• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator: Drug possession warrants jail time but laundering cartel money doesn't?

Northern Light

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
9,928
Reaction score
5,940
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/0...3SZ4YQY.reddit

Appearing at a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled officials from the Treasury Department over why criminal charges were not filed against officials at HSBC who helped launder hundreds of millions of dollars for drug cartels.

The HSBC scandal resulted in the Department of Justice and Treasury announcing a record $1.92 billion fine after finding that the international bank repeatedly helped the world’s most violent drug gangs move at least $881 million in ill-gotten gains through numerous countries the U.S. has economic sanctions against.

“HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking, and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States,” Warren said. “So, what I’d like is, you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like an opinion: What does it take — how many billions do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate — before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”
Click to expand...



“You know, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail,” Warren said. “If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night, every single individual associated with this. I think that’s fundamentally wrong.”
Click to expand...

Finally, someone is asking the right questions. It's time to address the hypocritical double-standard of rules: one for the common people and one for the people in power. It also points out the one-sidedness of the war on drugs. Money laundering has been happening for years in the illegal drug trade, yet all of the law enforcement has been focused on individuals and distributors. What about the financial institutions who make the enormous drug transactions possible?

They should be taken to task. This is a bipartisan issue. The corporate cronyism in government MUST end.
 
The Powers That Be need to keep the drug war going while giving the illusion that they are trying to fight it. If they took out the guys at the top, then all of their black budgets would dry up and the local police would lose all of their cool ninja equipment.
 
Based on what I've read of this so far criminal indictments have not been taken off the table in the US though the UK seems to be a bit more willing to give things a pass.

HSBC to pay $1.92 billion in money-laundering settlement - Dec. 10, 2012

It would certainly seem that a criminal investigation would be entirely warranted but one needs to consider that DoJ may well be hesitant to do this for a number of reasons including the distinct possibility that an investigation would jeopardize FBI and CIA operations which are very much likely to be tied to the issue. Now, if someone wanted to get in their and root out the ENTIRE rats nest I'd be plenty okey dokey with them doing so but when ones government is every bit as criminal as the people they are supposed to be going after.....ain't a gonna happen.
 
Lutherf said:
but when ones government is every bit as criminal as the people they are supposed to be going after.....ain't a gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is just one further reason why I oppose the war on drugs. Aside from the millions of lives destroyed or killed, the insane amount of human suffering it has caused, the reduction of civil rights the public has had to deal with, or the sheer waste of tax payer dollars, its not even being fought in an evenhanded way. There is just too much corruption.

I've always suspected that the people at the top were profiting from the drug trade somehow while the little guy gets locked away to rot, but now there is hard evidence. HSBC was stupid enough to leave a paper trail. How deep does the rabbit hole actually go?
 
Be thankfull that the US took any action and got any results. This was not even a US bank, does it not surprise anyone that the US could do anything about this at all? Would you favor Chinese law jurisdiction over actions of a US bank? Can the Canadians or British sanction our US banks if they violate their banking laws?
 
I really like Elizabeth Warren. We are lucky to have such a principled person in the Senate. I hope she can bring some real change.
 
Northern Light said:
Finally, someone is asking the right questions. It's time to address the hypocritical double-standard of rules: one for the common people and one for the people in power. It also points out the one-sidedness of the war on drugs. Money laundering has been happening for years in the illegal drug trade, yet all of the law enforcement has been focused on individuals and distributors. What about the financial institutions who make the enormous drug transactions possible?

They should be taken to task. This is a bipartisan issue. The corporate cronyism in government MUST end.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. What kind of punishment or deterrent is it for the government to fine a corporation? Do we do it so a corporation will never do it again? The "corporation" didn't do it in the first place. People did it. The corporate veil should not be used to protect illegal acts of individuals.

Certain people in the investment and banking industries brought down the economy of, not just the United States, but the world. Why haven't they been indicted?
 
MaggieD said:
I completely agree with you. What kind of punishment or deterrent is it for the government to fine a corporation? Do we do it so a corporation will never do it again? The "corporation" didn't do it in the first place. People did it. The corporate veil should not be used to protect illegal acts of individuals.

Certain people in the investment and banking industries brought down the economy of, not just the United States, but the world. Why haven't they been indicted?
Click to expand...

Try this on for size, Maggie -

You work for HSBC in the fraud division. You notice these huge cash transactions occurring at one of your Mexico offices so you report it. Two days later the FBI shows up and says "We'd really appreciate it if you kept this quiet and allowed us to observe what's happening so we can track down a cartel leader. Meanwhile, in your Libya branch you see the same thing happening but this time the CIA comes in and says "We appreciate the information but we need you to keep this on the down low because we're tracking terrorists". Then one day one of the regulators shows up and says "We know you're laundering money and we're going to put you in jail unless you allow us to fine you $1.9 Billion dollars and you damned well better keep your mouth shut about the terrorists and the druggies."

What do you do then? Are you really the one that's acting criminally?
 
Lutherf said:
Try this on for size, Maggie -

You work for HSBC in the fraud division. You notice these huge cash transactions occurring at one of your Mexico offices so you report it. Two days later the FBI shows up and says "We'd really appreciate it if you kept this quiet and allowed us to observe what's happening so we can track down a cartel leader. Meanwhile, in your Libya branch you see the same thing happening but this time the CIA comes in and says "We appreciate the information but we need you to keep this on the down low because we're tracking terrorists". Then one day one of the regulators shows up and says "We know you're laundering money and we're going to put you in jail unless you allow us to fine you $1.9 Billion dollars and you damned well better keep your mouth shut about the terrorists and the druggies."

What do you do then? Are you really the one that's acting criminally?
Click to expand...

This is the 2nd time you've mentioned fed involvement in these crimes. Do you have anything factual to support this hypothesis, or is this just general mistrust of the govt?
 
sangha said:
This is the 2nd time you've mentioned fed involvement in these crimes. Do you have anything factual to support this hypothesis, or is this just general mistrust of the govt?
Click to expand...

After Iran/Contra and Fast and Furious to name just two instances where the federal government allowed illegal activities for "investigative" purposes I don't think such speculation is exactly unreasonable.
 
Lutherf said:
After Iran/Contra and Fast and Furious to name just two instances where the federal government allowed illegal activities for "investigative" purposes I don't think such speculation is exactly unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Since you have no evidence that this is a factor in this case, I disagree

Out govt has allowed terrorists to continue their activities, so maybe we shouldn't go after any terrorists. :roll:
 
Lutherf said:
Try this on for size, Maggie -

You work for HSBC in the fraud division. You notice these huge cash transactions occurring at one of your Mexico offices so you report it. Two days later the FBI shows up and says "We'd really appreciate it if you kept this quiet and allowed us to observe what's happening so we can track down a cartel leader. Meanwhile, in your Libya branch you see the same thing happening but this time the CIA comes in and says "We appreciate the information but we need you to keep this on the down low because we're tracking terrorists". Then one day one of the regulators shows up and says "We know you're laundering money and we're going to put you in jail unless you allow us to fine you $1.9 Billion dollars and you damned well better keep your mouth shut about the terrorists and the druggies."

What do you do then? Are you really the one that's acting criminally?
Click to expand...

Imagine how nice it was for the cartels when they owned their own bank, eh?

Back in the 70's the CIA had its own bank down under in Australia. Nugan-Hand, and it caused quite a stir.
 
Henry David said:
Imagine how nice it was for the cartels when they owned their own bank, eh?

Back in the 70's the CIA had its own bank down under in Australia. Nugan-Hand, and it caused quite a stir.
Click to expand...

Another great example of how things work in the shadow world that exists when government hops in bed with criminals for political purposes.
 
sangha said:
Since you have no evidence that this is a factor in this case, I disagree

Out govt has allowed terrorists to continue their activities, so maybe we shouldn't go after any terrorists. :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with going after terrorists. Hell, government SHOULD be going after them since that's one of the principle powers we delegated to government. Where I DO have a problem is with political grandstanding especially when it's entirely likely that a full answer to a question like Warren's will expose a whole bunch of stuff she probably wouldn't want to come out.

Yeah, it's speculation on my part but it's speculation based in a whole lot of historical precedent.
 
Lutherf said:
I don't have any problem with going after terrorists. Hell, government SHOULD be going after them since that's one of the principle powers we delegated to government. Where I DO have a problem is with political grandstanding especially when it's entirely likely that a full answer to a question like Warren's will expose a whole bunch of stuff she probably wouldn't want to come out.

Yeah, it's speculation on my part but it's speculation based in a whole lot of historical precedent.
Click to expand...

This is just more paranoid speculation, like your other two posts. There is nothing to indicate that there was any govt involvement in this case.
 
sangha said:
This is just more paranoid speculation, like your other two posts. There is nothing to indicate that there was any govt involvement in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes...well....like you I certainly hope that Sen. Warren gets her full blown investigation because I'd LOVE to see the results.
 
Lutherf said:
Another great example of how things work in the shadow world that exists when government hops in bed with criminals for political purposes.
Click to expand...

"If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about." Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, our government. Now it's time to turn the tables.

If the CIA is in bed with drug lords - which has long been suspected especially in places like South and Central America - I pray to God that the whole thing gets blown wide open. People are getting life sentences in the U.S. under the three strikes law for felony drug possession; if our government is in any way laundering money to engaging with the black market to manipulate politics, then we should find those responsible and hang them out to dry.
 
Lutherf said:
Another great example of how things work in the shadow world that exists when government hops in bed with criminals for political purposes.
Click to expand...

An every day occurance. Even more so when the government hops in bed with criminals for profits and power.
 
Northern Light said:
"If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about." Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, our government. Now it's time to turn the tables.

If the CIA is in bed with drug lords - which has long been suspected especially in places like South and Central America - I pray to God that the whole thing gets blown wide open. People are getting life sentences in the U.S. under the three strikes law for felony drug possession; if our government is in any way laundering money to engaging with the black market to manipulate politics, then we should find those responsible and hang them out to dry.
Click to expand...

CIA involvement in drug trafficking has been known for decades. Books have been written about it for decades. From Asia to Central and South America to Afghanistan, it's very lucrative. That is why the prohibition will never end, because the CIA makes tons of money from it.

Only trouble is the average american is too busy working 2 jobs to become informed about the subject. They have other things to think about, and most of them would rather not know, given the choice.
 
Henry David said:
Only trouble is the average american is too busy working 2 jobs to become informed about the subject. They have other things to think about, and most of them would rather not know, given the choice.
Click to expand...

It's like that with a lot of things our politicians do.
 
Northern Light said:
"If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about." Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, our government. Now it's time to turn the tables.

If the CIA is in bed with drug lords - which has long been suspected especially in places like South and Central America - I pray to God that the whole thing gets blown wide open. People are getting life sentences in the U.S. under the three strikes law for felony drug possession; if our government is in any way laundering money to engaging with the black market to manipulate politics, then we should find those responsible and hang them out to dry.
Click to expand...
What I find really curious is that the total poppy crop in Afghanistan has gone up astronomically since we invaded it. How is that again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom