section eight

The United States is the number one benefactor to the "Palestinians" (a people which do not exist by the way) 9-11 wasn't a reaction to anything save for OBL's call to "fight all the people until they say there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."

That would be a lie, OBL has made his reasoning quite clear, he is fighting for the spread of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad, the so called "Palestinians" are just a propaganda tool used by the Islamists.

A) Prove that it wasn't a surprise.

B) Prove that we have given up any rights.

C) The U.S. citizen today has far more liberties than even at the founding of this republic.

Ya and? Generally when the United States is attacked it responds militarily, post evidence that 9-11 was allowed to happen, post evidence of foreknowledge or GTFO.

Again that's another lie, you're really on a roll here, there is absolutely 0 evidence that what happened at abu gahraib was recommended or authorized by anyone. Proof or it didn't happen.

So now they 9-11 was allowed to happen so national guard soldiers could torture detainees in Iraq? FTW?


Warning signs were missed and miscommunications were ignored but what you chalk up to intent rational people chalk up to mistakes which occur everyday in massive bureaucracies.

Again the 9-11 Commission was a bi-partisan blue ribbon panel.

section eight

Ya if that's what you call twisted logic, blatant lies, distortions, and ignorance about the laws and rights of this country.

Gladiator

Any transaction over $10,000.00, or aggregating $10,000.00 in separate transactions, banks are required to notify the FBI, without notifying the customer.


Reason Magazine - Show Us Your Money


Can Bank Investigate if you put too much money into your own account ? - Yahoo! Answers


Breaking the bank | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET

Structuring deposits to avoid the $10,000 limit is a crime.

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Washington Field Division - Press Release - United States Department of Justice Press Release



..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

section eight

Read your own articles:

"These may sound like the arguments for and against the USA PATRIOT Act, passed immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001. But they concern another piece of legislation, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970. The only change I made to these decades-old quotes was to substitute the word terrorist for criminal and terrorism for crime."

Your article goes on to say that the bill was upheld in the SCOTUS case of California Bankers Association v. Shultz.

This point was specifically addressed in the the 1976 case of U.S. V. Miller in which the SCOTUS determined that bank customers do not have a legally recognizable expectation of privacy in records of accounts maintained by a bank.

EPIC Right to Financial Privacy Act Page
UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 425 U. S. 435 (1976) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

You are asserting that rights are being taken away that either A) never existed in the first place, or B) ceased to exist in the mid-70s.

section eight

Um this has to do with statutes regarding the IRS and attempted tax evasion, I don't know how you leaped frogged from the 9-11 Commission Report to this, I don't even see where in your source it says that this statute was passed, I'm guessing before 9-11.

Gladiator

It seems to me that the emphasis on banks reporting transaction over $10,000 in agregate came into more prominent practice after 9-11. I put in some quick cites off Google. Maybe you can use Lexis and give us something more definitive.

A somewhat enabling statute may have been on the books since 1970, and W expanded the Federal Regulations to include more banks and more US Citizens and More Agregate circumstances. I am just telling you what I know from reality. If you search the CFR you may find the changes made the $10,000 Bank transaction Reporting Requirments after 9-11-01. Maybe look at the evolution of the Patriot Act, and the CFR associated with Bank Reporting requirements.

DeeJayH

wow
just wow

i can not believe this is still ongoing

wow

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

Gladiator

Can I borrow $11,000 from you for a few months? Can you write me a bank check for the Loan? If you write checks from two separate accounts, that might be the crime of structuring.

section eight

Just click the links I gave you bank customer transactions have not been subject to privacy laws since at least the 1970s as per the SCOTUS ruling in the 1976 decision of U.S. V. Miller.

Regardless I asked for what privacy rights were diminished by the neocons, these rights didn't exist so they could not be violated or diminished, banking transactions held by financial institutions are not protected by the 4th amendment thus your assertion that the neocons needed 9-11 to implement such policies makes no sense what so ever since they already had such authority if they wanted it, yes the record keeping requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and the Money Laundering Act of 1986 were tightened but its main focus was on international banking and improving information sharing between financial institutions but to suggest that these policies couldn't have been implemented without a 9-11 is ridiculous.

section eight

Ya because that technique is used by money launderers. They keep their accounts below $10 grand in order to avoid detection by the IRS then cut loan checks and accept cash in return in order to launder the money.