One of the most common mainstream criticisms of Bitcoin is that, being like cash, transactions cannot be controlled or vetoed by the government, which those governments claim is required for the fighting of terrorism.
If you get into a debate on this topic, the following case may be a useful talking point.
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/salah-v.-u.s.-department-of-treasurySynopsis
Salah et al., v. Dep’t of Treasury, is a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Muhammad Salah, U.S. citizen residing in this country, challenging the Treasury Department’s decision to designate Mr. Salah a “specially designated terrorist” without any due process or probable cause of criminal wrongdoing, and under restrictions so severe that they prevent him from carrying out basic life activities. The suit is also brought on behalf of American Friends Services Committee and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee because Mr. Salah’s designation unconstitutionally prohibits these organizations for advocating in coordination with Mr. Salah that such restrictions are unfair. The suit seeks a declaration that the designation is unlawful and an injunction against its continued application to Mr. Salah.
Status
In response to the lawsuit, and without attempting to defend its designation of Mr. Salah, the Department of Treasury unilaterally removed Mr. Salah from the Special Designated Terror list. After 17 years of oppressive restrictions on his ability to undertake basic life activities, Mr. Salah and his family are freed from the burdens placed upon him by the U.S. Government. The decision represents a total victory for Mr. Salah.
It is worth asking: how it is possible that a man who was supposedly a terrorist worthy of the most severe sanctions for over 17 years was made not a terrorist simply in response to being sued? The quality (and thus utility) of such a process must surely be open to question.
What is it like living in the USA whilst being on the SDN list?
As a result of the designation, Salah has lived under incredibly onerous restrictions, which bar virtually all economic transactions, even those necessary for survival: Mr. Salah is not permitted to get a job, pay rent, obtain medical care, or even buy a loaf of bread -- without first obtaining approval from the Treasury Department, which has unfettered discretion to impose these harsh sanctions. In April 1998, OFAC granted Salah a limited license requiring that: any employment income must be deposited in a licensed bank account; funds must be withdrawn from the account only for specific, limited purposes; and both Salah and the bank must submit regular reports and documentation. For over two years, Salah approached banks in an effort to open a licensed account, but each bank refused because of the burdensome licensing and reporting requirements demanded by OFAC. Salah also made many attempts to find employment, but the fact that he had to inform prospective employers that he was a "Specially Designated Terrorist" made obtaining a job extremely difficult.
In 2009, OFAC issued a second license that further limited his daily life with requirements so sweeping that they are for all practical purposes impossible to comply with. The license directed that, even for authorized types of expenses, payment could not “originate from a source in the United States,” and therefore Salah’s family and friends were forbidden from helping him to make ends meet. In addition, the license required him to keep records demonstrating that each and every transaction fell within vague criteria of “basic maintenance,” prohibiting him from buying items as simple as a book or newspaper, a ticket to a concert or sporting event, or flowers for his wife. Moreover, the Treasury blocks Salah from donating to a political campaign or volunteering for a political candidate absent prior approval from OFAC, effectively violating his rights to freedom of speech and association. The Treasury also bars Salah from fulfilling his religious obligation to make regular donations to charity, called zakat in Islam, and from making the pilgrimage to Mecca (haj), as prescribed in the Muslim faith, thus imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion and violating his rights under both the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
This case is not isolated. Abuse of arbitrary government blacklists is also not limited to the USA. In one notorious case in the UK, a border control agent added his own wife to a terrorism blacklist in order to stop her returning from a trip to Pakistan (well, it's cheaper than divorce). There were no controls or reviews on adding people to this list and the problem was only discovered three years later when he applied for promotion, which triggered a new background check.
Being evicted from the economy so thoroughly that even your friends and family cannot help you is a terrible punishment, perhaps even life threatening. Anyone who did attempt to help you would be ipso-facto a money launderer, sanctions violator or both.
