That, after all, is
the purpose of terrorism: propaganda through violence in the pursuit of policy change.
The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience (s) in order to reach short - and midterm political goals and / or desired long - term end states.»
And its nice that you, and the CB don't care about money laundering for
the purposes of terrorism and violence (57 % in Canada done through Real Estate in Canada until Fintrac started its watch) since much of the reporting is no longer done under Ms Aitken's watch.
Not exact matches
The document also notes the central bank's concern that these digital assets could be used for illegal
purposes, including money laundering and the support
of terrorism.
Le Maire elaborated about Landau's special task: «This mission will propose reorientations on the evolution
of [cryptocurrency, and] regulation to better control development, prevent their use for [the]
purposes of tax evasion, money laundering, or financing
of criminals or
terrorism.»
While companies and governments are concerned about being targets
of digital infiltration, they have used these technologies to obtain extensive information from common citizens for crime and
terrorism prevention or commercial
purposes.
Note that the political
purposes and end goals
of terrorism are 100 % irrelevant - merely the tactics (targeting non-combatants on
purpose).
He proposed a left - right split, and offered a watery vision
of what latter - day «modernisers» should be all about: a «renewed sense
of moral
purpose», reducible to the hoary New Labour emphasis on social mobility, and a politics that would «be seen to be grappling seriously with the big questions
of the day: migration, globalisation,
terrorism, the environment, welfare, housing, our place in the world».
Section 2 (1)
of the
Terrorism Act states that «where two or more persons associate for the
purpose of, or where an organisation engages in: (a) participating or collaborating in an act
of terrorism; (b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act
of terrorism; or (c) setting up or pursuing acts
of terrorism, the judge in chambers may on an application made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General
of Police on the approval
of the President, declare any entity to be a proscribed organisation and the notice should be published in the official gazette».
«I am totally opposed to any
of these violent means which are used by these groups which have hijacked Islam for their own
purposes, so I do not support such movements, I do not support
terrorism, I'm opposed to it.
Actually, I was talking about the US; multiple articles are ignored for the
purposes of torturing
terrorism suspects (remember, this is about a countries principles, not how it acts domestically); Article 18 conflicts with the Pledge
of Allegiance; other UN policies such as Agenda 21 are seen by some as a conspiracy to limit liberty.
«Atiku Abubakar urges all Nigerians to support the government at all levels noting that as a watershed year in the fight against
terrorism, the attention
of the nation would now focus on reconstruction and rehabilitation
of the areas devastated by the insurgents as well as provision
of critical socio - economic infrastructure in other parts
of the country for development
purposes.»
«The Coalition
of CSOs on Human Rights and Conflict Resolution in Nigeria undertakes review
of the ongoing - war on
terrorism to ascertain maximum adherence
of the military to the rules
of engagement by the Nigerian military, enforcement
of fundamental human rights
of civilians and protection
of man's dignity and respect for person and to ensure that the activities
of non-state actors are in conformity with the general principles and
purposes of the United Nations and other conventions» rights.
But for all Watkins» sincere statements that Bastille Day has nothing to do with
terrorism, the spectre
of 2015's devastating attacks in the French capital looms large over a film that evokes deadly serious subject matter (the Occupy movement, immigration policy, anti-police protests) to no real
purpose.
UN Security Council will adopt Resolution 1566 in 2004 and gives a definition
of terrorism as «criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking
of hostages, with the
purpose to provoke a state
of terror in the general public or in a group
of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.»
It is internet
terrorism because the only
purpose I can think
of for it is to demonstrate to others what will happen to them if you and your friends don't like what an author does or says.
For
purposes of the means test, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines current monthly income as including: «any amount paid by any entity other than the debtor (or in a joint case the debtor and the debtor's spouse), on a regular basis for the household expenses
of the debtor or the debtor's dependents (and in a joint case the debtor's spouse if not otherwise a dependent)...» Benefits received under the Social Security Act, payments to victims
of war crimes or crimes against humanity on account
of their status as victims
of such crimes, and payments to victims
of international
terrorism or domestic
terrorism on account
of their status as victims
of such
terrorism are excluded from the means test.
According to the AG, «data
of that type does not reveal information about the booking methods, payment methods used and travel habits, the cross-checking
of which can be useful for the
purposes of combating
terrorism and other serious transnational criminal activities.
Similarly, the envisaged agreement does not stick to a strict principle
of purpose limitation as the processing
of PNR data is not strictly limited to the fight against
terrorism and serious crime (paras 236 - 237).
Even though all these data are transferred to the Canadian authority irrespective
of any indication that the persons concerned may have a connection with
terrorism or serious transnational crime (para. 215), the
purpose of PNR schemes is to identify persons who were «not known to the law enforcement services who may nonetheless present an «interest» or a risk to public security» (para. 216).
Mr. Harkat is alleged to have come to Canada for the
purpose of engaging in
terrorism.
[1] The two fields meet in Article 12 (2)(c)
of the Qualification Directive, itself reflecting Article 1F
of the Geneva convention, [2] providing that an individual shall be excluded from eligibility for refugee status for acts contrary to the principles and
purposes of the United Nations, acts which have been held to include acts
of terrorism.
Sections 1 to 9
of the Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2005 enable the secretary
of state to make a control order against an individual where she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that individual is or has been involved in
terrorism - related activity and it is necessary to impose obligations on that individual for
purposes connected with protecting members
of the public from a risk
of terrorism.
In R v Zafar and others the appeal court cleared the men
of possessing articles for a
purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act
of terrorism, contrary to s 57
of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
No problem arose in respect
of the phrase «possession for a
purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act
of terrorism» where the article possessed was an article such as was intended to be incorporated in a bomb, or used as an ingredient
of explosives designed for an act
of terrorism.
«(1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a
purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act
of terrorism.
«A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intends it to be used for the
purpose of the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act
of terrorism.»
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession
of the article was not for a
purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act
of terrorism.»
The bill gives authorities, including intelligence services, the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the ability to access this information for specific investigations, if it is «necessary and proportionate» for the
purpose of combatting
terrorism or preventing crime.
Having a fast way to compare the information on the person in front
of the inspector with the data base may help fight
terrorism (though no - fly lists are notoriously inaccurate and have not been demonstrated to be effective at their principal
purpose.)
Although Canadian law makes some exemptions for freedom fighters and does not base
terrorism convictions on objective fault, some Canadian terrorist offences are as broad as the American material support offences which allow convictions in the absence
of a terrorist
purpose.
The conditions for making and upholding a non-derogating control order under PTA 2005, ss 2 (1)(a) and 3 (10) were that the secretary
of state «(a) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is or has been involved in
terrorism - related activity; and (b) considers it necessary, for
purposes connected with protecting members
of the public from a risk
of terrorism, to make a control order imposing obligations on that individual».
This said, The Organization
of Islamic Cooperation, representing 56 Islamic countries and the Palestinian Authority, are now and have been for some decades, seeking an end run around the Charters and Constitutions
of Western countries solely for the
purpose of silencing all commentary and criticism
of Islam, Muslims and issues
of terrorism and the Grand Jihad as related to the same.
The questions included: (i) whether or not a non-derogating control order imposed under PTA 2005 constituted a criminal charge for the
purposes of Art 6
of the Convention; and (ii) whether or not the procedures provided for by PTA 2005, s 3 and the rules
of court were compatible with Art 6 in circumstances where they had resulted in a case made against a person subject to a control order being in its essence entirely undisclosed to him and in no specific allegation
of terrorism - related activity being contained in open material.
He stressed that financial authorities would not distinguish between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies for the
purpose of preventing money laundering and
terrorism financing.
US policymakers have made targeting cryptocurrency - fueled
terrorism and the illicit use
of digital coins for any
purpose a priority.