Villanious Company has one of the best articles I’ve read on Liberal Anti-War Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds.
She offers several well-documented examples of selective outrage on the part of the liberal left. There also seems to be selective concern that our civil liberties are protected. They do seem to know what is best for us, after all.
Take the time to go over and read it. It’s a good read and enlightening. She takes on the whole lot of em.
Along the same lines,Power Line shares a September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial, ‘Finances of Terror‘.
Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with “shell banks” that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
In 2001, the New York Times said we MUST act on all fronts, but did they mean ALL fronts?
Power Line sugggest that the war against terrorism should indeed be waged on all fronts, including directing ‘its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.’
He credits this thread at Free Republic
Previous:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Others: Captain’s Quarters, Dr. Sanity, Partisan Times, Hyscience, Weblogging, A Blog for All, All Things Beautiful, Hot Air, Stop the ACLU, Michelle Malkin