Slashdot Mirror
Western Union Blocking Money Transfers to Arabs
lowrydr310 writes "Western Union is blocking money transfers to people with Arab names. They have delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients have names like Mohammed or Ahmed. 'In one example, an Indian driver here said Western Union prevented him from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed.' Western union claims they are merely following U.S. Treasury Department guidelines that scrutinize cash flows for terrorist links. I agree that Western Union shouldn't allow anyone supporting terrorism to use their service, however I'm fairly certain there are millions of people named Mohammed or Ahmed who aren't terrorists. I wonder if any other financial companies such as banks are doing the same thing."
This sort of heavy-handed behavior in the name of "the War on Terror" just reinforces the idea that this is not just a war on terrorism, but a war between cultures, a holy crusade. This is the sort of rhetoric that these terrorist organizations use to recruit new members, it hardly does us any good to give them evidence to support their case that the West is conducting an all-out war on Islam.
The more we marginalize Arabs (and sometimes people that just look sort of Arab) and Muslims, the more likely they are to align themselves with terrorist organizations out of desperation or righteous indignation. We need to fight terrorist cells based on real intelligence, not knee-jerk reactions.
They'll be glad to send money for you to someone with a nice Anglo name, such as Timothy McVeigh.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.
My personal favorite was Jonathan Linden, better known as Johnny Rotten from the popular punk band, the "Sex Pistols." He was detained because "Linden" is phonetically similar to "Ladin." When you have so many absurd false positives as identifying a British punk rocker as a potential arabic criminal mastermind, the noise is certainly enough to hide real positives. Anyone with any faith in these efforts to stop "terrorism" as anything more than scare tactics designed to win votes, is a moron.
I guess your distaste for racism isn't enough to stop you from using terms like "redneck."
Actually, most terrorists in the United States have been white Christians.
If by the "current crop" you mean the "terrorists" who are fighting against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah, those are mostly Arab and Muslim, but there's a good reason for that.
If you mean the terrorists on TV and in movies, then, yeah, I'll grant you that. Almost exclusively Muslim these days.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
This is the U.S. government's fault. The U.S. government and the U.S. Treasury department create a whole bunch of "anti-terrorism" rules with some pretty extreme penalties for non-compliance. Western Union is simply complying with a bunch of bad regulations.
The real problem is that people don't understand that there will be lots of unintended consequences to any legislation or regulations. ALL regulation or legislation hurts innocent people to some extent. People love to scream for laws and regulation to solve all the worlds problems, without ever dreaming that the laws or regulations can cause more harm than good. People have absolute faith in laws to do what they are intended and only what they are intended.
That, and people think it is the government's job to protect them from every single possible thing that can harm them (from terrorists, or iTunes DRM, or corn sweeteners, or whatever people are making hysterical calls for legislation on). In this case, the cost of having a free society where people aren't profiled by race or religion, is that it might be easier for a terrorist to attack the U.S. If you are one of those people screaming for the government to do more to stop terrorism, you are responsible for this. If you are one of the people crying "Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 and terrorism", then you especially guilty of supporting racial profiling (even if you claim not to support it), because how the hell else is anyone supposed to stop a crime BEFORE IT HAPPENS unless they are profiling potential criminals?
Western Union is just the innocent victim of the laws and policies that you most likely support!
Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks.
It seems like instead of gathering actual evidence of a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime, we are now just rounding people up that seem suspicious (or have the same name as someone who seems suspicious). This is not only lazy, but also ineffective, since out of all of the pieces of information that can be used to identify a person, his name is probably the one that's most easily falsified. So, instead of doing some actual police work and gathering some actual evidence against an actual person, we decide to cast a wide net, and end up catching a lot of innocent people while actually decreasing our chances of catching the actual bad guy. Great plan there.
The 7/7 attacks in the UK cost less than £3000 to plan and execute. Do you really think that it's possible to track that little money effectively? Someone could take it from a cash register at the end of a day. The group that organised it could, between them, have withdrawn the money from cash machines in one day without raising any alarms.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Redneck" is a racially linked epithet used to describe southern or rural white people. It is a stereotype, and it is by definition racist.
You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.
All Christians or only some Christians? Or do you think there is some head Christian authority that speaks for all Christians?
Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.
All Muslims or only some Muslims? Or do you think that there is some head Muslim authority that speaks for all Muslims?
You're forgetting that Christians outright and publically denounced the IRA's methods and actions.
So did quite some muslims about the 9/11 attacks. Ah,but some supported them also? lemme telll you what, the USA has for decades financially supported IRA.
The IRA also gave several hours warning before attacks which allowed time to remove people from the vicinity of any explosions.
At times they did, at times they didn't. I seem to recall the house of a protestant family being burned down and kids being killed as a result. I seem to recall an attack on a pub with no warning whatsoever. I seem to recall random 'protestants' being attacked and lynched on the street...
It was purely for political reasons that the IRA did what they did. They wanted and want to be in control of Ireland independantly and without british intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.
It is only for political reasons that Hamas does what it does. They want to be in control of Palestina independently and without Israelian intervention and presence. They resorted to seemingly terroristic tactics simply because they lacked the resources to wage a full scale war.
And this statement can be repeated with only some minor changes about many supposed terrorist groups.
If such people are freedom fighters/rebels or terrorists does not depend on their actions, it completely depends on your position.
They have also now denounced their violent past, laid down their arms and are seeking a peaceful solution.
After both sides got tired of violence and got a lot of external preasure on top.
Their war was not of a religious nature. They just happened to be "devout" catholics so that obviously played a role in the politics of it all.
Yep, and their enemy just happened to be devout protestants...
The violent actions of Christians/Catholics have ALWAYS been denounced and condemned by Christianity as a whole.
Oh really?
I actually think christianity as a whole does not have a consistent opinion on such matters. Rather, they tend to fight petty wars about religion among themselves (read up on 30 years, 80 years and 100 years wars in Europe for a bit on that) just as easily as against other religions (does the word crusade ring any bell?), some such wars have been mandated and even called for by the then only official Christian church.
Get a fucking clue here please.
Yes, it's ok. See, this country has this great thing called free speech... it's OK for carlos mencia to go on tv and talk about every race under the sun, it's OK for chris rock to talk about how he loves black people but hates niggers, and it's OK for archie bunker to talk trash on the jeffersons. It's also OK for you to think they are assholes for doing so.
It's NOT OK for the government to use bigotry to determine policy. It's not ok to take someone's rights away because you dislike their way of life or the color of their skin. What part of your brain is malfunctioning to take away your ability to differentiate the two concepts?
My favorite was Senator Edward Kennedy. It's hard to imagine a good reason to put him on the no-fly list, unless they were afraid he was going to seize the controls over water.
Scary part being, with all the power of one of the most senior Senators, it took him a long time to get removed from the list. Bureaucratic inertia, or public display to show that they can push absolutely anyone around?
Oh and one more thing... NO FUCKING TRIALS? Holy shit, idiocy like that is EXACTLY why this government has the power it does to take away our rights. Hey, you criticized El Presidente, they can line you up and shoot you, and say "this guy was carrying explosives". Of course, since they don't actually have to PROVE that you were doing so, no one would be the wiser.
Here! Here! I totally agree! Why are people so insistent on letting their government tell them how to live? If you're caught carrying explosives or suspected of terrorist plots and there is evidence, a trial will only determine your guilt. Being held in Cuba for an undetermined amount of fucking time is not a fair trial and those that agree with the Bush administration's policy on that do not consider what could happen to them.
I had one idiot at work tell me, you only go to Gitmo if you've held unsavory connections to terrorist groups or suspected terrorists. In the eyes of Bush administration (as stated by them in justification of their spying on fellow Americans) anyone could be a terrorist. My point to him and question was, if suddeny Homeland Security came busting down his door and hauled his ass off to Gitmo, would he have a problem with that? Of course his first reaction was, "That is insane, why would they come after me?!?! That isn't realistic." My response was, "Sure it is realistic, people make mistakes, you're mistakenly taken away to Gitmo for no reason, would you be okay with that? Being held without legal representation, being held against your will, no contact with Family or Friends." After much prodding, he admitted he would not like that. Gosh? Really?
What is my point? Treat others how you want to be treated! Everyone always says, "Hey! I am no terrorist! They won't come after me!" I retort, "Prove it! Prove to me right now you're not a terrorist!" - They can't! No one can! That IS the point of terrorism, that IS the problem with preventing terrorism. You do not need to be Arab to be a terrorist, the idea of terrorism is about terror! And guess what? Groups that have committed terrorist acts prey upon the terror and fear they have caused, just as much as our politicians prey on the same.
Question everything! Especially question those that claim they are acting in your interests!
Tes