access to Padilla. During this period, it maintained the story that Padilla was a "dirty bomber". Only after that stream of intelligent played itself out did the US change its court filings to provide details about Padilla's actual mission (to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas).

There is no way to prove it, but the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that Ashcroft somehow pulled off something that by common agreement we believed that no modern administration could try and get away with. He held a press conference and lied. In Intelligence work, this is called "disinformation" and is a common technique to mislead the enemy. But it is commonly believed that the press will tear the throat out of any administration that tries it. Well, they did it so well here that most of the headlines today still refer to Padilla as the "dirty bomber".

They didn't make the dirty bomb up entirely. Some belive that Padilla originally proposed this idea to Mohammed Atef, while others think that Abu Zubaida made it up as his own disinformation to mislead his American captors. Either way, by the time of Ashcroft's June 10 statement there is strong reason to belive that Padilla had given US interrogators a complete and accurate picture of his real mission, but that it was withheld so that the Pakistan cell would think he was resisting interrogation.
 

mjh: I meant "civil law" as opposed to "military law." The civil legal system.

As for the Afghanistan question, you're conflating two classes of people: foreign nation-states which harbor dedicated criminals, and the dedicated criminals on U.S. territory themselves. Jose Padilla is one person, for whom an arrest warrant pursuant to probable cause would have perfectly sufficed if he indeed was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to undertake illegal and murderous acts on U.S. soil.

On the other hand, the Taliban, a foreign power, was rightly overthrown because it refused to turn over Al Qaeda members who did in fact conspire to attack the U.S.

We war against states. We prosecute criminal individuals.

In terms of who those members are, well, yes, we should only punish people who we have reason to believe actually conspired to do past or future attacks on the U.S. That's called the "rule of law." Al Qaeda membership is certainly very probative evidence that a person actually agreed to some conspiracy, as is participation in training camps and the like, but we surely don't mean to punish people without this basic notion that they did some illegal act?
 

So despite the fact that al Queda declared war on the United States, whenever we suspect one of their minions is here attempting or conspiring to carry out that war: it is a matter for the police, subject to the rules of criminal procedure, due process and normal rules of evidence and search and seizure?

To me, that viewpoint is exactly why liberals cannot be trusted to protect and defend this nation. You have learned nothing from Sept. 11th in that you want to go back to the same rules that allowed the 19 hijackers to slip through the cracks.

At least you are honest enough to put forward such a view; good luck gaining popular support for it.
 

mjh21, kindly note that one of the "liberals" you berate is Antonin Scalia, by the indication of his dissent in Hamdi.

Some people believe that the U.S. is just a big shopping mall, and has nothing to do with principles of liberty and justice. Scalia isn't one of those, & neither am I.
 

I wonder if the panel's reliance on the Hamdi plurality's narrowing of Milligan isn't misplaced as a practical matter, if not as a matter of legal analysis. Two of the members of the Hamdi plurality are (or shortly will be) no longer on the Court, including its author. I doubt that Justices Souter and Ginsburg agree with that reading, and Justices Scalia and Stevens certainly do not.

In short, a glib reference to the Hamdi plurality's recasting of Milligan doesn't seem to me to be a sound basis for stretching the achingly general terms of the AUMF to encompass the authorization of domestic military detentions of U.S. citizens. And all of this from that rabid textualist Mike Luttig!
 

The "he could return to the battlefield" justification is probably the weakest of the lot considering that Padilla was placed in military detention at a time when he was subject to the jurisdiction of a court and in jail. On the undisputed facts, that was not in the cards for Padilla.

Also, one of the really important facts in Quirin was that Congress had established a set of military tribunals. Here, in contrast, Congress had no such law (except to the extent that the Court Martial provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice applied), the Non-Detention Act was in place, the Writ of Habeas Corpus has not been suspended (and the Government is not arguing expressly that it has been) and the Patriot Act had recently been passed in which Congress set forth the conditions that it thought justified detaining suspected terrorists in light of 9-11 and roughly contemporaneously with the authorization of military force.

Every other court that has examined the case on the merits has concluded that Quirin is not controlling in this case.

Equally important, 4 Justices of the Supreme Court in the Padilla case itself held that he was entitled to release on the basis of the non-detention act, Scalia's opinion in Hamdi makes it clear that in his opinion Padilla is entitled to a criminal trial rather than a military detention, and the plurality opinion took great care to distinguish a battlefield detention from what happened in this case. Doesn't anyone recall the "blank check" language in the plurality decision in Hamdi? Battlefield detentions are not special because they involve people with a great propensity than non-battlefield terrorists to offend again, they are special because the mechanics of providing traditional due process are unworkable there. Also, because the plurality decision in Hamdi was a mere plurality, stare decisis does not compel Scalia to go along with it in Padilla's case.

In essence, what the 4th Circuit has done in this case, rather than being compelled by Quirin, is an adoption of the Thomas opinion in the Hamdi case, which was not joined by any other justice on the Supreme Court. The last time something like that happened, when the 5th Circuit basically defied the U.S. Supreme Court in a death penalty case and adopted the reasoning of a minority view of the court, the 5th Circuit was slapped down summarily by the U.S. Supreme Court.
 

MJH: tempted as I am to just ignore your ridiculous "you liberals generalization," I'm going to address the "substance" of your remark, such as it is.

What difference does a "declaration of war" by Al Qaeda have on anything? There have been many, many organizations through the short but eventful history of this country that have had either the purpose or the effect of seriously destabilizing U.S. society.

Among the many that come to mind:

- The Weather Underground, a domestic "terrorist" organization dedicated to domestic revolution, which actually issued a "declaration of war" against the U.S. government (the last fact is according to wikipedia -- I wasn't aware of the declaration before).

- The Mafia, and specifically the Capone organization in prohibition-era Chicago and the New York families at the height of their power.

- The "Michigan Militia" and other militia/survivalist groups.

- Some say the underground elements of the communist party fit that category around 1950.

There are numerous additional examples. The one thing that all these examples have in common, however, is that any crimes they committed were handled through the ordinary legal processes established for control of antisocial behavior. Each of those organizations has been put down or controlled and reduced to a dull roar without burying anyone, U.S. citizen or otherwise, in a Navy brig in North Carolina.
 

And all of this from that rabid textualist Mike Luttig!

Or is that "rabid Supreme Court hopeful Mike Luttig"?

Oh--pardon my crass mistake as to the motivations of our impartial judiciary.
 

Several people have suggested that Padilla was subject to the jurisdiction of the civilan courts and could be charged with a crime. The problem with this argument is that you must first show that he is not, as the government claims, a POW. Under the Geneval Convention
Article 84

"A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war."

If Padilla is an "enemy combatant" and falls under the jurisdication of the Geneva convention, then he is not subject to civilian trial. In this case, the option is to hold him as a POW or else let him go. Criminal charges are not possible.

Neither the government nor its critics have taken consistent positions across the entire set of "enemy combatant" cases. Some courts have claimed that Geneva applies to some prisoners in Guantanamo, and that could carry over to Padilla.

The real problem is that many things that are crimes to a civilian are not crimes when done by a soldier. Soldiers shoot guns, kill people, and blow things up. This is combat. Under international law, if Padilla is an enemy combatant then anything he did or intended to do is combat and may not be judged as if he were a civilian. Rather, as a soldier he has an immunity to prosecution for civilian crime. He may only be charged with a military offense and then only tried in a military court.
 

Mr. Gilbert, could you cite to the government's calling him a POW, and not an "enemy combatant," whatever the latter is?
 

Howard, as I recall, he was picked up at O'Hare by FBI agents! How are you a POW if you are captured in a civilian capacity, wandering around the country in which you are a citizen, in territory not under any conflict?

(Also, Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, let alone a contracting party within Geneva terms... but that's a whole 'nother debate)
 

I'm way out of my legal depth here, I'm sure, but doesn't this mean that it behooves would-be terrorists to avoid appearance of association with certain terrorist groups?
In other words, according to the logic here, the so-called "lone wolf" can be handled under normal criminal law, while the operator who is a member of a terrorist group (identified as such...how?) can be stowed away indefinitely without charge or access to laywers.
I'm not sure we should be encouraging would-be terrorists to use *really good* crypto and fieldcraft so that they can avoid the gulag.
 

Milligan is dead based on this reading of Quirin and Hamdi. I was taught Milligan was a bulwark of our liberty.

One nit to a previous commentor. Congress did not authorize military tribunals for the defendants or WWII, rather, the act that authorized court-martials (prior to UCMJ) did not preclude the creation of tribunals.
 

An "enemy combatant" is another word for POW. However, combatants may be lawful (in uniform, carrying and ID card, and giving name rank and serial number) or unlawful (civilians or soldiers pretending to be civilians, or soldiers continuing combat after their government makes peace). Unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Convention but the US may still by law be constrained by domestic and international common law to treat them in certain ways. The administration seems to think that "POW" is equated in most people's mind with "lawful combatant" and so tends to use another term to include both lawful and unlawful combatants.

There are many problems in the government's various arguments, and we just danced around one. Another document that Bush signed declared that all Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are "unlawful combatants". Various Federal District Court judges have ruled that both may be lawful (Robertson), the Taliban may be lawful but never Al Qaeda (Green), and neither are lawful (Leon). The interesting question relative to Padilla is the basis for making the claim. If Bush is stating a fact, that no Al Qaeda soldier captured was wearing a uniform or carrying an ID card as required by Geneva, then it is possible at some time in the future that we will get a lawful terrorist combatant. In fact, if Padilla had snuck into the US, rented the apartments, filled them with gas, blown them up, and killed a thousand people he would have been a lawful combatant provided that he did all this while wearing a uniform and carrying an ID card. At that point he could not be tried for a crime and would have to be released at the end of the war.

However, if you are saying that Al Qaeda is not capable of generating a lawful combatant even if he wears a uniform, then you are saying that it is a civilain terrorist organization. Then the 4th Circuit was wrong in this decision because a civilian cannot be an "enemy combatant" unless he is actually engaged in combat at the time he is captured.

As to the question about how Padilla can be an enemy combatant if he was picked up at the airport, the previous comment is precisely on point. If Padilla is a civilian, then he has to be in combat and he wasn't when he got off the plane. However, if he is a soldier then he remains a soldier even when travelling from place to place on a ticket purchased with Al Qaeda funds.

Herbert Haupt (defendent in the 1942 Quirin case) is a prime example here. He was sent to the US in a U-Boat to blow up some factories in the supply chain of the Norden Bomb Sight. Like Padilla, he was a US citizen, who grew up in Chicago, who was arrested in a civilian setting, in Chicago in a period of war but where no fighting was going on. As the Supreme Court pointed out, he was still a German soldier. When he buried his uniform on the Florida beach and changed into civilian clothes, he didn't become a civilian. He became a spy, and the Supreme Court said he should be executed for it.

Jose Padilla became a spy when he stepped off the plane at O'Hare. Or at least, he became a spy if Al Qaeda is an enemy power which whom we are at war and not a civilian criminal organization, and if Padilla is a soldier in Al Qaeda sent here on a special operation and not a sympathizer who agreed to commit an act of terrorism.

Put another way, in 1943 the US could have taken General Irwin Rommel as a POW even if they recognized him while he was attending the opening night at the Metropolitan Opera.
 

It would be more intellectually honest for Mr. Lederman to admit that Milligan didn't really survive Quirin. (It certainly violates normal jurisprudential principles to pretend that Milligan is a higher authority.) However, it is hard for people with Mr. Lederman's background to admit that FDR wasn't an ACLU member and a 60s liberal, which leads them into intellectual contortions.
 

Howard: I think you're oversimplifying the case, but you're generally right. To my mind, there are two conditions for being a "combatant," in the war-waging sense, either one of which could at least arguably be sufficient to subject someone to military jurisdiction. (I don't claim that either actually is sufficient, but at a bare minimum, one would need one or the other...)

1. Adherence to the army of a foreign power. This makes sense as a basis for military jurisdiction because it implicates a principled difference between military interests andlaw enforcement interests: the distinction between normal people and enemy sovereign. This principle is exemplified by Quirin, as well as Milligan, and is not satisfied here: Padilla adheres only to Al Qaeda, which is not a foreign power.

2. Being captured by the military on a battlefield. This also is connected to a conceptual distinction between military/foreign affairs versus law enforcement interests: the jurisdiction of civilian law enforcement is territorial. This principle is represented by the decision in Hamdi. It is also not satisfied here: Padilla was picked up under civilian jurisdiction.
 

I believe that this may be a case we will be apologizing for 50 years from now, as we did with the Japanese-American internment cases. I have a three-year old daughter. Do I want her to apologize for what my generation did to help her reach age 53, at age 53? You bet. I'm sorry, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Tell me that Mr. Padilla is not America's enemy and I am on your side. Tell me anything else but that and I am not.
 

What is Al Qaeda? There are armies that represent government we recognize (Germany during WWII). There are armies representing governments we don't recognize (Red China during Korea). Technially, during Korea we recognized the Nationalists on Taiwan as the legitimate government of all of China, which meant that the half million "volunteer" soldiers we were fighting were either civilians or some sort of irregulars. We still treated them as POWs and did not make a big deal during the cease fire.

The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan, but we did not recognize it. Al Qaeda was set up during the battle with the Russian invaders as a group of foreign fighters. Now you can argue this lots of different ways, and I don't much care to fight over it, but there is a plausible claim that Al Qaeda which was born out of the Afghanistan conflict ended up as a unit associated to the government of Afghanistan much as the Foreign Legion has, through history, been associated to France. The point is that Al Qaeda can be regarded as an enemy army if you want to do that, or not if that is your preference. Congress has spoken in its resolution authorizing military action, and the Administration has spoken in its various filings and documents, but neither has been particularly clear in this matter.

I suspect this is an Article 2 decision, but am not sure if it is Commander and Chief or Foreign Policy. However, an overall view of all the cases suggests that the administration wants to have it both ways and has argued both sides in different cases.
 

I don't want to target nk's comment in particular, but I think it represents a really appalling kind of cowardice that is at the root of the "necessity" arguments about the "war on terror" and all the trotting out of that tired old "suicide pact" sophistry. Al Qaeda is not a threat to the U.S. on anything even approaching the scale of any prior precedent! We interned the Japanese and subjected Quirin etc to military scruting in world war II, facing a formidable alliance of military powers who, collectively, had crushed almost all of continental Europe, China, and North Africa, and controlled more territory that the Roman empire. The axis was a real threat to the very existence of the United States and the entire free world.

Even when Milligan was decided, the Union was facing a threat to its existence: it had already been split down the middle, and the war did not start off well,

Compared to this, Al Qaeda are revealed for what they are: a bunch of pitiful insects. Britain dealt with equally serious terrorists for a much longer period in the form of the IRA without turning into a bunch of sheriking cowards talking about how the magna carta isn't a suicide pact or something and flinging their liberal traditions on the fire in a panic. Why can we not do the same?

9/11 was horrible, yes. But put it in context, for christ's sake. As mass deaths go, it was nothing. If that is the best the terrorists can do, we should be destroying them with derision, not panic. And we should not be comparing those weak insects with the axis, which came very close to actually conquering the world! The constitutional sacrifices that might have been necessary to defeat the greatest threat to human civilization in history may not be necessary to defeat the likes of Osama bin Laden.

That's my rant for the day. As for Howard's point, sure, if you conceptualize Al Qaeda as a state, military custody would be permissible, but, as you correctly note, that would be much worse for us, since we couldn't punish them in the criminal system.
 

Quirin didn't have to be the end of Milligan and it seems strange to me that for over 58 years noone thought that it had driven a stake through the heart of the Great Writ. Quirin was an exception where the Court extraordinarily met in the summer and then took time to write the decision (because they were unsure how they were going to justify the result which had been dictated by political expediency). All of a sudden in 2001, Quirin becomes central to the government's case for tribunals, but nothing says judges have to buy the government's reading.

1. There are differences between the AUMF and the Declaration of War in 1941.

2. Quirin referred to the lawfulness of the tribunal and not the detention. The authority for the detention is inferred by Luttig from a footnote in Quirin.

3. It ought to trouble the 4th Circuit (and I think it troubled the Supreme Court) that there is no definitive set of events that will signal the end of this war.
 

Paul,

How much principle is worth one life? Three thousand fathers, mothers, sisters, husbands, brothers, wives were lost on 9/11. Mr. Padilla is not a scapegoat. Can you tell me he's innocent? Law that is not sword and shield, for the society which has enacted it, is insanity.
 

NK: "How much principle is worth one life?"

That's easy to say, and it's compelling, but down that road fall a lot of principles for a little risk to life. If you want to toss platitudes back and forth, Ben Franklin's saw about liberty and security is as good as any on the other side.
 

I don't think OJ is innocent either, but it's not really my call, is it? If protecting "one life" is our guide, a lot more than Padilla will be sacrificed.

Anyway, question. The opinion noted Padilla stipulated to a lot of scary "facts" for the purpose of the ruling. The facts are not present in the district opinion, which has vanilla stuff about how he was captured that are not very damning at all.

Anyone know why things changed?
 

Paul Gowder, you are misstating the facts: Milligan was decided after the war was over.
 

Sean: maybe I need to reread milligan, but as I recall, the facts upon which the Court was deciding assuredly arose during the war: that's when millgan joined his "secret society" and that's when he was kept out of the civil system (at least to start), non?
 

I'm sorry, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Does anyone ever make a good argument with this quotation?

Hobgoblins aside, how does "Padilla in the custody of the courts" jeopardize our children in a way that "Padilla held by executive fiat" does not?

It's the fact that our kids could be detained indefinitely at the whim of the executive that scares me. As the British peer said, al-
Qaeda can't destroy our constitutions. Only we can do that.

Joe, I too was struck by the differences in the alleged "stipulations" (see Lederman's next post). Obviously, the 4th decided to ratchet up the rhetoric in order to excuse the outcome.
 

Paul, "Even when Milligan was decided, the Union was facing a threat to its existence: it had already been split down the middle, and the war did not start off well" sounds like the Supreme Court ruling was handed down during the Civil War, not the original trial of Milligan. I can see why someone might be confused.
 

nk: jose padilla is innocent until proven guilty. this whole hubbub is about what kind of trial he gets. so yes, he is innocent.

anderson: nope, no one ever does. its kind of like the "protect the children" argument - its an immediate bullshit cue. the one thing we must all remember is to retain useful ways to break with law, because nothing is more certain that the forms of law remain when all justice is gone. here, we see the shape and form of law, but no substance.
 

This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this tax software site, it's pretty awesome too!
 

Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
 

Informative blog. I have a x3 xhtml blog.
 

Hey I was just blog surfing amd I found your blog! Looks Great!

I also have a san diego airport
It deals mostly with san diego airport plus other stuff,
You can save up to 50% your next flight!

You should check it out if you get a chance!!
 

GOOD content thats what i like and just surfing around on blogs and finding good content is good feeling i am so glued to those blogs dont stop making good content keep it up i am not a pro on making pages but i see if you can visit my site maybe its something that you will like!!Work from home
 

Hey I was just blog surfing amd I found your blog! Looks Great!

I also have a dirt cheap plane ticket
It deals mostly with dirt cheap plane ticket plus other stuff,
You can save up to 50% your next flight!

You should check it out if you get a chance!!
 

I have a make money opportunity site. It pretty much covers make money opportunity related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)
 

Great work on your blog - it was very enlightening. You've got a lot of useful info on there about Supply Chain so I've bookmarked your site so I don't lose it. I'm doing a lot of research on Supply Chain Exposed and have just started a new blog - I'd really appreciate your comments
 

This Is The Way SMART Real Estate Investors Make Their Money..... And It's NOT With "UGLY HOUSE" Rhabs Or Foreclosues And Short Sales

Click Here For More
Information


robert g. allen
 

Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
 

Real Estate investors........ Are You Sick Of The "UGLY HOUSE", "Fix And Flip" Or Rental Property Game And All Of The Headaches That Come With It?

Click Here For More
Information


sherrif's sale
 

Hey i got here searching for add affiliate link program
Your sites not too bad!

You got good rankings for them keywords add affiliate link program

Check out my site
add affiliate link program
 

Hello......when I was searching for info on work at home I somehow got directed to your site. Glad I did and hope you don't mind me adding it to my favorites.
 

Cool blog you have. I have a grant money related site. Check it out if you get a chance. The URL is grant money
 

Hi :)

You have a great blog! I'll be sure to bookmark it and visit regularly, keep up the great work!

Please visit my site if you get some time: home make money online

 

What's that saying about round up all the lawyers... LOL! Here's your chance... florida medical malpractice lawyer
 

Hi :)

You have a great blog! I'll make sure to bookmark it and visit regularly. Keep up the great work!

Please visit my site if you get some time: Resell Rights eBooks
 

Very cool blog you got! I just added you to my bookmarks!

I have a great article resource you might want to check out.
 

Hello......when I was searching for info on work at home I somehow got directed to your site. Glad I did and hope you don't mind me adding it to my favorites.
 

Last week I told you about Google Site Targeting -
putting your AdWords ads on specific websites
instead of targeting by keyword, and how this
slices the world in a completely different way.

Now you can pay to have your ad shown, rather
than paying per click, and you can more easily
advertise products that people wouldn't necessarily
think to search for.

Google started out selling this space for $2.00
per thousand impressions ("CPM"). Then they
dropped it to $1.00.

On Monday they just dropped it again, to 25 cents.

(Now we're talking!)

This now puts those clicks in the ~5 cent neighborhood,
and in some cases less. It's a fun thing to play with.
But before you do, though, make sure you:

-Set a low daily budget so you don't make a big mistake

-Track conversion rates (Very important! Without
sales conversion, nothing else matters.)

-Delete sites with horrible Click Thru Rates - Hey, if
you're not getting any clicks, you shouldn't be paying
them for the impressions.

Want to increase the clicks on your adsense ads? Of course you do. This means more money in your pocket.
For FREE Information. That will for sure make you more money by the end of the week.
 

Life Satisfaction
by: make money now

Learn how to enjoy life and nature rather than possessions.
The next time you feel like spending money, head to your
local park where you can enjoy the warm sun, green grass,
and towering trees without spending a dime. Being happy
in life is far better than buying item after item. Having
an inner peace is better than having a house filled with
“things.” That does not mean you cannot enjoy some of the
finer things in life it just means learning how to be happy
with yourself and not “things.”

make money now
 

Nice blog! I have a free gateway lead links links,build page page,free pages,traffic portals,business prospect prospects,website submit traffic web web site I thought you and your visitors might like.

Click on free gateway lead links links,build page page,free pages,traffic portals,business prospect prospects,website submit traffic web web to check it out. free gateway lead links links,build page page,free pages,traffic portals,business prospect prospects,website submit traffic web web
 

Recycle
by: make money add your link

Try a different type of recycling that will save you
money. Have you ever received a nice gift that you
like from someone but will never use? Rather than
take it back to the store for an exchange, consider
keeping it to give as a gift to someone else. Another
way to recycle is to look around your home. There are
always things right in your home that can be used to
make nice gift baskets – things you never use. For
example, the next time you purchase shower gel where
you buy one and get one free, keep one for yourself
and set the other one aside for future gift giving.
You will find hundreds of ideas so be creative and
consider things you purchased but have never used.

make money add your link
 

Hi :)

You have a great blog! Keep up the good work! I'll be sure to visit regularly.

Please visit my site if you get some time: Shia
 

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a home based business site/blog. It pretty much cover to start a home business.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)
 

Overdraft Protection
by: make money today

Almost everyone has at one point or another had
an insufficient check. Most banks charge $20 per
returned check, which if not careful with your account,
can quickly add up to a lot of money. If you have a
savings account, consider adding overdraft protection
onto your checking account so if you ever go into a
negative balance, the money would automatically be
covered by your savings. Most banks offer this service
free.

make money today
 

Recycle
by: make money at home free

Try a different type of recycling that will save you
money. Have you ever received a nice gift that you
like from someone but will never use? Rather than
take it back to the store for an exchange, consider
keeping it to give as a gift to someone else. Another
way to recycle is to look around your home. There are
always things right in your home that can be used to
make nice gift baskets – things you never use. For
example, the next time you purchase shower gel where
you buy one and get one free, keep one for yourself
and set the other one aside for future gift giving.
You will find hundreds of ideas so be creative and
consider things you purchased but have never used.

make money at home free
 

I just came across your blog about forex trading company and wanted to drop you a
note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here.
I have a forex trading company site. It pretty much covers forex trading company related stuff.
so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource
on the Internet here!

Thanks,
Phill
 

Hi, I really like your blog. There is this outstanding website regarding gay korea. You better check it out some time.
 

Hello......when I was searching for info on business home online opportunity work I somehow got directed to your site. Glad I did and hope you don't mind me adding it to my favorites.
 

Hi - I really like your website. I have one on martial art product here is the link to it. Come visit it and let me know what you think.
 

Hey here is a site that actually gives away FREE tickets to Las Vegas shows. They have other useful information regarding Las Vegas getaways and haunted vegas tour tickets Check it out haunted vegas tour tickets
 

Yo, This blog is pretty neat. You should check out mine sometime. It pretty much covers make money from home now related stuff.
 

This site gives away FREE tickets to Las Vegas shows. They have other great Las Vegas stuff including info about riveria comedy club Check it out riveria comedy club
 

Hi Thanks for your interesting blog. I also have a blog/site, covering starting home based internet business
related stuff. Feel free to visit my starting home based internet business
site.
 

Rebate Programs
by: make money stuffing envelope

When you shop, always keep your eyes open for rebate
programs. Although filling out the forms and clipping
the UPC codes from a box is a hassle, the money you save
is worth it. Some rebate items are not listed as offering
a rebate. Check out AsmartShop.com or Rebateplace.com to
see if any of your recent purchases offer a rebate.

make money stuffing envelope
 

Our legal network has experienced attorneys standing by to assist you with any legal matter that you may be faced with. We specialize in Child custody at Child custody
Visit our site for a FREE local referral to a qualified highly experienced attorney who can work with you to make sure you are represented in the most favorable way possible. Come to Child custody today for a complete no obligation consultation.
 

Hi :)

You have a great blog! Keep up the great work, and I'll be sure to visit regularly.

I have a Resell Rights eBooks related site, check it out if you get some time!

Look forward to reading more of your insightful posts :)
 

Live Within your Means
by: make money fast and easy

The quickest way to get in debt is to live beyond your
means. Sure, most people want more than they have but
life is not all about spending money. Be thankful for
what you do have and learn how to enjoy the financial
position you are in. This is where your budget will
help identify the amount of money coming in against
the amount of debt going out.

make money fast and easy
 

I discuss this topic daily myself. I also have a website that talks about earn free home money related things. Go check it out if you get a chance.
 

I think your site is fantastic and would like to know more. Please give us further information.

Regards,
Coupons
 

Debt Settlement
Debt Relief can help you reduce your interest burden by charging an interest rate lower than the rate on your existing loans. Debt consolidation loan can also allow you to make small monthly payments by extending the loan period
http://www.debt-consolidation.com
 

Hi, this blog is great for small business related content! I'm gonna bookmark you for business related information. This blog surely rocks!!!

If you don't mind, lemme introduce you to another site related to business opportunity. It pretty much covers starting a business related stuff.

I hope you to check out this site for business plan if you get time :-)

Thanks and Get More Than You Expect With
Bunny S.
Start Your Own Business
 

Debt Consolidation
Debt Help Home Loans Student Loan Consolidation can help you reduce your interest burden by charging an interest rate lower than the rate on your existing loans. Debt consolidation loan can also allow you to make small monthly payments......
http://www.debtspaidoff.com/apply.htm
 

Debt Consolidation
Debt Consolidation entails taking out one loan to pay off many others. This is often done to secure a lower interest rate, secure a fixed interest rate or for the convenience of servicing only one loan.

Debt consolidation can simply be from a number of unsecured loans into another unsecured loan, but more often it involves a secured loan against an asset that serves as collateral, which is most commonly a house (in this case a mortgage is secured against the house.) The collateralization of the loan allows a lower interest rate than without it, because by collateralizing, the asset owner agrees to allow the forced sale (foreclosure) of the asset in order to pay back the loan. The risk to the lender is reduced so the interest rate offered is lower.

Sometimes, debt consolidation companies can discount the amount of the loan. When the debtor is in danger of bankruptcy, the debt consolidator will buy the loan at a discount. A prudent debtor can shop around for consolidators who will pass along some of the savings. Consolidation can affect the ability of the debtor to discharge debts in bankruptcy, so the decision to consolidate must be weighed carefully.

Debt consolidation is often advisable in theory when someone is paying credit card debt. Credit cards can carry a much larger interest rate than even an unsecured loan from a bank. Debtors with property such as a home or car may get a lower rate through a secured loan using their property as collateral. Then the total interest and the total cash flow paid towards the debt is lower allowing the debt to be paid off sooner, incurring less interest. In practice, many people are in credit card debt because they spend more than their income. If that habit continues, the consolidation will not benefit them much because they will simply increase their credit card balances again.

Because of the theoretical advantage that debt consolidation offers a consumer that has high interest debt balances, companies can take advantage of that benefit of refinancing to charge very high fees in the debt consolidation loan. Sometimes these fees are near the state maximum for mortgage fees. In addition, some unscrupulous companies will knowingly wait until a client has backed themselves into a corner and must refinance in order to consolidate and pay off bills that they are behind on the payments. If the client does not refinance they may lose their house, so they are willing to pay any allowable fee to complete the debt consolidation. In some cases the situation is that the client does not have enough time to shop for another lender with lower fees and may not even be fully aware of them. This practice is known as predatory lending. Certainly many, if not most, debt consolidation transactions do not involve predatory lending.

Student Loan Consolidation
In the United States, federal student loans are consolidated somewhat differently, as federal student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government. In a federal student loan consolidation, existing loans are purchased and closed by a loan consolidation company or by the Department of Education (depending on what type of federal student loan the borrower holds). Interest rates for the consolidation are based on that year's student loan rate, which is in turn based on the 91-day Treasury bill rate at the last auction in May of each calendar year.

Student loan rates can fluctuate from the current low of 4.70% to a maximum of 8.25% for federal Stafford loans, 9% for PLUS loans. The current consolidation program allows students to consolidate once with a private lender, and reconsolidate again only with the Department of Education. Upon consolidation, a fixed interest rate is set based on the then-current interest rate. Reconsolidating does not change that rate. If the student combines loans of different types and rates into one new consolidation loan, a weighted average calculation will establish the appropriate rate based on the then-current interest rates of the different loans being consolidated together.

Federal student loan consolidation is often referred to as refinancing, which is incorrect because the loan rates are not changed, merely locked in. Unlike private sector debt consolidation, student loan consolidation does not incur any fees for the borrower; private companies make money on student loan consolidation by reaping subsidies from the federal government.

Student loan consolidation can be beneficial to students' credit rating, but it's important to note that not all federal student loan consolidation companies report their loans to all credit bureaus; Experian or Transunion, which means that students will have differing credit scores at Equifax Transunion, and Experian.

Mortgage Loan Types
There are many types of mortgage loans. The two basic types of amortized loans are the fixed rate mortgage (FRM) and adjustable rate mortgage.

In a FRM, the interest rate, and hence monthly payment, remains fixed for the life (or term) of the loan. In the U.S., the term is usually for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. The only increase a consumer might see in their monthly payments would result from an increase in their property taxes or insurance rates (paid using an escrow account, if they've opted to use an escrow). But payments for principal and interest will be consistent throughout the life of the loan using an FRM.

In an ARM, the interest rate is fixed for a period of time, after which it will periodically (annually or monthly) adjust up or down to some market index. Common indices in the U.S. include the Prime Rate, the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), and the Treasury Index ("T-Bill"). Other indexes like 11th District Cost of Funds Index, COSI, and MTA, are also available but are less popular.

Adjustable rates transfer part of the interest rate risk from the lender to the borrower, and thus are widely used where unpredictable interest rates make fixed rate loans difficult to obtain. Since the risk is transferred, lenders will usually make the initial interest rate of the ARM's note anywhere from 0.5% to 2% lower than the average 30-year fixed rate.

In most scenarios, the savings from an ARM outweigh its risks, making them an attractive option for people who are planning to keep a mortgage for ten years or less.

Additionally, lenders rely on credit reports and credit scores derived from them. The higher the score, the more creditworthy the borrower is assumed to be. Favorable interest rates are offered to buyers with high scores. Lower scores indicate higher risk to the lender, and lenders require higher interest rates in such scenarios to compensate for increased risk.

A partial amortization or balloon loan is one where the amount of monthly payments due are calculated (amortized) over a certain term, but the outstanding principal balance is due at some point short of that term. This payment is sometimes referred to as a "balloon payment". A balloon loan can be either a Fixed or Adjustable in terms of the Interest Rate. Many Second Trust mortgages use this feature. The most common way of describing a ''balloon loan'' uses the terminology X due in Y, where X is the number of years over which the loan is amortized, and Y is the year in which the principal balance is due. A contract could be written up so there would be more than one "balloon payment" required to be paid during the life of the loan.

Other loan types
Assumed mortgage
Blanket loan
Bridge loan
Budget loan
Commercial Loan
Deed of trust
Equity loan
Hard money loan
Jumbo mortgages
Package loan
Participation mortgage
Reverse mortgage
Repayment mortgage
Seasoned mortgage
Term loan or Interest-only loan
Wraparound mortgage
Negative amortization loan
Non-Conforming Mortgage
can help you reduce your interest burden by charging an interest rate lower than the rate on your existing loans. Debt consolidation loan can also allow you to make small monthly payments by extending the loan period
http://www.debt1consolidation.com
 

Debt1consolidation.com entails taking out one loan to pay off many others. This is often done to secure a lower interest rate secure a fixed interest rate or for the convenience of servicing only one loan.

Debt consolidation can simply be from a number of unsecured loans into another unsecured loan, but more often it involves a secured loan against an asset that serves as collateral, which is most commonly a house (in this case a mortgage is secured against the house.) The collateralization of the loan allows a lower interest rate than without it, because by collateralizing, the asset owner agrees to allow the forced sale (foreclosure) of the asset to pay back the loan. The risk to the lender is reduced so the interest rate offered is lower.

Sometimes, debt consolidation companies can discount the amount of the loan. When the debtor is in danger of bankruptcy, the debt consolidator will buy the loan at a discount. A prudent debtor can shop around for consolidators who will pass along some of the savings. Consolidation can affect the ability of the debtor to discharge debts in bankruptcy, so the decision to consolidate must be weighed carefully.

Debt consolidation is often advisable in theory when someone is paying credit card debt. Credit cards can carry a much larger interest rate than even an unsecured loan from a bank. Debtors with property such as a home or car may get a lower rate through a secured loan using their property as collateral Then the total interest and the total cash flow paid towards the debt is lower allowing the debt to be paid off sooner, incurring less interest. In practice, many people are in credit card debt because they spend more than their income. If that habit continues, the consolidation will not benefit them much because they will simply increase their credit card balances again.

Because of the theoretical advantage that debt consolidation offers a consumer that has high interest debt balances, companies can take advantage of that benefit of refinancing to charge very high fees in the debt consolidation loan. Sometimes these fees are near the state maximum for mortgage fees. In addition, some unscrupulous companies will knowingly wait until a client has backed themselves into a corner and must refinance in order to consolidate and pay off bills that they are behind on the payments. If the client does not refinance they may lose their house, so they are willing to pay any allowable fee to complete the debt consolidation. In some cases the situation is that the client does not have enough time to shop for another lender with lower fees and may not even be fully aware of them. This practice is known as predatory lending Certainly many, if not most, debt consolidation transactions do not involve predatory lending.

In the United States, federal student loans are consolidated somewhat differently, as federal student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government. In a federal student loan consolidation, existing loans are purchased and closed by a loan consolidation company or by the Department of Education (depending on what type of federal student loan the borrower holds). Interest rates for the consolidation are based on that year's student loan rate, which is in turn based on the 91-day Treasury bill rate at the last auction in May of each calendar year.

Student loan rates can fluctuate from the current low of 4.70% to a maximum of 8.25% for federal Stafford loans 9% for PLUS loans. The current consolidation program allows students to consolidate once with a private lender, and reconsolidate again only with the Department of Education. Upon consolidation, a fixed interest rate is set based on the then-current interest rate. Reconsolidating does not change that rate. If the student combines loans of different types and rates into one new consolidation loan, a weighted average calculation will establish the appropriate rate based on the then-current interest rates of the different loans being consolidated together.

Federal student loan consolidation is often referred to as refinancing, which is incorrect because the loan rates are not changed, merely locked in. Unlike private sector debt consolidation, student loan consolidation does not incur any fees for the borrower; private companies make money on student loan consolidation by reaping subsidies from the federal government.

Student loan consolidation can be beneficial to students' credit rating, but it's important to note that not all federal student loan consolidation companies report their loans to all credit bureaus; SLM Corporation (formerly Sallie Mae) does not report to Experian or Transunion which means that students will have differing credit scores at Equifax Transunion, and Experian.

Credit as a financial term, used in such terms as credit card refers to the granting of a loan and the creation of debt. Any movement of financial capital is normally quite dependent on credit, which in turn is dependent on the reputation or creditworthiness of the entity which takes responsibility for the funds.

A similar usage is in commercial trade where credit is used to refer to the approval for delayed payments for goods purchased. Sometimes if a person has financial instability or difficulty, credit is not granted. Companies frequently offer credit to their customers as part of the terms of a purchase agreement. Organizations that offer credit to their customers frequently employ a credit manager

Credit is denominated by a unit of account Unlike money (by a strict definition), credit itself cannot act as a unit of account. However, many forms of credit can readily act as a medium of exchange As such, various forms of credit are frequently referred to as money and are included in estimates of the money supply

Credit is also traded in the market The purest form is the "Credit Default Swap" market, which is essentially a traded market in credit insurance. A credit default swap represents the price at which two counterparties will exchange this risk — the protection "seller" takes the risk of default of the credit in return for a payment, commonly denoted in basis points (one basis point being 1/100 of a percent) of the notional amount to be referenced, while the protection "buyer" pays this premium and in the case of default of the underlying (a loan, bond or other receivable), delivers this receivable to the protection seller and receives from the seller the par amount ( i.e., is made whole).

Credit Education is the practice of providing consumers with information analyzing their credit behavior. Credit education is usually practiced by trained professionals knowledgeable in the analytics of the credit score and how consumer credit behavior effects both positive and negative credit eligibility. Credit education is usually assisted by sophisticated credit scoring models that mathematically assists the consumer, or counselor, in determining a credit improvement outcome.

Credit Education has become an increasingly practiced discipline due to sweeping increases in the use of the credit score and its affect on the prices consumers pay for loans, insurance, housing and utilities. It is also the major factor in loan eligibility.

Not to be confused with credit counseling credit education does not focus on debt counseling, nor involves the practice of collecting debt from consumers. Credit counseling and credit repair have consistently received negative publicity for its fee and management practices.

The largest suppliers for credit education data are Fair Isaac Corporation, CreditXpert and the three credit bureaus ( Experian, TransUnion and Equifax who deliver credit reports and credit scores. Among the largest providers of credit education services is Community Empower who, through the use of its own scoring models and national network of credit education counselors, provides consumers hands-on guidance using highly-trained local professionals.

Credit education has also received attention as a new discipline at the Community College level where new courses on the subject are being taught. Usually aligned with Mortgage Finance programs that teach college undergraduates principles of lending and underwriting credit education and credit recovery programs are giving students more extensive backgrounds in credit early in their careers. Among the early college level adoptors of credit education is the Los Angeles Community College District and Los Angeles Trade Technical College.

FICO is an acronym for Fair Isaac Corporation (traded publicly under the symbol FIC) and refers to the best-known credit score model in the United States, which is calculated using mathematical formulae developed by this company. The FICO score is primarily used in the consumer banking and credit industry. Banks and other institutions that use scores as a factor in their lending decisions may deny credit, charge higher interest rates or require more extensive income and asset verification if the applicants credit score is low.

FICO scores are designed to indicate the likelihood of a borrower being delinquent within the next 24 months. No public information is available to determine what the scores mean in terms of statistics. A separate score, BNI, is used to indicate likelihood of bankruptcy.

The three major credit reporting agencies (also often, but inaccurately referred to as credit bureaus) in the United States, Equifax, Experianand TransUnion calculate their own credit scores, which go by different trademark names as well as many different versions of the score (often differing because of what they are meant to predict and when they were written): Beacon, Beacon 96, and Pinnacle are all available only from Equifax; Empirica, Empirica Auto 95, Precision Score, and Precision 03 at TransUnion; and Fair Isaac Risk Score at Experian. These versions, while all developed for the agencies by Fair Isaac, differ and are periodically updated to reflect current consumer repayment behavior. The NextGen Scores are the most recent scores, but creditors vary in which version they prefer to use.

The scores use a multiple scorecard design. Each version uses 10 or more individual scorecards, and an individual is typically compared with similar others. (For example, a borrower with two 30-day late payments will be scored against a population with some minor delinquencies.) An individual is then graded according to what variables seem to indicate a repayment risk in that group. This feature may cause a borrower with delinquencies to score in the same range as a borrower without delinquencies.

Nearly all large banks also build and use their own proprietary statistical models for credit scoring purposes, often in conjunction with the FICO score or other outside scores.

The statistical models that generate credit scores are subject to federal regulations. The Federal Reserve Board's Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, expressly prohibits a credit scoring model from considering any prohibited basis such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or marital status. Regulation B also stipulates that credit scoring models must be empirically derived and statistically sound. Furthermore, if an adverse action is taken as a result of the credit score ( e.g. an individual's application for credit is denied) then specific reasons for the denial must be provided to the individual. A statement that the individual "failed to score high enough" is insufficient; the reasons must be specific.

There exist several generally accepted algorithms for extracting the primary contributing factors to a low credit score. One or more of these algorithms is typically used to supply a list of reasons when a loan applicant has been denied credit, in order to satisfy the Regulation B requirement that specific reasons are disclosed. Some consumers feel these adverse action reasons are somewhat disingenuous, as the only determining factor for credit denials is a numeric score — the "reasons" are summed up only for the consumer.

Each of the credit reporting agencies has developed its own version of the credit score intended to compete with Fair Isaac's score. Although not as widely used, these scores (for example Trans Union's "TransRisk" score or Experian's "ScoreX" and "PLUS" scores) are less expensive than the FICO score. These scores are often derisively referred to by consumers and lenders as "FAKO" scores, for they do not use official Fair Isaac methodologies. The cost savings of a non-FICO score are tempting to some banks and credit card companies, who need an accurate risk assessment on millions of accounts every year. For ease of use, these scores tend to be mathematically scaled so that they fall in the same general range as the FICO score. Fair Isaac offers scoring models for the U.S ., Canada, and South Africa. It also offers a "Global FICO" for many other countries.

Credit scores are designed to measure the risk of default by taking into account various factors in a person's financial history. Although the exact formulae for calculating credit scores are closely guarded secrets, Fair Isaac has disclosed the following components and the approximate weighted contribution of each:

35% punctuality of payment in the past (only includes payments later than 30 days past due)
30% capacity used: the ratio of current revolving debt (credit card balances, etc.) to total available revolving credit (credit limits)
15% length of credit history
10% types of credit used (installment revolving consumer finance
10% recent search for credit and/or amount of credit obtained recently
The above percentages provide very limited guidance in understanding a credit score. For example, the 10% of the score allocated to "types of credit used" is undefined, leaving consumers unaware what type of credit mix to pursue. "Length of credit history" is also a murky concept; it consists of multiple factors - two being the oldest account open and the average length of time an account has been open. Although only 35% is attributed to punctuality, if a consumer is substantially late on numerous accounts, his score will fall far more than 35%. Bankruptcies, foreclosures, and judgments affect scores substantially, but are not included in the simplistic pie chart provided by Fair Isaac.

Further, Fair Isaac does not use the same "scorecard" for everyone. The scorecards are segmented so that there are over 100 different actual scoring models that are applied to different individuals based on different ranges of input values (some scorecard segmentations include: age, depth of credit history, etc.) The implications of this segmentation are that while the approximate weighted contribution above may be an average across all scorecards, individuals will receive different scores or weightings based on the scorecard segmentation that they fall into. Some consumers have noticed their scores decreasing by small amounts for no apparent reason.

Current income and employment history do not influence the FICO score, but they are weighed when applying for credit. For instance, an unemployed individual with no other sources of income will not usually be approved for a home mortgage, regardless of his or her FICO score.

There are other special factors which can weigh on the FICO score.

Any monies owed because of a court judgment, tax lien, or similar carry an additional negative penalty, especially when recent.
Having above a certain number of consumer finance company credit accounts also carries a negative weight (critics say that this causes a vicious cycle, locking people into continuing to use consumer finance companies).
The number of recent credit checks also can weigh down the score, although the credit agencies claim to allow for credit checks made within a certain window of time to not aggregate, so as to allow the consumer to shop around for rates.

A FICO score generally ranges from 300 to 850. It exhibits a left-skewed distribution with a US median around 725. 660 is generally regarded as potentially subprime and represents an important break point for credit worthiness. The performance of the scores is monitored and the scores are periodically aligned so that a credit grantor normally does not need to be concerned about which score card was employed.

Each individual actually has three credit scores for any given scoring model because the three credit agencies hold their own, independent databases. These databases are independent of each other and may contain entirely different data. Many lenders will check an applicant's score from each bureau and use the median score to determine the applicant's credit worthiness.


Debt1consolidation.com entails taking out one loan to pay off many others. This is often done to secure a lower interest rate secure a fixed interest rate or for the convenience of servicing only one loan.

Debt consolidation can simply be from a number of unsecured loans into another unsecured loan, but more often it involves a secured loan against an asset that serves as collateral, which is most commonly a house (in this case a mortgage is secured against the house.) The collateralization of the loan allows a lower interest rate than without it, because by collateralizing, the asset owner agrees to allow the forced sale (foreclosure) of the asset to pay back the loan. The risk to the lender is reduced so the interest rate offered is lower.

Sometimes, debt consolidation companies can discount the amount of the loan. When the debtor is in danger of bankruptcy, the debt consolidator will buy the loan at a discount. A prudent debtor can shop around for consolidators who will pass along some of the savings. Consolidation can affect the ability of the debtor to discharge debts in bankruptcy, so the decision to consolidate must be weighed carefully.

Debt consolidation is often advisable in theory when someone is paying credit card debt. Credit cards can carry a much larger interest rate than even an unsecured loan from a bank. Debtors with property such as a home or car may get a lower rate through a secured loan using their property as collateral Then the total interest and the total cash flow paid towards the debt is lower allowing the debt to be paid off sooner, incurring less interest. In practice, many people are in credit card debt because they spend more than their income. If that habit continues, the consolidation will not benefit them much because they will simply increase their credit card balances again.

Because of the theoretical advantage that debt consolidation offers a consumer that has high interest debt balances, companies can take advantage of that benefit of refinancing to charge very high fees in the debt consolidation loan. Sometimes these fees are near the state maximum for mortgage fees. In addition, some unscrupulous companies will knowingly wait until a client has backed themselves into a corner and must refinance in order to consolidate and pay off bills that they are behind on the payments. If the client does not refinance they may lose their house, so they are willing to pay any allowable fee to complete the debt consolidation. In some cases the situation is that the client does not have enough time to shop for another lender with lower fees and may not even be fully aware of them. This practice is known as predatory lending Certainly many, if not most, debt consolidation transactions do not involve predatory lending.

In the United States, federal student loans are consolidated somewhat differently, as federal student loans are guaranteed by the U.S. government. In a federal student loan consolidation, existing loans are purchased and closed by a loan consolidation company or by the Department of Education (depending on what type of federal student loan the borrower holds). Interest rates for the consolidation are based on that year's student loan rate, which is in turn based on the 91-day Treasury bill rate at the last auction in May of each calendar year.

Student loan rates can fluctuate from the current low of 4.70% to a maximum of 8.25% for federal Stafford loans 9% for PLUS loans. The current consolidation program allows students to consolidate once with a private lender, and reconsolidate again only with the Department of Education. Upon consolidation, a fixed interest rate is set based on the then-current interest rate. Reconsolidating does not change that rate. If the student combines loans of different types and rates into one new consolidation loan, a weighted average calculation will establish the appropriate rate based on the then-current interest rates of the different loans being consolidated together.

Federal student loan consolidation is often referred to as refinancing, which is incorrect because the loan rates are not changed, merely locked in. Unlike private sector debt consolidation, student loan consolidation does not incur any fees for the borrower; private companies make money on student loan consolidation by reaping subsidies from the federal government.

Student loan consolidation can be beneficial to students' credit rating, but it's important to note that not all federal student loan consolidation companies report their loans to all credit bureaus; SLM Corporation (formerly Sallie Mae) does not report to Experian or Transunion which means that students will have differing credit scores at Equifax Transunion, and Experian.

Credit as a financial term, used in such terms as credit card refers to the granting of a loan and the creation of debt. Any movement of financial capital is normally quite dependent on credit, which in turn is dependent on the reputation or creditworthiness of the entity which takes responsibility for the funds.

A similar usage is in commercial trade where credit is used to refer to the approval for delayed payments for goods purchased. Sometimes if a person has financial instability or difficulty, credit is not granted. Companies frequently offer credit to their customers as part of the terms of a purchase agreement. Organizations that offer credit to their customers frequently employ a credit manager

Credit is denominated by a unit of account Unlike money (by a strict definition), credit itself cannot act as a unit of account. However, many forms of credit can readily act as a medium of exchange As such, various forms of credit are frequently referred to as money and are included in estimates of the money supply

Credit is also traded in the market The purest form is the "Credit Default Swap" market, which is essentially a traded market in credit insurance. A credit default swap represents the price at which two counterparties will exchange this risk — the protection "seller" takes the risk of default of the credit in return for a payment, commonly denoted in basis points (one basis point being 1/100 of a percent) of the notional amount to be referenced, while the protection "buyer" pays this premium and in the case of default of the underlying (a loan, bond or other receivable), delivers this receivable to the protection seller and receives from the seller the par amount ( i.e., is made whole).

Credit Education is the practice of providing consumers with information analyzing their credit behavior. Credit education is usually practiced by trained professionals knowledgeable in the analytics of the credit score and how consumer credit behavior effects both positive and negative credit eligibility. Credit education is usually assisted by sophisticated credit scoring models that mathematically assists the consumer, or counselor, in determining a credit improvement outcome.

Credit Education has become an increasingly practiced discipline due to sweeping increases in the use of the credit score and its affect on the prices consumers pay for loans, insurance, housing and utilities. It is also the major factor in loan eligibility.

Not to be confused with credit counseling credit education does not focus on debt counseling, nor involves the practice of collecting debt from consumers. Credit counseling and credit repair have consistently received negative publicity for its fee and management practices.

The largest suppliers for credit education data are Fair Isaac Corporation, CreditXpert and the three credit bureaus ( Experian, TransUnion and Equifax who deliver credit reports and credit scores. Among the largest providers of credit education services is Community Empower who, through the use of its own scoring models and national network of credit education counselors, provides consumers hands-on guidance using highly-trained local professionals.

Credit education has also received attention as a new discipline at the Community College level where new courses on the subject are being taught. Usually aligned with Mortgage Finance programs that teach college undergraduates principles of lending and underwriting credit education and credit recovery programs are giving students more extensive backgrounds in credit early in their careers. Among the early college level adoptors of credit education is the Los Angeles Community College District and Los Angeles Trade Technical College.

FICO is an acronym for Fair Isaac Corporation (traded publicly under the symbol FIC) and refers to the best-known credit score model in the United States, which is calculated using mathematical formulae developed by this company. The FICO score is primarily used in the consumer banking and credit industry. Banks and other institutions that use scores as a factor in their lending decisions may deny credit, charge higher interest rates or require more extensive income and asset verification if the applicants credit score is low.

FICO scores are designed to indicate the likelihood of a borrower being delinquent within the next 24 months. No public information is available to determine what the scores mean in terms of statistics. A separate score, BNI, is used to indicate likelihood of bankruptcy.

The three major credit reporting agencies (also often, but inaccurately referred to as credit bureaus) in the United States, Equifax, Experianand TransUnion calculate their own credit scores, which go by different trademark names as well as many different versions of the score (often differing because of what they are meant to predict and when they were written): Beacon, Beacon 96, and Pinnacle are all available only from Equifax; Empirica, Empirica Auto 95, Precision Score, and Precision 03 at TransUnion; and Fair Isaac Risk Score at Experian. These versions, while all developed for the agencies by Fair Isaac, differ and are periodically updated to reflect current consumer repayment behavior. The NextGen Scores are the most recent scores, but creditors vary in which version they prefer to use.

The scores use a multiple scorecard design. Each version uses 10 or more individual scorecards, and an individual is typically compared with similar others. (For example, a borrower with two 30-day late payments will be scored against a population with some minor delinquencies.) An individual is then graded according to what variables seem to indicate a repayment risk in that group. This feature may cause a borrower with delinquencies to score in the same range as a borrower without delinquencies.

Nearly all large banks also build and use their own proprietary statistical models for credit scoring purposes, often in conjunction with the FICO score or other outside scores.

The statistical models that generate credit scores are subject to federal regulations. The Federal Reserve Board's Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, expressly prohibits a credit scoring model from considering any prohibited basis such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or marital status. Regulation B also stipulates that credit scoring models must be empirically derived and statistically sound. Furthermore, if an adverse action is taken as a result of the credit score ( e.g. an individual's application for credit is denied) then specific reasons for the denial must be provided to the individual. A statement that the individual "failed to score high enough" is insufficient; the reasons must be specific.

There exist several generally accepted algorithms for extracting the primary contributing factors to a low credit score. One or more of these algorithms is typically used to supply a list of reasons when a loan applicant has been denied credit, in order to satisfy the Regulation B requirement that specific reasons are disclosed. Some consumers feel these adverse action reasons are somewhat disingenuous, as the only determining factor for credit denials is a numeric score — the "reasons" are summed up only for the consumer.

Each of the credit reporting agencies has developed its own version of the credit score intended to compete with Fair Isaac's score. Although not as widely used, these scores (for example Trans Union's "TransRisk" score or Experian's "ScoreX" and "PLUS" scores) are less expensive than the FICO score. These scores are often derisively referred to by consumers and lenders as "FAKO" scores, for they do not use official Fair Isaac methodologies. The cost savings of a non-FICO score are tempting to some banks and credit card companies, who need an accurate risk assessment on millions of accounts every year. For ease of use, these scores tend to be mathematically scaled so that they fall in the same general range as the FICO score. Fair Isaac offers scoring models for the U.S ., Canada, and South Africa. It also offers a "Global FICO" for many other countries.

Credit scores are designed to measure the risk of default by taking into account various factors in a person's financial history. Although the exact formulae for calculating credit scores are closely guarded secrets, Fair Isaac has disclosed the following components and the approximate weighted contribution of each:

35% punctuality of payment in the past (only includes payments later than 30 days past due)
30% capacity used: the ratio of current revolving debt (credit card balances, etc.) to total available revolving credit (credit limits)
15% length of credit history
10% types of credit used (installment revolving consumer finance
10% recent search for credit and/or amount of credit obtained recently
The above percentages provide very limited guidance in understanding a credit score. For example, the 10% of the score allocated to "types of credit used" is undefined, leaving consumers unaware what type of credit mix to pursue. "Length of credit history" is also a murky concept; it consists of multiple factors - two being the oldest account open and the average length of time an account has been open. Although only 35% is attributed to punctuality, if a consumer is substantially late on numerous accounts, his score will fall far more than 35%. Bankruptcies, foreclosures, and judgments affect scores substantially, but are not included in the simplistic pie chart provided by Fair Isaac.

Further, Fair Isaac does not use the same "scorecard" for everyone. The scorecards are segmented so that there are over 100 different actual scoring models that are applied to different individuals based on different ranges of input values (some scorecard segmentations include: age, depth of credit history, etc.) The implications of this segmentation are that while the approximate weighted contribution above may be an average across all scorecards, individuals will receive different scores or weightings based on the scorecard segmentation that they fall into. Some consumers have noticed their scores decreasing by small amounts for no apparent reason.

Current income and employment history do not influence the FICO score, but they are weighed when applying for credit. For instance, an unemployed individual with no other sources of income will not usually be approved for a home mortgage, regardless of his or her FICO score.

There are other special factors which can weigh on the FICO score.

Any monies owed because of a court judgment, tax lien, or similar carry an additional negative penalty, especially when recent.
Having above a certain number of consumer finance company credit accounts also carries a negative weight (critics say that this causes a vicious cycle, locking people into continuing to use consumer finance companies).
The number of recent credit checks also can weigh down the score, although the credit agencies claim to allow for credit checks made within a certain window of time to not aggregate, so as to allow the consumer to shop around for rates.

A FICO score generally ranges from 300 to 850. It exhibits a left-skewed distribution with a US median around 725. 660 is generally regarded as potentially subprime and represents an important break point for credit worthiness. The performance of the scores is monitored and the scores are periodically aligned so that a credit grantor normally does not need to be concerned about which score card was employed.

Each individual actually has three credit scores for any given scoring model because the three credit agencies hold their own, independent databases. These databases are independent of each other and may contain entirely different data. Many lenders will check an applicant's score from each bureau and use the median score to determine the applicant's credit worthiness.


 

Debt Consolidation
Debt Help can help you reduce your interest burden by charging an interest rate lower than the rate on your existing loans. Debt consolidation loan can also allow you to make small monthly payments by extending the loan period
http://www.debt1consolidation.com
http://www.debt-consolidation.com
 

Consumer bill consolidation site helps you pay off bills to get out of debt. free online debt analysis available.
 

great blogger site found.
..................................
 

If some one needs to be updated with hottest technologies then he must be pay a quick visit this web page and be up to date everyday. Agen Sbobet
 

thank you for the information you have provided is to provide information to us all. kata kata mutiara
 

Very good information here, I am very enthralled and stoked that you decided to share this. I’ll definitely bookmark this for future viewing.
Sepatu Kerja
Sepatu Terbaru
Jaket Wanita Terbaru
Jaket
Sepatu Wanita
Jaket Wanita
Sepatu Wedges
Sepatu Online
Fashion Wanita
Fashion Wanita
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

That is very interesting smile I love reading , thanks a lot, happy can visit here
Cantik Alami | Fashion Terbaru | Diet Cara Alami | Info Kehamilan | Info Penyakit
 

Very interesting to read this article.
I would like to thank you for the efforts you had made for
writing this awesome article.

Jaket Pria | Jaket Wanita Hoodie | Toko Sepatu | Sweater Keren | Sepatu Pantofel
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home