Economy 52,845 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Before anyone loses their ****: "The law also stipulates that there should be “sufficient reasons” to believe that they received money, valuables, and other property as a result of terrorist activities, or that they generate income from such property." Important detail. I do support this. I always thought that (warning about) getting in people's pockets would be a very efficient way to end terrorism. on the other hand: If relatives and close acquaintances of suspected militants fail to provide documents proving their rightful acquisition, the law allows for the seizure of such property. So guess what, they dont have to have total proof they were involved. Just "sufficient reasons" you missed the other detail which is despicable. They are basically saying guilty till proven innocent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 So guess what, they dont have to have total proof they were involved. Just "sufficient reasons" you missed the other detail which is despicable. They are basically saying guilty till proven innocent It's the same way tax fraud works though If you can't prove where your money comes from, you're in trouble. Add to that a terrorist and I think it's not as shocking as you seem to paint it. Like I already said 3x now, I don't know how this will work in practice, and like I also said 3x I only think threatening with financial actions could be a good terrorism preventing method. If there's any misuse of this law, which in essence is good, obviously I don't support it but as of now, I don't see any reason to criticize it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It's the same way tax fraud works though If you can't prove where your money comes from, you're in trouble. Add to that a terrorist and I think it's not as shocking as you seem to paint it. Like I already said 3x now, I don't know how this will work in practice, and like I also said 3x I only think threatening with financial actions could be a good terrorism preventing method. If there's any misuse of this law, which in essence is good, obviously I don't support it but as of now, I don't see any reason to criticize it. well then... i guess 1 stupidity rationalizes another? i dont support that method at all... I think u cant punish ppl if ur not sure they really did it Things arent always what they appear to be and if u make assumptions, some people could end up in trouble that arent meant to be My uncle in Portugal was in jail for 2 years until new evidence surfaced he wasnt guilty after all. Great, thats 2 years of his life he will never get back. Not to mention the good job he lost and the house he didnt make payments on.... did the Government or judge make any compensations???? NOPE! he gets a formal apology letter. Well thats helpful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 well then... i guess 1 stupidity rationalizes another?It doesn't, that's not what I said. I said that this measure wasn't unique, shocking or more despicable than practices that are super common in any Western society today. I had no idea about your opinion on the general matter (which was not on topic at the time).I get you completely, but I feel like you forget what I'm replying to and what exactly I'm saying (and, more importantly in this case, not saying). I don't agree with 99% of standard government procedures, including basic views about education, crime and politics, but you didn't know that either. So it all comes down to my very first post in the end: I think (warning about) getting in people's pockets can be an efficient way to end terrorism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,845 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It doesn't, that's not what I said. I said that this measure wasn't unique, shocking or more despicable than practices that are super common in any Western society today. I had no idea about your opinion on the general matter (which was not on topic at the time).I get you completely, but I feel like you forget what I'm replying to and what exactly I'm saying (and, more importantly in this case, not saying). I don't agree with 99% of standard government procedures, including basic views about education, crime and politics, but you didn't know that either. So it all comes down to my very first post in the end: I think (warning about) getting in people's pockets can be an efficient way to end terrorism.i misunderstood u then. my bad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aqua2214 1 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 So it all comes down to my very first post in the end: I think (warning about) getting in people's pockets can be an efficient way to end terrorism.I don't see any result where taking from relatives of terrorists will help ensue any kind of benefit. It will only cause them to become more angry and fruitful in their terrorist action; we are only creating a bigger enemy for them to aim for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.