3 ms·
This isn't the same at all, other than it's a lot of money going somewhere in the middle east. It was their own money being returned to them and not pallets ea
by knownjorbist 5y ago
This isn't the same at all, other than it's a lot of money going somewhere in the middle east.
It was their own money being returned to them and not pallets earmarked for development disappearing into the night.
- hunterb123 5y agoWell that's the official story. The ulterior is it was basically a ransom payment for hostages released at the same time. But really I was just noting how we love sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. We have no way of knowing how they spent those pallets of bank notes in either exchange. The whole point was our government loves to use cash in deals yet label civilians with too much cash as criminals!
- knownjorbist 5y agoThe former was not sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. Agreed that asset forfeiture should be illegal.
- hunterb123 5y ago> then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent. > Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States. Literally in the article GP linked. You could argue that we don't know for sure, but the point is the US sends cash around willy nilly that can easily fall in the hands of terrorists while treating Americans like criminals if they have anything above pocket change.