|
Unintended Consequences
Spitzer got snagged by the fine print of the Patriot Act.
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help
track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it
would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd
connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call
girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being
used very differently once they're on the books.
The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected
terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury
Department authority to demand more information from banks about their
customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds
identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It
issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to
look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash
withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs--Suspicious Activity
Reports--to the government. Facing potentially stiff penalties if they
didn't comply, banks and other financial institutions installed
sophisticated software to detect anomalies among millions of daily
transactions. They began ranking the risk levels of their customers--on
a scale of zero to 100--based on complex formulas that included the
credit rating, assets and profession of the account holder.
Another element of the formulas: whether an account holder was a
"politically exposed person." At first focused on potentially crooked
foreign officials, the PEP lists expanded to include many U.S.
politicians and public officials who were conceivably vulnerable to
corruption.
The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in
2001 to 1.23 million last year. The data, stored in an IRS computer in
Detroit, are accessible by law-enforcement agencies nationwide.
"Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a
former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today
involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime." Federal
prosecutors around the country routinely scour the SARs for potential
leads.
One of those leads led to Spitzer. Last summer New York's North Fork
Bank, where Spitzer had an account, filed a SAR about unusual money
transfers he had made, say law-enforcement and industry sources who
asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the probe.
One of the sources tells NEWSWEEK that Spitzer wasn't flagged because
of his public position. Instead, the governor called attention to
himself by asking the bank to transfer money in someone else's name.
(A North Fork spokesperson says the bank does not discuss its
customers.) The SAR was not itself evidence that Spitzer had committed
a crime. But it made the Feds curious enough to follow the money.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123489
referrer http://drudgereport.com/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HmktDd7O0pI
|
| |
| |
Interesting, and just one of the reasons many did and still do oppose the
extra powers invested in givt by the patriot act.
Isn't there something about "the intent" of the legislation as being
important in regards the use of it?
Anyway, seems to me the main issue about all this, isn't how he was tracked,
isn;t that the owners of the ring were arrested , it;s about how there was
such a hig emphasis on the details of Client 9, and that it was leaked to
the public for apparent political reasons.
Hard to escape "political" reasons when he was already being targetted by
the Republicans immediately for impeachment if he didn't resign.
Now this sort of thing to take advantage of political opponents at any time,
but there is a question or two hanging over what justifies the extent of the
details disclosed in the affidavat about Client 9 vs the others, and then
the fact it was leaked to the press even before it hit the Court for an
arrest warrant. Mmmmmmmm
Seems to me Spitzer has paid a very high price for his misdemeanor, and yet
who would sympathise with him? Deserved what he got, I suppose.
But the question then goes to what kind of Justice and Political system do
people really want to live under? What is worse? Spitzer getting laid, or
the whole system including the use of the Patriot Act provisions suppoesedly
for tracking down Terrorists that exists and that enabled him to get
publicly rolled for a very private tryst?
At what cost this level of Government involvement and scrutiny in peoples
private affairs?
1.23 milion SAR reports last year?
How many Terrorists or financiers were found, and what is the *actual
intent* of the Act?
That to me are the important ethical and philosophical questions needing
attention by wiser folks. cheers
Unintended Consequences
Spitzer got snagged by the fine print of the Patriot Act.
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help
track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it
would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd
connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call
girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being
used very differently once they're on the books.
The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected
terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury
Department authority to demand more information from banks about their
customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds
identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It
issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to
look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash
withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs--Suspicious Activity
Reports--to the government. Facing potentially stiff penalties if they
didn't comply, banks and other financial institutions installed
sophisticated software to detect anomalies among millions of daily
transactions. They began ranking the risk levels of their customers--on
a scale of zero to 100--based on complex formulas that included the
credit rating, assets and profession of the account holder.
Another element of the formulas: whether an account holder was a
"politically exposed person." At first focused on potentially crooked
foreign officials, the PEP lists expanded to include many U.S.
politicians and public officials who were conceivably vulnerable to
corruption.
The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in
2001 to 1.23 million last year. The data, stored in an IRS computer in
Detroit, are accessible by law-enforcement agencies nationwide.
"Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a
former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today
involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime." Federal
prosecutors around the country routinely scour the SARs for potential
leads.
One of those leads led to Spitzer. Last summer New York's North Fork
Bank, where Spitzer had an account, filed a SAR about unusual money
transfers he had made, say law-enforcement and industry sources who
asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the probe.
One of the sources tells NEWSWEEK that Spitzer wasn't flagged because
of his public position. Instead, the governor called attention to
himself by asking the bank to transfer money in someone else's name.
(A North Fork spokesperson says the bank does not discuss its
customers.) The SAR was not itself evidence that Spitzer had committed
a crime. But it made the Feds curious enough to follow the money.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123489
referrer http://drudgereport.com/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HmktDd7O0pI
|
| |
| |
Unintended Consequences
Spitzer got snagged by the fine print of the Patriot Act.
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help
track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it
would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd
connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call
girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being
used very differently once they're on the books.
This only goes to show the difference between the US and UK in relation to
certain matters.
A fling, even with a call girl, would not normally be enough to bring down a
UK national politician, although if they lie about it and then get caught
out (parliament - Profumo; courts - Archer)* then they are finished.
OTOH Spitzer had resigned within a matter of hours, although the
hypocritical **** had been using exactly the services he was publicly
seeking to clean up, so I guess he had it coming!
* for the Yanks
Profumo was minister for war (secretary of state for defence) in 1963 and
sharing a tart with the Russian defence attach. He denied it to start with
but resigned when proof appeared. The tart got 9 months for perjury.
Archer was also a minister (mid 1990's). He got sent to prison for perjury
over an unusual payment to another tart. He was surviving fairly well until
he decided to sue a newspaper for libel... Another minister (Aitken) also
did jail time for perjury, when he tried the same trick.
|
| |
| |
Unintended Consequences
Spitzer got snagged by the fine print of the Patriot Act.
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, law-enforcement agencies hailed it as a powerful tool to help
track down the confederates of Osama bin Laden. No one expected it
would end up helping to snag the likes of Eliot Spitzer. The odd
connection between the antiterror law and Spitzer's trysts with call
girls illustrates how laws enacted for one purpose often end up being
used very differently once they're on the books.
The purpose of laws is usually: money and power for the government.
This only goes to show the difference between the US and UK in relation to
certain matters.
A fling, even with a call girl, would not normally be enough to bring down a
UK national politician, although if they lie about it and then get caught
out (parliament - Profumo; courts - Archer)* then they are finished.
Spitzer may yet face charges for violating the money laundering and
reporting laws. Under those laws, it is illegal to do or not do
something in order to avoid reporting a large currency transaction
(even if it's a perfectly legal transaction), which includes splitting
it up into smaller pieces or backing out because of the reporting.
But if he got caught admitting on a wiretap that he decided *NOT*
to patronize a prostitute because of the currency reporting laws,
they got him. For doing nothing.
If you must *NOT* patronize a prostitute, don't do it because it's
too expensive, or because of moral issues, or because of possible
social diseases, or because you don't want to get caught in a
scandal.
OTOH Spitzer had resigned within a matter of hours, although the
hypocritical **** had been using exactly the services he was publicly
seeking to clean up, so I guess he had it coming!
I believe he also personally voted for increased penalties on
customers of prostitutes. When you violate a law you helped pass,
that's hypocricy.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:06:30 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
Last summer New York's North Fork
Bank, where Spitzer had an account, filed a SAR about unusual money
transfers he had made, say law-enforcement and industry sources who
asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the probe.
A matter not so sensitive that they said this it seems.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 23, 6:47=A0am, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
[...]
Profumo was minister for war (secretary of state for defence) in 1963 and
sharing a tart with the Russian defence attach=E9. =A0He denied it to star=
t with
but resigned when proof appeared. =A0The tart got 9 months for perjury.
Brit national security fueled the Profumo prosecutions. Cold war
between Britain and The Soviet Union was raging at the time. WTH
could anyone expect?
|
| |
| |
This only goes to show the difference between the US and UK in relation to
certain matters.
A fling, even with a call girl, would not normally be enough to bring down
a UK national politician, although if they lie about it and then get
caught out (parliament - Profumo; courts - Archer)* then they are
finished.
OTOH Spitzer had resigned within a matter of hours, although the
hypocritical **** had been using exactly the services he was publicly
seeking to clean up, so I guess he had it coming!
* for the Yanks
Profumo was minister for war (secretary of state for defence) in 1963 and
sharing a tart with the Russian defence attach. He denied it to start
with but resigned when proof appeared. The tart got 9 months for perjury.
Archer was also a minister (mid 1990's). He got sent to prison for
perjury over an unusual payment to another tart. He was surviving fairly
well until he decided to sue a newspaper for libel... Another minister
(Aitken) also did jail time for perjury, when he tried the same trick.
Disappointingly misogynistic language there. The only people you give an
insulting description to are the women. Maybe you didn't notice.
|
| |
| |
This pretty much summarises why I oppose the DNA database and the ID card
scheme...and other things.
Sure, they look good on paper... but I think we'll quickly find they are
being used in ways we wouldn't have imagined. And once the genie is out of
the bottle, there is no turning back.
|
| |
| |
This pretty much summarises why I oppose the DNA database and the ID card
scheme...and other things.
Sure, they look good on paper... but I think we'll quickly find they are
being used in ways we wouldn't have imagined. And once the genie is out of
the bottle, there is no turning back.
Privacy was always a fantasy. Look at how Voltaire attacked Rousseau.
Hollywood needs to do an a movie on "Johnny Bear" by Johnny "Bear
Flag" Steinbeck.
Bret Cahill
"Whiskey, whiskey for Johnny."
-- Steinbeck
|
| |
| |
Isn't there something about "the intent" of the legislation as being
important in regards the use of it?
Sptizer's lawyers will mention that to the judge. If he fights it to
the U. S. Supreme Court and a Democrat is president, the Scalito Court
will strike down the BushCo domestic spying provisions.
.. . .
Seems to me Spitzer has paid a very high price for his misdemeanor, and yet
who would sympathise with him? Deserved what he got, I suppose.
If a Repug is president the Scalito might not strike down any
provisions in the Patriot Act.
But the question then goes to what kind of Justice and Political system do
people really want to live under? What is worse? Spitzer getting laid, or
the whole system including the use of the Patriot Act provisions suppoesedly
for tracking down Terrorists that exists and that enabled him to get
publicly rolled for a very private tryst?
At what cost this level of Government involvement and scrutiny in peoples
private affairs?
In the long run it definitely hits Repugs more than Dems.
1.23 milion SAR reports last year?
How many Terrorists or financiers were found, and what is the *actual
intent* of the Act?
My personal opinion is Cheney is selling lists of names to
advertisers.
Forget the war crimes. If he gets convicted of doing that he will be
doing time.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| |
|
