Neal Boortz
Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2001

Do you know what I've done that many of our congressmen and senators haven't done? I've read a summary of H.R. 3162.

The long title is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [acronym: USAPATRIOT] Act of 2001" The Congressional Research Service has given H.R. 3162 the short title of USA Patriot Bill.

I hope you've learned long ago not to pay any attention to the titles our wonderful legislators give to their legislation. Titles seldom have anything to do with the actual purposes of the bill.

Take the "Bank Secrecy Act," for instance. The true purpose of this bill was to make sure that the federal government could keep an eye on your financial relationship with your bank. A more proper title would have been the "Bank Anti-Secrecy Act."

OK … Back to the Patriot Act. It would seem that some members of Congress have done what so many other groups and individuals have done. They have used the terrorist attacks on America as an excuse to pursue long-held goals that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Let's go back to that Bank Secrecy Act for a minute. Under that law your bank must file a report with the Imperial Federal Government every time you engage in a transaction with the bank involving more than $10,000 in cash.

If you deposit $10,000 in cash the bank files a report. If you withdraw 10 grand, the bank files a report.

Are you told the bank is filing a report? No. Are you given a copy of the report? No. (I guess this is where the "secrecy" comes in.)

Well ... Section 365 of the USA Patriot Bill has just expanded this reporting requirement. Now it applies to most businesses, in addition to banks. Now, if you go to a business and spend more than $10,000 in cash, that business has to report your name, address, Social Security number and other pertinent information to the feds.

It doesn't matter whether you spend the money on one item or a whole shopping cart full ... the federal government must be notified.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with international terrorism. The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon did not deal in large amounts of cash. They carried picture ID cards and used credit cards. They NEVER spent $10,000 in cash with any business.

In short, they never engaged in any activity that would have to be reported under Section 365.

So – what's the deal here? Why these new reporting requirements for all businesses? It has much more to do with the IRS than it does with terrorism.

Our tax burden is so onerous in this country that many people prefer to deal in cash as much as they can. The IRS wants to catch these people, and has stepped forward to use our fear of terrorism to open the door.

The original Bank Secrecy Act was based on money laundering by drug dealers. Drugs the excuse then, terrorism the excuse now. And all the while the goal is nothing less than to give the federal government more power to pry into the financial affairs of every American.

Remember – this is the same government that tried to institute the "Know your customer" plan a few years back, and the same government that would like to have access to the computer networks that run ATMs and credit card authorization services.

As for the USA Patriot Bill? Few congressmen even read this bill. Many didn't even read the summary. In the House, under Republican leadership, debate wasn't permitted, nor were amendments.

Again – this is why I vote Libertarian.

The Definition of 'Domestic Terrorism'

Yesterday I mentioned a brochure someone sent me from the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is a brochure handed out to law enforcement officers in the Phoenix area to help them identify potential "domestic terrorists."

The brochure starts out with "If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force." The brochure then proceeds to set forth certain things that the law enforcement officers need to look for. They include ...

• Someone who defends the U.S. Constitution against the federal government and the United Nations
• Someone who asks the law enforcement officer to cite his authority for making a stop
• Someone who makes numerous references to the U.S. Constitution
• Someone who says that driving is a "right," and not a "privilege"
• Someone who attempts to "police the police"

Pretty good stuff, huh? Let's say you're stopped by the cops and they want to search your car. You cite your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and ask the cop why he stopped you and what he is looking for. Suddenly your name is reported to a terrorism task force.

Is any of this beginning to sound just a little frightening to you?

Let's read some more from the brochure:

"The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is attempting to identify criminal activities with domestic terrorists. In this regard, the purpose of this information sheet is to assist uniformed patrol officers in identifying potential domestic terrorists.

"Domestic terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the U.S., attempting to influence the U.S. government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity."

Do you need to read that again? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Break this down. Any individual who violates a law in an attempt to influence the government or other people in an attempt to produce some political or social change is a domestic terrorist. Some examples:

• You make an illegal campaign contribution.
  
• You trespass on private property while engaged in a demonstration.
  
• You remove campaign yard signs erected by a politician you don't support.
  
• You illegally place campaign signs in the highway right-of-way.
  
• You withhold a percentage of your income taxes to protest military spending.

All of the above actions fit easily into the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force definition and thus make you a "domestic terrorist," according to this brochure.

If you aren't starting to get a little concerned about our civil liberties at this point, you're either a leftist or you're asleep.

No Federal Crime? That May Be Good!

Are you starting to get that sinking feeling that Michael Shane Lasseter is going to basically walk after his little airport escapade last week? On the one hand it doesn't seem that he violated any federal laws. On the other hand, state prosecutors don't seem to be too anxious to file charges other than disruptive behavior.

First – as for the federal crime status. One the one hand, it seems odd that the federal government would have books of regulations requiring all of this airport security, while there are no federal laws making it a crime to attempt to bypass this security. How easy would it have been to include something in the USA Patriot Bill to address this?

On the other hand, we need to resist the idea of making every crime a federal crime. That's what the states are for.

Second – as to this "disruptive behavior" charge. Lasseter's attorney is already starting the public relations campaign. He's saying, "He certainly didn't intend to disrupt anything or anybody – just to get to his child."

Lasseter's child was perfectly safe with his great-uncle. Lasseter made a conscious decision to bypass airport security. If he didn't understand that this was going to "disrupt anything or anybody," then his attorney needs to work on having a guardian appointed for him.

The way things stand now – look for a $1,000 fine and some community service for a man who cost already-struggling airlines millions of dollars and inconvenienced tens of thousands of people.

But smoke just one little joint in the privacy of your own home ...

Stop Calling Them 'Religious Conservatives'

Back on that Harry Potter thing for a moment. I heard on our own news this morning that "... some religious conservatives oppose Harry Potter because ..."

These people running around and screaming "Satanism" at Potter moviegoers are NOT religious conservatives. They're religious fanatics.

The Future Was Then

Imagine that with our current technology we could make an immigrant's green card into a "smart card."

A magnetic stripe on the back would contain a laser-written fingerprint, plus information about the owner's hands, face, eyes and voice. It could contain any information the INS thought useful in keeping track of foreigners inside the U.S. And it would be virtually copy proof.

Someday that idea could become reality ... or maybe even yesterday. The L.A. Times reports that the INS has already issued more than 5 million of them since 1998. That's good, isn't it! But wait, don't forget ... we're dealing with government here. There must be a catch.

Well, there is. The catch is that while the INS has distributed 5 million of these smart cards since 1998, they haven't installed one single machine anywhere in the country that can read them.

Government.

Just So Long as We're Clear ...

In the "About Us" section of The Economist, we find the following:

"The Economist believes in plain language. Walter Bagehot, our most famous 19th-century editor, tried 'to be conversational, to put things in the most direct and picturesque manner, as people would talk to each other in common speech, to remember and use expressive colloquialisms'. That remains the style of the paper today."

Well, that's just mighty fine. So, moving to the current issue we find the following correction:

"In the issues of December 16th 2000 to November 10th 2001, we may have given the impression that George Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologizes for any inconvenience."

Can someone make sense of this for me?

Sign of the Times?

Have you heard about the new warning stickers Blockbuster Video is using now? Bright yellow, they read "In light of the acts of terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001, please be advised this product contains scenes that may be considered disturbing to some viewers."

Oh those poor, weak Blockbuster customers. Why doesn't Blockbuster just take a page from our government schools and have counselors on hand to counsel customers who may have been upset by all the violence?

Hooray for Kabulwood

A "near riot" broke out in the Afghan city of Kabul yesterday. It had nothing to do with political or military issues. It was the showing of the first movie since the Taliban took over in 1996.

Afghan men swarmed past police security lines in order to get into the overflowing theater. They were rewarded with a showing of "Uruj," the story of three mujahideen fighters during the war against the Soviet invasion of the 1980s.

While the Taliban ban on movies is no longer, some things haven't changed. Women were not allowed in the theater.

These Guys Might Have a Job Waiting at CBS

The Frontier Post, a Pakistani news outlet, reports, "British Government last night signaled its grave concern about the dangers facing coalition forces in Afghanistan as heavily armed warring factions demanded that foreign troops 'get off our sovereign soil'."

The Post says that "the situation on the ground is 'pretty grim' " and that Britain is considering pulling its 6,000 troops currently slated for deployment.

Of course, we're talking the Frontier Post here. This is the same news outlet that reported two weeks ago the Taliban had shot down a U.S. helicopter plus the B-52 that was providing cover for the chopper. That prompted Royal to ask, "How do they get those B-52s to hover like that?"

Speaking of the Frontier Post ...

Here's an interesting letter to the Post from a Saudi resident:

You Americans are good at pitting Muslims against Muslims. You support one to destroy the other. Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Kuwait and the most recent North versus the Taliban are some examples. You even helped Iraq to use chemical weapons against Iran. The Muslim world understands your dirty games. You create wars so that your arms industry could stay in business. Your commandos entered once in Afghanistan and left in blood soaked boots. Now you have asked the Northern Alliance to fight, while preferring to sit back and watch. But you can't succeed until some Muslim country becomes your ally under duress. Your dirty games are exposed to the whole world. You create Osamas and Saddams so that your exploitation and colonial rule lingers on. But you are under God's wrath and your silent decline has started. Your ostrich-like behaviour will not stop it. Tony Blair-like leaders will support you only until they are ‘well fed'. But in rainy days the British writers will do your ‘philosophical autopsy'. Sameer Jad, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia

And a posted reply:

I don't think so. Responding to Sameer Jad "The Muslim world understands your dirty games." Yes Sameer, every week, the people of the United States meet in the millions to plot. This is a big secret so don't tell any one. Freedom of ideology, emerged from the oppression, you sir, suffer. Scott Kelley Dudley, MA USA

Isn't the Internet wonderful? But is it just me, or does that exchange sound like encoded messeges to al-Qaeda? I guess the paranoia is finally setting in.

Joke of the Day

Jay Leno: They're watching TV again in Afghanistan. Their favorite show is "The Flintstones," but over there it's called "The Jetsons."

[Read Leno and the other late-night comics in NewsMax.]

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Homeland/Civil Defense
Immigration/Borders
Privacy
War on Terrorism