sorry - nat'l security trumps personal privacy On Jan 15, 3:13 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > The Bogus Anti-Terrorist Crackdown on Financial FreedombyJames Bovard, Posted > January 15, 2010This article originally appeared in the October 2009 edition > of Freedom Daily.In the post–9/11 era, federal officials are treating cash as > they would a suspected weapon of mass destruction. They have created legions > of new restrictions and reporting requirements for citizens’ money. But the > new controls have done nothing to make Washington any more competent at > protecting Americans from real threats. > Federal experts estimated that Mohamed Atta and the other 18 hijackers > required only about half a million dollars in total financing to carry out > their attacks on September 11, 2001. That is a tiny fraction of the trillions > of dollars’ worth of currency transactions that occur daily around the world. > Terrorism expert Brian Jenkins observed, “Terrorism tends to be a low-budget > item. The real resources are fervent young men who are willing to blow > themselves to bits.” > But the feds seized upon the attacks to greatly expand intrusions into > Americans’ financial affairs. The terrorist attacks instantly endowed George > W. Bush with the right to micro-manage world financial institutions or so the > Bush administration apparently believed. And while Treasury Department > officials portrayed their decrees as first strikes against “money that > kills,” in reality it is almost impossible to determine which dollar bills > have homicidal intent. > The USA PATRIOT Act gave the feds the right to financially strip-search every > American. It created new financial “crimes without criminal intent” > empowering the Customs Service to confiscate the cash of American travelers > who fail to fill out a government form. > Congress redefined the possession of cash to make it sound far more > insidious. The PATRIOT Act created a new crime “bulk cash smuggling” to > punish anyone who doesn’t notify the government of how much money he is > taking out of or bringing into the United States (if he is carrying more than > $10,000). The PATRIOT Act stated that “if the smuggling of bulk cash were > itself an offense, the cash could be confiscated as thecorpus delictiof the > smuggling offense.” Congress rewrote the law to pretend that money travels by > itself and that money commits the crime. And since a stack of cash has no > constitutional rights, the government can do no wrong when it seizes the > money. (This is based on a medieval legal doctrine known as anin > remproceeding taking legal action “against the thing.”) > Anti-terrorism rhetoric bedecked the new confiscatory powers. In the PATRIOT > Act’s “Findings,” Congress proclaimed that “the movement of large sums of > cash is one of the most reliable warning signs of drug trafficking, > terrorism, money laundering, racketeering, tax evasion and similar crimes.” > Congress also ordained, “The intentional transportation into or out of the > United States of large amounts of currency ... is the equivalent of, and > creates the same harm as, the smuggling of goods.” Congress did not explain > how a person became a smuggler merely by transporting his own money. > The “bulk cash smuggling” provision states that the money cannot be > confiscated unless it has been concealed. But “concealment” includes > “concealment in any article of clothing worn by the individual or in any > luggage, backpack, or other container worn or carried by such individual.” In > other words, any traveler with a heap of bills not plopped openly on the > airline seat when a G-man walks up to interrogate him is guilty of concealing > the money. Violators of the reporting requirement are subject to five years > in prison, as well as loss of all their money.“A dream come true” > The PATRIOT Act contained an array of money-laundering financial-crackdown > provisions. The act empowers the U.S. government to penalize anyone in the > world who is accused of violating U.S. money-laundering laws.Money Laundering > Alert,a pro-government newsletter, hailed the new law:It is no exaggeration > to say that, as a whole, the act has the ability to reach the assets of every > financial institution and business in the world and to cripple their [sic] > ability to function in a world in which the United States is the financial > centerpiece.If a foreign bank has a single dollar deposited or held in a U.S. > bank, or wires a single dollar through the United States, the U.S. government > can claim jurisdiction over that bank’s operations anywhere in the world. > And the information that is stockpiled will be shared far and wide. Money > Laundering Alert described one financial provision of the PATRIOT Act as a > “dream-come-true information gathering tool for U.S. agencies,” extending a > “welcome mat to the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and > other U.S. counterparts” to look at the new financial information on American > citizens and others. > The PATRIOT Act greatly increased the feds’ power to investigate Americans’ > financial affairs. As Newsweek reported,Law-enforcement agencies can submit > the name of any suspect to the Treasury Department, which then orders > financial institutions across the country to search their records for any > matches. If they get a “hit” evidence that the person has an account the > financial in stitution is slapped with a subpoena for the person’s > records.Strippers and the Cuban embargo > Most of the warrantless financial searches the feds have ordered under the > PATRIOT Act have had no connection to terrorism. Kevin Bankston of the > Electronic Frontier Foundation observed,There is no probable cause here. > There is no judicial oversight. Yet the government can immediately query > financial institutions across the nation to find out where you have an > account or who you’ve done business with. It’s not just if you have an > account there, but any record of a financial transaction.The feds used > PATRIOT Act financial sweep-search powers in 2003 in “Operation G-String,” an > investigation of bribes involving Las Vegas strip clubs. Rep. Shelley Berkley > (D-Nev.) complained, “It was never my intent to have the PATRIOT Act used as > a kitchen sink for all of the law-enforcement-tool goodies that the FBI has > been trying to get for the last decades.... It is PATRIOT Act creep.” Berkley > was especially indignant that the powers had been used in a tawdry public > corruption case: “Never ... did the FBI say we needed additional tools to > keep this nation safe from strip-club operators.” > Though the PATRIOT Act vastly increased the feds’ financial surveillance > powers, they are not concentrating their artillery on the gravest threats to > American security. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control > has a lead role in tracking down supposedly dangerous money. Unfortunately, > this office has ten times more agents assigned to track violators of the U.S. > embargo on Cuba than it has tracking Osama Bin Laden’s money. Between 1994 > and 2003, it collected almost a thousand times as much in fines for > violations of the Cuban embargo as it has for terrorism financing violations > ($8+ million versus $9,425). > Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) complained, “We’re chasing old ladies on > bicycle trips in Cuba when we should be concentrating on using a significant > tool against shadowy terrorist organizations.” Treasury spokeswoman Molly > Millerwise responded, “There is no question where the administration stands > on Cuba policy. We are equally dedicated to fighting the financial terrorism > network.” But to be equally dedicated to spiking Cuban bicycle tours and to > thwarting an organization that knocks down American skyscrapers seems a bit > demented. Millerwise stressed, “We do focus on Cuba. They are our nearest > neighbor.” That raises questions of whether maps used by the Bush > administration expunged both Mexico and Canada. However, neither Mexicans nor > Canadians will be large voting blocs in elections in Florida. > The war on privacy > The financial war on terror rests on a heap of absurdities. Government > crackdowns treat U.S. dollars like plutonium. The only reason for the > fixation on absolute control is the notion that any money transfer not > controlled by the U.S. government can become “magic beans” that cause > terrorism to sprout anywhere in the world. This mindset breeds the > presumption that the U.S. government is entitled to assume the worst of > anything that it does not control. > It was obvious even before the PATRIOT Act was enacted that the new powers > would not make Americans safe. On October 17, 2001, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) > warned that legislation vesting new powers in the feds “has more to do with > the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against > international terrorism” and derided it as “a laundry list of dangerous, > unconstitutional power grabs.... These measures will actually distract from > the battle against terrorism by encouraging law-enforcement authorities to > waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who > simply happen to demonstrate an ‘unusual’ pattern in their financial > dealings.” > Ron Paul was right, but almost no one in Washington is ready to admit that > truth. If the U.S. government cannot catch enough real terrorists, at least > it can use the PATRIOT Act to turn cash-heavy travelers into terrorist > scarecrows. For every terrorist who might get caught laundering money, > Congress crafted a law that empowers the government to punish thousands of > people for breaking the regs. Treasury and Justice Department lawyers made > sure the PATRIOT Act was written in a way to maximize seizures, regardless of > a person’s guilt or innocence and then political appointees have portrayed > every seizure as a victory against terrorism. But maximizing political > brownie points by making terrorist innuendoes is not the same as protecting > the public. > There is no reason to expect the U.S. government to be more successful in > tracking wads of cash than it has been in tracking bricks of cocaine or bales > of marijuana. The end result is more federal control, more intrusions, less > privacy and little or no additional protection from terrorists. > Americans must not permit politicians to continually invoke government > failures to justify destroying individual freedom. The financial provisions > of the PATRIOT Act will continue haunting Americans until they put enough > pressure on Congress to repeal such follies.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
