The above tweet references an interesting comment at the Isaac Brock Society which includes:
I think you are right. The fact is, even if “the little guys” were not the original intended targets they could have fixed the FATCA problem easily, right after the launch of the pogrom, and the key is they did NOT fix it. They could still fix it but instead they only seem to double-down on their hubris and economic hegemony. Someone, somewhere in the shadows of the US government, decided US emigrants and US immigrants would be easy pickins and by using the techniques of Edward Bernays they could quickly and indelibly brand their FATCA victims as cheats and whiners so that nobody would care what happened to them … some would even cheer on and profit from the misfortune of the branded ones. Creating a thriving compliance condor industry falls right in line with advancing the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economy over the production economy. I think FIRE is an appropriate acronym because this might eventually take us all down in flames — certainly the F’n part anyway. It almost happened in 2008 but of course the bankster bail-out was there to ensure the game would go on … for awhile longer at least.
This comment reminded me of my recent post @joeBwan writes the shocking story of the FBAR fundraiser which focuses on Commissioner Shulman’s assault on green card holders and Americans abroad.
My mind then turned to a conversation I had last week with a “well educated” and “well placed” homelander. I described the problems facing Americans abroad. He listened with a combination of “disbelief” and possible “amusement”.
He then asked me (with the self righteous indignation that one would expect from a homelander):
“Has it occurred to you” (referring to FATCA, FBAR and the Offshore Jihad in general) that these things are “nothing more than unintended consequences”?
The clear implications of the questions were:
1. All of this is unintended; and
2. Because it is unintended that it is justifiable.
That’s the kind of response that one gets from a well educated, well placed, enlightened Homelander. Since, “that’s as good as it gets”, I reconsidered the question. Is all of this unintended?
The answer is NO this is NOT unintended.
It’s quite clear that:
1. Americans abroad have done their best to educate and beg for mercy from the Homeland; and
2. The U.S. government is carrying on with full knowledge and awareness that that is terrorizing and destroying the lives of Americans abroad.
The United States government is waging a brutul unprovoked, unprincipled and unjustified assault on Americans abroad. The Homeland defends itself on the basis that, well this started out as a mere unintended consequence.
Speaking of unintended assaults, I am reminded of the case of Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner which is one of the leading cases on the law of assault. The facts (as described on Wikipedia) are:
The defendant, Mr. Fagan, was in his car when a police officer approached him and told him to move his car. In accordance with the directions, Fagan backed his car up, accidentally rolling it onto the foot of the officer. When the officer yelled at him to move his car off his foot, he cursed back at him, told him to wait, and refused to move.
At trial, Fagan was convicted of “Assaulting a constable in execution of his duties”. Fagan appealed on the grounds that there can be no offence in omitting to act and that the act of driving onto the constable’s foot was done completely by accident so there was no mens rea.
Can the United States argue that this is not an assault because the consequences were unintended? The judgment in Fagan is instructive. It includes:
The defendant was told by a police officer to park up his car. He did so, but stopped with his wheel, trapping the officer’s foot. The magistrates were unable to decide whether the parking on the officer’s foot was deliberate, but agreed that leaving it there had been deliberate.
Held: James J described the distinction between an assault and a battery: ‘For an assault to be committed both the elements of actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time. The ‘actus reus’ is the action causing the effect on the victim’s mind . . The ‘mens rea’ is the intention to cause that effect.’
Held: The appeal failed. ‘On the facts found the action of the appellant may have been initially unintentional, but the time came when knowing that the wheel was on the officer’s foot the appellant (1) remained seated in the car so that his body through the medium of the car was in contact with the officer, (2) switched off the ignition of the car, (3) maintained the wheel of the car on the foot and (4) used words indicating the intention of keeping the wheel in that position. For our part, we cannot regard such conduct as mere omission or inactivity.
There was an act constituting a battery which at its inception was not criminal because there was no element of intention, but which became criminal from the moment the intention was formed to produce the apprehension which was flowing from the continuing act.’
We must consider the questions of:
– How can any government treat its “so called” citizens this way?
– Does the conduct of the U.S. government violate the Afroyim principles of the 14th amendment?
– Is the U.S. “constructively stripping people of their citizenship”?
All of which leads to the thought in the following tweet: