Quote from hapaboy:
More prattle from the World of Denial...
What freedom and liberty are we sacrificing? The right not to be checked if we're getting phone calls from the friendly Al Qaeda representative overseas? The acts of a few rogue soldiers makes us the equivalent of Idi Amin and Saddam?
Quote from hapaboy:
What freedom and liberty are we sacrificing? The right not to be checked if we're getting phone calls from the friendly Al Qaeda representative overseas? The acts of a few rogue soldiers makes us the equivalent of Idi Amin and Saddam?
/B]
I don't find anything wrong with the above clauses. Hasn't there been a law on the books far before 9/11 regarding bringing in more than $10K without declaring it to Customs?Quote from Rearden Metal:
Hapa, are you sure you know what's <i>in</i> the Patriot Act?
Below you'll find some of the details of the 'Financial Anti-Terrorism Act', the section of the Patriot Act that deals with finance issues.
Tell me what these new laws look like to you;
A bona fide 'terror-fighting' effort? ...Or is it just another power-grab by those who rule over us?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:0DLKHQdswIkJ:financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/ftolss.pdf
<b>Section 101. Bulk Cash Smuggling Into or Out of the United States</b>
This section makes it a Federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for anyone to knowingly conceal more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on his person or in any conveyance, article of luggage, merchandise or other container, and to transport or attempt to transport that currency across the border with the intent to avoid the requirement that such currency be declared to Customs inspectors.
<b>Section 109. Violations of Section 6050I of the Internal Revenue Code</b>
26 U.S.C. § 6050I requires any trade or business receiving more than $10,000 in cash to report the transaction to the IRS on Form 8300. Failure to file the form subjects the trade or business to civil and criminal sanctions.
<b>Section 118. Prohibition on False Statements to Financial Institutions Concerning the Identity of a Customer</b> This section makes it a Federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, to knowingly falsify or conceal a customerâs true identity in a transaction with a financial institution, including a bank, securities firm, or insurance company.
<b>Section 303. Prohibition on Acceptance of Any Bank Instrument for Unlawful Internet Gambling</b> Internet gambling serves as a haven for money laundering activities. FBI representatives have told Committee staff that a huge potential exists for offshore gambling sites to be used to launder money.
This section prohibits a gambling business from accepting bank instruments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. Covered instruments include credit cards, electronic fund transfers, and checks.
Subsection (d) authorizes criminal penalties, including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. The subsection also authorizes a permanent injunction against a person convicted under this subsection, enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.
__________
I've said it before: The U.S. Government are <b>the bad guys</b>, and Al-Qaida are the even worse guys.
Quote from hapaboy:
I don't find anything wrong with the above clauses. Hasn't there been a law on the books far before 9/11 regarding bringing in more than $10K without declaring it to Customs?
Now, do you find anything wrong with the Gov. monitoring calls for Al Qaeda communications?
So basically your argument is: I don't trust the government to only go after terrorists, they may ALSO use this to arrest individuals for drug offenses I don't agree with, so they shouldn't be doing this at all.Quote from Rearden Metal:
In principle, if this intelligence gathering was devoted <b>exclusively</b> for the <b>sole purpose</b> of protecting us from violent terrorists and dangerous criminal predators,
and <b>if</b> this monitoring was ONLY used to prevent Achmed the Jihadist and/or Hannibal the demented sex offender from attacking their potential victims... sure, I'd find nothing wrong with that.
In reality, it just doesn't work that way. We're talking about a government that performs <b>three</b> drug prohibition enforcement arrests for every <b>one</b> violent crime arrest. Can you tell me that if the surveillance <i>happens</i> to record Bob the harmless non-Muslim, non-pervert American preparing ecstasy tablets for his weekend rave, or evading a bit part of his income tax obligations, that his door won't be kicked in at 4:00 AM the next morning?
<b>And can you guarantee me that these newly empowered government agents will even <i>try</i> pursuing the real terrorists and criminals, when hunting down a nice easy soft target like Harmless Bob is just soooo much easier to do?</b>
When I see a government that is <b>more</b> interested in protecting innocent people from predators, than 'enforcing laws' by preying on innocent people... then and <b>only</b> then will it be appropriate to discuss granting that government enhanced powers.
How's this for "reality"?Quote from paperboy:
Hapaboy
I understand your fear but it is not based on reality.
Quote from hapaboy:
How's this for "reality"?
![]()
![]()
![]()
I suppose 9/11 wasn't reality at all, but some special effects extravaganza from Dreamworks, huh? That guy falling from the WTC was a stuntman, not some poor office worker who decided to jump to his death instead of roasting alive?
Get your head out of your ass, you idiot.