Big Brother is watching....

[oldandslow]

This article tells me just how far we have gone and it makes me sad...and angry. We have given too many alms at the idol of security.

Pay too much and you could raise the alarm

By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
28-FEB-06

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.

So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.

And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."

He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.

What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything changed after 9/11" thing.

But not Walter.

"We're a product of the '60s," he said. "We believe government should be way away from us in that regard."

He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.

They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

"If it can happen to me, it can happen to others," he said.

[the Talking Can]

we given up on freedom and privacy....I meant to say, we handed them over...for nothing....

[Mr. Kotter]

...And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast...


It's too bad stuff like this happens, if it happened precisely as the one side is telling it....it's the unfortunate cost of living in the post 9/11 world.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet, the government would claim there was more to it that this.....that wasn't "all" they did.....

Regardless, if you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? :shrug:

To me, people who go ballistic over increased security measures and scrutiny.....are like teenagers who bitch, whine, complain about their parents "checking up" on them. If they aren't doing anything wrong, they got nothing to worry about....IMHO.

[oldandslow]

Perhaps, Mr. Kotter, you prefer to act as if you are the teen and govt is your parent.

I, however, do not.

[Mr. Kotter]

Perhaps, Mr. Kotter, you prefer to act as if you are the teen and govt is your parent.

I, however, do not.

I said I don't like this happening, but given the circumstances and today's world....it's necessary, IMO.

If nothing else to satisfy those who are constantly screaming, "the government should have done MORE to prevent.....this or that!!!" Whether it's 9/11, Katrina, or the insolvency of Social Security....the ironic thing is, the government is most often and most loudly criticized by those that would tie its hands....

If you got nothing to hide, WTF are you whining about? What? You don't want the government stumbling upon your Meth lab, your hydroponic pot plants in the basement, or the kiddie porn on your computer? If you are doing those things, and the government.....in a good faith investigation of your alledged terrorist ties.....discovers the "other" stuff, you deserve to get what you get.....IMHO.

Grow up, people. :rolleyes:

[jAZ]

Regardless, if you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?
Screw Godwin... Your comments deserve to be compared to those who stood by and watched as Hitler left them alone and went after the Jews. Sometimes, you scare me Kotter. This is one of those times.

[jAZ]

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_desire_to_give_up_freedom_in_order_to/12888.html

[jAZ]

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[jAZ]

Grow up, people. :rolleyes:
All your freedom are belong to us

[Mr. Kotter]

Screw Godwin... Your comments deserve to be compared to those who stood by and watched as Hitler left them alone and went after the Jews. Sometimes, you scare me Kotter. This is one of those times.

What's the internet principal again, when those who disagree with you.....immediately start calling you a Nazi??? :hmmm:

Seriously, though.....until the government starts really, seriously, acting like Nazis....I'm not gonna worry. And they aren't even close yet.....despite you and your ilk's hysterical whining.....

Seriously:

What are you hiding, jAZ? :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_desire_to_give_up_freedom_in_order_to/12888.html

More whining and blubbering.....

[jAZ]

What's the internet principal again, when those who disagree with you.....immediately start calling you a Nazi???
Pay attention... it's called Godwin's Law... as in "Screw Godwin".

[Mr. Kotter]

Pay attention... it's called Godwin's Law... as in "Screw Godwin".

ROFL

Heh. Thanks.

[jAZ]

"More whining and blubbering....."
--Kotter calling out Ben Franklin
Thanks for the sig material. I'll put it in the queue.

[Donger]

--Kotter calling out Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin?

[Donger]

I can't find any information on this Bank Privacy Act. Can anyone else?

[Mr. Kotter]

Ben Franklin?

I just said the quote of Ben's jAZ cited was "more whining and blubbering"....:shrug:

We all whine and blubber on occasion--you know, like after you've pissed off the wife, and it's be a couple of weeks since last you had sex.....er, eh....not like that's ever happened to me....

Some like jAZ just blubber and whine much more often, it's so routine they don't even consider it whining and blubbering anymore....heh.

:p

[Donger]

I just said the quote of Ben's jAZ cited was "more whining and blubbering"....:shrug:

We all whine and blubber on occasion--you know, like after you've pissed off the wife, and it's be a couple of weeks since last you had sex.....er, eh....not like that's ever happened to me....

Some like jAZ just blubber and whine much more often, it's so routine they don't even consider it whining and blubbering anymore....heh.

:p

Oh. I get it now. jAZ seems to think that Ben Franklin said this: “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

[Mr. Kotter]

Oh. I get it now. jAZ seems to think that Ben Franklin said this: “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

He, and the site, say it's Franklin.....I thought it was someone like Goldwater....:shrug:

Course that would be funny....heh....jAZ citing Goldwater; him citing Franklin instead would be understandable though..... ROFL

[Donger]

He, and the site, say it's Franklin.....I thought it was someone like Goldwater....:shrug:

I was just confused. However, since our lefty friends are so fond of that quote recently, I did some basic research. As it turns out, it is decidedly unclear whether Franklin ever said or wrote those words.

But I doubt that fact will stop them from to continuing to cliam he did.

[gblowfish]

If you shop at JC Penny, the terrorists win.

[Radar Chief]

If you shop at JC Penny, the terrorists win.

:shrug: That a Ben Franklin also? :hmmm:

[Baby Lee]

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they flagged irregular high dollar transactions for investigation, I remained silent, because it kinda made sense.
Next thing you know, they were throwing Jews in Ovens again!!!

[Donger]

When they flagged irregular high dollar transactions for investigation, I remained silent, because it kinda made sense.
Next thing you know, they were throwing Jews in Ovens again!!!

Yep. Time to buy Zyklon-B stock, baby.

[Baby Lee]

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
I've been kind of curious about those who cite this day in, day out.

Is it then your position that you favor my freedom to strap a fully auto AK-47 to my side and carry it with me everywhere I go? My freedom to build my own nuclear device? I mean, all it costs is a little of your security.

[Mr. Kotter]

I've been kind of curious about those who cite this day in, day out.

Is it then your position that you favor my freedom to strap a fully auto AK-47 to my side and carry it with me everywhere I go? My freedom to build my own nuclear device? I mean, all it costs is a little of your security.

No, no....their idea of "freedom" is very selective.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

This discourse of the right wingers on this thread shows how hopelessly inured they are to the phrase "Win at any cost".

I hate to break this to you, but if we lose all of our basic freedoms in order to stop terrorism--

As they say in counter strike:

"Terrorists Win".

[patteeu]

oldandslow, I'm no fan of government snooping into our personal affairs, but we have to recognize that there is a real trade-off to be made between privacy concerns and concerns over support for illegitimate activity. Drug cartels, corrupt leaders who embezzle aid funds, big time criminals, tax evaders, terrorist kingpins, etc. would all love to be able to keep their funds in and transfer funds through banks that will keep their secrets. I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn, but consider this apparent contradiction to the sentiments you express in this thread:

some of my reasons [for not trusting the UAE when it comes to the pending ports deal]...

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

In order to have a chance to prevent 9/11 hijacker money from being transferred through their banking system or in order to help the Treasury Department track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts, some level of UAE banking privacy must be compromised in favor of the UAE government's ability to monitor it's country's banking activity. How do you reconcile your desire for banking privacy with your criticisms of a country that had it?

[BIG_DADDY]

We are tuning into a bunch of frightened little pussies.

[unlurking]

The one thing that bothers is me about all this (besides the slow erosion of rights), is the concept that it is better to fight them on THEIR soil rather than our own.

Are the basic loss of rights "fighting" the WoT? Yes? Then we are already fighting on our own soil, but the targets are ourselves.

Just close the damned border and let them try to get in by force.

[banyon]

I was just confused. However, since our lefty friends are so fond of that quote recently, I did some basic research. As it turns out, it is decidedly unclear whether Franklin ever said or wrote those words.

But I doubt that fact will stop them from to continuing to cliam he did.

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.html)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B. Franklin.

[patteeu]

The one thing that bothers is me about all this (besides the slow erosion of rights), is the concept that it is better to fight them on THEIR soil rather than our own.

Are the basic loss of rights "fighting" the WoT? Yes? Then we are already fighting on our own soil, but the targets are ourselves.

Just close the damned border and let them try to get in by force.

Closing the border would be national economic suicide. Fighting a defensive WoT would strengthen the impulse to erode our rights.

[Donger]

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.html)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B. Franklin.

Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Franklin published that. He didn't write it.

[vailpass]

When they flagged irregular high dollar transactions for investigation, I remained silent, because it kinda made sense.
Next thing you know, they were throwing Jews in Ovens again!!!

ROFL Exactly.

Its either:

"Hey Bush, why are you infringing on our freedoms, man? You have no right to monitor our financial transactions!"

or

"Hey Bush, why didn't you know about all of the terrorist funding that was flowing right under your nose, man? You have a duty to monitor those financial transactions!"

While the ideology is admirable the days when the government can remain completely hands off and still keep the homeland safe are gone. Weep and wail all you want, it's good to keep checks and balances, but either get with the necessities created by muslim terrorism or get out of the way.

If you want to blame someone look to the middle east.

[Mr. Kotter]

You know, this is just another example of the ridiculous nature of the slippery slope argument..... :rolleyes:

I hate it when conservatives use it to argue against reasonable gun control.
I hate it when liberals use it to argue against reasonable restrictions on abortion.
I hate it when populist types use it to argue against reasonable support for free trade.
And I hate it when libertarian types use it to argue against reasonable limits on individual rights.

Use of the slippery slope argument in these cases is really a sign of desperation, a last resort--it's a silly ruse to demagogue an issue that one cannot intellectually defend.

[BIG_DADDY]

Just one more reason to start moving some money offshore when you have a decent chunk.

[Mr. Kotter]

Just one more reason to start moving some money offshore when you have a decent chunk.

Would you feel differently if terrorists, who could have been stopped with surveillance permitted by this Act--that doesn't intrude on the rights of law-abiding citizens, are stopped from detonating a nuclear bomb in your home town? I'm sincerely curious.

Or would you just write off that, as....."well, at least we are free."

:shrug:

[Logical]

It's too bad stuff like this happens, if it happened precisely as the one side is telling it....it's the unfortunate cost of living in the post 9/11 world.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet, the government would claim there was more to it that this.....that wasn't "all" they did.....

Regardless, if you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? :shrug:

To me, people who go ballistic over increased security measures and scrutiny.....are like teenagers who bitch, whine, complain about their parents "checking up" on them. If they aren't doing anything wrong, they got nothing to worry about....IMHO.

I probably set off alerts all the time. For example two months ago I charged about 18K worth of stuff and then a week later got the bill and immediately paid it all off. The next month I suddenly could not charge 3K for my new big screen TV on that card. I called in and they said a hold had been placed on my account, but it was to be lifted the next day. I just shrugged it off and used a different credit card. But I wonder if this was the work of the Homeland Security now that I have read this story.

Hell I am constantly moving 10s of thousands between my bank and my Schwab and other investment accounts, now I wonder what they think about that?

If I dissappear from the BB would someone start checking Eastern European prisons to see if you can find me? Sadly it might come to that with what is happening these days.

[Logical]

...
I hate to break this to you, but if we lose all of our basic freedoms in order to stop terrorism--

As they say in counter strike:

"Terrorists Win".

You occasionally suprise me and get something exactly right, this is one of those times.:clap:

[JBucc]

I probably set off alerts all the time. For example two months ago I charged about 18K worth of stuff and then a week later got the bill and immediately paid it all off. The next month I suddenly could not charge 3K for my new big screen TV on that card. I called in and they said a hold had been placed on my account, but it was to be lifted the next day. I just shrugged it off and used a different credit card. But I wonder if this was the work of the Homeland Security now that I have read this story.

Hell I am constantly moving 10s of thousands between my bank and my Schwab and other investment accounts, now I wonder what they think about that?

If I dissappear from the BB would someone start checking Eastern European prisons to see if you can find me? Sadly it might come to that with what is happening these days.if you do it regularly it shouldn't be a problem shoudl it?

[mlyonsd]

I probably set off alerts all the time. For example two months ago I charged about 18K worth of stuff and then a week later got the bill and immediately paid it all off. The next month I suddenly could not charge 3K for my new big screen TV on that card. I called in and they said a hold had been placed on my account, but it was to be lifted the next day. I just shrugged it off and used a different credit card. But I wonder if this was the work of the Homeland Security now that I have read this story.

Hell I am constantly moving 10s of thousands between my bank and my Schwab and other investment accounts, now I wonder what they think about that?

If I dissappear from the BB would someone start checking Eastern European prisons to see if you can find me? Sadly it might come to that with what is happening these days.

I transfer 10's of dollars from the ATM to my wallet without any problem.

Show off.

[Mr. Kotter]

I probably set off alerts all the time. For example two months ago I charged about 18K worth of stuff and then a week later got the bill and immediately paid it all off. The next month I suddenly could not charge 3K for my new big screen TV on that card. I called in and they said a hold had been placed on my account, but it was to be lifted the next day. I just shrugged it off and used a different credit card. But I wonder if this was the work of the Homeland Security now that I have read this story.

Hell I am constantly moving 10s of thousands between my bank and my Schwab and other investment accounts, now I wonder what they think about that?

If I dissappear from the BB would someone start checking Eastern European prisons to see if you can find me? Sadly it might come to that with what is happening these days.

Can I have $80 for a decent bottle of Scotch? :hmmm:

I promise to start typing drunk, when I start feeling drunk....as opposed to faking it, once I've dug myself into a hole. Deal?

[Logical]

Would you feel differently if terrorists, who could have been stopped with surveillance permitted by this Act--that doesn't intrude on the rights of law-abiding citizens, are stopped from detonating a nuclear bomb in your home town? I'm sincerely curious.

Or would you just write off that, as....."well, at least we are free."

:shrug:Somehow money being moved by Achmed through internatioal banking circles and his use of credit cards does not quite equate with a retired citizen paying off his credit card bill in my mind.

Do you really equate the two? Yes profiling should be used when they do the monitoring and for god sake don't mess with peoples transactions just so you can monitor them. There is a huge difference in monitoring and putting holds on transactions. They better damn well know someone is a terrorist or working for terrorism when they do anything more than monitor banking activity.

[banyon]

Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Franklin published that. He didn't write it.

Where are you doing your research? I'll trust Bartlett's thanks. It's the O.E.D of the quotation world.

From the link:

This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413

i.e. Franklin used it. As his motto for the book.

[Logical]

if you do it regularly it shouldn't be a problem shoudl it?

It never used to be, that is why I cited the example of the hold being placed on my credit card account. Exactly because it never used to be an issue. I transact almost all my business even grocery shopping electronically so I run up big monthly bills which I always pay off immediately. I never have a balance on my credit cards that requires me to pay any interest. So when they put that hold on it concerned me. I have no idea whether or not the government was involved. I am just saying the story made me wonder.

mylyonsd,

I can see why you would think that was showing off, but it was done to try to illustrate my point above. Sorry if I offended you, I thought everyone on the BB knew I am financially comfortable.

[Mr. Kotter]

Somehow money being moved by Achmed through internatioal banking circles and his use of credit cards does not quite equate with a retired citizen paying off his credit card bill in my mind.

Do you really equate the two? Yes profiling should be used when they do the monitoring and for god sake don't mess with peoples transactions just so you can monitor them. There is a huge difference in monitoring and putting holds on transactions. They better damn well know someone is a terrorist or working for terrorism when they do anything more than monitor banking activity.

Depends on circumstances, that we may not know about. I don't know...

I agree the standard should be pretty high; we just don't have all the details on this....so how are we to know whether it was truly justified, or simply a fishing expedition.

FTR, I would oppose surveillance that was really nothing more than a fishing expedition....

[DanT]

I can't find any information on this Bank Privacy Act. Can anyone else?


I'm pretty sure they meant the "Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970", which is an anti-money laundering (AML) law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

The Patriot Act made some modifications to the law that meant that credit card companies have to have some sort of AML systems in place.

Here's a GAO report from July, 2002 (GAO 02-670) called

"MONEY LAUNDERING
Extent of Money Laundering through
Credit Cards Is Unknown"

that discusses money-laundering via credit cards and how much (or little) of a problem it is:

59-page PDF file with GAO report (http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gao/gao72202ccmlrpt.pdf)

[mlyonsd]

mylyonsd,

I can see why you would think that was showing off, but it was done to try to illustrate my point above. Sorry if I offended you, I thought everyone on the BB knew I am financially comfortable.

I was just teasing. I've know for a long time you were really Al Davis.

[Pitt Gorilla]

No, no....their idea of "freedom" is very selective.Isn't yours as well?

[DanT]

Here's the text of the wikipedia.org entry on the Bank Secrecy Act. Go to the URL to find the version with active hyperlinks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
Bank Secrecy Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bank Secrecy Act (or BSA) was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1970. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an "Anti-money laundering" law ("AML") or jointly as “BSA/AML”. Several anti-money laundering acts, including provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. (See 31 USC 5311-5330 and 31 CFR 103.) The BSA requires banks and other financial institutions to report certain transactions to government agencies, and not to disclose to the clients that certain reports have been filed about them. These transactions include deposits or withdrawals of more than $10,000 in cash in a day, or purchase of monetary instruments (money orders, cashiers checks, travelers checks) with more than $3,000 of cash. For such transactions, the bank must report certain information about the person doing the transaction, such as address and occupation in a "currency transaction report" ("CTR") to the Internal Revenue Service. If it appears the person is in any way attempting to circumvent the report, the Bank must file a "suspicious activity report" ("SAR") with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FINCEN"). There are stiff penalties for individuals and institutions which fail to file CTRs, SARs or disclose to its clients that it has filed a SAR about a client.

An entire industry has grown up around software to analyze transactions in an attempt to identify transactions or patterns of transactions (called structuring, which requires an SAR report) that qualify for reporting. Financial institutions face heavy penalties for failing to properly file CTR and SAR reports, including heavy fines and regulatory restrictions (even to the point of losing their charter).

Many regular people will have a CTR filed under the BSA on a financial transaction at some point. For example, if you withdraw cash to purchase a car that exceed $10,000 or purchase many traveler's checks with cash for a long European vacation. CTRs include your bank account number, name, address, and SSN. SAR reports, required when transactions indicate behaviour designed to elude CTRs (as noted above), include somewhat more detailed information and usually include investigation efforts on the part of the financial institution to assess the validity of transactions, or explaining why they believe you might possibly be structuring the transaction. A single CTR filed for your account is usually of no concern to the authorities, while multiple CTRs from varying institutions or a SAR indicates that activity may be suspicious (as a bank customer though they are meaningless unless you are actually doing something illegal). A financial institution is not allowed to inform a business or consumer that a SAR is being filed. Bob Dole was famous for doing many large cash withdrawals (though this would normally be completely secret even with a CTR except for the fact that the bank in question failed to file CTR's and was closed down because of it).

Businesses that primarily deal in cash, such as bars and restaurants can be exempted from having their deposits and withdrawals reported as CTRs, although this exemption is rarely granted. Instead, most banks have computer systems which retains the CTR information and allows duplicate CTR's to be created seamlessly.

These efforts are in part an attempt to minimize and detect money laundering efforts by terrorists, senior foreign political embezzlers, drug dealers and organized crime rings.

[Mr. Kotter]

Isn't yours as well?

I suppose. I don't claim otherwise though. :shrug:

[Donger]

Where are you doing your research? I'll trust Bartlett's thanks. It's the O.E.D of the quotation world.

From the link:

This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin’s “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413

i.e. Franklin used it. As his motto for the book.

Franklin's own words.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Donger]

Thanks DanT.

[Radar Chief]

I probably set off alerts all the time. For example two months ago I charged about 18K worth of stuff and then a week later got the bill and immediately paid it all off. The next month I suddenly could not charge 3K for my new big screen TV on that card. I called in and they said a hold had been placed on my account, but it was to be lifted the next day. I just shrugged it off and used a different credit card. But I wonder if this was the work of the Homeland Security now that I have read this story.

Hell I am constantly moving 10s of thousands between my bank and my Schwab and other investment accounts, now I wonder what they think about that?

If I dissappear from the BB would someone start checking Eastern European prisons to see if you can find me? Sadly it might come to that with what is happening these days.

Depends, am I in your will? :titus:

[dirk digler]

This is another example of the government ****ing things up. Not too long ago I took a flight to Chicago to see some friends. Going through security they didn't pull the 3 Arabs men to the side and do a security but they pulled the 90 yr old grandma in a wheelchair and scanned her and made her lift up her shoes along with her 90 yr old husband.

Paying $6,000 to a credit card company and it has to go through Homeland Security is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

:banghead:

[unlurking]

Closing the border would be national economic suicide. Fighting a defensive WoT would strengthen the impulse to erode our rights.
How so? (On both points)

[Nightwish]

Edit: nevermind. Donger already posted the same information above in post #52.

[patteeu]

How so? (On both points)

The obvious economic poison pill of isolating ourselves behind the walls of fortress america is the fact that we aren't energy self-sufficient. If you are just talking about closing our borders to immigration but expect us to be able to continue to take part in global trade, that's a little less catastrophic, but we would still find ourselves with some serious economic challenges. For example, without immigration, our population will have a slower (possibly negative) rate of growth and will age faster which will lead to problems with our social safety net.

On the second point, any realistic defensive strategy (meaning I don't think closing the borders as you suggest is very realistic) will require us to improve our domestic intelligence to catch terrorists before they execute their attacks. The NSA surveillance program, the PATRIOT act, and increased inspections at ports, airports, and the border are all defensive measures. If we are going to go all defensive, these are the types of tools we will be needing.