Posted on 11/20/2001 9:38:50 AM PST by jgrubbs
THE “PATRIOT” ACT???
Do you know what I’ve done that many of our congressmen and senators haven’t done? I’ve read a summary of H.R. 3162. The long title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” The Congressional Research Service has given H.R. 3162 the short title of USA Patriot Bill.
I hope you’ve learned long ago not to pay any attention to the titles our wonderful legislators give to their legislation. Titles seldom have anything to do with the actual purposes of the bill. Take the “Bank Secrecy Act” for instance. The true purpose of this bill was to make sure that the federal government could keep an eye on your financial relationship with your bank. A more proper title would have been the “Bank Anti-Secrecy Act.”
OK … Back to the Patriot Act. It would seem that some members of congress have done what so many other groups and individuals have done. They have used the terrorist attacks on America as an excuse to pursue long-held goals that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Let’s go back to that Bank Secrecy Act for a minute. Under that law you bank must file a report with the Imperial Federal Government every time you engage in a transaction with the bank involving more than $10,000 in cash. If you deposit $10,000 in cash the bank files a report. If you withdraw ten grand, the bank files a report. Are you told the bank is filing a report? No. Are you given a copy of the report? No. (I guess this is where the “secrecy” comes in.)
Well … Section 365 of the USA Patriot Bill has just expanded this reporting requirement. Now it applies to most businesses in addition to banks. Now, if you go to a business and spend more than $10,000 in cash that business has to report your name, address, social security number and other pertinent information to the feds. It doesn’t matter whether you spend the money on one item, or a whole shopping cart full .. the federal government must be notified.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with international terrorism. The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon did not deal in large amounts of cash. They carried picture ID cards and used credit cards. They NEVER spent $10,000 in cash with any business. In short, they never engaged in any activity that would have to be reported under Section 365.
So --- what’s the deal here? Why these new reporting requirements for all businesses? It has much more to do with the IRS than it does with terrorism. Our tax burden is so onerous in this country that many people prefer to deal in cash as much as they can. The IRS wants to catch these people, and has stepped forward to use our fear of terrorism to open the door. The original Bank Secrecy Act was based on money laundering by drug dealers. Drugs the excuse then, terrorism the excuse now. And all the while the goal is nothing less than to give the federal government more power to pry into the financial affairs of every American.
Remember --- this is the same government that tried to institute the “Know your customer” plan a few years back, and the same government that would like to have access to the computer networks that run ATMs and credit card authorization services.
As for the USA Patriot Bill? Few congressmen even read this bill. Many didn’t even read the summary. In the House, under Republican leadership, debate wasn’t permitted, nor were amendments.
Again ---- this is why I vote Libertarian.
Would you complain the the Government did not do enough after a group of "Sleeper Terrorist" operating here in this country sets off a nuclear weapon in one of our cities and kills 10 million of us?
Or would you like to see us forget about this clear and present danger and just bury our heads in the sand in the name of "IF" the Government abuses these powers it will violate our 4th Amendment Rights?
You mean that our beloved Government is fighting a war without following the Rule of Law? Now, you don't want to be added to their new enemy list, by pointing this out, do ya?
your reply is why I would never vote for a libertarian, they can't see the forest for the tree's
No, but he will be in office when this bill sunsets and if he insists on keeping it law I will condemn him then, or I could be like you and condemn him now. We had far more restrictions during WWII and all of them were sunset laws and they all were null and void after the war.
How would you know, they have never been elected to an office powerful enough to be tested, The whopping 2% of the vote in the last Presidential election must be how much their principles are appreciated.
If we judge peoples principles by what the electorate thinks of them, Bill Clinton should be a candidate for sainthood.
Only portions of the "Patriot Act" have sunset provisions, not the entire law.
By Brad Edmonds
LewRockwell.com 11-15-1
H.R. 3162, "The Patriot Bill," or the antiterrorism bill, might make you a terrorist. Any persons among us who have accepted that certain civil liberties must be abridged in time of war, or forever, for the sake of security, are going to learn Ben Franklin's lesson the hard way: Those who would give up freedom for security deserve, and will get, neither.
First, the antiterrorism bill so loved by Congress and the White House has redefined terrorism. According to Sec. 802, (a)(5)(B)(ii), "the term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Again: If the activity appears to be intended to influence the policy of a government - not just the United States government - by intimidation, it's domestic terrorism. Most important: Since all we require is intimidation, how would we define that?
"Intimidation" does not seem to be defined in H.R. 3162. We thus must turn to authoritative dictionaries, which say such things as "to make timid." Put it in the hands of a trial lawyer, and here's how it could play out: Have you ever felt intimidated by someone smarter, larger, older, wealthier, higher in rank, more attractive, more physically fit, more passionate, or more popular than yourself? That's all it takes to establish intimidation in court - being made timid. Get a jury or judge to buy your version of events, and you win.
So while intimidation is a weak criterion, far too easy to establish in a court of law, you don't even have to establish anyone's intent to intimidate, much less his success at intimidating someone. You, the prosecutor, have to establish only the appearance of the intention to intimidate any government, and you can try anyone for domestic terrorism.
So, those of us who disagree publicly with the government's responses to 9/11 - especially if our disagreements are reasoned, well-supported, and impassioned - are, by definition, terrorists. The only requirement is that someone, somewhere believes it appears we're trying to intimidate the government. This is an ominous glower over free speech.
How ominous? It depends in part on whether you're a foreigner. Suppose a Canadian citizen writes an anti-war column for an American website. Bush signed an executive order on Tuesday, November 13, which allows for any foreigner connected to the events of 9/11 to be tried by military tribunal. This means, among other things, that the trials can be held in secret, defendants do not get the usual protections (such as an extended appeals process), the death penalty is an option, and Bush decides who is tried. If the notion of "connected" is as vague and potentially encompassing as the definition of "domestic terrorism" mentioned above, all foreigners who speak out in disagreement with the US government might have reason to fear suspicion with regard to 9/11.
Remember that foreigners aren't alone - H.R. 3162 applies to everyone. Foreigners are singled out only in Bush's executive order. The only difference between foreigners and citizens is the option of the military tribunal.
We've all heard how new laws won't function in unintended ways: The Civil Rights Act wouldn't result in hiring quotas; the Americans with Disabilities Act wouldn't result in costly and ridiculous lawsuits (such as the Supreme Court deciding the rules of golf); and the Endangered Species act wouldn't threaten property rights.
With such unintended consequences being the rule rather than the exception, be careful not to complain about the amount of your Social Security check or tax liability. Don't complain about emissions regulations. Don't complain about anything the government says or does. According to the definitions in H.R. 3162, your speech (especially if it's cogent) need only criticize the government, and you could stand accused of domestic terrorism.
By Scott Bernard Nelson, Globe Staff, 11/18/2001
rdinary businesses, from bicycle shops to bookstores to bowling alleys, are being pressed into service on the home front in the war on terrorism.
Under the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush late last month, they soon will be required to monitor their customers and report ''suspicious transactions'' to the Treasury Department - though most businesses may not be aware of this.
Buried in the more than 300 pages of the new law is a provision that ''any person engaged in a trade or business'' has to file a government report if a customer spends $10,000 or more in cash. The threshold is cumulative and applies to multiple purchases if they're somehow related - three $4,000 pieces of furniture, for example, might trigger a filing.
Until now, only banks, thrifts, and credit unions have been required to report cash transactions to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. A handful of other businesses, including car dealers and pawnbrokers, have to file similar reports with the Internal Revenue Service.
''This is a big deal, and a big change, for the vast majority of American businesses,'' said Joe Rubin, chief lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce. ''But I don't think anybody realizes it's happened.''
The impact is less clear for consumers, although privacy advocates are uncomfortable with the thought of a massive database that could bring government scrutiny on innocent people. Immigrants and the working poor are the most likely to find themselves in the database, since they tend to use the traditional banking system the least.
''The scope of this thing is huge,'' said Bert Ely, a financial services consultant in Alexandria, Va. ''It's going to affect literally millions of people.''
The filing of so-called suspicious activity reports, though, is only the latest in a series of law enforcement moves the government has made in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. And so far, the filing requirement has been overshadowed by debate over the other changes.
The Patriot Act signed into law Oct. 26, for example, gives the government a vast arsenal of surveillance tools, easier access to personal information, and increased authority to detain and deport noncitizens. House and Senate negotiators came to terms Thursday on a bill that would add 28,000 employees to the federal payroll in an effort to bolster airport security, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he is reorganizing the Justice Department and the FBI to focus on counterterrorism efforts.
As for the business-filing requirement, specifics about what companies have to do and when they have to do it still need to be worked out. The Treasury Department has until March 25 - the date the Patriot Act becomes law - to issue regulations about how to put the new rules into practice.
''The law itself doesn't go into any detail, because you'd presume that's what the Treasury regulations are for,'' said Victoria Fimea, senior counsel at the American Council of Life Insurers. ''And the devil, of course, is in the details.''
When he signed the legislation, President Bush said the new rules were designed to ''put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling, and money laundering.'' The problem, he and others have said, was keeping tabs on the billions of dollars that flow outside the traditional banking system and across national borders each year.
Money launderers often disguise the source of their money by using cash to buy pricey things. Later, they can resell the products and move the money into a bank account - at which point it has been laundered, or made to look legitimate, by the aboveboard sale.
Making a series of transactions just below the $10,000 filing threshold is also illegal under the new law if it's done to keep a business from contacting the government.
Financial services companies such as banks, insurers, and stock brokerages face a higher standard under the new law than other businesses. In addition to the filing requirements, they have to take steps such as naming a compliance officer and implementing a comprehensive program to train employees about how to spot money laundering.
Unlike other businesses, though, most financial services companies already have a process in place to deal with government regulation.
''Certainly for the bigger [insurance] companies, they most likely are already tooled up for this,'' said Fimea. ''For other companies, this creates a whole new landscape.''
James Rockett, a San Francisco lawyer who represents banks and insurance companies in disputes with regulators, said he's skeptical the authorities will get any useful information from reports filed by nonfinancial companies.
''You're trying to turn an untrained populace into the monitors of money laundering activity,'' Rockett said. ''If you want to stop this, it's got to be done with police work, not tracking consumers' buying habits.''
Voices opposing any of the new law-enforcement measures appear to be in the minority, however. For now, at least, few people and few companies want to be perceived as being terrorist sympathizers.
''In a political sense, it would have been very hard for us to go to Congress in this case and loudly argue that the legislation shouldn't include nonfinancial-services guys,'' said Rubin, of the US Chamber of Commerce. ''Everybody wants to help and to stop money laundering right now.''
Maybe they shouda called it the Patriot Eradication Act.
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.