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."

Racism

Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams.

</sarcasm>

It use to be hard on white folks as well

Remember after the Oklahoma City bombing how hard it was for a white person to rent a Ryder truck or any type of moving truck? I had to go rent moving trucks for my white friends because they were getting spit on and turned away.

Re:Racism

I guess your distaste for racism isn't enough to stop you from using terms like "redneck."

Re:Racism

Nope, it's not - because I don't legislate that rednecks can't get married. I don't think hillbillies should be prevented from flying on a plane because they are chewin' tobacco. I don't give a fuck if people have opinions... I have a problem with a government run by people who are so ignorant that they believe that stereotypes give them the right to treat some people differently.

Re:Racism

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?

Re:Do you actually know any rednecks?

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

Re:Racism

"Redneck" is a racially linked epithet used to describe southern or rural white people. It is a stereotype, and it is by definition racist.

Re:Racism

"Redneck" is racist, it just happens to be acceptably racist. The basis for the term is that white guys working in the sun all day will get a sunburned neck. So it relates to skin color/social class, has negative connotations, and is thus racist.

Re:Racism

Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...

Right now we have no control over any of this unless whatever state we are in specifically grants such rights outside of marriage.

We want to be treated equally. We don't want any "extra' benefits that heterosexual people wouldn't have. Hell, if the religious don't want us having "religious" marriage, I (and many others) would be perfectly happy with a state official conducting the ceremony.

There is no "agenda" here, despite what the religious right-wingers would have you belive.

I'm sure the issue is a bit more indepth than I've stated here, but you could look at hrc.org [hrc.org] to read up on it.

Re:Racism

there are two reasons to oppose gay marriage: bigotry and political pandering to bigots

just like pot gay marriage is an issue which has no actual impact on those opposed to it.

Re:OT

If you want marriage to be defined by what your religion says, then detach it from all the benefits previously enumerated. Make it so that people get married in church if they want, and then if they want legal recognition they also get a civil partership, or whatever you want to call it.

Until then, you can't expect people not to want marriage.

Re:Racism

Your taxes are high to encourage you to have children. Once you start having tax deductions, err, I mean children, things will be much better.

Re:Racism

First, you are a good, but transparent troll.

Second, didn't you just invalidate your point?
"
The catch-22 of the internet, even retards and cowards have voices, and often they voice their jack ass opinion insulting anyone they can, the reason because no one can break their nose."

So, in theory someone should break your nose too? Seems like a jackass opinion to me.

The second point, where is the point in calling yourself an uneducated, bigoted, moron? Isn't that what redneck actually means? People actually embracing their ignorance, it seems strange to me. Not that I have anything against people people fixing their cars, or such, it seems the term redneck has broader (and less desirable) implications. Its like black kids in the hood calling themselves "niggas" or "gangstas", they are deliberately embracing ignorance, idiocy, and violence. Since when did these characteristics become a badge of honor, or even desirable?

Re:Racism

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.

Re:Racism

... using both together from a list of known terrorists to do a little more checking doesn't seem bad to me. In the article it mentioned there are other ways to send money so if it is too much of a hassle then don't use the service.

So you admit that since most of the people committing these crimes are of a certain racial or regilious heritage, that it's OK to subject them (and those with names that suggest they belong to those heritages) to additional inconvenience and scrutiny, and to prevent them from using certain services that other people enjoy without a problem, because... there are alternative services they can use? "Separate but equal." I like it!

I wonder if there is a racial or religious correlation to crime rates in the US. We could use that logic there too! Why hasn't anyone thought of that yet? Brilliant!

Re:Racism

"were carried out by militant Islamists."

Nice choice of words there. I noticed that you failed to mention that MOST "militant islamists" arrested in the US were african american.

If you are going to racially profile for terrorism then african americans should be your number one if not number two target group.

Re:Racism

We are talking about ALL terrorist attacks against the United States and if you consider that then you will see the majority (and quite large majority) were carried out by militant Islamists. Take a look here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html [infoplease.com] [infoplease.com]

Your list is woefully incomplete. What about Eric Robert Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics in Birmingham and Atlanta, a gay nightclub in Atlanta, and a concert given during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta? What about the vast number of attacks on Americans -- kidnappings, hijackings, bombings -- in and around Columbia over the past several decades? I'm rather certain those attacks far outnumber attacks against Americans by "militant Islamists" prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (assuming you classify all the suicide bombings in Iraq as terrorist acts, as opposed to acts of war). What else can I come up with off the top of my head? The Hutu rebels who attacked tourist camps in Uganda in 1999. The disgruntled FedEx employee who, sometime in the '90s, attempted to hijack a FedEx 747 on takeoff and crash it into the company's headquarters in Memphis (he was stopped by the pilot and copilot, but not before he cracked their skulls with an axe). The rocket-propelled grenade fired through the window of the U.S. embassy in Moscow in 1995. The Catalan rebels who bombed a bar full of U.S. servicemen in Barcelona in the late '80s. For that matter, it's missing the world's first bombing of an airliner, which was committed in the '60s by a man from Missouri in an insurance scam.

Heck, with a little research I might really be able to make a list. If you think Muslims are the only significant perpetrators of terrorism in the world, you aren't paying attention. Your point of view is precisely why the idea of racial profiling is so popular these days. The more fact-based approach is the reason security experts say racial profiling not only doesn't work [salon.com], but makes us less secure by focusing our attention in the wrong places.

Re:Racism

My definition of terrorism is groups that kill solely out of hatred of other human beings.

That's not even close to any dictionary definition of "terrorism". Rather, it has names like "mass murder" and "genocide", which are different kinds of evil.

Most definitions of "terrorism" are variants on the original (French) definition: Attacking civilian noncombatants in order to put pressure on their government.

Of course, most governments carefully tweak the definition so that it doesn't apply when their own people do it.

For instance, one of the most clear-cut examples of (state-sponsored) terrorism in recent years went by the name "shock and awe". That was a clear statement that the perpetrators' intent was to instill terror in the population, in order to have an effect on the government. You might remember who it was that used that slogan. This point may have been missed by American media, but it did have a strong effect on the victims of the shock-and-awe campaign: It pushed many of them into the newly-formed resistance that has been so much in the news lately.

In any case, using your own idiosyncratic definition of words is not a good thing if you're trying to communicate. But I suppose it's good if you're trying to confuse the discussion.

Re:Racism

You know, I thought quoting Ann Coulter [wikiquote.org] would be the most pathetic thing ever. But I was wrong. The most pathetic thing on the world is tryin to pass of an Ann Coulter quote as yours.

It's like, evil and stupidity PLUS plagiarism. I don't know how much lower you can get (but I'd guess not much).

Re:Racism

within 20 years and around the world. I wasn't talking about specifically the US.

The last time I checked the IRA operated in Ireland and the Basque Separatists operated in the Basque region of present-day Spain. But, we could go on about other groups:

Aum Shinrikyo?

Communist Party of the Phillipines?

Kach and Kahane Chai?

Kurdistan Workers' Party?

Shining Path?

Revolutionary Armed forces of Columbia?

17 November?

ELA?

Tamil Tigers?

While Islamic groups get most of the press, there are many, many non-Islamic terrorist groups.

Re:Racism

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?

Re:Racism

Muslims have never denounced the actions of Muslim Extremism.

Really? Google seems to have come up with a [islam-democracy.org] few [moroccotimes.com] examples [rferl.org]. But, hey, it's so much easier to paint billions of people with the same brush than it is to attempt to actually comprehend the complexity of the situation, eh?

Re:Racism

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.

Re:Racism

Yeeeeeees. Finally someone had the guts to come up with the "real" facts.

When were Jews allowed to enter the House of Commons? The 19th century, the first being Lord Rothschild. Indeed the Rothschild story is interesting because the _father_ of the Rothschild business dynasty lived in the Jewish Ghetto in Munich. Where every Jew had to pass under the arch of the ghetto entrance which had a picture on it. Of a pig. With little Jewish children suckling at its teats and a Rabbi eating its excrement. And its only one example out of many.

Gee-whizz. It seems Christian Europe didn't outright "kill" those Jews, but it sure made their lives interesting.

When were Jews allowed to hold high office in the Muslim Empire (Caliphate)? Well, blimey, for more than a thousand years, be it in academia, goverment, the Caliph's own purveyors, etc. Indeed when the Spanish threw out all their Jews, they went to the Caliphate and quite a few became involved in the goverment there (if one recalls correctly, Spanish power more or less declined not too long afterwards and they were supplanted by the Dutch and the English).

And why were those dastardly Muslims (remember those curvy swords) being so compassionate to the Jews? Well it seems that, apart from plain decency, the Quran tells them so.

"Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians -whoever believed in Allah and the Last Day and did right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."

Seems to me, that if Muslims are so het up about the Quran being the Word of God, and God sort Smiles upon those mentioned above, that Muslims would do well not to go round killing them, y'know? And the historical record of more than a millenium bears that out. Even Bernard Lewis, whom Said criticised, holds this view.

Now there are verses which are used by the ignorant repeatedly, notably the one about "Slaying unbelievers where ye might find them" and "Do not take Unbelievers as friends" (or something similar), so we shall deal with those:

You will actually find that the lines: "And magnify Mohammed and his followers as thou didst magnify Abraham and his followers..." "And bless Mohammed and his followers as thou didst bless Abraham and his followers..." are recited (at least) thirteen times _per day_ in the compulsory Muslim five daily prayers. Now what use would these lines be if you didn't know whom Abraham or his followers were? The key is context, in order to find out what those lines are teaching, you have to go and do a little bit of historical homework on Abraham and why he was such a good pal of God's, to the extent that people living thousands of years after Abraham are still being taught to behave like him and his congregation.

Similarly, for the "slaying" and "friends" verses mentioned above, context is needed otherwise the lines can easily appear to be contradictory. The verse about not taking Jews and Christians as friends is very often misused by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But the actual historical reference (remember, that history homework again is needed), actually refers to when the northern Arabian tribes were becoming politically unified through their common adherence to Islam. Just as the Vatican or Israel would hardly trust its affairs to, eg, Iran or Saudi Arabia, and not necessarily because of antagonism but merely due to sensible political considerations, the same was true at the time for the fledgling Arab-Muslim state. Similarly, the slaying refers to a _state_ breaking its treaty and taking it as a call to exterminate non-Muslims is downright silly. Political Islam, or indeed Christianity or Judaism, is somewhat divorced from how you should treat your neighbour: it is how one nation should treat another. The verse about taking Christians as friends is the non-political way in which Man should deal with his brethren in the world, holding up the pious Christians of the time as a

Re:Racism

racism isn't just about believing one race to be superior, it's also about stereotyping;

i.e. all arabs are terrorists
or
all Jews have big noses and run banks

It is quite racist to assume based on name alone that someone might be a terrorist. Or have we forgotten Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, or Eric Robert Rudolph?

Re:Racism

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.

Re:Racism

My thoughts exactly. This plan is infringing on the freedom of people who have not committed (or who have even been accused of) a crime.

Perhaps the people involved in this should actually do their job and investigate rather than simply assuming Arab == terrorist.

Re:Racism

Obviously there needs to be a better system, but what kind of system would work?

What makes you think that ANY system could work?

Some beauraucrat comes up with a lame-ass policy that, by the way, goes against the grain of everything America claims to stand for and even the people smart enough to realize it is a lame-ass policy are still brainwashed into believing that it is somehow necessary?

Here is a system that would work - don't waste my tax dollars on useless anti-american shit. Spend it on emergency services instead.

No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered. So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better "first responder" teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down.

Mohammed eh?

"Western Union prevented him from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed"

Not true. They prevented him from sending the cash because his name was Sahir Mohammed. A bit of a difference.

Perhaps a Sahir Mohammed has some links to 'bad guys'?

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.

Re:Mohammed eh?

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.

Re:Mohammed eh?

Buttle?
Tuttle?
Who cares?

Re:Mohammed eh?

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?

Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . .

with the name of, "Muhammed Ali," you might have a problem here,... Never mind the fact that you've got a major building in the U.S. [alicenter.org] dedicated to the cause of peace,...

Re:Sucks if you're an ex-boxer . . .

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Write down Cassius Clay when sending me money!

Cryptome

Cryptome had a related article...

http://cryptome.org/western-union.htm [cryptome.org]

The world's most common name

The statistics may have changed, but I remember one of those trick/trivia questions from when I was younger (in the 1980s): What's the most common name in the world?

It turned out it was, if you include all the variations, Mohammed. Throw in Mahmet, Makhmoud, Mahmoud, and various other spellings and transliterations.

Somehow, I doubt a large enough percentage of them are liekly to be terrorists for the name to be worth checking.

They do

I wonder if any other financial companies such as banks are doing the same thing.

From here [adc.org]:

Without explanation, Fleet sent letters to five Muslim customers in November 2002 indicating the bank was closing their accounts, the two groups that waged the campaign said Wednesday.

This is idiotic

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.

Doesn't suprise me

I know of a charity that works with (mostly christian) organisations in the west bank. Their usual way of getting money to their partners is to fly into Israel with a big bundle of money. Otherwise it tends to get massively delayed by US banks.

However

They'll be glad to send money for you to someone with a nice Anglo name, such as Timothy McVeigh.

Blocked in both directions?

I wonder if they'll block transfers from arab sounding names to George Bush (not senior). Hate to stop all that Saudi cash headed to republican pockets.

Re:Blocked in both directions?

They use front companies for that, like Halliburton did under Dick Cheney. They set up a shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and have all the transactions go through the shell corp. This way Halliburton was able to secure contracts in Iran in violation of US federal law.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s299.html [fas.org]

FUD

I work for a division of a large financial firm, and we are required to download a list of Specially Designated Nationals [ustreas.gov] from the Treasury Department and compare names from it against new accounts and transfers. The list includes lists of suspected terrorists, and they're not all Arabic (think Irish Republican Army).

Re:FUD

Bingo. They aren't blocking people because they have some generic Arab name. They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists. As someone mentioned above, something like Sahir Mohammed. Probably a perfect match for the list.

We too have to run periodic checks against the names in that database. If a match comes up, we have people individually check other information to confirm that it is an actual match (e.g. same name, different birthday).

We have open accounts with these people though, so we have a significant amount of time to deal with these. Western Union has a very short period of time because it is a one time transaction that happens relatively quickly.

This is not Western Union's fault!

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!

Actually, this is effective, but still unfair

Terror is fear caused by the perception of danger.
The solution is, of course, the perception of security.

The crippling effect of terror is that people are afraid to do things they normally would if they did not perceive a danger.
Actual protection from the hazard (if there was an actual hazard) would not necessarily remove the perception of danger.
Citizen 1: I'm stayin' home. There's terrorists out there.
Citizen 2: Have you seen one?
Citizen 1: Nope, but nobody's doing anything about it. I'm not leaving the house till this is over!

To combat the terror, we present the appearance of security measures. Going overboard and causing outrage is just part of the salesmanship.
Citizen 1: A real terrorist would never get through--they're bustin' guys just for lookin' like terrorists!
Citizen 2: Woohoo--we whupped them terists good. Let's go down to the Winn-Dixie. We're out of beer!
C1 & C2 hop in the car and immediately put it in the ditch because they're hammered. But they were wearing seatbelts, so they're OK!

Worse than useless

From what I can gather from the article this policy is actually harming security.

They say Treasury guidelines are sending more people to informal money transfer networks called "hundis" or "hawalas" that have been used by gangsters and terrorists because they circumvent such scrutiny.

"Sending money by hawala is cheaper and it does not get checked by banks, so it is quicker," said a Pakistani taxi driver who called himself Munir Ahmed. "They say it is not legal, but it is a reliable alternative to Western Union."

If law abiding people are avoiding official institutions what makes them think that terrorists are stupid enough to use them?!?

More than that by driving additional people to the hawalas it circumvents existing security measures. For starters it means that more money (even the legit stuff) is moving around and they have no idea where it went, also the additional people using the hawalas will mean they are more developed for the terrorists use them. Additionally when you uncover a hawala network it will be that much harder to pick out the terrorists since you've added all these false positives, and finally for the terrorists who would have used official institutions in the past since it was easy and the hawalas weren't developed, now you no longer have a money trail you can inspect later on.

All this security measure does is inconvenience and alientate a whole bunch of people while making the world a little less safe.

Re:I believe it

What does the US administration have anything to do with on this? Apparantly this is Western Union Policy right?? Western Union might be using a list provided by the government, but I don't think that the US has a law against this. Also, with ID theft being mor eprevelent plus the fact that there CAN be many people with the same NAME! There was a Mohammed Atta who was a Terrorist and I BET there's another Mohammed Atta somewhere elsse on the planet. Also restricting a transfer because of a name won't stop the terrorists. They'll just use Paypal.

Re:I believe it

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.

Re:Arab /. usernames

And the next thing you know, /. will block Arab usernames.

I never had that problem!