Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
To: exodus
Thank you for responding. I agree with your analysis of the 4th Amendment insofar
as it... enumerates our right to be left alone.
However, please allow me to try to make a distinction about invasion procedures and things readily available in public.
For example, you cannot be required to provide a blood sample without probable cause or a search warrant. However, when you walk down the street with your face uncovered for all to see you do not have an expectation of privacy and anyone may take your picture, including law enforcement officials. Now let me make the comparison to this law. No one can come into your house and demand an accounting of your cash without probable cause or a search warrant. However, when you walk into a public retail store and hand over $10,000 in cash you are affirmatively giving up privacy of that transaction. You may not agree with that last sentence but in this case I believe the public good of tracking and catching criminals and terrorists outweighs the private desire to pay in cash when other means are so readily available. Thank you for considering my position.
# 110 by JD86
************
I can't agree with your definition of "privacy," JD86.
It seems that you believe that I only have a right to privacy if I'm hiding in my house.
I believe that I have the right to walk out into a public place,
conduct myself in a lawful manner, go home,
and never be required to explain details of my life to anyone.
Why set the limit at $10,000?
What reason does anyone have to walk around with $5,000 in cash?
Money is property.
You're telling me that I don't have the right to my property.
>Well I wonder what Nacer Mustafa and his father Fathi Mustafa would have to say about that.
>Charges against 2 U.S. citizens dropped after lab tests determine documents not doctored...
Put the facts together. Two people of ME background, entering the US from Mexico on Sept 14 (definitely a wave #2 attack scenario to be concerned about). They had passports with the laminate coming off, making it appear that they were false.
How many consumer transactions do you envision that are $10,000 cash and over? I can't think of a reason to do one......I guess I must be running in the wrong circles. I think your fear of a HUGE DATABASE is unwarranted.
I do know someone who paid cash for a real estate transaction once....and my assumption at the time was that it was unreported income. Now I am not the IRS...but what would you assume in that situation?
Also, you seem to believe the terrorists did not deal in large sums of money. Atta, one of the terrorists pilots, wired money out of the US the week before 9/11. At one point, he tried to buy an airplane....they had lots of cash.
I am sure you are being faceious with this comment. The $10,000 is an arbitrary number that has been used for years. This is not a new law.
Money is property. You're telling me that I don't have the right to my property. I NEVER said you didn't have a right to your property. You are changing the argument in midstream. You were arguing you had a total right to privacy that could not be infringed upon. I am saying you have the right to privacy in your own home...and a more limited right to privacy in public. In this case, your right to privacy is limited by the need of law enforcement to track large cash transactions. If you don't want anyone to know you have the money, don't spend it all in one place in one day.
This is probably the most scary thus far of what's been written on this thread.....as though the average Amerikan is going to ' stay vigilant' for a long stretch of years....after the hoopla of the current bombing exercise, it will be back to the arena to watch sports, Suicide, Marry a Millionaire, or whatever......and over these years, the FBI/CIA/DOD/NSA/Fadderland Security will all be coming back again and again 'needing' more of this or that....while the sheeple are being lulled to sleep with assurances that 'we're still striking at terrorists--remember we said it would be a long time, yada yada yada. And with a definite or set date or time period not set, suddenly, we have another generation underfoot that has never lived under anything less than a 'state of war', much like Afghanis under 23 years of age!!!
If you've never had steak (various freedoms), why would you insist on eating one?
Also I think it is more reasonable to look at what we know the terrorists did to predict their future behavior than to say well they could have done it without spending the cash...yes, they could have, but they didn't...and that is exactly the point.
Meanwhile the borders are still open for anyone who wants to enter, student visas are being handed out, rights are being taken and citizens ARE in jail. See anything wrong with this picture yet? Dont bother answering I know you dont. You always take the side of the government.
I don't care what kind of man Bush is.
He's asking me to give up my freedom for an un-declared war
against an enemy that CAN NOT be conquered."
# 108 by exodus
*******************
To: exodus
"RightOnline, we are not at war."
Look at the results of 9/11 and tell me this.
We ARE at war, exodus, whether you choose to accept it or not.
Unlike some, I don't need an act of Congress...
If that's what you're waiting for...a "formal" declaration of war...
"...against an enemy that CAN NOT be conquered."
Who said anything about "conquering" anybody??
This isn't about "conquering", exodus. It's about kicking...
....and don't pretend to tell me that we can't "win" this..."
# 116 by RightOnline
************
What's the definition of a legal war, RightOnline?
If Congress doesn't issue a Declaration of War, we are not at war.
Having a group of politicians stand around talking about a "War on Terrorism"
is not the same thing, especially when they have just refused to consider
Bob Barr's bill asking for a Declaration of War.
Look it up. House Resolution # 62.
Especially note the phrase,
"Latest Major Action: 9/13/2001 Referred to House committee"
I don't have to "pretend" that we can't win a non-existant war.
The "War on Crime" will never be won.
The "War on Drugs" will never be won.
The "War on Terror will never be won.
Crime will be with us always, RightOnline;
Mood-altering substances will too.
And there will always be mean people.
Bullies.
Terrorists.
No matter how many rights we "temporarily" relinquish,
those things will always be with us.
Now might be a good time to define freedom.
Seriously (I was serious then, too), there are laws for us piss ants and there are laws for the 'elitists', too.
I've followed this nonsense crap going back to 98 or 99 when the Fed, the Thrift supv, the Credit Union, and Treasury all tried to slip in the Know Your Customer program.....it goes way beyond suspicious banking transactions....this is an international thing....offhand the initials are the OSCE and FATF groups that hold secret, private meetings and set this crap up.....several years ago they wanted artwork, vehicles, boats, casinos, hotels, stocks and bonds, other financial transactions, insurance, and 'zillions' of other stuff all stuck in our banking.....and naturally, there were exemptions--for VIPS--I can't remember what they called those sorts of accounts....but I have a file about 4" on this crap; and worked with Benighted of Operation America on a lot more of it.
Back after the first WTC action and/or OKC, the FBI was hot to get all sorts of new powers....I even remember ol Louie baby asking for the roving wiretaps--they had 187 suspected drug dealers they wanted to spy on....I saw wiretap figures a couple of weeks ago and there was over 5,000!!!! But, hey, we've been told 'we're winning the WOD, too"!
Your link to the Congressional Declaration Of War, please?
Bush saying he declares War Against Terrorism carries as much constitutional weight as me saying I declare War Against My Expanding Waistline, except he gets to send planes and bombs and troops out there, outside of his Constitutional Authority, and I have to make do with grilled chicken.
Interesting that you don't trust 'em with anything else, except the full might of our armed forces. Don't quite know what to make of that...
Would Alexander Hamilton be an acceptable authority for you?
As an accountant, though-- may I offer a suggestion? Can we just freaking abolish cash? It's a pain in the butt-- gotta have extra procedures to deal with it, and truth be told, no honest person NEEDS to do big cash transactions. OK? No more big cash. We'll use it for nickel and dime stuff only. Thank you. :)
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.