The CEO Pay Ratio
You may have seen this chart:

Politifact looked into the chart, and its source is a student paper from 2005, which contained no source or citation for the 475:1 ratio.  So, unless you’re the type of person to rely on the unchecked accuracy of students, it’s not a reliable source of information.

The far-left Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in 2010, did, however, claim that the average CEO pay ratio was 325:1 (see page 2, above the cartoon).  There are few issues with the ratio:

1. CEO Pay is inflated:  IPS says the average CEO pay they use is $10.8 million.
1. Included in that number is the value of stock options and restricted stock, valued at grant, along with bonuses and other compensation.  In the trade, this is known as “proxy comp,” the (often over-estimated) amount of compensation a publicly traded company is required to disclose by the SEC in its annual proxy statement to shareholders.
2. This is an overstatement because, at the time of grant, the shares are not vested (the executive may or may not actually receive them), and if the stock price goes down, they may be worthless (or worth a lot less).
3. This is also unfair, because well run companies will intentionally tie CEO pay to stock price.  The criteria on which public company’s CEO are (rightfully) measured, is improvement in stock price, earnings and profit margin.  This translates into equity and bonus-heavy compensation.  In other words, if the board wants to keep the CEO focused on what is good for the company, they will pay less in salary (less guaranteed), and more in stock grants and year-end bonus (more incentive-based).  More on this in part 2.
4. It is unclear whether it is included in the $10.8 million number, but proxy comp must, under SEC regulations, include fringe benefits, like retirement plans, healthcare benefits, etc.  You can argue about whether or not this is compensation, but it is not cash handed over for pay.
2. Worker Pay is understated: The IPS paper cites “average worker pay” of $33,121.
   1. Unlike with CEO pay, the “average workers pay” does not include benefits, like stock options, 401(k) contributions, medical, dental and vision insurance premiums paid by the employer, or even bonuses.  Any other compensation received by the employee is excluded.  As noted in the IPS paper (page 37, endnote 3), “worker pay” is simply an average hourly rate for “production workers” ($19 per hour) multiplied by 33.4 hours over 52 weeks.  Why 33.4 hours?  I suppose the proletariat get 90 minutes a day for lunch, and the evil cleptocrats don’t pay them for it.
   2. In contrast, according to the federal government, the average wage index (most recent year available is 2009) was $40,711.62.  That would yield a ratio of  265:1, not 325:1. Again, even this larger number does not include bonuses, retirement contributions, medical, dental or other benefits paid by the company.
3. The CEO compensation study only looked at S&P 500 companies. There are thousands of very sizable US companies not on that list.  The S&P 500 only represents about $325 billion in earnings ($10.16T/31.3), globally (about 0.6% of global GDP) and only employs a total of 25.6 million people–globally.  (In contrast, there are over 130 million total people employed by all employers in the US alone–5 times what the S&P 500 employs globally.)  These are the largest and most powerful international public companies in the world–not a place to look for modestly compensated executives.
4. Finally, “production workers,” the basis for the low-ball $33,121 number, are not the sort of workers employed by most S&P 500 companies.  Companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, GE, McDonalds (the franchisor company, not the burger restaurants–there’s a difference), Visa, MasterCard, Pepsi (again, franchisor, not bottler), etc., do not employ a lot of production-line workers, much less workers paid hourly.  Most of these companies employ salaried workers in the fields of finance, sales, legal, engineering, computer technology–most are college entry level companies.  So most of these “overpaid” CEOs are not leading companies full of “production workers.”

To give a concrete example of proxy comp versus reality, the 2010 proxy statement for Google shows that, in 2009 their CFO received a (relatively modest) salary of $450,000 (see summary compensation table at page 59).  This would put him in the 10:1 range for (relatively well compensated) Google employees.  (The CEO received only $1 in direct compensation).  When you include his bonus, stock and option awards (awards that may never vest, and may be worthless when they do), he received $24.7M.  Now, no one should feel sorry for Mr. Pichette–he took home over $3 million in cash, which even after taxes, is a nice living wage.  But his “proxy comp” is inflated 12 times larger than what he actually took home.  Similarly, the evil Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein had a salary of $600,000 in 2010, but his proxy comp number was over $14 million (page 29), the bulk of which is in stock awards.

In sum, the oft-cited ratio is based on false premises and comparing narrowly selected groups to inflate and understate, respectively, both sides of the equation.  It is like comparing apples to apple pies.

The core argument is that lower income Americans (the 47% who pay no income tax today) would end up paying more in taxes, and the taxes on goods and services would unfairly be placed on them.  The logic being that lower income Americans have less disposable income, and therefore have less choice in whether and what to buy.  A tax on goods would therefore be borne by these currently untaxed Americans.

Although Cain hinted at it, he fails to make the most compelling counter argument to the regressive tax charge: All Americans are already paying indirect taxes through the taxes embedded in the price of goods and services they buy.  To be fair, Cain mentioned embedded taxes On Meet the Press, but only to argue that prices will drop under his plan (a fair point, as well).  He has not yet argued that the tax is not regressive because the high corporate tax rate is already embedded in the cost of goods and services.

For example, if a grocery store sells a loaf of bread for $3, embedded in that price, is the following costs:

1. farming and transporting the wheat, eggs and milk used to make the bread;
2. milling and re-transporting the wheat to make flour;
3. baking and packaging the bread;
4. warehousing and transporting the bread to the store; and
5. stocking the shelves, paying the cashier and the cart guy, and the night janitor, etc., who all work at the store.

At every level, from farmer to mill to baker to wholesaler to store, the relevant business has to pay a 7.65% payroll tax on all employee wages, plus a 35% tax on the business’s profits.  As many conservatives have pointed out, those taxes are only paid by the companies in a technical sense.  In a real sense, they are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

If it costs $1.00 to produce the bread, the baker will sell it to the wholesaler for about $1.30, making a 30% margin.  That margin covers the profit the baker needs to make, net of taxes.  At a 35% tax rate, the baker would pay 10.5 cents on each loaf of bread, meaning the baker nets a profit of $.195 per loaf.  (If the taxes are reduced from 35% to 9%, the baker could sell the same loaf for $1.21 and make the same profit after taxes–this does not count the cost of employer paid employment taxes.)

That tax effect is multiplied at each level of exchange.  The baker already takes on the farmer’s and mill’s taxes and grosses up his price to include those costs in his own profit margin.  So each merchant’s margin includes some multiplier of the taxes already paid at each prior level.  If we assume a profit margin of about 20% for the store, 10% for the wholesaler, 30% for the baker, and 10% for the mill and the farmer, the embedded taxes will add up to over $1.00. (Even if you assume an across the board 10% margin, $.62 of the $3 is due to taxing of profits at each level.)  Put another way, if the corporate tax rate were 0%, bread would cost about $1 less.

While it may be true that some Americans will pay more taxes directly to the U.S. Treasury, the critics who make this argument are not considering the indirect taxes those Americans are already paying.  The proper counter argument for Mr. Cain is that Americans already pay consumption tax, they just don’t realize it.  Under 9-9-9, Americans would have a more transparent view into their real tax burden.

Of course, as the Wall Street Journal points out, the real problem with 9-9-9 is that it will soon become 15-15-15.

The United States Constitution is simply the document that unified the (at the time) 13 states and set out the rules by which those 13 states would: (1) regulate commerce between themselves; (2) admit new states; (3) settle disputes; (4) raise and spend money; (5) raise a military for their common defense; and (6) ensure that certain rights and liberties were respected as they passed from one state through to another–i.e., a Virginian was not discriminated against in New York. So you had three parties at risk: (a) the new federal government; (b) the states and (c) the people. The document had to address what the individual rights and responsibilities of each of those parties would be and how they would be carried out.

The principle that the drafters followed, which is embodied expressly in the Tenth Amendment is that, if the Constitution does not expressly give the federal government a power, no such power exists.  The Constitution lays out in great detail the three separate branches of the federal government, their powers and their limits.  So what about this “General Welfare” clause?  Is there a provision that allows the federal government to provide for the “general welfare?”  No.  It is in the introduction:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It was not the bloated federal bureaucracy that was established to promote the general Welfare–it was the Constitution itself.

So what does that mean?  In Steny Hoyer’s mind (and, I’m sure, the minds of a lot of government-centric liberals) it means that the federal government–specifically Congress– is being created to “promote the general Welfare.”  But if you read to the end of that sentence, it is not the federal government that this language refers to.  No, Mr. Hoyer.  It is not you, Mrs. Pelosi and your bloated, ignorant, unaccountable federal bureaucracy that was established to promote the general Welfare.  It was the Constitution itself.

It was the Constitution that was written to promote the general welfare.  The limits on federal power are what promote the general welfare.  The very barriers between the federal government, the state government and the people that Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid so gleefully ignore–that is what the Founders had in mind when they talked about promoting the general Welfare.  The clear, unambiguous language in black and crinkled yellow that says, “thou shalt not trample my rights” is what establishes justice, ensures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defense, promotes the general Welfare, and secures the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

It is the Constitution –the limits on federal power–that promote the general welfare.

Liberals lament the sharp reaction that their schemes have met.  They fret about violence and secretly fear the backlash from their policies.  Their constant unconstitutional plans are all met with passionate anger: dragging us deeper in debt for their pet projects; telling us at what temperature to set our thermostats; coercing people into buying insurance; “nudging” us into what they deem to be proper behavior.  It is the Constitution that has ensured domestic justice and tranquility for 220 years.  Democrats “reshape” our Republic at their peril.

Professor Cavanagh’s story (too long ago to remember and too good to check) was about a group of executives on a dais at an industry conference. These executives were on a panel to discuss topics relevant to the industry, but during the Q&A, they were led astray and began to discuss price. Future price. One of the executives–and this is the bit a young corporate lawyer remembers–one of the executives stood up, dumped a pitcher of ice water all over the table, and shouted “you people are talking price, it is illegal, and I am leaving.”

That caused one hell of a scene. When the murmuring quieted down, the Q&A discussion continued without that executive. Several years later, however, as the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s case was being made, all of the corporations were named in a price fixing scheme–all but one. There were literally hundreds of witnesses who remembered crazy Charlie, who dumped the pitcher of ice water, shouted about price fixing, and left the room.

Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s fantasies, which involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves, Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.

For obvious reasons, undignified outbursts have been on my mind lately. Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s personal power fantasies (which apparently involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves–Maureen, it’s called projection, see a professional, get help), Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.  The Obama administration was lying to the public, and was calling Republicans liars for exposing the lie.  Faced with this hypocrisy, Wilson lost his temper and his composure and shouted in rejection.

Now, I am not suggesting that Wilson was correct or that he need not apologize.  What he did was inappropriate, but not necessarily wrong.  First, he had a duty to his constituents to protect them and their property from what he saw as a threat (the taking of their money to pay for healthcare for illegals).  His outburst was successful in a way no civil discourse was.  The Obama administration was forced to agree to a provision it had previously rejected, mandating that illegal aliens not be covered by ObamaCare.  I am reminded about the French proverb about a small carafe of wine being illogical, immoral, and inadequate.  In some circumstances, doing the impolite thing is the only way to do the right thing.

Not only is this normal, it is healthy and far too infrequent.  In one of my favorite, life-changing books,  The Wisdom of Crowds, James Suroweicki describes conformity and peer pressure experiments first conducted by Solomon Asch.  In the basic experiment, the scientist places between 4 and 20 subjects in a room and shows each subject a note card with a straight line on it.  The scientist then projects an image with three lines, labeled A, B and C of varying lengths, and asks each subject which of the labeled lines is the same length as the one on the note card.  The process is repeated with different note cards and new projected images.

The trick is that only one of the “subjects” is actually a subject.  The others are all actors who are told that after the third or fourth note card, they are all to intentionally and unanimously pick the same wrong line.  The real test is to see whether the actual subject (who always picks last) will go along with the group, who is obviously wrong.  The fascinating conclusion of these experiments is that, to a large degree, people will go along with a group they know to be wrong, simply because no one else will speak up.  The implied (or explicit) consensus of the group acts to silence dissent.

Even more fascinating is that, no matter how many wrongheaded people there are making up the groupthink bubble, that bubble will burst when just one actor speaks up.  In other words, if “A” is the correct answer, and there are 10 “subjects” (9 actors and 1 actual subject), even though 8 actors (wrongly) say the right answer is “B”, but the ninth says “A”, suddenly the subject is liberated.  The peer pressure vanishes and the subject is free to speak their mind.  What is even more fascinating is that, even if the ninth subject says “C”, the other wrong answer, the effect is the same.  The subject is still liberated simply by the bubble bursting–even if it’s by a wrong answer.

Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.

This is the theory behind the centuries old Catholic practice of the Devil’s Advocate.  When a person is considered for sainthood, the Church will appoint an expert in canon law (yes, there are attorneys who are allowed in church) to argue against canonization.  Although the Devil’s Advocate will of course raise valid points, he will also allow others who have doubts to be free to raise them without feeling peer pressure.  The Church, in 1587, codified an anti-groupthink process that is only now becoming mainstream.  (Sometimes tradition is ahead of the times.)

Too often, in our personal, professional and political lives, we  let things slide.  We hear lies, half truths and hypocrisy and we don’t call each other on it.  Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.  That failure to speak up–to dump a pitcher of ice water on a table once in a while–happens every day in small, but important ways.  Ordinary Americans are starting to fight against Hope·ocrisy, and we need to do more.

We need to keep speaking up.  At work, at home, and everywhere else, when you hear lies, hypocrisy, and things that just don’t sound right, challenge them openly.  Be that dissenting voice and know that, when you speak, you will be bursting the bubble for millions of others–even if you don’t have all the right answers.  When someone brings up Global Warming™, don’t politely change the subject, challenge them, even if you don’t have an advanced degree in climatology (they don’t either).  Opening a dialogue is the point.  Challenging the “consensus” is all you need to do, someone else may hear you and that alone will be enough to make them question the status quo.

We also need to encourage those who speak out against Obama, Reid and Pelosi, (and, for that matter, Michael Steel, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and everyone else in a position to direct public opinion and policy)–even if we disagree with those who speak up.  Their dissenting voices help to burst the groupthink bubble–even if they don’t have the right answers.  The mere fact that they speak up is enough to burst the bubble.

This weekend, nearly 2 million Americans poured a pitcher of ice water on Washington D.C.  The bubble is already bursting.

Keep in mind that this is the administration that (i) cried that they had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and (ii) that if we passed the stimulus bill, unemployment would not rise above 8%. Now, out of alternate sides of their mouths, we hear (i) they underestimated how bad things were and (ii) things are not so bad and the stimulus is working.

Taking the first point, the Great Depression was pretty bad. I wasn’t there, but I’ve read books, seen pictures, talked to those who were there. 10% unemployment is a blip compared to 25%. Second, and here is the really screwy bit, right now, there are officially 14.9 million people (or 9.7%) “unemployed” (not counting those who would like to work but are discouraged from looking or are pursuing other things, like stay-at-home parents, students and early retirees).

If you take Biden at his word, there would be 15.9 million people unemployed. That would be an unemployment rate of 10.3%. So are Obama and Biden really saying that their administration so badly misjudged things that they didn’t know this economy would result in 10.3% rather than 8%? That’s a difference of over 3.5 million jobs. Over six months. That would be pretty embarrassing all by itself.

On June 12, Customs and Border Patrol Officer (CBP) May Dupname apprehended Yemeni-born terrorist named Muhammed bin-Traanin Tukilual.  Mr. Tukilual was stopped while crossing the border with 500 lbs of C4, 20 fully automatic assault rifles, and a map with directions to 10 suburban daycare centers.  While apprehending Mr. Tukilual, Officer Dupname waited more than 10 minutes before Mirandizing him and then “accidentally” put his handcuffs on so tight he complained for nearly 3 minutes.  This woman needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

On September 11, 2001, while attempting to evacuate victims of the attacks, several firefighters reportedly said phrases like “come on guys, let’s go” and “hurry up fellas,” “and oh, man, come on.” The DOJ is concerned that this may have offended some women and transgendered individuals who were present or who later watched news reports or listened to the emergency responder tapes. Please review the tapes and suggest disciplinary action for the firefighters (posthumously if necessary).

News reports and anecdotal evidence indicates that Marines deployed in Fallujah in 2004 apparently used obscenities while being fired upon by insurgents. The winning of hearts and minds is a critical part of the war in Iraq and POTUS wants to be sure our enlisted personnel are putting forward the best image of U.S. sensibilities. Please review all news accounts, transcripts and after action reports and recommend disciplinary or criminal action for the Marines (again, posthumously if necessary).

The Wall Street Journal, other financial media outlets and business leaders have repeatedly referred to the day after Thanksgiving as “Black Friday,” potentially offending African Americans and other people of color. DOJ should discourage this through legal process. File a legal proceeding against the Wall Street Journal (it doesn’t matter what the cause of action is) and harangue them with two years worth of discovery. When they are willing to settle, make this part of the consent decree.

As you know, we recently dismissed charges against three Black Panthers arising out of events in the 2008 election.  The Black Panther Party is planning on sending armed thugs to patrol the midterm elections next November. We have learned that they intend to intimidate white voters and suppress conservative and independent turnout in order to ensure a Democrat majority.  In order to avoid another embarrassing media circus, please ensure that no media is present at election cites where the Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and also make sure no arrests are made.

Looking forward to living in a 9/10 world again, if we survive.

Pointing a loaded gun at a liberal’s head will make a tingle run down his leg, and not in the same way that Chris Matthews feels when he watches his private DVD collection of Obama speeches with a tub of Cherry Garcia and a box of Kleenex.

Torture Memos

We have learned that the terrorists were subjected to the following “tortures:”

• sleep deprivation;
• waterboarding (3 detainees);
• smoke was blown in their faces;
• guns and drills were pointed at their heads;
• they were made to walk past hooded guards dressed to look as if they were executed detainees; and
• being told that, if Americans were killed, the terrorists families and children would be found and killed.

The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines “torture” as

“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person…”

So even in liberal Europe, torture requires the infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether that pain or suffering is physical or mental.  For example, actually killing a person’s child in front of them would cause them no physical pain, but would cause them obvious severe mental pain and suffering.  Under U.S. law, however, the definition of torture is somewhat more limited;

“torture” means an act committed by a person . . . specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . .;

“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

The UN, of course, would rather let an attack succeed than allow a terrorist to suffer discomfort for a few minutes.

The difference in the two definitions is subtle, but important and it flows from the phrase “prolonged mental harm” in the definition of severe mental pain or suffering.  Under the UNCAT, arguably, sleep deprivation and merely threatening to kill someone’s children is torture because it is intended to (and may actually) create instantaneous severe mental suffering.  Under U.S. law, however, unless that mental harm is “prolonged,” there is no torture.  (The judgment, and the difficulty, of course, is what does “prolonged” mean.  Five minutes or five days?)  For example, it would arguably not be torture under U.S. law to show a terrorist that their children were in U.S. custody, show the children with a gun to their head and show them being executed in order to obtain information about an imminent attack; provided that you later gave up the rouse and showed the terrorist that it was smoke and mirrors and their children were unharmed (removing the prolonged nature of the mental harm).  (This was done in an episode of 24 and differently in The Unit).  The UN, of course, would rather let the terrorist’s attack succeed than allow a terrorist to suffer discomfort for a few minutes.

Of course, in the memos, we learned that the CIA did not even do this.  The CIA agent was making a prospective contingent threat: “if more Americans die, I will hunt down your children and kill them.”  Legally this is wholly different than the statement (whether the interrogator is lying or not) that “we have your children in custody right now, and if you don’t talk, we’re going to kill them.”  The first is conditional and hypothetical.  The other is an imminent threat and arguably torture.

Moreover, most of the tactics used above are enhanced versions of simple police interrogation tactics.  Police are allowed to, and very often do, lie to suspects. They tell suspects that other people are cooperating when they are not.  They threaten suspects with unreasonable jail time.  They refuse water or bathroom breaks, they prevent suspects from sleeping or leaving the interrogation room.  These are all legal coercive methods used by U.S. police on a daily basis in order to obtain information or a confession from suspects.  If taken to the extreme, these interrogation tactics may undermine the validity of a confession, but they would never be deemed “torture” under U.S. law.

In my legal opinion, none of the tactics used above were torture.  At no time was there severe physical harm done to any detainee.  Waterboarding is the most difficult case, but the United States routinely performs waterboarding on our own personnel during pilot, military and intelligence operative training.  To argue that there is severe physical harm would be difficult.  As to mental pain or suffering, although none of these are pleasant experiences, none of the detainees are pleasant people. Mental pain and suffering is subjective.  Threatening to kill a 90-year old with a weak ticker may be torture.  Threatening to kill Tony Soprano is not going to be a prosecutable case of torture.

Liberals seem to put themselves in the detainee’s cell in Gitmo and empathize.  Well there’s a problem with that–the terrorist didn’t grow up eating Cheerios and watching Teletubbies, go to a nice Ivy League school and get a trendy apartment on the Upper West Side.  He grew up in a country with stonings and rape rooms and spent the last 10 years living in a hovel, watching people get beheaded, or beheading them himself.  Pointing a loaded gun at a liberal’s head will make a tingle run down his leg, and not in the same way that Chris Matthews feels when he’s watching his private best-of DVD collection of Obama speeches at home with a tub of Cherry Garcia and a box of Kleenex.  Pointing a loaded gun at Mohammed Rahim al-Afghani is just another way of pointing at him.

Cannot Interrogate Anyone
The second “unimportant” announcement made during Obama’s vacation was that the job of interrogating high-value detainees was being stripped away from the CIA and given to a new committee, headed by the FBI.  This is adding insult to injury and demeans a CIA with already cripplingly low morale.  As Krauthammer pointed out, this means that if we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be served tea and crumpets by the FBI, but if get a goat herder crossing the wrong field in Afghanistan, it’s the full might of the CIA to the rescue.

Obama is now ginning up a controversy in order to “manufacture” support in his flagging base by politicizing the CIA’s past conduct.

In addition, Obama has announced that the CIA operatives who conducted these interrogations, in some cases six or seven years ago, may be criminally prosecuted, despite his promise to the contrary only four months ago.  Heaping on the good news, Obama will continue rendition, which is the process by which some detainees are remanded to foreign governments for “interrogation” (read as “actual torture”).

The point here is that there are fine legal lines to be drawn over what conduct constitutes torture.  Judgment calls were were made by a prior administration who saw a clear need to protect the American public.  Obama is now ginning up a controversy in order to “manufacture” support in his flagging base by politicizing the CIA’s past conduct.  This is a blatant attempt to shore up his base and lick his wounds from a bruising healthcare battle and the embarrassments of his short tenure.

But his conduct has consequences.  The CIA is not a collection of automatons.  The operatives there see the hand writing on the wall, and those who decide to remain in intelligence gathering will naturally be more cautious under Obama.  When the airliners begin flying into buildings again, and the fingers begin to be pointed, the American public will remember that these were the decisions that lead to the tragic and preventable second 9/11.

Compassion comes from the late Latin compassionem from com- “together” and pati “to suffer” meaning to suffer together.  If there is one thing that al-Megrahi has not done, it is suffer with us.  He evaded justice for over a decade, and now is being released to die in the comfort of his own home and with his family and friends.  In deed, he is being welcomed as a hero.  Again, we are left to suffer in fresh grief alone.

Al-Megrahi received a life sentence; he was supposed to die in a Scottish jail.

There are several problems with the notion of compassionate release, especially in this case.  They range from the emotional (his victims did not receive any compassion) to the logical (he was sentenced to die in prison).  I will take them in turn:

1. First, al-Megrahi’s victim’s were given no such quarter.  When they boarded their flight, they had a little over an hour to live, and not a one of them knew it.  They could not call home to talk to loved ones; they could not write final farewells; they could not make peace with their makers or atone for their sins.  The first indication they had that death was upon them was when the aircraft they were peacefully flying in was violently torn apart at 31,000 feet by the bomb cowardly placed in its cargo hold by al Megrahi and his accomplices.
2. al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison.  Let that sink in for a minute.  Everyone dies of something. Whether you believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, the malevolent universe or simply random interaction of atoms–something was going to kill him and al-Megrahi was supposed to die in a Scottish jail.  The fact that it was to be of prostate cancer three months from now should have been nothing more than a footnote in history, certainly not a reason for compassionate release
3. Compassionate release is a discretionary policy.  A person who goes astray and commits a crime can later be shown compassion if (i) they have truly show remorse and (ii) their debt has either been paid or the burden of their suffering will outweigh it.  As to the first point, al-Megrahi still maintains his innocence.  Remorse is impossible without an acknowledgment of guilt.  As to the second, he has served almost no time at all, having only been incarcerated for less than 12 days for each of his victims.  And prostate cancer, while not pleasant, is not exactly a sentence befitting a man who gruesomely killed 270 innocent people.

The only thing terrorists deserve is the mercy of a timely end to their sorry existence.

4. Even Americans can understand compassion for criminals.  Thieves, robbers, even murderers may deserve compassion.  People commit crimes for a reason that, in time, can be understood, if not sympathized with.  Greed, jealousy, revenge, hatred–these are human emotions that function within a normal human society.  But terrorists do not deserve our compassion.  Terrorists are a special breed, and Britain, of all countries, should know this better than anyone. The goal of a terrorists, especially Muslim terrorists, is not to better their station at the expense of others or to seek revenge or placate their jealousy.  Their goal is to kill innocents in order to make a political point.  They intend to destroy a civilization.  Such creatures deserve neither sympathy nor compassion.  The only thing they deserve is the mercy of a timely end to their sorry existence.  As Scotland no longer has the death penalty, life in prison–without the possibility of compassionate release–should be the only option.
5. Compassion has more than one side to it.  The Scots, I’m sure feel good about treating such scum in a civilized manner.  al-Megrahi, no doubt, is elated to be able to die surrounded by his family (if he is, in deed, terminally ill).  But the other impact is on those watching.  Clearly the victims’ families and the West are outraged at the insulting use of compassion for someone so clearly undeserving.  But there is yet a fourth side to this drama.  The “Arab street,” as the media is so fond of calling it.  Most Muslims and Arabs will have a very difficult time believing that Scotland released al-Megrahi for compassionate reasons–doing so in an Arab country would be laughable.  Conspiracy theories will abound, and there will be a whole host of crazy conspiracy theories regarding Pan Am 103 and al-Megrahi.  The net effect will be to undermine the deterrent effect (if there ever was one) of law enforcement against terrorism.  It makes a mockery of Western justice in the Arab and Muslim world.

I try not to wish ill on anyone, but in this case I will make an exception.   If there is justice in this world, al-Megrahi is in for a long and painful fight with prostate cancer.  I truly hope it is one that lasts a long, long time.  Of course, the real media circus will be when he attempts to come the the United States for treatment.