Posted on 10/26/2017 8:28:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
First off I reject as totally not constitutional in the U.S. is the many “guilty until proven innocent” financial reporting laws on the federal law books, even as they apply to Americans and American institutions. These are not laws and practices where information is demanded and required to honor a warrant. What has happened is every financial transaction by everyone (above certain amounts depending on the transaction) is presumed to be “guilty until proven innocent” and is required, by law to be reported - so federal agencies can go on fishing expeditions in the data, and knowing nothing about the context can flag anything they want to as suspicious.
Half of this, the foreign banks’ half, would not even exist if the U.S. had a territorial banking system, like most all our major trading partners do, wherein what companies or individuals do not earn in the domestic U.S. economy would not part of what is taxable as far as U.S. taxes (and thus no legal need for U.S. agencies to know).
Not only should the Swiss banks win this legal contest we should (a) move to a territorial tax system and (b) kill this laws that require the automatic reporting of ANY financial information, of any amounts. Yes, file your taxes, but outside of that there should be cause for suspicion and a legal warrant obtained from a court to demand any other report of the peoples private finances.
Will you stand on principle and passively accept your punishment?
The two examples are not equivalent. In the first example a person was doing business with a U.S. bank, subject to U.S. regulations, even if they are not physically in the U.S.
In your example, the Free Republic server is hosted in the United States, giving no jurisdiction whatsoever to the U.K.
“I am reminded of the US law that says you can’t go to Thailand and have sex with underage people.”
That would be different because it’s a US law that applies to US citizens.
I’m okay with US law applying to me wherever I go. I get that.
I am not okay with US law applying to foreigners who have never set foot in the US and who have broken no laws in their native country.
“The two examples are not equivalent. In the first example a person was doing business with a U.S. bank, subject to U.S. regulations, even if they are not physically in the U.S.”
I can understand why some people in the world hate us and our government.
“In your example, the Free Republic server is hosted in the United States, giving no jurisdiction whatsoever to the U.K.”
That sounds all fine and dandy until you’re the one in the dock at the Old Bailey explaining the finer nuances of this principle to the Crown Prosecutor and the Magistrate.
Hmm, except in this case, it is the US laws that seem to be “liberty trampling” and not the other way around. The federal government really has no business demanding to know where we the people choose to put our money.
We get all upset if the government wants to issue identification cards or create a database of firearms owners, but we roll right over if the government wants to track our financial transactions, even though economic liberty is just as essential as any other liberty to a free people.
Legal answer: if the Constitution says you can, yes you can.
Two huge practical problems:
1: If “we” can do it to “them” in “their” country, that’s precedent for “them” to do it to “us” in “our” country.
2: How do you enforce a judgement or sentence?
Manuel Noriega is the primary example I can think of.
Hey, screw you!
No wait: I actually wholly agree with your position.
That was my thought, but wasn’t he under Bush, not Reagan? My first thought was the Achille Lauro terrorists, but we didn’t bring them to the US (though we damn well should have)
Because Noriega facilitated drug traffic from the various Colombian drug cartels in the 1980s through Panama willingly and knowingly which included transshipment of both cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine paste sent to labs in Panama he partnered with and the illegal return of cash to Panama of USA drug proceeds and oddly enough a marijuana smuggling operation to west coast Florida under his direction which resulted in charges there in central district as well as the original southern district Miami charges
Same or more than the Sandies did except given the canal we were willing to go fetch him
Nicaragua just don’t carry as much weight
Noriega really pushed the limit and the election he overthrew ended up being too much for ol busy hands GHWB
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.