Posted on 11/04/2003 1:43:04 PM PST by dead
Edited on 11/06/2003 3:25:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
And now some people are surprised there were money-laundering laws for all crimes in the Patriot Act.
Gee, maybe "some" people should have their hearing and reading abilities checked?
Of course "some" people still think that Greenpeace was charged under "sailor-mongering" laws! Maybe "some" people are hopeless.
On a serious note, both the executive and legislative branches pulled a fast one on the citizenry with the Patriot Act. The fact that a 500+ page law could materialize overnight and then those voting for it could not even read the final version beforehand is a travesty.
The law of unintended consequences.
Which is a big reason the Patriot Act sucks.
You don't know that. For all I know, the next dem could be worse.
It's a Janet Reno tactic, like abortion protestors and RICO(intended for the Mafia).
I agree that the final version should have had more debate. Even though it was mostly the same bill as they had been debating for years.
They also should have divided it up into separate terrorism, FISA, and money laundering bills instead of lumping them all together IMO.
But none of that directly addresses the actual merits or demerits of the Act, which are pretty well known after two years.
Both have shown their distain for freedom and the constitution. What pisses me off most about Ashcroft is that he actually FOUGHT laws like the unPatriot Act when he was a sinator. Oh! That's when Klintler was in office.
Think about this. Would you support this particular law if a Klintler, or Stalin was in charge. If not, than it's a bad law, because it WILL be used against either you, or something you support.
Here are some quotes from the October 23, 2001 House debate over the Patriot Act:
"Mr. SENSENBRENNER ...This bill also contains comprehensive money laundering provisions that will be discussed by my colleagues from the Committee on Financial Services...
Mr. OXLEY ...Title III provides a comprehensive set of tough new anti-money laundering laws and strengthens existing anti-money laundering laws. ...The bill also establishes a framework for an unprecedented public-private partnership that will have as its primary objective the identification, reporting, and disruption of financial transactions related to money laundering generally and terrorist activity specifically.
As a citizen of a republic I feel it is my duty to be informed.
And to every one: "Sailormongering" law was NOT used by the JusticeDepartment against Greenpeace!
A link to the actual law is provided in my post#69.
They were charged with illegal boarding.
Neither is the law Greenpeace was charged under merely a "Shanghai" law. It is a very extensive law.
As you can read for yourself.
And I addressed that to "everyone" so Freepers won't make silly replies based on Turley's charge. As a courtesy.
There is a link to the whole article that you can use to read it.
There's another thread where people make stupid remarks about the money-laundering laws congress passed in the Patriot Act. PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns(Use of statute in corruption case unprecedented)
No lie about the Patriot Act is out of bounds there LOL!
You might be able to make up some quotes to support your position, but you cannot with historical accuracy. Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", wrote:
"The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. . . .
The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;— these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. . . .
Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, . . . did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty."
He added, " In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the. Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."
And then there is this one: "Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. . . "
You certainly have my indignation, Little Joe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.