I could spend some time explaining several things to you, mostly things involving international currency exchanges and market volatility concerns, but I suspect that my time would be wasted. Instead, I'll simply note that Overstock.com is not the only large entity considering dealing in BTC, and a lot of smaller companies already do (and in ways that might surprise you), probably more than you suspect. At the end of the day, an old expression applies here: "money talks, bullshit walks." You're standing in a pile of bullshit at the moment, but that's your right and I certainly won't waste any more of my time attempting to reason with you. Cheers.

Following what Chris Mattern said in his reply to your post, please reference documents such as SECNAV M-5510.30. Chris is indeed correct in his assertion that non-citizens cannot obtain a security clearance, and must instead be scoped under LAAs, which are severely restrictive in nature compared to standard clearance levels. In particular, the effective access level for LAA personnel cannot ever exceed the Secret equivalence, and there are numerous additional restrictions concerning barring of physical custody or guardianship of classified materials (among other stipulations).

I happen to know this because I served in the Navy. I did serve with some guys who were foreign nationals (including one Russian submariner), but none of those folks could have clearances.

Call your card issuer on their fraud line. Order a replacement card based on suspicion of compromise from the Target issue. If they want to charge you anything to replace the card, escalate the call to a supervisor, and request a waiver of the fee. If said manager declines to waive said fee, say you'll be transferring your balance (if any) to a competing bank and closing your account. Said fee will be waived. Problem solved.

You've missed the actual core problem, which is a deeper matter of client-customer relations in the banking industry. Leaning on credit card constructs for relief is a bad idea for many reasons, the most notable of which is a severe glossing over of implicit accusatory concerns on the part of financial institutions when they stand to lose a buck. Reference my other reply for more detail.

This only brings the core issue into starker contrast. I had my money back within four hours following a single phone call. You had your money back after two weeks, during which time your bank essentially treated you as a potential conspirator in a criminal act by denying you access to your rightfully owned funds. Do you see a problem here?

I'll give you another example. I once worked in New Jersey for a certain well known cloud provider. A fellow employee fell victim to card fraud and had his bank account reduced by a couple of thousand dollars. Unfortunately, this occurred right before the first day of the following month, the day his rent and most of his bills were due. His bank informed him that a "fraud investigation" would take up to 30 days, and until the investigation was concluded, he would not only not have access to the funds in question, but his account would be completely frozen. This man was unable to pay his bills as a result. I got in my car, drove down to a branch of said bank, and asked to speak with the branch manager. In her office, I related the problem that my co-worker was faced with, and was initially informed that while the story was very sad, the bank wasn't going to do anything about it. I proceeded to inform said branch manager of the fact that my employer also held the majority of its cash assets with her bank, and asked her to phone up someone in her chain of command responsible for large accounts. She was visibly upset, but made the phone call. I spoke with a gentleman for perhaps two minutes about the problem, and my co-worker's funds were back in his account within the hour.

I shouldn't have had to make that trip to the bank. I shouldn't have had to utilize the leverage I used. Again, do you see a problem here?

You should have switched to a better bank, or rather a decent credit union. When this happened to me, Navy Federal Credit Union returned all the funds to my account within four hours.

Enforcement is one thing. The playing field is quite another. If you don't like the playing field, change the law. If you feel you can't change the law because those making the law are corrupt, say so with evidence in hand; there's plenty to be found. If you do that and fail to get enough of your fellow citizens to care, realize that your primary problem is precisely that: your fellow citizens, by and large, do not care. Good luck with changing that.

Latrines, or toilets if you prefer, are found in the head. You might want to see a doctor about getting that foot removed from your mouth, shipmate.

I served (as an enlisted man) aboard the USS Nebraska.

Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.

You're wrong on all counts. Then again, I've actually served on a submarine, whereas you apparently haven't.

Vampires do not fear silver bullets. They fear stakes and sunlight. Werewolves fear silver bullets.

Quoting the GP:

That's probably going to make writing apps somewhat more difficult.

Maybe it's an erroneous interpretation of the acronym TPMS, which is supposed to mean tire-pressure monitoring system. Alternately, it might be some new term meant to introduce tire pressure as a third metric for standard monitoring, in addition to oil and brake fluid pressure levels.