[David]

I guess you never know that the ice cream cone you just purchased maybe helping a terrorist?

Here's the story:

from ap.org --

NYC Terror Raid Busts Ice Cream Shop

NEW YORK (Nov. 9) - At dawn, armed FBI agents assigned to an anti-terrorism unit converged on an unlikely front in the war on terrorism: a tiny ice cream shop in Brooklyn.

Elfgeeh's shop, Carnival ice cream store in Brooklyn, was an alleged conduit for illegal money transfers.

The agents arrested the Yemeni proprietor, a naturalized U.S. citizen, who lived three floors above. Based on a tip, they said, they had learned that $20 million had passed through the bank accounts of his business from 1997 until the raid in January.

The proprietor, Abad Elfgeeh, pleaded guilty last month in a proceeding that escaped notice, perhaps because the illegal money-transfer charge against him never mentioned terrorism.

But a review of court files by The Associated Press revealed that prosecutors believe Elfgeeh was an associate of Sheik Mohammed Hasa Al-Moayad, a prominent Yemeni cleric charged with funneling millions to al-Qaida in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Elfgeeh has denied any connection. Al-Moayad is being held in Germany, where he is fighting extradition to the United States.

The allegations of an illicit connection between the two men stem from the federal government's crackdown on informal money transfer networks known as "hawalas."

Muslim immigrants have used the networks - which rely on wire transfers, couriers and overnight mail - to send cash to their families overseas.

But since the Sept. 11 attacks, authorities have worked to dismantle the system, fearing it allows terrorists to raise and launder money. Osama bin Laden has boasted that hawalas created cracks in the Western financial system that "were as familiar to him and his al-Qaida colleagues as the lines of their own hands," a recent congressional report warned.

Offices of companies providing hawala services have been shuttered in cities around the United States. In Brooklyn alone, more than a dozen Arab or Muslim men have been charged with transferring money without a license. One, an American of Egyptian descent, was convicted in July of trying to smuggle $659,000 in boxes of Ritz crackers, Quaker Oats and baby wipes stuffed in a suitcase on a flight to Egypt.

Defense lawyers call the crackdown overkill and say prosecutors have unfairly linked their clients to extremist causes and subjected them to interrogations and severe jail conditions without actually charging them with terrorism.

Some of the defendants were naturalized U.S. citizens with clean records. Most were guilty only of trying to send money home to loved ones, said Peter Mollo, an attorney for Mohamed Ali Alriany, a Brooklyn man who pleaded guilty in a case in which investigators say he made millions of dollars in unreported transfers to Yemen through his gift shop.

"They're looking for a bigger fish," Mollo said. "There is no bigger fish."

On the surface, Elfgeeh seems an unlikely threat to national security. He arrived in the United States 30 years ago with an eighth grade education and became a citizen five years later. He was in the ice cream business for 20 years and had no previous arrests.

In his plea after the Jan. 18 raid on his ice cream shop, Elfgeeh, 48, said he began informally transferring money for family and friends for a fee in 1995. He said he "intended to get a license, but never got around to it."

Testifying about the morning of his arrest, Elfgeeh told a judge that he was asleep with his pregnant wife when the armed federal agents pounded on his door. The agents, who had a material witness warrant, intimidated him into consenting to a search, he said.

"I was terrified, very scared," he said. "Of course, we are hearing a lot since Sept. 11 about what happened to Arabic men, what happened to Muslims who look like me."

But authorities said documents seized in his shop revealed a pattern of deception.

Tax records showed the shop had average annual revenue of about $185,000, but court papers said that from November 2001 to November 2002 alone, Elfgeeh's bank accounts had deposits of more than $5.3 million - money later transferred to banks in Yemen and elsewhere.

Investigators say they connected Elfgeeh to the Yemeni cleric, Al-Moayad, following a sting operation in Germany in which Al-Moayad told an FBI informant that he supplied $20 million, recruits and weapons to Osama bin Laden.

Al-Moayad allegedly named four men in New York - including Elfgeeh - he claimed had secretly transferred funds to him in Yemen. He also "said he received money for 'jihad' that was collected from the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn," court papers said.

Past investigations identified the mosque as a place of worship for terrorists, including the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Mosque leaders have dismissed any current connection.

During a sealed proceeding in July, Elfgeeh testified he had heard of Al-Moayad, but added: "I do not personally know him."

He is now awaiting sentencing on the illegal money-transfer charge and could face up to 10 years in prison.

******

:uhoh: :what: :scrutiny:

[4v50 Gary]

Not to second guess the FBI, but $5.3 million is either a lot of ice cream and sundaes or he's laundering for drugs/gangs/terrorists. Take you pick.

[rock jock]

Is the title of your post meant to imply that it is ludicrous for terrorists to run an ice cream shop?

[David]

No, I wrote the title that way (in the form of a question), since this guy is only alleged by the FBI as having ties to terrorists -- he was not convicted, yet.

:D :eek: :D

[Don Galt]

Yet another violation of the constitution.

There is no such thing as "illegal money transfers" under the constitution... only fraud, theft, or other financial stealing could be illegal.

Transferring money is a god given, constitution protected, right. Just like self defense, self ownership, privacy in banking, etc. In fact, it is literally another expression of the right of free association. You can have whatever relationship with whomever you want, and that relationship, financial or not, can never be criminalized by the federal government under the constitution-- assuming the relationship is consentual.

I don't care if the guy was sending money orders from his earnings working as a minimum wage janitor addressed to osama bin laden by name.

Why is it the government can say "terrorism!" and people roll over and give them free riegn to violate the constitution? IT used to be "drug warlords!" and they could do the same thing.

The whole purpose of this aspect of the war on terrroism is to insure that YOU never misrepresent your taxes in any way shape or form-- eventually they will know every transactcion going on in your bank accounts by social security number (not just the ones over $5,000 as they do now.)

IF merely uttering the word "Terrorism" melts your support for the constitution, you never supported it to begin with. And if you don't support the constitution in whole, support for the second ammendment rings hollow. People have got to get serious about the bill of rights.

(Note: this isn't addressed to anyone specificly here, just the general attitude that many republicans have where they throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to "terrorism".)

Don't let them manipulate you.

[Sergeant Bob]

Don Galt Transferring money is a god given, constitution protected, right. Just like self defense, self ownership, privacy in banking, etc. In fact, it is literally another expression of the right of free association. You can have whatever relationship with whomever you want, and that relationship, financial or not, can never be criminalized by the federal government under the constitution-- assuming the relationship is consentual.
So you're saying, if someone decides to provide a terrorist the financing to attack and kill thousands of Americans (or others), he has a Constitutional right to do so? Am I correct here?
Do you have a Constitutional right to hire a hit man?

[Tamara]

transferring money without a license.

Well, gosh, that sounds like a serious offense.




Sergeant Bob, they don't care if the money was going to Osama Bin Ladin or Mother Teresa's orphanage; they don't want you transferring money without government permission.

If you think that is right and just, I'd be interested to know what other things you think you need government permission to do? Buy a gun, perhaps?

[MoreTEN]

The irony of this is that Bush & co have fed terrorist with money, that before he became president. But is it moraly right for this man to say whats right or not?

USA alone is one of the few countries along withother "terrorist" states that excecutes people, and USA is far up on that list. They are also backing up a war-criminal in Ariel Sharon.

Bush is a cowboy, not a politican.

[Werewolf]

Reading the article that started this thread has helped me to understand what folks must have felt about the Japanese in WWII.

I have always believed that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was an abomination against everything the United States stands for.

I could never understand how it could have happened and the hysteria on the west coast that caused it.

I still think it was an horrific act to inter the Japanese; I hope nothing like that ever happens again. BUT now I at least understand why it happened because I've had the same feeling about Arab Americans that my Grandparents had about Japanese Americans.

Thanks for the reminder... we need those sometimes lest we repeat the mistakes of our forbears.

[JohnBT]

"Bush is a cowboy, not a politican."

At least you got one thing correct.

And I think a cowboy makes a much better President than any politician ever has or ever will.

Remember, just because you hate us doesn't mean we're wrong.

John

[El Tejon]

"Freeze! Federal Agent!"

O.K., I HAD to do it.:D :D :D

[Sean Smith]

Um, why is "cowboy" used as an insult anyway? :confused:

Main Entry: cow·boy
Pronunciation: -"boi
Function: noun
Date: 1623
1 : one who tends cattle or horses; especially : a usually mounted cattle-ranch hand
2 : a rodeo performer

http://www.merriam-webster.com

Using "cowboy" as an insult represents a stunning ignorance of both American (not merely United States) history and Standard American English.

[Henry Bowman]

Do you have a Constitutional right to hire a hit man?
No, but the crime involved there is not "illegal transfer of money." I'm with Don Galt. Money laundering should not be a crime. Go after the underlying act, if it is criminal.

[Sergeant Bob]

Tamara Sergeant Bob, they don't care if the money was going to Osama Bin Ladin or Mother Teresa's orphanage; they don't want you transferring money without government permission.
No, I don't think transferring money without a "license" should be a crime. I was thinking more along the lines of what Henry Bowman said...Go after the underlying act, if it is criminal..
I do think financing a terrorist (or a hit man) is criminal. My problem is with his statement
You can have whatever relationship with whomever you want, and that relationship, financial or not, can never be criminalized by the federal government under the constitution-- assuming the relationship is consentual.
If that relationship is giving someone money to facilitate them committing a crime, i.e., do a bank heist, murder 2800 people, I don't think that falls under "constitutional rights".
I hope that clears things up.

[Don Galt]

Sgt Bob-

The crime is the crime, not the relationship.

If you come to me and ask for a thousand bucks, and I give it to you because you're a friend, and then you go and use it to buy C4 on the black market and blow some people up, did I commit a crime? No! I gave a friend a thousand bucks and didn't know he was going to do that with it.

Now, if we both planned to blow those people up, then the crime would be killing the people, and we'd both be involved.

Fact of the matter is, once you are willing to justify violating human rights because someone says "it will help fight terrorism" you are well on your way down the slippery slope to incarcerating arabs in concentration camps and then eventually gassing them like the nazis did.

Remember, eternal vigilence is what is required here. The act of having a relationship with someone is never a crime.

[TallPine]

The act of having a relationship with someone is never a crime.
Well, it could be - depending on their age .... ;)

[Navy joe]

Loathe as I am to do it, I must agree with Don Galt. If that money is really laundered proceeds from crack sales or whatever going to fund terrorism then whoever investigating needs to find the facts, get a warrant, get the evidence and go to court; not just close down business just because______. It is no different than telling me that I cannot sell a gun because person B may really be buying it for person C who is going to go be a terrorist with it.
I personally know folks from The Dominican Republic, Nigeria, Ghana, Yemen, Haiti, Vietnam and some others who all send money home to their families. How do you pick who is okay and who is not when allowing money to be sent. A license? I guess that having been raised in a pay cash household I'm a little sensitive. You already get looked at like a criminal if you use C-notes around town. The bank already snitches on you if you withdraw, deposit, or spend to much.

Like guns, money control is not about money, the .gov has plenty. It is about control.

[Sergeant Bob]

Don, if you want to call financing (financial relationship) a terrorist, just a "relationship" then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

If you come to me and ask for a thousand bucks, and I give it to you because you're a friend, and then you go and use it to buy C4 on the black market and blow some people up, did I commit a crime? No! I gave a friend a thousand bucks and didn't know he was going to do that with it.
But, if you know I'm going use the money to buy C4 and blow people up, you are a criminal too. If the man was indeed funding terrorist organizations, yes he is a criminal.
I don't know how you made the jump from being against financing terorists to incarcerating and gassing Arabs. Don't even try to play that card.

[JohnBT]

He said he "intended to get a license, but never got around to it."

The goofball can't even claim ignorance of the law on money transfers, can he?

John

[MoreTEN]

First:

The use of the word cowboy is to most of the world what Hollywood have shown to the world, a gunslinger, he shoots from the hip. He often belives in voilence as the way to handle problems, and live by his own laws. So dont blame me for the missuse of the word, blame Hollywood.

Then:

John wrote:

"Bush is a cowboy, not a politican."

"At least you got one thing correct.

And I think a cowboy makes a much better President than any politician ever has or ever will.

Remember, just because you hate us doesn't mean we're wrong."

Do I hate you, or do you like to put words in my mouth? I dont hate you, or anybody. I do not hate Bush either, but that does not mean I like him.

This may be the core of the problem. If someone stands up against one of your leaders, or some way of your life, then you think we hate you. Why is that?

When Bush attacks a country, then this will effect the world as one. Then I feel it is our right to speak out, since were all part of this world. This is just freedom of speche, nothing else. And I thought that freedom of speche was one of the good things with the US?

[Navy joe]

If you really want to do something about ice cream terrorists why not nuke Ben & Jerry's world HQ? Although it would cancel my one remaining leftist vice...

[Don Galt]

Thanks bob for illustrating my point clearly.

All you have to do is yell "Terorrist" loud enough, and you can count on bobs support.

In germany the word was "jew" but the effect was the same.

Bob, when you will sell out your support for the constitution to catch terrorists, the terrorists have won, right? Well, what you're supporting here is unconstitutional.

You presume this guy was funding terrorists, and knew he was funding terrorists. I doubt both.

All they have to do is claim he was funding terrorists, and he looses support from people who should be horrified at this treatment.

Its like calling him a pedophile. You don't care if pedophiles rights are violated do you? How about "Suspected pedophiles"? How about people who aren't pedophiles but are just called that to make it easier to get away with violating their rights?

The comparison to the nazis marketing of what "jew" means is spot on-- governments use such concepts to manipulate people against their own best interests.

[Sergeant Bob]

Sergeant Bob I don't know how you made the jump from being against financing terorists to incarcerating and gassing Arabs. Don't even try to play that card.
How did I know this was coming?
All you have to do is yell "Terorrist" loud enough, and you can count on bobs support.
In germany the word was "jew" but the effect was the same.

Fact of the matter is, once you are willing to justify violating human rights because someone says "it will help fight terrorism" you are well on your way down the slippery slope to incarcerating arabs in concentration camps and then eventually gassing them like the nazis did.
The comparison to the nazis marketing of what "jew" means is spot on--
I've noticed, in a large number of your posts, when someone disagrees with you, you have a tendency to equate them with rascists, Nazis, homophobes, etc, etc.
All they have to do is claim he was funding terrorists, and he looses support from people who should be horrified at this treatment.
You are correct with this one, and you use it to your full advantage. You are guilty of the very thing you purport to abhor.
All they have to do is claim he was a Nazi, homophobe, rascist, and he looses support from people who should be horrified at this treatment.
Take your self rightious, holier than thou attitude somewhere else.

[Daniel T]

MoreTEN:

If someone stands up against one of your leaders, or some way of your life, then you think we hate you. Why is that?

Because it doesn't stop at "standing up". See the French behavior recently, re: D-Day memorials. See Euopean anti-semitic behavior.

If you don't consider that hate, there is no possible way to hold any kind of rational conversation with you.

[Don Galt]

Bob, why are you calling me names simple because I disagree with you?

I didn't call you names, I merely pointed out that you were willing to compromise your principles because someone called the person in question a name.

Oh, and when people say they want gay people to be persecuted, I don't call them names-- if you've bothered to read my posts-- I point out that they do not support the constitution.

World War 2 DID happen. ITs not just a story. The Nazis used methods to control their populace that are still effective today.

The idea that you cannot make comparisons to the nazis in a reasonable manner, is wrong.

They really did exist. They weren't some magical abberation. They used methods to gain and control power.

They were real.

[MoreTEN]

Dear Demise, you wrote:

"Because it doesn't stop at "standing up". See the French behavior recently, re: D-Day memorials. See Euopean anti-semitic behavior."

European anti-semitic what? Explain, for this I know nothing of, and I live in Europe.

And I dont see any other behavior that of what "we" get. Example, what is the point of re-naming frenchfries to freedomfries just to kick-back at the french? What? How stupid is that?

Let me tell you, the world has NEVER seen any bigger protest for war then now. Doesnt that mean anything to you?

The UN told the US that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the US said something else, they called "us" naiv & stupid. And what happens? It was true, the UN had right all the way.

The USA just jumps over the rest of the world, set world peace at the biggest test since the cold war. And on what grounds? Well, to be honest I still dont know.


"If you don't consider that hate, there is no possible way to hold any kind of rational conversation with you."

I do not consider that hate, I call it reaction. If you cant stand the heat, you better stay out of the kitchen.

[Sean Smith]

Folks, there is no point in arguing with Don Galt in Legal & Political. If you disagree with his arguments, he will reflexively call you a Nazi or a bigot and claim victory no matter what you say. :rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

I'm sorry that you did not like my the argument I described, Sean. But you quickly resorted to personal attacks, and now you've carried it over to this thread. I was merely trying to explain an argument to you that you indicated you'd never heard. I didn't even expect you to agree with it, and wasn't even trying to pursuade you. I was just illustrating a position held by people that you had expressed an inability to understand.

Just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished.:banghead:

In this thread, I made a legitimate point. The Nazis used the same technique we see in america to manipulate people. I did not call anyone a Nazi, and to say I did impeaches your character, not mine.

Apparently you can't even talk about the Nazis in this forum without someone deciding that you're describing them and taking offence.

But the Nazis did exist. I don't think you gain anything by enforcing this form of political correctness that denies the holocaust.

The Nazis came to power by manipulating germans. They are an excellent example of how Tyranny can come from a democracy. If you've got a better example, please suggest it.

Totalitarian regimes need to manipulate the populace into supporting them, at least enough to gain control.

They do this by creating disasters (The riechstag fire, for instance) that stir up public sentiment, and then they capitalize on that sentiment. By blaming some class of people--in the case of the Nazis it was gays and jews-- for all of societies ills, they manipulate normally principled honest people into supporting their tyranny.

Another good example of this type of manipulation is the democrats demonization of gun owners-- they misportray gun owners in order to whip up sentiment among their ranks to support the persecution of gun owners. ITs not just the "guns cause crime" argument but also the "Gun owners are redneck racists"

Place the NRA = KKK cartoon from Bowling for Columbine right next to "Triumph of the Will" or any of the nazi propaganda. If I remember correctly, Triumph portrayed Jews as diseased rats.

Well, the current administration is using 9/11 to whip upt a frenzy of hatred for "Terrorists" and exploited that sentiment to pass a lot of legilslation-- like the patriot act and all these "money laundering" crimes that violate the constitution.

Now Sean can go around saying that I just called Bush a Nazi. But doing so is, in fact, a lie.

I hope the people in this forum are capable of telling the difference between identifying a process and calling people names.

[TheBluesMan]

Enough! :fire:

Closed.