Originally Posted By jonvn OK, so now that the election is starting, somehow terrorism is becoming something we all have to be afraid of again. 4 years ago, we had orange alerts every time Bush took a dip in the polls. Suddenly, after the election, they all went away. And now we have stories like this: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/mukasey.terrorism/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI CS/03/21/mukasey.terrorism/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X **"I don't know what intelligence we missed," he added.** How perfect. If, at any time in the future, something happens...they can blame that situation. Nice. Anyway, if you think things are bad in AMERICA, you should see what level of terrorist threats some OTHER countries are dealing with! <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3xcsy3" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3xcsy3</a>
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "The attorney general used the occasion to once again urge congressional passage of a measure to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. An initial update, termed the Protect America Act, expired last month." And here's what this is really all about - fear mongering so that Congress will pass this bill and protect the people that were spying on American citizens illegally.
Originally Posted By dshyates So Douglas, you think they will use the Patriot Act for only terrorists? They used Patriot Act to take down Gov. Spitzer. I feel much safer now that he no longer terrorizes my family.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So Douglas, you think they will use the Patriot Act for only terrorists?> No, but that question is irrelevant in a discussion about the Protect America Act. <They used Patriot Act to take down Gov. Spitzer.> I don't believe that is true, but if it is, I don't see a problem with it.
Originally Posted By dshyates OK, Dougla, let me connect the lines for you. They say the Protect America Act is ONLY for listening to terrorists. Right? They said the Patriot Act was ONLY for protecting us from terrorists. Right? They used the Patriot Act to find out that Spitzer was transfering funds of less than $10,000, (transfers of over $10K had to be reported to the feds). He did nothing illegal in his handling of his own money that was still flagged, that got the FBI involved at looking at an account that was suspicious because he hadn't broken the law. Seriously, WTF. This doesn't raise red flags in your head? nd yet you still believe that the only people they are listening to are terrorists. Not political opponent? They just took down a Democratic Governer with the Patriot Act that they said they would NEVER do. Or are any measures utilized OK as long as the get dangerous maniacs like Spitzer off the streets.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They say the Protect America Act is ONLY for listening to terrorists. Right? They said the Patriot Act was ONLY for protecting us from terrorists. Right?> No, I don't believe that is correct. <They used the Patriot Act to find out that Spitzer was transfering funds of less than $10,000, (transfers of over $10K had to be reported to the feds).> No, I don't believe that is correct.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <They used the Patriot Act to find out that Spitzer was transfering funds of less than $10,000, (transfers of over $10K had to be reported to the feds).> No, I don't believe that is correct. >>> What part of it isn't correct?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The part about the Patriot Act. From my reading, SAR's have been around since 1970.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The part about the Patriot Act. From my reading, SAR's have been around since 1970. >>> That's true, but their scope was greatly increased by the Patriot Act and the government's interpretation of the Patriot Act. It's been reported that the types of financial transactions that Spitzer engaged in would have been unlikely to generate SARs in the pre-Patriot Act world.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That may have been alleged, but I don't believe it's been established as a fact.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< That may have been alleged, but I don't believe it's been established as a fact. >>> Since what's "suspicious" is very much what's decided in the mind of the individual banking representative that is handling the transaction (except for the statutorily-defined situations), how could we possibly establish as "fact" that a particular transaction would not have generated a SAR in the absence of the Patriot Act? That seems to be the standard you want to apply. Here are some fact that we know to be true: - The Patriot Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act to greatly expand the scale and scope of the SAR system. - The number of SARs filed has skyrocketed as a result of the above. - The Treasury department has taken an aggressive stance in enforcing SAR reporting requirements, emphasizing the importants of erring on the site of caution and filing a SAR if a transaction is at all questionable, and enforcing heavy penalties against institutions that don't adopt this mindset. - People familiar with how SARs operate have comment that they think it's unlikely that Spitzer's transactions would have generated SARs in a pre-Patriot Act world. It's impossible to know if Spitzer's transactions would have generated SARs in a pre-Patriot Act world. But what is the reasonable conclusion to draw based on the above?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But what is the reasonable conclusion to draw based on the above?> That jumping to conclusions about what the Patriot Act did or didn't do is really irrelevant, since it was the Protect America Act that was being discussed.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Actually, it's both. The conversation has been evolving, as conversations tend to do. And at this point, I don't think anyone here is fooled by your sleight of hand techniques to derail discussions that aren't going in the direction you'd like them to.
Originally Posted By dshyates "since it was the Protect America Act that was being discussed." I was trying to point out that they say the "Patriot Act" was just for catching terrorists, and took down Spitzer with it. That I don't believe them when they say they are only listening to terrorists with the "Protect America" Act. Plus if it so important that he has to have it now. That he is willing to veto it if it doesn't protect the telecoms from suits? Its more important to protect teh telecoms than protect the country?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Its more important to protect teh telecoms than protect the country? >>> Based on the AG's testimony, the telecoms stopped providing the data when they determined they were in muddy water. This certainly explains why the White House was so adamant about including an immunity provision in the new bill. But it also points to the notion that the telecoms are genuinely concerned that what they've been doing is unlawful in the absence of an immunity clause.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The conversation has been evolving, as conversations tend to do. And at this point, I don't think anyone here is fooled by your sleight of hand techniques to derail discussions that aren't going in the direction you'd like them to.> Ahh I see. If a liberal brings up an irrelevant point, that's the conversation evolving. If I point out it's irrelevant, that's sleight of hand.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I was trying to point out that they say the "Patriot Act" was just for catching terrorists, and took down Spitzer with it.> You keep asserting this, but that doesn't make it true. Who is it, besides you, that said the Patriot Act was just for catching terrorists, and who is it that is saying they took down Spitzer with it?
