Nookie in New York

Remove all ads!

My point was that after 9/11 the label 'counter terrorism' was used to push through a pro-executive branch government lawyer's wish list that had to with terror only in title. And the already broad scope of the provisions included have been expanded in later additions.

Call me old fashioned, but when a law that is labelled as 'counter terror legislation' is used primarily for something else the suggestion that is used beyond it's intended purpose as suggested in the title is warranted. And then the follow up question arises how to proceed about it. If a counter terror laws are primarily used to crack down on vice or tax evasion or some other non-terrorism-related crimes, and for convenience, then it might be adequate to re-label the law for clarity or to rethink it's right for existence.

PS: After all, the argument was that, as 9/11 proved, terrorism can be devastating, and that the enemies are cunning and ruthless, so that police and intelligence services need broader powers to counter that threat. That is even explicitly stated in the title of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" of 2001. To see these appropriate (and when held against the previous legal standard quite extraordinary) tools required for intercepting and obstructing terrorism used against, to continue my mockery, blow jobs and prostitution - or other crimes other-than-terrorism in the vast majority of cases, suggests indeed an application out of the proclaimed focus./PS

Think of the provision in the Patriot Act about national security letters, that basically allowed the FBI to write their own search warrants. This has been largely abused for convenience. How many domestic terrorism trials did they have in the US after 2001? 5, 10? How many national security letters have been issued by the FBI? 20.000? 50.000? What about judges having to be asked for search warrants for ordinary non-terrorist crimes? Apparently an anachronism that just hasn't been deleted yet.

 

I believe you are neglecting a very important piece of the puzzle. The terrorist organizations are not run by idiots. There troops may be idiots, but that is a different story. They know what the governments of the world have done to try to track them down and eliminate them. Making things difficult for them to move money around cannot be seen as anything else but a positive thing. The fact that in this instance we have proof that the law and system works as intended will make it even harder for them to transfer funds.

Ranting and raving about using a law which is effective against terrorism against other crimes as an excuse to get rid of the law doesn't make any sense. Even I see this, and I'm a libertarian who doesn't trust the government at all.

Also the link you posted talks about abuses in 2006 and how things got better in 2007. Yes the FBI screwed up, they got a stern talking to, and now they are behaving. Is this any different then any other police organzation?

This is getting way off-topic.