NY Times Vs National Security

[MobBoss]

Umm MobBoss wasnt there all these "documentories" and "New stories" out there that the US was tracking "terrorist" using bank accounts ?

Those only mentioned the fact that the US was freezing accounts in the USA.....not that we had any access to international wire transfers.

Not to mention the US announcing very publicly it had been succesful in "freezing" and closing suspect abnk accounts and well as shutting down other means of money transfer.

Like I just mentioned...only in the USA.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you sure about that?
(Think before you say yes).

That was the poo the Bush administration was trying to sling when they were trying to
justify the NSA surveilance program... until it was revealed that was also recording all
calls, foreign and domestic.

Actually it wasnt recording domestic phone calls. I seem to recall a story about a mere handful that may have been done by accident, but the vast majority were most certainly international phone calls.

BTW, if you mail a package to England, you still are secure from search and seizure.
They still have to get a warrant to open that package.

Uhm. Not entirely true. If it is ticking, or leaking a suspecious substance they most certainly dont. If there is a probable cause to open it then of course they may do so without a warrant.

Wrong. The IRS does not share information with the government.

Uhm. The IRS is part of the government.

That is how they got Capone, because he didn't declare his earnings to the IRS. Even if you make a $1000000 a year selling dope, you are supposed
to report it to the IRS. Due to the 5th amendment, information given to the IRS can not be used against you.

Huh? Actually they got Capone precisely because the IRS said he hadnt paid his taxes. And I am sorry...but no, you are supposed to report legitimate earnings to the IRS. I am sure if you report you made a mil illegally selling dope you would be arrested fairly quickly. And the 5th Amendment isnt protection from the IRS, nor the government. Just ask Richard Hatch, the first survivor winner. He misreported his taxes and got hammered for it in court.

Name a crime.. any crime.

Not sure what you are asking here. Can you be more descriptive?

So to counter... of course the supporters of this violation of the fourth amendment are your typical flag waving, constitution shredding, right-wing Bush apologists.

So you think the US 4th Amendment applies to non-US citizens outside of the borders of the United States? Somehow I dont think so.

 

[Neomega]

Actually it wasnt recording domestic phone calls. I seem to recall a story about a mere handful that may have been done by accident, but the vast majority were most certainly international phone calls.

Wrong. Reread the reports.

Uhm. Not entirely true. If it is ticking, or leaking a suspecious substance they most certainly dont. If there is a probable cause to open it then of course they may do so without a warrant.

And that is exactly what I said... look:

"___________________", yup, need a search warrant to collect evidence for that too. Or probable cause.
Probable cause does not mean sending money to your aunt in India.
Probable cause does not mean exchanging currency.

Probable cause means a beer can jammed under your break pedal, and alcoholic stench on your breath.

So we are in agreeance... only with probable cause... that means, if it ain't suspicious, ya can't open it. Lesson on 4th amendment over.

Uhm. The IRS is part of the government.

Uhm... better look again at that.

Huh? Actually they got Capone precisely because the IRS said he hadnt paid his taxes. And I am sorry...but no, you are supposed to report legitimate earnings to the IRS. I am sure if you report you made a mil illegally selling dope you would be arrested fairly quickly.

Proof? Link? I thought you worked in the USCMJ!

And the 5th Amendment isnt protection from the IRS, nor the government. Just ask Richard Hatch, the first survivor winner. He misreported his taxes and got hammered for it in court.

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, who know what the 5th amendment is, and means, were able to comprehend what I wrote just fine.

In case you want to learn about the bill of rights, and in particular, the fifth amendment, here is a link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Note amendment V.

Not sure what you are asking here. Can you be more descriptive?

name a crime.

So you think the US 4th Amendment applies to non-US citizens outside of the borders of the United States? Somehow I dont think so.

Why debate on issues you are "not so sure about"? How about you research it, and come back with some kind of counterpoint?

regardless:

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

 

[MobBoss]

Wrong. Reread the reports.

I read the news on it. Didnt see anything of the sort that you are alleging.

Uhm... better look again at that.

Sure. From the IRS's own website: "Internal Revenue ServiceThe IRS is the US government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement. Contains..."

Proof? Link? I thought you worked in the USCMJ!

What do you mean, proof? Link? What you think all the criminals out there are reporting their incomes? Oh..and btw, I do work in Military Justice. What has Military Justice got to do with any of this?

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, who know what the 5th amendment is, and means, were able to comprehend what I wrote just fine.

Sigh. I know what it says. And you are referring to self-incrimination. Thats taking the 5th on the stand (you know, when they say "I plead the 5th)......NOT an out from filing (or not filing) your income taxes.

In case you want to learn about the bill of rights, and in particular, the fifth amendment, here is a link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Note amendment V.

Fine. Now show me where it says the gov cant use your tax information to charge you with tax fraud. Sheesh.

name a crime.

I ask you to be more descriptive in what you are talking about and this is what I get from you? Thats not exactly more descriptive. Ok, here is a crime: spitting on the sidewalk. Here is another: Speeding.

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

Somehow I dont think so.

 

[Neomega]

I read the news on it. Didnt see anything of the sort that you are alleging.

Ignorance as a debate point? Surely you can do better.

Sure. From the IRS's own website: "Internal Revenue ServiceThe IRS is the US government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement. Contains..."

So, that doesn't mean they are allowed to share information with the AG.

What do you mean, proof? Link? What you think all the criminals out there are reporting their incomes?

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

Oh, the always helps an argument... always!

Oh..and btw, I do work in Military Justice. What has Military Justice got to do with any of this?

I just thought you might know a little about civilian law, apparently not.

Sigh. I know what it says. And you are referring to self-incrimination. Thats taking the 5th on the stand (you know, when they say "I plead the 5th)......NOT an out from filing (or not filing) your income taxes.

Fine. Now show me where it says the gov cant use your tax information to charge you with tax fraud. Sheesh.

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, who know what the 5th amendment is, and means, were able to comprehend what I wrote just fine.

(BTW, the fifth is not just "on the stand... but you knew that, you work for the USCMJ)

ask you to be more descriptive in what you are talking about and this is what I get from you? Thats not exactly more descriptive. Ok, here is a crime: spitting on the sidewalk. Here is another: Speeding.

Spitting on the sidewalk is not a crime in the vast majority of states or cities.

Spepding, is only enforced when it is done in front of a police officer, so they are hard exampes, but I'll take them!

If a civilian were to accuse someone else of speeding, there would have to be probable cause before a warrant could be issued, and evidence gathered. THAT... that is the Bill of rigths, and the fourth amendment, inprogress.

A Mayor cannot just require everyone get special speedometers on their cars that automatically ticket them for speeding.

Somehow I dont think so.

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

 

[MobBoss]

Ignorance as a debate point? Surely you can do better.

Humph. At least I know the IRS is a government agency.

So, that doesn't mean they are allowed to share information with the AG.

Sure they can, within the limits of the privacy act. This one I know about as I get request from other government agencys all the time.

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

Heh, is this your new "canned" response when people cant figure out what the hell you are saying? Catchy..but kind of long.

I just thought you might know a little about civilian law, apparently not.

Well, I do. However, I am not an attorney, let alone a tax specialist. I do know quite a bit about Washington State Law as I deal with the RCW every day.

(BTW, the fifth is not just "on the stand... but you knew that, you work for the USCMJ)

Its primarily what it is know for. Btw, what exactly does "USCMJ" stand for? I dont work for that, whatever that is....perhaps you have your acronyms screwed up.

Spitting on the sidewalk is not a crime in the vast majority of states or cities.

Well, what about the ones it is a crime in?

If a civilian were to accuse someone else of speeding, there would have to be probable cause before a warrant could be issued, and evidence gathered. THAT... that is the Bill of rigths, and the fourth amendment, inprogress.

A Mayor cannot just require everyone get special speedometers on their cars that automatically ticket them for speeding.

And yet a mayor can put a camera up in an intersection that only takes a picture if the object in front of it is speeding. About the same thing, but totally legal in a lot of states...including Washington.

So, you are referring only to crimes in which a case needs to be built in order to convict? And in your opinion all such cases require warrants for the collection of evidence? Is that correct?

I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

Heh, one thing I gurantee you. You will get tired of typing that far before I get tired of reading it. It makes me laugh.

 

[Neomega]

Its primarily what it is know for. Btw, what exactly does "USCMJ" stand for? I dont work for that, whatever that is....perhaps you have your acronyms screwed up.

You work for military law, right?

Well, what about the ones it is a crime in?

If someone accuses them of a crime, the police need to get a warrant before searching for evidence. But you knew that, you are in teh legal profession.

And yet a mayor can put a camera up in an intersection that only takes a picture if the object in front of it is speeding. About the same thing, but totally legal in a lot of states...including Washington.

If it is declared, sure.

regardless, to collect evidence for a crime, you need a warrant. But you knew that, you are in the legal profession.

So, you are referring only to crimes in which a case needs to be built in order to convict? And in your opinion all such cases require warrants for the collection of evidence? Is that correct?

Evidence can only be collected if their is probable cause, that is correct.

Heh, one thing I gurantee you. You will get tired of typing that far before I get tired of reading it. It makes me laugh.

ctrl+C and ctrl+V

 

[MobBoss]

You work for military law, right?

Yes and nowhere is there a USCMJ as an acronym. Perhaps you could sound out the words for me? United States Court Military Justice maybe? Doesnt make much sense.

If someone accuses them of a crime, the police need to get a warrant before searching for evidence. But you knew that, you are in teh legal profession.

Depends. If I accuse my neighbor of a crime that happened on my property the cops wont need a warrant to view my property. Also, cops dont need warrants in responding to crimes such as domestic violence and such.

regardless, to collect evidence for a crime, you need a warrant. But you knew that, you are in the legal profession.

No. A warrant is not always needed. Example: You dont need a warrant to gather evidence in plain view. Or in a public place. But you didnt know that...your not in the legal profession.

 

[Neomega]

Depends. If I accuse my neighbor of a crime that happened on my property the cops wont need a warrant to view my property. Also, cops dont need warrants in responding to crimes such as domestic violence and such.

Very good, a witness making a claim of assault on their person is probable cause.


No. A warrant is not always needed. Example: You dont need a warrant to

gather evidence in plain view. Or in a public place. But you didnt know that...your not in the legal profession.

actually I did!

But lets get on topic for a minute, shall we?

Is a warrant needed to go through ones documents?

you are in the legal profession, so you know the answer is yes.

What about phone records?

yes

Medical records?

yes

What about, say , if the governement wanted to search through dental records!?

yes

What about, hmm.... emails!?

yes


what about...... a safe deposit box and bank account records?

Why yes!!! They do need a warrant!*

*Of course, you are in the legal profession, and you knew that.




What about phone call records?

Why ye.... wait, no, I guess if the decider says so, then he can bypass the fourth amendment... after all, he is commander in chief!

What about.... postal packages?

Yes, need a warrant.

What about..... hmmm.... foreign money exchanges.

Why ye... wait... HEY!, shhh!!!... If the president doesn't have absolute power, then the terrorists win!!!!!

 

[MobBoss]

But lets get on topic for a minute, shall we?

Is a warrant needed to go through ones documents?

you are in the legal profession, so you know the answer is yes.

What about phone records?

yes

Medical records?

yes

What about, say , if the governement wanted to search through dental records!?

yes

What about, hmm.... emails!?

yes


what about...... a safe deposit box and bank account records?

Why yes!!! They do need a warrant!*

*Of course, you are in the legal profession, and you knew that.




What about phone call records?

Why ye.... wait, no, I guess if the decider says so, then he can bypass the fourth amendment... after all, he is commander in chief!

What about.... postal packages?

Yes, need a warrant.

What about..... hmmm.... foreign money exchanges.

Why ye... wait... HEY!, shhh!!!... If the president doesn't have absolute power, then the terrorists win!!!!!

How about financial wire transfers in Belgium?

 

[Neomega]

How about financial wire transfers in Belgium?

How about postal packages sent to Belgium.

Can uncle sam open them up without a warrant, and take a look at the cookies sent to aunt Jean-Claudette?

Nope, not without a warrant.

That's the fourth amendment for ya'

How about financial wire transfers in Belgium?

Of course, unless our commander in chief says he can, because his word is law....

 

[FriendlyFire]

Those only mentioned the fact that the US was freezing accounts in the USA.....not that we had any access to international wire transfers.

Like I just mentioned...only in the USA.

So your telling me the US made NO ATTEMPTS to trace money comming in and going out of the US ???

thats crazy.

oh wait .....

ahahahah good one Mobboss maybe next time you should use the [sarcsim]
Cause I thought you were being serious. I mean its not like terrorist are that stupid.

 

[MobBoss]

How about postal packages sent to Belgium.

I notice you didnt answer the question. Do we need warrants to trace financial wire transfers say, from Saudi Arabia to Syria, from a bank in Belgium.

Psst. If you need a hint...the answer begins with a "n".

Oh..and since you didnt answer the question: I am sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I am sure the vast majority of readers, at this forum, comprehended it just fine.

 

[MobBoss]

So your telling me the US made NO ATTEMPTS to trace money comming in and going out of the US ???

thats crazy.

The whole point of all that was to freeze assets. We can only do that within US borders with assets located here.

 

[Neomega]

I notice you didnt answer the question. Do we need warrants to trace financial wire transfers say, from Saudi Arabia to Syria, from a bank in Belgium.

That red herring of yours in nice and shiny. BIG 'n' RED too

Wow, that is one BIG RED HERRING!

But lets get back on topic, shall we?

The NYT did not release this story talking only of foreign transactions, indeed, it seems our government is also tracking foreign exchanges made here... well, everywhere. US or not.

But yes, that big red fish is very shiny and distracting.

 

[MobBoss]

That red herring of yours in nice and shiny. BIG 'n' RED too

But lets get back on topic, shall we.

The NYT did not release this story talking only of foreign, indeed, it seems our governemtn was also tracking foreign exchanges made here... well, everywhere. US or not.

Again, not an answer to my question. Mind answering it? Why are you avoiding it?

Once more, with emphasis: Do we need warrants to trace financial wire transfers say, from Saudi Arabia to Syria, from a bank in Belgium?

I mean...you had answer to all those other warrant questions so quick...whats the problem with this one?

A simple yes or no should suffice.

 

[Neomega]

Again, not an answer to my question. Mind answering it? Why are you avoiding it?

So red, and soooo shiny. Yes, red and shiny. It is distractign me for the topic at hand... because your red herring is so RED AND SHINY

 

[MobBoss]

So red, and soooo shiny. Yes, red and shiny. It is distractign me for the topic at hand... because your red herring is so RED AND SHINY

Is saying "no" really that hard for you? You know...its kind of funny to see you like this when earlier you were all witty and confident.

Pretty much ruins the whole thing when people pull out the top hat and cane to attempt to dance around a question they dont like.

Pretty darn funny actually.

Well at least you didnt melt down and start gibbering. That was funny too, but in a different way.

Got to hit the sack now. Seem an appropriate spot since I got ya with that last question. Nighty night.

 

[Neomega]

Is saying "no" really that hard for you? You know...its kind of funny to see you like this when earlier you were all witty and confident.

Pretty much ruins the whole thing when people pull out the top hat and cane to attempt to dance around a question they dont like.

Pretty darn funny actually.

Well at least you didnt melt down and start gibbering. That was funny too, but in a different way.

yes your red herring was very red, and very shiny. Nothing at all to do with why the NYT broke the story, but big, red, and distracting.

So, on topic... can the US govrnment track it's cititizens money transfers in the US without a warrant?

NOPE


Does it matter whether it can outside of US jurisdiction without a warrant?

NOPE

Got to hit the sack now. Seem an appropriate spot since I got ya with that last question. Nighty night.

Yes, your red herring was very distracting, and very shiny. Totally off topic, and not related to the NYT expose... but red and shiny none the less.

Good job, ya got a big red shiny red herring to cook up in the morning.

 

[Neomega]

Huh? Actually they got Capone precisely because the IRS said he hadnt paid his taxes. And I am sorry...but no, you are supposed to report legitimate earnings to the IRS. I am sure if you report you made a mil illegally selling dope you would be arrested fairly quickly. And the 5th Amendment isnt protection from the IRS, nor the government. Just ask Richard Hatch, the first survivor winner. He misreported his taxes and got hammered for it in court.

That's right. He ordered people killed, had massive vice rings across the United States, and they pinned him for not paying taxes!

You know why?

Because, by law, you have to report your earnings, no matter where they come from!

If they come from crime, you still have to report them!

And... here is the clincher....


If you report them, THE IRS CANNOT PASS THE INFORMATION ON TO OTHER AGENCIES, AS THAT WOULD BE FORCING SOMEONE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES, AND IT WOULD BE INADMISSABLE IN COURT

But you still got to report it.

Most crooks don't believe this, or they want to keep their earnings, so they never do report it.