Fwuh? Can anyone here read the freaking OP? I quote:
He’s not MAKING ANY CLAIM. He’s ASKING if anyone knows if this is TRUE or FALSE. Focus on part A (True or False?) before you jump on to part B (If True, then begin debate).
That’s the only one with the word “intelligence” in it.
Now WIRED says:
Maybe they mean this:
Which leads us to:
So that IS a pretty broad brush.
Now, I don’t know what the previous definition of “financial institution” was. Nor am I well-versed on the ins and outs of subpoenas and National Security Letters/gag orders. And I’m tired now. So someone else can tackle those fact-finding missions.
OK. You are a private citizen don’t have the police powers of, say, John Ashcroft. I guess I would question whether we can trust Ashcroft with that power. Our whole system is founded on mistrust of government officials and checks and balances is intended to make sure that power isn’t abused.
In all the new laws passed since the WTC destruction, it appears that the executive can declare that someone is a terrorist threat, or an “enemy combatant” and the checks and balances either are greatly weakened, or disappear completely.
Can we really be confident of the good intentions of an executive department that includes, from toadspittle’s post (which, interestingly enough, covers the ground from A to Z)
**(Y) any business or agency which engages in any activity
which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation,
to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a
substitute for any activity in which any business described in
this paragraph is authorized to engage; or
(Z) any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash
transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax,
or regulatory matters.**
It looks to me like the only thing left off that list is:
(AA) Any other activity of any kind not previously identified.
I have a feeling it’s not going to work this way. Someone’s going to come along and ask me for a cite that “FALSE” is the right answer, thus impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to me.
FALSE is the default answer. A proposition is false until evidence shows it likely to be true. For this reason, you don’t typically begin debate by asking, “TRUE or FALSE?”
If you had applied one iota of effort to trying to comprehend the OP, you would see that he is NOT MAKING A PROPOSITION.
In effect, this is a two-part post.
The first part really belongs in GQ, because the poster DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. Do you understand this? He DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. He is not saying “This is true!” He is asking for our help in getting to the bottom of a poorly written news article. And yes, poor, pooooor you, will have to provide cites one way or the other if you wish to post. Poor sad Bricker, having to find a cite. I weep for thee.
Once this part is satisfied, the debate can begin. If there is, in fact, nothing to debate, then the thread will end. Easy. The poster, perhaps, could have broken this into two separate threads, but this is just the sort of contentious subject that invariably becomes GD material, no matter how the thread begins.
I can provide a link to the US Code, and point out that since there is nothing in there that permits the activities described to occur, the answer is FALSE. It then falls to any person wishing to counter that statement to point out where the law DOES permit such activity.
Your contention that there is no proposition being made is technically true, but rhetorically false.
Example: The admins of this board permit you to post here, but they don’t give you a license to be stupid. *
Rick
Technically true. No one has a license to be stupid, and even if such licenses existed, the admins of the SDMB are not handing them out. But there is a rhetorical effect of my technically-true statement, and that’s to suggest that you are stupid (which, of course, I do not; this is merely an example). So, too, with this OP. It is clearly slanted to lean the reader in a particular direction without factual predicate.
