Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:41:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
300 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Do you have a cite for this particular bill, maybe? Just the number would be
> enough as the Thomas site can then find it easily. I can't find it in any
> of the stories I found so far (which is symptomatic, perhaps, the media no
> longer cite bill numbers because no one bothers to look them up??)
I do not have a cite for the bill numebr, but it is summarized here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/ret.senate.antiterror/index.html
> Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be
> anti terrorist to pass by N to zero margins every time? Please.
Of course not, however, this bill is "terrorism" specific.
> > Does this bill invade privacy issues - definitely.
>
> Good, we agree on something.
>
> > Should it - if we're
> > going to root out all money channels, transfer agents, limited partnerships,
> > participating in moving terrorist money, it has to.
>
> First demonstrate that current laws and current schemes and current tracing
> mechanisms failed. They have not. What failed was their application.
In actuality, the Money Laundering records requirements are weak at best.
For instance, a limited partnership was not required to disclose the members
of that partnership. And considering that limited parnterships can nest
other limited partnerships, it can be extremely difficult to determine the
actual owners of funds moving through brokerage accounts.
In the previous "Account Freeze" list and todays, many of the groups and
individuals could easily hide funds in a limited partnership.
Now these limited partnerships must disclose all members.
That's just one example of how the current laws failed.
> > Should we have to
> > sacrifice some of our personal liberties and privacy to win this campaign.
> > Yes, we are going to have to.
>
> No! A thousand times no.
>
> We do not need to give up any of our constitutional protections to win this.
> Not one.
>
> To do so is to lose.
Hmm... history would state otherwise. I'll cite one example. During WWII
and the Korean War, correspondence from families to their sons in action was
routinely perused. Illegal breach of privacy - defintiely. Necessary -
absolutely.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
| (...) And introduced several *other* bills designed to help root it out as well. From this vantage, those other bills, what I know of them (which is little), may well be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE measures. I freely admit I cannot quote chapter and verse (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
