Slashdot Mirror
Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment
RalphTWaP writes "Tuesday, there wasn't even a fuss. Wednesday, the world was a little different. By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact." There hasn't been much media notice of this; the UK's Guardian has an article explaining how the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.
Another in a string of hundreds.
The Fifth Amendment is not overturned, it remains. Please bring some editorial standards to the web site please.
That whooshing sound you just heard go by your ears was another chunk of personal rights flying out the window.
This is flamebait.
America! Are you still there?
"What this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border", Snow explained.
Across the boarder...don't even try to go anywhere now!
Here's the short version with a lot of legalese stripped out:
Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but I don't see anything stopping the Secretary of the Treasury from using this for political purposes. If you go to an anti-war demonstration, you just might be undermining efforts to promote political reform in Iraq (as defined by the Bush administration).
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that you're a die-hard Republican George Bush fan, and you honestly think that this would never be used for such blatant political purposes. Would you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, who stands a very good chance of being elected in 2008? Because guess what. She's going to have the same powers when she takes office.
People who support the creation of this kind of crap based on their trust of the Guy (or Gal) In Charge right now, whether that person is a Democrat, Republican, or whatever, are idiots. You should never ask yourself what something like this will be used for, you should ask yourself what it can be used for, and then imagine that the politician you hate the most holding the reigns. Then, and only then, can you decide whether a law, executive order, or whatever is good or bad.
Sounds like we should seize a certain ranch in Crawford, Texas if we're going after people who are "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" (Section 4.1.a of the order)
"The new authority will only be used to go after terrorists..."
Uh-huh. And the FBI isn't going to spy on ordinary Americans.
Where's the outrage?
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
This isn't about seizure of anything, it's about freezing of assets, something that has been going of for who knows how long (possibly since the 18th century)
the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.
Ofcourse, who is and who isn't a terrorist will be determined by the Secretary in secret after the fact.
Aw crap, ninjas!
with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003
...may God have mercy on us all.
"...the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists."
Right, until they redefine "terrorist." Or change the rules. Or just break the rules they have, and then label anyone who calls them out on it as "un-American." This sucks; Something's gotta give eventually, right?
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
I wonder if this will be seen as a tipping point when historians will look back at how the United States became a fascist nation, or if it will be seen as just part of the slow decline that began with the Johnson administration.
You say you want a revolution....
Do you honestly think the media isn't controlled by the government?
I'm not saying this sarcastically or anything. Watch the press for a few years and it's patently obvious that "word comes from above" when anything like this happens.
No sig today...
Sad to say.
The root password on the U. S. Constitution is "The Global War on $SUBJECT"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
You know how police basically can find some law that you are breaking at any given time if they simple deside to hassle you? Wow does this arm them.
So basically if you are a hard-core protester, could you now get your house and bank account seized under the guise that you are interfering with the USA's modern manifest destiny? Cindy Sheehan perhaps?
God Bless George Bush and America... and all the assets I have there.
Next, the Guardian linked gets it right, however, the link should read the new authority CAN only be used to go after terrorists, since using acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq is pretty much a terrorist act. I don't have a problem with the gov't blocking the bank accounts of terrorists!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Will this bill expire naturally? Or do we get to look forward to the possibility of having our bank accounts drained and house taken in a few years because we failed to pay a $50 parking ticket?
After all, 'impeding progress in the middle east' can be as easy as not paying your parking ticket. God knows we're the only ones footing the bill for that fiasco.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Don't worry the US government is exempt from this and so are it's minions. Goodluck http://gnn.tv/headlines/14892/U_S_to_freeze_assets _of_those_threatening_Iraq
The language is a bit vague, but calling this a defeat of the Fifth Amendment is overly hyperbolic.
Let's calm down a bit, eh?
And why is it that half the articles KDawson approves are either overly liberal, or show some sort of political bone picking? I'm not saying I'm liberal or conservative - I'm Social Democrat - but this seems like it's pandering to liberal scaremongers. "The Republicans hate your freedom!"
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Old (and inaccurate) news: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/
[Insert pithy quote here]
Why doesn't he just get it over with and declare outright martial law? Obviously there is no fight left in us if this, the "patriot act" and other various unconstitutional activities continue to stand.
when we had due process of law in this country?
I find it bitterly amusing that the Administration can take US citizens out of airports and detain them indefinitely with little fuss, but hey, go after our stuff and people start to take notice!
Still, nice to know that this will only be used against terrorists. Never mind that the Secretary of the Treasury gets to define it after the fact - and just make sure you don't cut him off in traffic.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
As others have pointed out, I'm had enough of Slashdot's anti-US headlines.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
You are still being denied use of your property.
"I didn't steal it... I stole it!"
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
isn't this a supposed violation of the fourth amendment?
From the Executive Order:
Yeah, that's a single sentence.
What, specifically, is the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" that he speaks of?
Personally, I find his threat to the Fifth Amendment to be far WORSE than anything anyone in Iraq can do.
Go ahead and mod me down. It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not.
Seems to me it's yet just another mechanism with which Bush Co. will cover up (or at least hamper investigations into) the rampant croneyism between themselves and the lucky few working off no-bid contracts overseas.
And can any of us really say we're all that surprised?
Now is a good time to bend over, cuz bush is giving it to you. As a citizen of the US, I must say this is wrong. To willfully ignore the constitution and grab power as Bush is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. I guess that's what you get with a president who doesn't read the freaking constitution or understand it. here I thought everyone had to read and understand the bill of rights and the constitution in high school history class.
Come on now slashdot now that's a pretty distorted article title.
Please tell me how an executive order can overturn the bill of fucking rights? Can you say shitstorm? He'd never get it out the door. Beleive that the president has constitutional lawyers on tap and doing congress' job would overstep the bounds (only Congress can _change_ the Constitution).
Both the XO + the UK article spell out what the tool is and how its used. Admittedly it would stomp on the rights of _CITIZENS_ of the United States as due process is required, especially sec 2c. Of course you can simply add in a step to revoke citizenship of U.S. nationals guilty of treason and you're covered.
Supposing that these tools are only used against _foreign_ "terrorists" as the article states, I don't see the real problem. Interestingly, notice the provision on the 5th: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" dude the pres is covered (for better or worse) no matter.
Someone needs to change the article's damn title.
When did Slashdot become a political blog?
Its interesting to note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Bush_E xecutive_Orderthis wasn't Bush's first EO regarding eminent domain.
That being said, it doesn't really make any difference to any court that has ever heard of the supremacy clause.
Also interesting to note, this is exactly how Lincoln freed slaves in the Civil War. Not that this has much in common with that.
At least you still have Brave.
Hear that, Democrats in Congress? That means you. Want to withdraw from Iraq? That sounds like "threating the peace or stability of Iraq of the Government of Iraq" to me.
Don't try helping anyone who's been blocked by this order, either. They're tainted, so if you "have materially assisted...any person whose property and interests in property are blocked", that means your assets can be frozen as well.
This means making "any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services", no matter how small.
It may be aimed at "terrorists" and "insurgents", but that's not part of the Executive Order's language. It's quite broad, and there's no real oversight attached to this.
May be an AC but I don't think many Americans knew that we were officially in a "State of Emergency".
Even if we mod the parent up, though, I don't hold much hope that many Americans will spend more than a few moments thinking about what that really means.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
One more reason everyone here can group hug over the oppressive US government. This government isnt perfect, but it doesnt need propaganda to make it look worse.
I hate to say it but what did you expect?
Allow a government to get away with as much shit as this current Bush administration has been allowed to, from Guantanamo Bay onwards, and this is what you get.
I guarantee you that if people had kicked up more of a fuss about the rights of POWs (they're POWs, denying that they're POWs and calling them detainees is just an easy way to avoid giving them basic rights) at Gitmo then you wouldn't be seeing stuff like this today.
Right now, the winners in the "War on Terror" are Al Qaeda (they have what they wanted: open conflict with the West) and oil companies. The losers are average citizens, not just in the West but in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the occupied territories, etc.
It's not too late to change things. But it probably is too late to leave it to others and just hope for the best. Get out the pen, get out the paper and write to your representatives. It's your government, so take it back.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
We recognize those acts as wrong.
Our government recognizes those acts as wrong.
Our government has issued reparations to the people who suffered them. Because they were wrong.
Now you're using those as a yardstick? Wrong is wrong. How about we just stick to the Constitution and the Amendments? Is that too much to ask?
Is there some reason that you advocate we commit ANOTHER crime other than the fact that we had committed one before?
ra ra ra ra executive order ra ra ra ra.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Namaste
Not the Fifth. The Fourth. These are unreasonable searches and seizures, not efforts at self-incrimination.
Slashdot == kdawson's political blog
I think he's the love child of michael and timothy. Is there any way we can send him where he belongs: digg.com?
In this section the President specifically states that he is aware that the U.S. Citizens affected by this may have Constitutional rights that this order violates. However, because of the ongoing (6+ years now) "National Emergency" said rights are nullified in the interests of efficiency.
So basically what he's doing is selectivly removing consitutional rights by executive order because the present circumstances, in his opinion alone, demand it.
He's explicitly and clearly attacking our rights because he says that he feels its necessary, no oversight, no checks, no balances, nothing.
If this is accepted it means that any president at any time can strip legal rights from U.S. Citizens, even if those rights are literally embedded in the Constitution just because he wants to. This means that the rule of law, the rule of the Constitution, is null and void.
And in this part:
They explicitly grant themselves the right to expand this power to anyone else they wish to. That is, the proactive seizure could be handed over to the DEA, the IRS, the ATF, etc if they feel necessary. No future executive order, no public record, will be necessary. Anyone up for proactive seizure of property because you may have cheated on your taxes? Keep in mind that the no fly list includes a large number of people who have committed the crime of having the same or similar sounding names as 'bad' people and no mechanism exists to get them removed from the list. How'd you like to have your house and money taken because you look kind of like a bad person only to have no means of picking back up because that's someone else's department?
What to do:
In all cases make it clear why you oppose this and why it is fundamentally wrong. It isn't a guarantee that they will rethink it but unless this stuff is exposed, discussed, and ultimately attacked then nothing will happen. And it won't be unless we spread this off
Democracy dies when noone is looking.
Paul Bremer already misappropriated the iraqi oil funds, now Bush is there to get the rest?
Another country ruined for and by the interests of a small group of extremely greedy people, hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Some people might think that I'm feeling passionately about it. Given the number of people that died and continue to die, can you forgive yourself not to think about it passionately? The things that go on in Iraq for greed are despicable and the weak arguments that it is the right thing to do fall flat in the face of reality when you realise that the token help the american troops give to the natives by building a house or something like that worths much less for someone than the life of their children.
The situation in Iraq is what you get when you do not plan ahead, when you are motivated by greed and selfish interests. People die. Not 2600 people, which seems to be some national fucking tragedy for a country of 330+ million, but 650,000+ people in a country of 28 million. THAT is a tragedy. (On a related note, I couldn't give a flying fuck about the dead american soldiers. They deserve no note in comparison to the dead civilians.)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
No, i don't think so. Nor is Bush 'expanding his power', as he has this constitutional authority by being president.
If taken at face value, is this a good thing to do? Perhaps.. If taken as shades of gray, is this ripe for abuse, and a potential start of a slippery slope issue? Definitely.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
By the end of the day, there'll be hundreds of comments. Slashdot's advertisers must be happy.
I think these inflammatory headlines are Slashdot's editorial staff's attempt at increasing views and as a result, Ad revenue.
And all of us bite onto the bait - hook, line and sinker.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Does this mean that Bush will have to prosecute himself under this legislation?
"undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"
Is it possible to oppose US policy in the middle east and still not be a terrorist?
davecb5620@gmail.com
I see no mention of war anywhere in this document yet it is clearly aimed at Iranian support of the active terrorists in Iraq. It is proven fact by the defense department that Iran has been suppling "roadside bombs" and other devices. Many of these seem to have been even made in Iran and not supplied from China. The media is buying into it too and not able to refute it. Congress? They too have bought into it.
So by seizing Iranian assets "in our possession" the consequences will be... 1) Iran retaliates in force 2) bomb bomb bomb Iran -- sung to the beach boys hit Barbaranne.
Of course the first thing I would have done in Iraq is seal the borders. First to make sure Saddam and his wealth/WMD didn't leave and now to shut down the supply lines of the war. But even now they are now fixing this mistake.
Well, the US has this weird notion that their laws apply to people in the rest of world too. It doesn't. The only law that appplies internationally is Catch 22, which says: "They have the right to do anything that we are unable to prevent them from doing.".
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Soon we'll have no assets to be seized. We'll simply have to send out letter to the Secretary of Treasury telling them to look for our assets at the IRS.
Perhaps I am naive, but it seems that the wording in that document could be interpreted any number of ways. For instance, could you not call Congress forcing the President's hand in taking troops out of Iraq undermining efforts to promote democracy, etc, thereby enabling the Sect. of Treasury to freeze the assets of any Congressman that voted against the President's wishes? Just a train of thought. Please feel free to laugh at, point out and correct my ignorance.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
While trying to find that quote, I found this little gem:
"I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson
I guess he didn't realize that eventually people in power would come to relish that power even more, only to start that spiral of creating a variant of the same ruling class he and so many of the founding fathers despised.
OCO is Loco
Try #4, regarding "seizures"...
I feel obligated to reply.
An executive order has absolutely no precedence over established law. I'm pretty sure it was in Youngstown Sheet & Tube (343 U.S. 579 if anyone wants to read it), it was Justice Frankfurter who said it in his concurrence that the executive, when issuing an order, operates in one of three potential spheres of power.
The first is when the order is complimentary to legislative intent, that is, Congress has already passed law(s) that further an objective and the executive order is in agreement with that. The executive order is in good standing here.
The second is an executive order upon an issue which Congress is silent. Absent congressional intent for or against, the executive order is valid law. This remainds until the order is rescinded or overruled.
The last is an executive order that is contrary to the law as passed by Congress. In this case, the executive order is not valid law.
So the headline here is quite misleading. The President can issue any executive order he or she wishes, but that does not make it valid.
All of this is familiar and expected from men with big dreams... Could it be the beginning of something more unbearable???
Star Wars Episode 3 -
The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
[Senate fills with enormous applause]
Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.
Imperial troops/US Solders take over the boarders...
"acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq"
..
Come on down GEORGE W
davecb5620@gmail.com
Senators Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, Susan Collins, Carl Levins (and apparently every other Democratic senator) expressed concern today that all of their ATM bank cards stopped working today. Their credit unions declined to comment for this story. When asked about the problem, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell replied, "I don't know. Mine still works just fine."
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
(From the Executive Order:)
i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
So basically, if you want to pull out of the war now (and your in the US).... your life can be seized by the US Gov., you can go to jail, and all rights are taken away?
Will the president use this to go after each congressman who pulls his funding for the war !!!!
First, the President of the United States does not have any magical "executive order" powers that make new laws or grant new powers. An "executive order" is given by the president to one of his cabinet members. It is just the same as your boss telling you to do something. If you don't do it, or don't do it well, you will be fired.
Unfortuntaely, somebody didn't tell this to George Bush. Reading the order you can see that he really thinks that he can tell the Treasury department to seize people's money. It's surreal to see this, because I really think that the guy just doesn't know that he doesn't have this power. And it's weirder because people seem to pretend like he does, and actually follow them. Indirectly, I guess that means he does have the power. It's very weird.
What would help, is if people (including the press) would stop acknowledging them as "executive orders" because they aren't. Call them "strongly worded requests" or "presidential demands" or something. George Bush writing this has no more relevance than if I wrote it. The press should be making him a laughing stock.
IIRC, there are many scary things in the drug laws that allow various agencies to sieze your property even without a finding of guilt in a court of law.
"who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"
This can be any member of the Congress, etc. depending on how you define "undermines", "efforts", "to promote", "economic reconstruction" and "political reform" in Iraq.
If you vote for cut funding American troops there, that's "obviously" "undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq".
It's an executive order not a bill. It is therefore automatically a law and is not subject to appeal, expiration or judicial review
It refers to anyone who knowingly or unknowningly so much as giving money to an organization that 'threatens the stability of Iraq' as a terrorist
The mechanics of the order are such that they are by decree without due process, judicial review or approval nor are they subject to post hoc review.
Have fun, America. It's getting, oh, a little cloudy our there.
Bushco is certainly fighting freedom anywhere they see it.
One of my sources just forwarded me a copy of a rather intriguing document about George W Bush. In the remainder of this letter, I plan to summarize the contents of that document in an effort to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. For openers, some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Bush is nuttier than squirrel dung. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. His premise (that his decisions are based on reason) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Bush uses this disguised morality to support his personal attacks, thereby making his argument self-refuting.
What kind of loser wants to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth? A loser like Bush. Astute observers have known for years that his idiotic claim that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is is just that, an idiotic claim. He certainly believes that clericalism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that when he was first found trying to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Bush is planning to exhibit cruelty to animals, I'm downright terrified.
Bush might impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society faster than you can say "cinephotomicrography". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? His views have put our proud nation on a path which, if left unchanged, may well cause it to follow the Roman Empire into historical oblivion. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Bush. For better or for worse, those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that he is eminently supercilious, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Bush because they saw no other options for change. We have an obligation to fight tooth and nail against him. And we have an obligation to find the common ground that enables others to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that he so desperately wants to abolish.
Now, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am all for freedom of speech, but Bush's toadies believe that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". This is precisely the non-equation that Bush is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that while he insists that the moon is made of green cheese, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. Bush's patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to assail all that is holy. However, his revenge fantasies fall apart upon reflection.
Let me go on record as saying that Bush thinks we want him to sully my reputation. Excuse me, but maybe I hate it when people get their facts entirely wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how censorship could benefit us, I can't help but think that Bush's ebullitions have created an abusive, cuckoo universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that things have never been better. Only within this universe does it make sense to remake the world to suit Bush's own nerdy needs. And, only if we deal summarily with dim-witted fault-finders can we destroy this fatuitous universe of his and protect innocent, little children from sinful litterbugs like him. To say that children should belong to the
Not only that, but we PROTECT the rights of those Neo-Nazis to speak and protest IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
We do not try to take away the property of anyone who says that they're right. Or who contributes to their organizations.
If we can give the Nazis in our own country that kind of protection, what is the problem with anyone saying anything about Iraq?
If contributing money is a CRIME, then take it to COURT! That is what our Constitution says.
If you're going to create such an inflammatory headline, perhaps you could at least pick the right Amendment to get us all riled up about.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Not all the police statey actions taken in wartime are wrong, some are unavoidable. I suppose you hate Lincoln as well. (Many do, his were historically the worst, Habius corpus was suspended for the duration, Newspapers were shutdown for stepping out of line.)
Nobody will tell you that the government was wrong to monitor 'American Nazi' groups, in ways that would make a constitutional purist shudder, prior to and during WWII.
The Japanese Americans interred during WWII have been given compensation, that is largely due to their political power and political correctness. I will be modded down just for raising the question but I will anyhow. How many Imperial Japanese agents were caught up in the sweep? It is a verboten question.
It's not a yardstick as much as context. The constitution has survived worse. It's getting quite ragged but as long as we have enough guns to throw the bastards out when it becomes necessary we'll be OK.
The IRS has been doing this (freezing all assets) for simply not filing you taxes for decades.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The thoughts and whims of two appointed officials only constitute due process in dictatorships. My browser search seems to have nailed the order rather well:
No matches found for 'democracy'.
I'm glad they did not try to justify this with the worn out phrase, "bringing democracy to Iraq," but saddened that they no longer try to pretend. Democracy and rule of law are not things we are exporting. We are importing tyranny instead.
The list is arbitrary and the enforcement is arbitrary. You would think they would have to at least make some kind of show trial before putting you out of business and on the streets.
This is no longer about terrorism, it's about control. You can only imagine what this will do for free speech. Not only won't you find Al Jazeera on US cable or broadcast TV, they are liable to lose any property the US can get it's hands on. The same thing can be said for any US citizen who would dare raise their voice against the administration.
Arbitrary proscriptions, exile and seizure of property are hallmarks of tyranny and we now have all three and things will get worse without drastic and immediate change. "Terrorist" lists are proscriptions that do everything but murder the proscribed. You can't travel or get a job if you end up on the list or have a name that's similar. This is really a form of exile but you can also be "extraordinary rendered" out on a whim and kept out of the country by the same. Now we have arbitrary property seizure. With these things in place, it won't be long before we have all the freedoms of Citizens of the Third Reich or Stalin's USSR.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If she is running against someone even more unpopular, then you'll have the unusual (or maybe not so unusual) situation of people voting for candidates that they wouldn't even consider voting for.
That's the problem with your two party system. You can only choose between bad and worse. In other countries, the voters have a variety of evils to choose from. You should consider switching.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If you are sick from this shit going on - you would be right, but your sickness comes from another source - stumble on!.
Yes - that's flaming, toss me!
I think he's the love child of michael and timothy.
I was thinking more along the lines of...JonKatz incarnate?
I have discovered a truly marvelous
1. Accuse someone of supporting terrorists in Iraq
2. Seize their assests
3. Wait for the 'victim' to die
4. Profit
Wait, I forgot the ???? part of the joke. Gee, I guess it wasn't needed.
Sample Letter:
Dear (Congressman|Senator) X.
I am writing to you today regarding A recent Executive Order signed on the 17th by President Bush. Said order entitled: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" represents a blatant violation of the rule of law. And an assault on our Constitution.
Section 5 of the order states:
That is, in the President's determination alone it would be too hard or too slow to actually follow due process. Therefore he has determined that it is unnecessary to follow constitutional law.
This is a very very dangerous precedent. If accepted it would allow any President to simply turn off or ignore selected portions of the Constitution if, in their opinion alone, it is necessary. No oversight from Congress, No Judicial review, nothing. In this case the President himself declared a state of emergency and now is selectively eliminating portions of the Constitution because of that Emergency. Congress you'll note, was not consulted, neither was the Judiciary. Most importantly, neither were the American People.
While the President states that this is only intended for Terrorists, that is not a long-term guarantee. We have already seen PATRIOT act powers used in Tax cases that have nothing to do with terrorism and this order, if accepted would pave the way for many more of its kind. If, for example the IRS found seizure of property too difficult via the courts then they could argue, along the lines of this order that in order for them to be 'effective' they need to proactively seize the belongings of accused violators.
This Order cannot be allowed to stand. It violates the basic structures set forth in the Constitution, a document that both you and the President are sworn to uphold and defend. I refuse to sacrifice our own rule of law, our own basic structures for the sake of "effectiveness".
We cannot allow the Constitution of the United States to simply be declared "Ineffective" and tossed out with the trash.
Sincerely,
Freezing assets is nothing new, it can happen in many circumstances long before guilt is found or not. For example, right now Novell is trying to freeze SCOs assets because they think they have a claim on them. The actual court case is still way off, right now it's only whether there's reason enough to freeze or not. I'm sure there's plenty other circumstances like IRS investigations, divorce negotiations, inheritance disputes etc. where assets can be frozen to keep the funds from disappearing.
One would think that mostly these funds would be very volatile - as an international terrorist you probably have a network to make your assets disappear quite quickly and covertly. Under those circumstances, it's not unreasonable that law enforcement strikes at the first opportunity and ceases those assets. To me it goes under the same reasoning as when a policeman sees a crime in action - he takes action immidiately. I'm more concerned with the oversight, as in was there reaonable cause and urgency which require this kind of drastic action.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Whomever wrote the post has some other agenda. The executive order doesn't state the Dept of Treasury can seize property without due process -- it states that the Dept of Treasury can block the transaction or transfer of property from anyone with in the United States who they believe is subverting economic or policital reconstruction in Iraq. "Seizure" and "Block the Transaction of" are two very different animals.
Stop wasting our time with the FUD.
Other replies have discussed how this declaration purports to allow the authority to seize the assets of anyone who they think might "pose a significant risk of committing" such an act as they describe. This in its self, of course, is manifestly unconstitutional and thus illegal, but another element of this declaration just as sinister in a more subtle way.
It purports to exercise this same power on anyone found "to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order".
This means, in the extreme case, that after they've seized all assets of one person, pursuant to this order, leaving said person destitute and begging on the steet, the act declares complicit and culpable anyone who, without knowlege of the plight of the "at risk" person, passes by and gives said person a quarter or a sandwich or a blanket.
What happened to news for nerds? It's turned into daily kos lite with some linux bits thrown in.
Michael was pretty bad, but kdawson is turning to be worse with the blatant editor abuse.
Wouldn't it be the Fourth Amendment?
the 2004 elections when they decided they wanted to be like the Daily Kos and added the politics section which is a section (as predicted) devoted soley for bashing Republicans. (Go on... try to get a pro-Republican piece posted by the editors...)
You are wrong to grant this administration the benefit of the doubt. This headline is right to assume the worst.
It's just that simple. IF this administration had been fairhanded and honest to this point then you would be right to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Here is an example by way of metaphor. If your girlfriend gets pregnant and you're not the father how long do you trust her claims of monogamy?
So. This administration HAS lied to us; HAS practiced partisan, confrontational politics; HAS used legitimate crises and public outcry to manipulate us into questionable wars; HAS abused the laws they said they would not abuse.
With all that said why should I give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should I trust them to practice self restraint or honesty? WHY SHOULDN'T I ASSUME THE WORST? (caps for emphasis)
If we were willing to give the benefit of the doubt we have the choice to take it away and use the burden of guilt instead. I no longer give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I assume they will misbehave and abuse their power.
They have established a pattern of lies and deceit. I see no evidence of this pattern changing. So I will predict that this executive order (it's not law, it was never voted on) will also be abused. Based on this prediction I will feel correct in my outrage and watch carefully for how the government will try to abuse the power they have granted themselves without a vote.
And to all those who would join in revolution I remind you that the only rights you have are those that you take.
So do anti-war protest organization now get their assets siezed?
This looks like what this law is really about.
Who cares what they say in the news articles... ALLLLLLL that matters is what is in the legal document... That document makes NO disctinction between protester and terrorist (just an example). It's a simple blanket order that covers any person or firm that acts contrary to the (US) interests in IRAQ.
Thus, who cares how the news spins it!?!?? If it was meant to be the way they say it is (in the news), wouldn't the legal language of the order reflect that???
So, would that include:
I mean, in the irrational world view of Bush et al, you're either WITH us, or you're FOR the terrorists.
Does thinking that George W. Bush is a criminal, an idiot, an asshole, a thief, and someone who has overstepped his authority both domestically and on the world stage qualify you as someone who seeks to "undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"?
How about espousing the point of view that most of the US benchmarks for success in Iraq are hinged upon the Iraqi government passing laws that make it favorable for US oil companies to extract the Iraqi oil reserves for huge profit?
While history will recognize him for what he is, it'll be too fscking late to fix all of the damage he'll have done.
I hope that this gets legally fixed, but I fear it won't. The current administration feels they can do anything they want to and that the parts of the Constitution which say that they can't don't apply to them. Because, really, the POTUS doesn't have the authority to override sections of the Constitution, no matter what he thinks.
If anything, Bush and Gonzales should be hung for treason.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I know this is a little off topic, and I'm sure it's been said before, but I'll say it anyway. This category really needs to be renamed. What percentage of 'Your Rights Online' actually specifically apply to rights on the internet? It should be 'Your Rights in the World' or even just 'Politics' or something like that.
For those folks having a hard time connecting this to the Fifth Amendment, I provide the following:
The text of the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The part that the submitter is focused on is: "nor shall any person . . . be deprived of . . . property[] without due process of law."
The question presented is whether a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is sufficient process to support such a deprivation. Odds are, it's not. At a minimum, constitutional due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard (though notice may be given ex post facto in the case of an emergency). As this executive order stands, there is no opportunity for an individual whose property has been seized to challenge the seizure. In fact, there's no procedure for such a hearing to occur.
That's the Fifth Amendment Issue implicated by the Executive Order.
--G
Of course it will be argued that this is only intended to affect terrorists, and I suppose anybody can just take their word for that. Like the Military Commissions Act, it doesn't threaten you or your family or buddies with being "disappeared," whether murdered or put in some hellhole and tortured. Couldn't happen.
That fucking quote gets posted to every YRO or political story on slashdot. It came to mind only because you slashbots post it so much, it's your own version of "War is Strength". There's no new insight here, it's fucking trite and redundant.
Now that I've utterly owned your ass, moderators should mod you -1 Redundant, because it absolutely is.
...the president is considered a violent act.
They can take my property when they pry my m16 from my cold, dead hands!
Count me among those who are really finding the heavy liberal bias and Bush/Republican/someone-other-than-me bashing to be way over the top here, especially from the /. editors.
/. - you're just turning people off to your party, too. //proud to be neither. //votes on issues, not parties.
Kelo v New London killed property rights. It was one of the top 3 worst SCOTUS rulings in the history of the US. What justices voted in the majority? The liberal Justices: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Also, Justice Kennedy, who is a...liberal libertarian? Common swing vote.
City takes away people's land, gives it to private businesses. Oh, but it's the Republicans that do that sort of thing, right?
Whatever. Keep at it,
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
First off, the IEEPA. read it, because that's the limit, safety-valve, maximum, etc. ( the unabridged version is here (PDF format). It says, in a nutshell, that:
So can we shut down the klaxons now? Or at least show me where (specifically) I may have produced an error (with proof, please).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
- There are people in America with significant assets aligned against peaceful resolution in Iraq
- Normal legal process wouldn't enable our government to seize those assets before they could be spent on something like bombs or transport of weaponry to insurgents in Iraq
- Therefore the government needs extraordinary means to seize those assets and prevent the bombs from being bought/shipped
What's this fantasy based on? The sort of people it posits certainly exist in large numbers - in Saudi Arabia, where half the insurgents in Iraq come from. And some of those Saudis are in the US from time to time - some of them to visit their friends in the White House. Could this executive order hint that Bush is about to turn on his best friends? Bush? Loyal-to-friends-no-matter-what Bush? It may be an act of treason that Bush has not seized Saudi assets in the US which are controlled by members of the royal family who also fund the terrorists who keeping Iraq destabilized. Is Bush finally desperate enough to turn on his friends?"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Here's some more information on these sanctions and other sanctions programs generally. These types of sanctions programs are not new.
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/
---
Welcome to another edition of... Smells Like Republicans!
the Orwellian Special!
More shrubbery from Bush. I wonder if he even understands this writing?
I can just see the Recording Ass. of America and it's movie counterpart, the Motion Picture Ass. of America using this Executive Order to get the assets of people who download (especially those they are "unsuccessful" in "settling" with) by claiming it supports terrorism or contributes to the instability of Iraq.
Another thing...I wonder if asshats will use this Executive Order against those in both the Congress and the Senate (as well as the protesters and critics) who speak out against the war or want immediate pull out (which to the eyes of some "proponents" will constitute to contributing to the instability and thus according to the XO, can get their assets frozen....)
man...it's like soaps....and it's hitting the fan; I better go buy myself a poncho or a hazmat suit.
... I welcome our kleptomaniac overlords.
Have gnu, will travel.
Previous posters are right, this is either thoughtcrime or guilt by association.
Here's what it's saying: We can, without notice, seize all the property and money of anyone who, in our sole determination:
1) Commits or intends to commit violence to screw with peace, stability, political reform, or economic reconstruction.
(see, now that's not so bad, is it?)
2) Gives any money, materials, logistical support, or technical support, to a person or group doing (1)
(So, if you contribute to "Save Iraqi Orphans" and it turns out they were using the money to build bombs, you can have all your assets seized)
3) Is owned, controlled, acted, or may act, for someone covered by this order
(Your landlord or boss gets nailed by this order, watch out!)
Don't forget Section 2:
1) Trying to avoid this order is prohibited.
2) Forming a conspiracy to violate this order is prohibited.
translation: if you try and get out of it, you're doubly screwed. If it's your family sitting around with no money and food, you'd better just watch them starve, trying to help them will get you in shit
And Section 4:
If someones (or some groups) property is frozen by this order, any form of donation to them is now illegal, because that would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency.
Because I hate charity. Stupid freeloaders
So, here we've got another No Oversight way for the gov't to screw ya'll over. They just bring this up, freeze every single thing you own, and then you... what? Fight back? With what lawyer? How you gonna live while this slogs through the courts? You can't make any money, and no-one can help you or they get the same treatment. And judging by your other performances (how long have those guys been at gitmo?), it'll take years for you to get your day in court.
And all it takes is one cop or FBI badass to stand there and go "What? I just heard you say you want to fly to iraq and commit violence. That's it, total asset freeze!". You say it won't happen? I say it's another cheap and easy tool for feds to use while trying to shake you down. "Help us out, or we'll take everything you own, and now there's no court oversight to stop us.".
It doesn't matter if they'd eventually lose in court. You're still starving on the streets long before then.
And why was this so vitally, immediately necessary, that he felt he could just EO it instead of getting, oh, I dunno, that funny "Legislative" branch of goverment to.... legislate?
Sorry USA. It sucks to be you.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
It leaves the determination of who has, in fact, committed such acts to the sole discretion of the Treasury department. It must "consult" with State and Defense, but there's nothing to indicate that consultation is binding. It also doesn't provide any outlet for judicial review of a Treasury decision, or even an appeals process within the Treasury department.
We should always be cautious whenever the State assigns itself further powers to seize personal property. The IRS, DOJ, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, Dept. of Ag, etc... already have seizure power and in many cases abuse it to the detriment of the citizenry in ways that are much more egregious than what Treasury could do with this new XO. We should really focus on the fact that people's lives are ruined for minor offenses such as tax evasion and drug possession before we start losing our minds over and XO that doesn't give the government MANY more new powers than it had before.
You know, this is why I'm a small/no government advocate, because the State will always expand its power at the expense of the rights of the citizenry.
Also, I know someone else has pointed this out already, but this has no impact on the 5th amendment at all. It's a poorly titled article that should have been corrected by the approval staff before being put on the site.
I've lamented slashdot sliding into digg land lately, but reading this has shown me important ways slashdot is way above digg.
First, the depth of discussion. People are posting multi paragraph intelligent statements and responding to each other without rancor. People seem to actually have some grasp of the topic. On digg the comments would be, "BUSH TEH DEVIL hax his internets."
Secondly, despite the fact the headline is inaccurate and somewhat inflammatory, on digg the headline would have been, "BREAKING CONFIRMED: Bush tells american public to FUCK OFF"
Having read the linked document, one thing stands out. Seizure rests on the person planning, assisting or committing "acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people".
This only applies to people doing obviously bad things in Iraq, or helping people doing obviously bad things in Iraq. It applies to people giving money and guns to Al Qeda in Iraq or the militias which are kidnapping and killing people and setting of car and suicide bombs.
I will say I am not happy at there being no mention due process or providing proof or warrants by a court. But, I am also not happy at the felony seizure statue either.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Guantanamo has housed a naval base for decades. That naval base housed a brig, for navy personnel. The gulag created post-9/11 to house POWs, enemy combatants and disappeared nonpersons was not around prior to bush the lesser.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Let's make a bet: At this rate, how many more executive orders are we going to see, before the 2008 elections in the USA will be postponed, suspended or simply banned?
I find it fascinating how "economic" reconstruction is mentioned first. The neocons just can't hide the fact that they're after the oil, and political reform is just a tool to that end.
All the USA would have had to do after toppling Saddam would have been to pretty much set up a democratic government without interfering too much in the general way the country was organized and run -- most of the structures could and should have been left in place. You would have ended up with an Arab-social-democracy funded by oil that the US would have bought just like anyone else. Sure, it wouldn't have been the beautiful, ideologically correct social darwinist dystopia where people make use of their Freedom to the fullest in order to survive, but I bet it would have been far better a reconstruction strategy than any after the fact aid strategy that the Iraqis would have ended up paying for anyway.
Now, had you been so awfully concerned about the evil Socialism that would have crept into the system this way, surely you will also trust in democracy. The Iraqis would have privatized stuff in due time, at proper prices, in order to make their government more efficient. This would have been far more preferable to the looting laws the puppet government in the Green Zone is currently passing.
Had there been a little bit less ideology, a lot of people would have survived, a lot of Iraqis would be much happier, and Iraq would face a much brighter future...
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
We have a leadership that has extremely close ties to corporate entities (with members that were CEOs themselves), a president that relishes opportunities to be addressed/portrayed as the Chief of the military ("Mission Accomplished"), and a political operation that heavily emphasizes nationalism while endorsing the vilification/persecution of those that differ in views (how many times has the name "Ted Kennedy" ended up on a no-fly list?).
Lastly, for a number of years we have been witnessing a feigned tolerance of individualism, what with "free speech zones" and the like. No doubt, extensive secrecy was very helpful in 'keeping up appearances'.
The difference now is that the administration is under political threat and that the charade is more difficult to maintain.
The worst of it is that this administration has proved to be extremely stubborn and has shown no remorse (how many apologies for anything so far?) - thus it is easy to predict that the greater the threat, the more dramatic the response. If Congress brings about impeachment and prepares conviction, expect martial law.
The tipping point has already passed.
Since when does the Iraqi conflict pose a "national emergency" for the citizens of the United States? That flawed "notion" is being used by Bush as basis for this new Executive Order.
And for the record, this would appear to conflict with the 4th Amendment, not the 5th Amendment, as the OP incorrectly states.
Helpful links so you can gain your own understanding instead of reading a bunch of off-the-cuff /. commentary:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/2http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/2
People like to talk about "freezing the assets of terrorists" or "people who support insurgents". Who could object to that? Why wouldn't you want to freeze the assets of terrorists or people who support insurgents? I certainly support that.
The problem is that this debate is framed incorrectly. What legislation like this is really about is giving the executive branch the power to simply declare that someone is a terrorist or supports insurgents, without due process and without benefit of a trial.
So, what the administration really wants is the power to determine unilaterally, without meaningful legal oversight or possibility for redress, to deprive citizens of property and possibly liberty.
Republicans: you're always complaining about bureaucracy and intrusive government. You're seeing the most intrusive government being created by your party. Worse, you're destroying the foundations on which this country was founded, the separation of powers. It would be wrong to call this "unprecendented" (after all, the US Constitution co-existed happily with slavery and racial inequality for many years), but you are moving in the wrong direction. Reign in your party, and deliver what you promise: smaller, less intrusive government. Strengthen the separation of powers, reduce government expenses (starting with the military), get government out of our bedrooms, and get the church out of government.
No matter how true the above may be, how many times must it be parroted here before it crosses the threshold between "insightful" and "redundant"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The Bush administration Us government....you want to sue them.
The same government that outright refses to cplmy with any subpoenas?
The very same administration that would have you labelled in the mainstream media as a terrorist (thanks, Fox News!) before you even got the phone off the hook to call the ACLU?
The same administration who have time and again shown to be criminally negligent in its blatant disregard of the Constitution?
And you think people will just fall over themselves to help you, a known terrorist, at the risk of their own assets?
Keep dreaming.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Looks more like executive chaos to me.
Congress needs to pass a law rescinding ALL executive orders and force the morons in the executive branch to submit their proposed^Wunconstitutional regulations to the appropriate representative body, hopefully for debate and revision rather than a rubber stamp, if the executive branch should even be allowed to do that. Rescind and outlaw "signing statements" while they are at it, legislating from the oval office is not what our founding fathers had in mind, and has to be the single most dangerous thing to the United States, much more so than the notsoscaryists the appointed mouth-breathers blather on about.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
An attorney's perspective: I have no doubt that at some point the US Supreme court will examine this order and declare that it violates the 5th amendment.
...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Due process is pretty straightforward - its some means or method for an accused person to dispute the charges. It doesn't have to be via a judge and jury, and can be something as simple as a committee appeal process. But, before the government, ie the President or the Treasury Dept, can seize a citizen's assets, they have to provide that citizen due process. I see nowhere in this executive order where it accords a citizen due process before his assets are seized. It appears to be blatantly unconstitutional.
As others have pointed out, an executive order is not a law, it is merely a directive to an agency of the executive branch. The President has the right to tell the Treasury Department, which is a part of the executive branch, to do whatever he believes is consistent with the Constitution and the law. But the Supreme Court ultimately gets to decide if what the executive branch does is consistent with the Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment provides, "No person shall
Here's how it will happen: the treasury department will seize someone's assets, that someone will get an attorney and sue the US government, the case will go to the supreme court, and the supreme court will strike down the executive order.
Keep in mind the 5th amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens living outside the United States, but it might arguably be applied to non-citizens with assets here. Remeber, the 5th amendement says, "No person" not "No citizen". Constitutional rights have been afforded to legal aliens residing in the United States by the Supreme Court before. I'm not sure the Supreme Court would extend those rights to people who don't live here and don't have assets here, though, because that would be a matter of foreign policy beyond the purview of the Supreme Court, arguably.
How are you going to challenge this "non-law", if your assets are frozen?
Da gooda news is that they are respecting the order. The bada news is that they just seized your estate in Paraguay, and put a boot on Cheney's limo.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
on digg the headline would have been, "BREAKING CONFIRMED: Bush tells american public to FUCK OFF"
Actually, it was So, as of yesterday, If you protest the war, the Prez can take your stuff and has >4500 diggs, but yours comes close enough.
Ah!
Those democrats presidential candidates are obviously working against a stable Iraq... Lets block their funding!
Funny that, US seems loosing the democracy at home while trying to bring it to Iraq.
The U.S. has only three branches, so it must be under one of them. Answer: Executive Branch. In fact, every possible government agency you can think of falls under the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch funds the federal agencies and the Executive Branch executes the wish of Congress. If Legislative Branch doesn't like the way the Executive Branch is executing the laws, then the Legislative Branch can tighten the purse strings.
It's absurd that there are so many agencies, which is why clear-thinking and honest people like Ron Paul advocate eliminating a bunch of agencies -- to reduce the weight of the Executive Branch and restore balance to the U.S. government structure.
Under the current scheme, Bush can stack the Justice Dept. with his political favorites. If it's the president whom the Justice Dept. should be investigating, this is an obvious conflict of interest. Thus was created the Office of the Independent Counsel (e.g. Ken Starr), which was in fact outside the three branches of government (and 10x more unconstitutional than all the other government agencies).
In my opinion, because it is Congress that holds impeachment power, something like the Office of the Independent Counsel is needed that would be under the Legislative Branch.
Back to the subject at hand, I suppose Congress can -- before this Executive Order gets enforced -- pass a law saying that the Treasury Dept. cannot use taxpayer money to enforce this particular Executive Order. After the Executive Order gets enforced in a situation, Congress might be able to impeach, though the NSA wiretapping was a much stronger case and they haven't acted on that.
Executive Orders suspending the 5th Amendment, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and stop this insanity.
Last link (unless Stark County District Library caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
This post is completely false. It was not overturned in any way shape or form. Please see the pertinent text from the amendment below which clearly exempts due process during war time.
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
We are in a time of war and therefore the President's order is clearly within the bounds of the 5th amendment. It has not been overturned or ignored in any way. I challenge anyone to point out how it has been. Next, this only applies to those that commit or are likely to commit acts of violence or support those that do in relation to the war. In other words, if you are a terrorist or if you support a terrorist you might have your assets frozen. Some have worried about a scenario where one donates to a charity that uses the proceeds to support terrorism. That may be a valid concern, but this only further underscores the necessity to thoroughly research "charities" before donating to them. If there is no way to know that the "charity" is supporting terrorism, I don't see how any law or executive order could prosecute such a person.
Apparently, kdawson and those that have jumped on his bandwagon will let nothing, including the plain facts, stop them from spreading their hate for Bush and for the defense of this country. This is why there has been no press hoopla over this. Only the whining liberal, America-bashing, FUD-spreading, socialist propagandists are making an issue of it. What's new?
If you can't trust your government, no amount of amendments, laws and regulatory oversight committees will save you. (Hint: I'm not saying to trust the government.)
technical writing / development
He checked it out, and gave it his stamp of approval before George and Dick decided to roll with it.
Do you guys know where the IEEPA, the act that Bush is deriving the authority from?
A Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President. Carter to be exact. The same Carter who thought the Ayatollah would be a better head of Iran then the Shah.
We all know how well that one worked out, looks like the IEEPA is coming back to bite the Dems in the ass too.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Ahh..yes. Another fine example of the inevitable truth of Godwin's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The U.S. Supreme Court has generally extended these rights to actions by the Federal Govenment since the 20th century.
While it may be nice to sit back and feel self-satisfied that you didn't vote for him and don't like him (how nice for you that your vote matches your mood) those of us who inhabit the real world know that, even in a democracy, decisions get made between elections and the pressure must be brought to bear on those decisions at all times, not just the five seconds you may have spent in the booth searching for a clue.
Moreover the very basis of our government rests on the foundation of the Constitution. It enshrines not just our rights but our very legal processes, including elections. The President is sworn to "uphold and defend" the constitution and, under law cannot simply ignore it as he sees fit.
If, however he is allowed to "turn off" parts of the Constitution that get in the way of his actions being "effective" then everything goes, everything. If for example he decides that the section dealing with presidential elections (the one mandating that his term of office actually expire) gets in the way of "effectively combating terrorism" then he could just blow it off. Ditto for Judicial and Congressional oversight of any sort. Ditto for the Freedoms of speech, Religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. In short, this precedent would be the first step down a slippery slope to dictatorship.
And on the subject of your innocence. If you are a U.S. Citizen then it isn't enough to sit back and say "I didn't vote for him". Lest we forget we still pay him, we still pay for him and for his policies. We still back them with our dollars and our lives. That means we must pay attention. This self-satisfied laziness of yours isn't democratic, its pathetic.
Good Grief. Freakin dorks
Wasn't the Patriot Act supposed to get all of us Bush-haters thrown in jail? Failing that, shouldn't the NSA wiretapping program have finished the job?
You've all cried "wolf" a few million too many times. Do you really wonder why nobody takes you seriously? Now nobody is going to listen to you, because you've thoroughly discredited yourselves with paranoid, hyperbolic, irrational, alarmist rhetoric.
Do the rest of us a favor and shut up. These sort of things need to be dealt with at face value with logical arguments, not imaginative speculation.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Who else would build the new weapons used to bring freedom and peace to the world?
Also, living in a country of will-fully ignorant anti-intellectuals means you are more valuable to those with money. Stay here and profit until you really can't stand it, then leave/
Blar.
We really like that piece of property ... therefor you must be a terrorist!
Now, give up your land!
The new mantra of Slashdot:
Mislead
Obfuscate
Politicize
Pontificate
Confuse
and Outright Lie
You missed the most frightening and relevant Section (B) (italics mine), wherein it is directed to also seize the property of anyone (lawyers are "persons", too) who assists a victim of this travesty. Once the police state has seized a victims property, anyone who assists them in any way is subject to the same seizure. ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
regarding the war in Iraq, all Slashdot servers will be confiscated, as a first step. I hate to think what's going to happen with Cowboy Neal.
Actually the comments on digg are more along the lines of "OMG! What does it take for congress to impeach Bush & Co!?!?! Sign my online petition to get the ball rolling!! I'm so voting for Ron Paul. He's the only one who will restore the constitution!"
Buried as innacurate.
The language is ridiculously broad and does appear to violate the 5th amendment. ... This is absolutely begging to be abused.
It's an abuse on its face, regardless of any purported congressional authorization.
For some time the Democrats have been making noises about impeachment. This would appear to give them grounds.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
that's what you keep those 'well armed militia' for, isn't it? POPCORN!
Except that this isn't a law. This is an Executive order granting powers to a set of executive offices. In a recent decision the Supreme Court argued that the public cannot challenge internal executive actions (such as this one claims to be) through the courts, effectively nullifying any judicial oversight. The case in question dealt with meetings being held with religious figures but the reasoning was similar and likely the same arguments would be advanced again.
But, ironically what this order attacks is the very foundation for such a lawsuit. If, in the executive's opinion your Constitutional rights are ineffective and therefore unnecessary on what grounds do you sue? If the grounds are violations of your rights then you have to ask Bush's Supreme Court to counter his own executive order. Such an action would be interesting to say the least, and unlikely to go forward.
Moreover such an action would likely have to occur after the fact, i.e. after said property was seized. But lacking all property it would be difficult to mount a challenge, especially if said seizure was kept as secret as other similar actions (i.e. library records seizures) have been. As such the damage, or some of it, may already be done.
As with Congress, well again this isn't a law (The president can't make that) but supposedly an internal executive thing. Yet it is being treated by them as if it is a law and a vehicle by which the President can make laws. Congress, however has other means to affect the departments involved and so can put pressure on the executive. They can also strip the departments in question of funding for such activities. They could also grow a spine and reassert their role as overseers and guardians of the Constitution.
The catch is that, as I said this is an Executive Order, but an Executive order that carries the force of law and declares some laws (i.e. The Constitution) to be invalid or "ineffective" and therefore unnecessary. Constitutionally the President cannot make laws. However it seems through Executive Orders he is seeking to do so practically and what he is going after is the very basis of that, the Constitution itself and the limits that is places on his, and the Federal Government's behavior.
The bottom line is that this is policy, bad policy, and the way in which you stop bad policy before damage is done is via public pressure. Congress, the Newspapers, others are in a position to apply said pressure along with the public. Better to stop it now before bad things happen than, like the PATRIOT act, let it get in place and wake up to find out where we are.
One of the organisations who have clearly "committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq..." is the government of the United States of America, and its duly appointed leader. Does this mean that the US Government is now going to freeze all the assets of the US Government and George W Bush? Could be complicated? I suggest he might want to rescind this order pretty quickly...
Blocking the use of property is not legally the same as depriving someone of it (although, admittedly, practically-speaking it comes pretty close).
Quite the contrary.
Look into the doctrine of "Partial Taking". For instance: If a zoning change reduces the value of property, or rent control prevents a landlord from obtaining a fair rent, part of the value has been "taken" and the owner is entitled to compensation.
A part of the value of property is the ability to use or exchange it in a timely manner. Blocking that is a partial taking.
If this were a violation of the fifth amendment, so would the IRS putting a lien on someone's property for tax purposes.
Nope.
In the latter case the IRS is saying: "We claim this belongs to us. We have started the process of proving this in court and a judge agrees that we are likely to prevail on this claim. So you can't just run away with it (without substituting something of equivalent value) until the outcome has been determined."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A rational person would believe that such an interpretation would never be upheld by the Supreme Court. but then, a rational person would never believe that the Supreme Court would countenance seizure of real estate by the government to be turned over to developers for economic gain.
And if people haven't noticed, there seems to be a complete absence of rational people in the District of Columbia these days.
Bruce Fine is a conservative, he is not some Liberal. This is from the Tom Hartman show. You can also hear Bruce Fine on Bill Moyers.
Click Here to listen
photosMy Photostream
Those comparisons are inaccurate. They fail to support your point. If we take wire cutters away from someone accused of vandalizing electrical lines, it's because the wire cutters are evidence. If someone is accused of that crime, we don't remove every sharp object from their house, nor do we forbid hardware stores from selling them new wire cutters. As for someone on in a murderous rage, we don't solve the problem by taking away their gun, no, we put them in jail until their trial. As for drunk driving, if the crime isn't serious enough to justify jailing the driver until their trial, yes, we let them return to driving. Anything less is punishment without a trial, an affront to the foundations of our country.
You can eliminate someone's freedom if you're charging them with a crime and a judge refuses bail, but that's really about limiting a flight risk. We only seize property as evidence, or after a trial as punishment. (There are also forfeiture, but that sickening violation of the fifth amendment has nothing to do with protection (does seizing the car of someone busted carrying some pot really protect us?) and everything to do with profiteering.)
Search 2010 Gen Con events
The bottom line is we've never punished a president, ever. The most that has ever happened is that person's actions are eventually overturned or defeated (sometimes years) after the fact. The Constitution relies on Congress to keep the President in check if an act is viewed as gross abuse of power.
While orders like these are questionable, I think that they're good for democracy. Let's face it, if we can't defend our freedoms, we're going to lose them. Whether it's a democrat, republican or other in office, we need to fight for the freedoms we want. It's a lot harder to get them back once they're taken from you.
Regardless of where you live, if you're tanked and pulled over, you were driving. That means you're a fucking retarded asshole, and you should go home and shoot yourself in the face. As often as you can swing it. I take a dim view of people who slur "I can handle it" when risking other people's lives.
Don't drink and drive. It's not a difficult maxim to live by. To break it down further: drink and do not drive or drive and do not drink. Choose one.
You have to love alarmist titles. The title suggests that this would apply to ALL Americans EVERYWHERE and it wouldn't. Second, I think they're referring to the FOURTH Amendment, which is search and seizure. The 5th is the right to avoid self-criminalization.
Blocking the use of property is not legally the same as depriving someone of it (although, admittedly, practically-speaking it comes pretty close).
Bullshit. It's called Conversion.
If this were a violation of the fifth amendment, so would the IRS putting a lien on someone's property for tax purposes.
Number one, liens don't prevent usage of property. The title to your house has a mortgage lien on it from the day you buy it until the mortgage is paid off, but you still live in it, modify it, etc. Your car has a bank lien on it until the car loan is paid off, but you can drive it, modify it, etc.
Second, the IRS doesn't go around putting liens on things and confiscating assets without due process, which satisfies the 5th amendment.
Please help metamoderate.
You might want to look up the original line in Franklin's Historical Review of Pennsylvania since you are sitting at a computer and the text's available online.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm starting to feel the same way. If I want political news I go to a political site. If I want financial news I go to a financial site. If I want tech news I go to slash^H^H^H^H^H some tech site.
There's definitely times when political news should be reported here but sadly kdawson thinks that's every random story that supports his personal political views.
I also don't appreciate his intentionally misleading headlines and personal political statements. He can save those for dailykos.
First of all, to those neo-conservative fascists who want to flame this article, I have nothing to say. I just happen to love liberty and freedom. If that makes me a terrorist sympathizer in your eyes, then so were Washington and Lincoln.
This act in my opinion employs Bush's favorite tactic, broad spectrum language that could cover any one with the right spin on the story. After all, speaking out against the War in Iraq could easily be construed as threatening stability in Iraq. What happens to those of us who protest this illegal and amoral war in the first place?
What's really wrong here is that Bush has again circumvented the natural system of checks and balances that keep this country fair and accountable in order to create a short cut for his administration that could be abused for years to come by any power hungry mongrel who might get elected. The truth is that this president and his administration are so concerned with finding a quick way to get things done that they have no time for things like freedoms, checks and balances, or something silly like the Bill of Rights. But you neo-conservatives probably don't think that people in Iraq deserve the freedoms we Americans enjoy, like due process under the law and no unwarranted search and ceasure. Becuase we're liberators, not conquerers, so we can do what ever we please...
... But judges have to pay income taxes too. Think about it.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
They've been trying to nail George Galloway, the British MP and one of the leaders of the British antiwar movement, for years now. They've spent millions trying to prove he enriched himself from the oil-for-food program via his charity, the Mariam Appeal.
They've failed miserably.
You may remember Galloway when he testified before the US Congress and ripped them a new one. You can watch that performance here
Tuesday Parliament suspended Galloway for 18 days for defending himself against these spurious, neocon-produced charges. You can see his response to that here
This law is intended to enable George Bush to basically do anything he wants to someone he designates as "undermining the reconstruction of Iraq" - which is a phrase meaning absolutely nothing - and thus anything. While Galloway is not a US citizen and is not subject to this law, the concept clearly emerges directly from the attempted persecution of Galloway by neocons in the US Senate and elsewhere.
The essence of this law is that anyone opposing Bush and the neocons is by their definition a "criminal" and their property can be seized for the benefit of those same neocons.
We need to replace Bush and Cheney with George Galloway and Russia's Putin - we'd finally have two intelligent, straight-talking politicians in the White House instead of these lying, thieving pieces of shit we have now.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I can has internets haxy?
The order in question is made under the IEEPA, which regulated the power of the President to declare emergencies in 1977. Prior to the IEEPA, the Executive branch had, in practice, much broader and more vague powers to seize propery and in general make life miserable for entities who were deemed to be causing trouble. In theory, any specific action taken under this order would still be subject to scrutiny by courts and might possibly be overturned on 5th Amendment grounds. But the IEEPA makes it necessary to at least specify a particular criterion for taking this kind of action.
This is not a self-referential sig.
There have been news reports of an illegal smuggling of Iraqi terrorists across the Mexican border. Most likely they were aided and abedded by someone in the USA and the laws simply do not cover this as a crime other than human trafficing until a terrorist attack has been committed. My guess is that loophole has been closed for a specific person or two.
Comments supportive of this bill are presumed to be from the government task force created and funded to provide paid government bloggers who will spread disinformation into the blogosphere. It's a frontpage story now,:
p _Pentagon_0717.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Nowhere_to_go_but_u
but it's been going on to some extent for a long time. It's a little hard to spot sometimes, but in instances like this, where there is such an obvious potential for abuse and you see so many 'seemingly' oblivious posters supporting such calamity, it only stands to reason where it's coming from. After all, the slashdot crowd is generally a lot smarter than that.
Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
FFFFFFFFUD!
This is not a Fifth Amendment issue any more than the Police impounding your car if you've been speeding excessively.
This reads more like an expansion of the Neutrality Act which came after WWI (I think) that makes it illegal to provide material support against a foreign government with whom the U.S. is not at war. This looks like an expansion beyond armaments, combat vehicles, etc. and into things like, for example, cell phones. Remember the people who have been caught buying lots of disposable cell phones so they can be used to trigger bombs?
About a month ago the Feds also busted a very influential and historically significant Laotian general who was preparing arms for the Muong to fight against the Laotian Communist government who rapes and tortures them.
If you have no property to freeze, you have nothing to fear. ;-)
You are quite right, just as in the 2nd, the independent clause is the one that protects the right to keep _and bear_ arms. The well regulated militia is dependent and probably a rationalization Jefferson provided to slide it past his federalist compatriots, "militia? Oh, yeah! We just finished fighting those redcoats didn't we?" Seriously, how many modern readers KNOW the difference in significance between a comma and a semicolon.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The fourth is violated by the same edict as well, but the real thrust is to prevent the use, or transfer of property, which is a Fifth Amendment issue, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." They are deprived of something without any evidence of due process, and going through the Treasury Department circumvents the "due process" that Justice invoke. If they decide after 10 years or so the whole thing was a mistake, the victim won't even get interest or back rent from the government.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
I love how people use wikipedia as a source when it's not a very good source to use in the first place, even for definitions when there are far more reliable sources to use. Please people use a source that is solid not something that any joe blow can edit or slant, especially on the internet. We are relying far to greatly on the internet to define everything rather than sources we readily and easily get from the actual source. With as much garbage that is on the internet these days and the fact that any nutcase or psycho with an agenda can create a website that looks credible does not constitute as a good source.
Any one of us can have our assets frozen by this order. All you have to do is threaten Iraq's economy. It is conceivable, and precedented, that anyone who speaks badly about this order will be interpreted as threatening Iraq's economy.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Hey, I am Dubya The Dolt, I have an idea, let us (ie: wipe my feet on the Constitution, in stark contrast to my oath of office) attack the symptoms (ie: near universal understanding of those who want the American killers out of their country) of the problem, not the problem itself (ie: force-feeding so-called government/capitalism to people who have rejected it for the last 3000+ years).
This is strange times indeed. Bush seems bent on making the US into a fascist totalitarian dictatorship where the (for now, that will probably change) elected president decides pretty much everything. At the same time we see china opening up and slowly inching towards market echonomy and because of that slowly into a democracy. In ten years the US and China will meet halfway through with China capturing more and more of the worlds mindshare. The US is going down the road of the Roman empire, dying because of power struggles, rampant greed and corruption in all levels of society.
HTTP/1.1 400
Hmm, I wonder whose assets they are planning on seizing. I bet George Soros is high on the list.
I suggest you read David Ray Griffins excellent book "Debunking 911 Debunking".
He provides a huge amount of logical rebuttal to the official Goverment conspiracy theory, making popular mechanics amongst others look like shills for the Bush government. The conclusion is 911 was bush & co arranged as a pretext to invade two countries (Afgahnistan after the Taliban refused to provide protection for the UNOCAL pipeline) and Iraq (After Saddaam, (who btw the CIA employed to assisinate Qasim the president of IRAQ in 1959) didn't learn his lesson and started selling oil in Euros threatening the $US fiat dominance. It has also been used to erode many rights of US citizens, where it seems you are heading toward capalistic fascism.46137
Here, let me fix your phrasing for you:
There, now it represents the facts. Such facts include creation and enforcement of ex post facto laws, laws and actions with regard to all attempts to regulate intrastate commerce, direct suppression of free speech, laws that infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, attempts to suspend habeas corpus, failure to allow citizens access to legal representation, failure to provide for public trial in the case of criminal prosecution, and a huge variety of offenses against personal liberty, such as telling you what you can put into your own body, what you can do with a consenting, informed adult, and what you may read, view, and say in the privacy of your own home, tapping the communications of US citizens without warrants... the list is long and reads like the plotting of a master criminal organization. Because that it what it represents.
Also, for what it is worth in this nightmare of constitutionally bewildered hand waving, the fourth amendment is the amendment that describes how seizure of property must be performed:
This boils down to (a) Probable cause, (b) Oath or affirmation, (c) Warrant.
The fifth also deals with takings of property for public use. When it says "due process" with regard to criminal proceedings, following the fourth, they expect you to have read the fourth as well as the fifth. So you really want to look at the fourth to see what they meant by "due process."
But... if you want to castigate the government for the 5th, then all you have to do is look at the supreme court's claim that the states can take property simply for the purpose of resale to a non-government entity with the goal of increasing tax revenue. The fifth enables takings for public use. Some real estate developer putting up buildings that are more taxable than yours is not by any stretch of the imagination putting the taken land to "public use." The relevant portion of the fifth is as follows:
Technical details aside, we know the constitution specifically meant to prevent this. It is a general document, and so it doesn't address this particular act of injustice directly, but it certainly addresses all the issues in plain English. Secret court and determination? No. Public Trial. Seizure without said trial? No. Warrant, oath or affirmation, probable cause, right to trial. It is as plain as day if we are honest with ourselves and we recognize that the federal government's legitimate operating range is defined by the constituting authority that is the US constitution itself.
If a person does not believe that, then I am not sure what exactly they think sets the limits of the government's authority, or if they think there are any such limits.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You'll note that the Scooter Libby commutation story was posted here on Slashdot almost immediately. Whereas the Valerie Plame suit being dismissed was not. (and probably won't)
Slashdot has always been this way, with the editors posting what they want.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Potential impeachment of a wanna-be tyrant and his sock-puppet?
here and here.
"It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen..."
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
Representatives from the ACLU are still studying the executive order. But preliminarily, says spokeswoman Liz Rose, the order appears to expand the assets-seizure provisions of the Patriot Act, known as Section 806, to organizations linked to Iraqi insurgent groups. Much like the order, Section 806 allows the government to seize assets of banned organizations without prior notice and without a conviction of involvement in banned activity. "It is by far the most significant change (in the law) of which political organizations need to be aware," the ACLU wrote in 2002, contending that the vagueness of Section 806 potentially implicates legitimate political protest as well as material support for terrorism. "
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Things in the USA would turn out very differently. It wouldn't just be CA it would be all the gun toting freedom loving people east of the CA coast range. (West of the coast range they would just talk and give each other blow jobs, same as Boston. Everywhere in between would be no-fed land!)
If they pushed so hard as to inspire open revolt the US government wouldn't last a week. Knowing this they don't.
Saddam could maintain control because he was paying off his 'cousins' (the Sunnis) who made up a good 1/3 of the country he could count on. In the USA there is no such group. The only people really beholding to the government are those on the dole (no threat, they hold their pistols sideways and can't hit the side of a barn), federal employees who can't find their butt with both hands and a map (again, no threat) and the military (who largely come from the population that will be doing the revolting and who's obligation to the government is tempered by the fact they are pledged to support the constitution which they basically read as I do).
I don't think you understand the prisoners dilemma. Historically there are two possible outcomes, everybody stays quite or everybody speaks up. When they try to take all the guns everybody that counts (that is to say armed people) will speak up (and give them the bullets first), bet your bottom dollar.
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun! (Mao)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...that supports pulling out of Iraq, do you take his bank account?
If we pull out of Iraq, no democracy...therefore...
...when any of this legislation actually affects any single person who has posted something like "omfg bush is a nazi" or "where is the outrage america wtf". Until then, all of you are just bitching about a ruling by which none of us will ever be touched. Stop pretending you understand what this kind of power is for, and where it will be used.
It is the same as with the PATRIOT act: Unless you are a terrorist, none of this will affect you in any way whatsoever.
But still feel free to pretend you understand any of what's going on in the higher levels of government. And most definitely feel free to post absolute bullshit remarks involving impeaching the President for war crimes. This is a free country after all; ignorance is still allowed.
Slashdot. What has become of you?
The Reichstag Fire Decree in 1933 Germany granted the government additional temporary powers to fight terrorism at the expense of its citizens civil liberties and due process.
This decree was one of the keys steps that led Adolf Hitler to the one-party dictatorship that ultimately culminated in World War II resulting in the death of some 60 million people.
[)amien
I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised as of late. The Federalist takeover started with Lincoln and the Civil War.
If you are REALLY concerned about the size and scope of the government's power in our lives, check out http://www.stopwithholding.com/
The government is being funded to such a high level because few people are aware of the problem! Stopping Withholding of income taxes will show people the size of the monster they are funding.
enough said
Are there any foreign bank accounts US Citizens are allowed to deposit money into that are safe and free from US Federal Harassment?
I can see the next step as targeting people who donated to groups such as the ACLU or whatever (they did it for communists), and I think I'm getting weary of keeping all my eggs in one basket. The IRS could literally just take all of your money from your bank accounts (and property too!) and you would be totally fucked!
Anti-capitalist,anti-business,anti-Islam,anti-Asia n,pro-european.... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
HEIL HITLER!
An interesting twist here is that if your assets are seized, you cannot pay counsel to defend you. If counsel donates their time, they are aiding you, which renders them subject to seizure...
Jonathan S. Shapiro (The EROS Guy)
There are lots of normal people with good reason to be freaked out by this.
Here's a reasonable discussion of this unreasonable Executive Order that has actual Constitutional scholars commenting, not just a bunch of anonymous Slashdotters with more time at a keyboard than any credible sense.
--
make install -not war
Slashdot's main problem is how easy it is for some unaccountable Anonymous Coward like you to jump in early in a discussion, post some meaningless denial without anything to back it up, and say something arch to look like you're an authority.
The Fifth Amendment would be overturned by this order, which contains exactly the orders that violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process in retaining our property rights, if it were upheld by a court. Due process requires that a court review any such seizure order, but thie Executive Order discards that requirement. It's just a king seizing property of people the king doesn't like, for any reason (or none). By the time you've got a court to pay attention, the damage has been done. Likely enough damage that you can't muster what it takes to fight the king in a court of law.
And if you can't see that obvious conflict, then you're not an American. Not a democratic/republican/Constitutional American. You're a Republican, at best. Why do you hate America? Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward, is that you?
--
make install -not war
Ron Paul
Bush cited the ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to national security and foreign policy of the United States
Yeah, fuck right. Same as what der Führer did. In a few months we'll all be out on the streets chanting "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer". Way to go. Glad I don't live in the US. One such maniac is enough for a long time.
I don't understand what the uproar is either, this is an order focused mostly at non-US citizens, in the event it hits someone under US jurisdiction or with standing to sue, the only claim being made is that there will be no notice of asset freeze. The lack of notice will be challenged, but nothing is being said that implies that once notice occurs due process is vacated. quite the contrary, the summary goes out of its way to say the only change is that notice isnt occurring before hand
Huh?
Who cares who submitted the story? Will you ignore the actions of Bush just because you happen to dislike the guy who handed you the article? That kind of thinking can only make sense to a lunatic. I've noticed rather a lot of lunatics rising to the surface lately.
-FL
The sentence is clear. The second "or" is in a different clause than the first. It is part of a clause that specifies what the purpose or effect of the (expected) violence must be for the order to apply.
In other words, rather than expanding the scope of the order to "thought crimes", it restricts the scope to violence or conspiracy to commit violence that has a specific purpose - undermining recovery efforts in Iraq.
The letter I wrote to my Democratic representative was much more harsh in regards to the president and his past behavior, I'm much more delicate when speaking to my Republican Senators as Mr. Hatch is the prime example of someone that will write you off in a minute if he thinks you are a democrat or even slightly on the democratic side, even though the Iraq war has turned a fair number of moderate independents and undeclared republicans in the state to vote democratic. Finally, parts of this post were stolen from another that I felt was a bit too inflammatory, wasn't concise or to the point (nor is mine), and suffered from a bit of childishness in discussion such that I felt the need to modify it to express my concerns. Anyway, here goes...
Senator Hatch:
I am writing to you today regarding A recent Executive Order signed on the 17th by President Bush. Said order entitled: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" represents an assault on the basic principle of the constitution, namely that government cannot seize property without due process. In my opinion this represents blatant violations of the law by the executive.
Section 5 of the order states:
"Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order."
That is, in the President's determination alone it would be to slow to actually follow due process and would allow the transfer of funds out of reach of the government. Therefore he has determined that it is in the national security interests of the country to seize assets of those he alone determines are attempting to undermine or harm the Iraqi government. But the order provides no follow up judicial review and has no provisions for living expenses or assets (would limit damage to innocent people improperly identified or mistakenly added), which could render individuals homeless without the ability to challenge a national security order in the courts.
The broad scope of this order would allow the freezing of assets of those protesting the USA's continued participation in the Iraq war, because no definition is given for undermining the Iraqi government or the conditions necessary. I expect that this will be misused, much like the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act, and innocent people will have their assets frozen without judicial review or due process of law.
Not only that, but the entire claim by the President that due process would be so slow that the assets could be protected or moved offshore and would negatively impact national security is preposterous at best as there are currently measures that would allow a partial freeze (an immediate temporary injunction baring the financial institutions from transfer) that would prevent transfer but not the use of the assets. And I find the claim that the national security of this nation would be so threatened by someone not supporting the current regime in Iraq that it would necessitate the freezing of all assets of those individuals, including citizens or businesses of this nation.
Violation of property rights without judicial oversight is a violation of the constitution and due process of law, and property rights are a principle guarantee of the constitution and a major concern for myself, and dare I say most westerners. For without due process, judicial oversight and the ability to challenge the order before an impartial court the freezing of assets is nothing more than theft by the government eith
It's all part of the same old story.
Ever notice just how many conservatives are happy to lose their tempers? They give jobs to those rare conservatives who know how to talk without swearing. The rest of them just don't have what it takes to rise above the title of, "expendable flag-waving grunt". You might want to consider that next time you open your mouth.
Anyway the point in question is indeed the wording. . .
Yes, indeed, that certainly does sound pretty cut and dried. A guy selling "Bush Lied, They Died" tee shirts is in the clear, isn't he?
Except. . , well, who exactly gets to determine what an, "Act of Violence" is? --Or what might be considered a "significant risk?" Not you or me. That's the Secretary of the Treasury's job, (in consultation, of course with the Secretary of Defense, which can essentially be read simply, "As determined by the Bush administration"). --Does shouting at the president count as an act of violence? Does saying in a blog, "We should hang the bastards" count as a significant risk of committing an act of violence? Well, that determination is up to Bush and his crew.
But that's just the small fry stuff. It gets better. . ,
Ah. So now you can also be nailed by this law if you contribute services which benefit those opposed to America's presence in Iraq.
And, deary me, what constitutes a service which benefits those opposed to America's presence in Iraq?
Does putting up posters which say, "Napalming Iraqi children is Wrong. Bring our troops home!" --That could certainly be deemed to erode military spirit and thus provide a service to the "enemy". That guy with the "Bush Lied, They Died" tee-shirts is suddenly a fair bit closer to thea mite closer to the grey zone covered by this XO, isn't he?
This law can be used as it appears; to penalize those who sell materiel to freedom fighters. All well and good. But should the 'need' arise, it can also be ill-used to penalize people for using something as simple as their freedom of speech. And THAT is what people are complaining about.
This law can without question be read that way, and with the supreme court stacked as it is, you wouldn't get much of a fair hearing should you slip into that grey zone and try to contest it. This bill was written by people (who were given jobs) and who are much more technically clever with small print than you, and thus I would assume that it was intended to be misleading to people who just glance at it without being thoughtful.
Perhaps conservatives need to spend more time being thoughtful and less time being quick to anger and highly reactionary with their "dumb-ass" comments.
-FL
Wednesday, the world was a little different
*Sigh* Another American who belives US == the world
It may have been explained elsewhere but I will do so just to make sure This is not a violation of due process or the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment refers to a permanent deprivation. For example, imagine you have just been arrested on suspicion of robbing a convenient store. You are taken to jail and locked up until your hearing when you may be given the option of posting bail. You were deprived of liberty while locked up and without any sort of hearing. This happens everyday at the county jail. Another example: Any person can go to a Court and request a temporary restraining order preventing another person from doing X. If the person can demonstrate a legitimate claim/reason and can demonstrate that the controversy will become moot without prompt action, the Court can issue the preliminary injunction "Ex parte." The other party is not notified nor given a chance to respond before having their property frozen. After that, a hearing or trial will be held to determine whether the injunction will become permanent. Again, this is not a violation of due process and is not a violation of the 5th amendment as the headline claims.
So by this logic, Hillary Clinton's campaign fund can be frozen. Any suggestion of pulling out of Iraq would certainly meet the requirements....
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I would argue "no", and I hope our Supreme Court would agree with me.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
First of all, the poster wasn't necessarily trying to define emergency. They were stating that emergencies are "situations that are out of the ordinary and demand immediate attention and that have a definite end". Let's compare that with your definition: "a sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action." OK, "unforeseen" seems to imply "out of the ordinary", "demand immediate attention" seems to imply "crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action", so "definite end" is really the only difference, right? Well, after a while, things that never end are no longer unforeseen, right? Where you're right is that the OP seems to imply that there be a knowable end. What starts as an emergency can eventually become a chronic problem. At that point, it's no longer an emergency, by the very definition you gave. Do you think the Iraq war now constitutes "a sudden unforeseen crisis"?
I'll grant you there are a lot of liberals who jump on Bush for things they would have forgiven Clinton for, just as there are a lot of conservatives who jumped on Clinton for things they are willing to now forgive Bush for. If you really believe that only liberals do this, then I think you're not really paying attention. Note: this does not excuse the behavior of those liberals who either go overboard in attacking Bush (as you and others have said, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to challenge Bush) or who are far too quick to forgive politicians they like.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
However, I have watched the entire Loose Change video. With my own knowledge of physics, I was then able to debunk it for the friend who sent me the link. (The only reason I watched the whole thing is because he asked me to explain to him any flaws in their theories.)
9/11 might have been used post-hoc as a pretext to invade Afghanistan (unlikely) and Iraq (probable), but if it was a government conspiracy (it wasn't), then it certainly didn't go down the way the Loose Change folks describe.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Orrin Hatch? Good luck prying his lips off GWB's pulsing rectum long enough to give you a serious response.
(emphasis mine)
Bill? What bill? This is an executive order. The president makes it, and if you want to argue, you have to take it up with Congress (to explicitly override it) or the courts (to declare it unconstitutional or otherwise illegal).
Good luck.
(PS. I'm not a lawyer; this is just my understanding, and could be somewhat incorrect. But the gist I'm sure of.)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
There hasn't been much media notice of this; the UK's Guardian has an article explaining how the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.
terrorist /terorist/ -noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who disagrees with or criticizes Emperor Bush.
[Origin: 1785-95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste]
--Related forms
terroristic, adjective
Because remaining armed has been what has stopped the government from getting out of control in the first place.
You don't need a Phd in game theory or history to understand that an armed populous is the ultimate check on government power.
Further if push comes to shove many things will happen in a cascade. Gun confiscation, if it happens, will be part of a bigger government power grab. If for example President Hillary decides to suspend the 2012 elections she will also need to grab all the guns just to protect herself. A (R) would have no better luck, (likely worse, they'd get shot by people they trust. A (D) would get shot by someone they didn't know).
I am concerned that very few on the left understand the need to arm themselves and learn to shoot straight. I suppose it's just in their nature as dreamers.
Those engaging in hyperbole today aren't helping. If it becomes necessary those that have cried wolf will undermine their own position based on their track record of being wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ron Paul is the locus of a second American revolution.
The people on the left are usually the ones cheering on the out of control government. E.G. USSR, Red China, Nazi Germany (National Socialists), Cambodia etc etc etc.
Canada has had gun control for what 20 years. There's still plenty of time for your government to get further out of control.
Afghanistan has lots of problems, but too strong a central government is not one of them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe I'm giving the president way too much credit, but I'm pretty sure the phrases "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" and "to have materially assisted, [...] such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order" can NOT be interpreted as "I'll seize your property if you disagree with me."
If disagreeing and.or protesting is considered an act of violence, then the problems in America run much deeper than the president. And if someone is attempting to violently hinder reconstruction in Iraq, or financially aid it, I don't think it is unreasonable to sieze their assets until they are tried in a court of law.
That said, I expect there are very few Americans aiding resistance in Iraq, financially or otherwise.
We're talking about two dimensions here -- civil rights, and gun ownership. The Democratic party in the U.S. supports civil rights and opposes widespread gun ownership, usually, while the Republican party makes up the other half, currently. Not every country works this way. In particular, you're confusing Republicans with Libertarians, and Democrats with Socialists.
In the U.S., the out-of-control government is Republican, and that's the team with the most guns. As a previous poster pointed out, the ones with guns are supporting the same government that's running the constitution through a paper shredder one page at a time. Those red-blooded Texans that I actually referred to as the potential revolutionaries in my earlier post are the ones who would be suppressed by a majority of fellow Texan soldiers who strongly support the government. My point is that you can't depend on the militant portion of the population to be the resistance against an overreaching government.
For a contrasting example, see Ireland in 1920. There, the IRA was able to hold some power against the British by stockpiling arms among those who resisted the oppressive government. It's an interesting case for gun rights as a safeguard against foreign tyranny, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to the situation in the U.S.
(Naturally, fixing the problems from within the existing system is preferable to violent revolution, since even under Bush, it's really not that bad yet, compared to, say, Russia.)
Have you been asleep for the last twenty years?
Democrats only support some civil rights for some people. They are certainly not pro-freedom of speech. Who implemented speech codes on campuses? Who wants to nationalize 10%+ of the economy (and remove all choice)? Who wants to take an ever increasing share of your income?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The reds didn't throw out the czar. The white russians (pro democracy and generally conservative in the modern sense did).
The reds were fighting against a faction that wanted a European style democracy. Calling the Czar conservative ignores the current use of the term.
As to the Nazi's Wiki conveniently ignores the Nazi position on state control of industry, and their anti-semitic anti-business/capital position. They were not just socialist in name, they were socialist.
Even taking Wiki at face value of 'political use of militarism, nationalism, anti-communism, holism, paramilitaries, and intended to create a totalitarian state.' that's 4/5 leftest principles (militarism, nationalism, holism, paramilitaries and totalitarianism are all common leftest outcomes, some they share.)
The real problem you have is what you consider 'left' is not what the left has produced in the last 100 years. Should we judge them by their words or actions?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The whites threw out the Czar and held him and his family prisoner for about a year. After the reds captured them they were executed. If that makes them monarchists I must not understand the term.
Socialists still. Being anti capitalist is what makes someone left. They are defined by what they oppose. Nazis were anti-capitalist.
Fascism effectively controlled all industries. Some owners played along to keep some control of their stakes. They all did what they were told.
Socialism is inherently authoritarian. You can't run a command economy without lots of authority. (As snooty as you are I'd hope you understand the difference between command economies and free market ones?) One measure of economic freedom is the % of GDP spent my the government (lower is better).
As to your final comment, same to you. I do understand there is more then one spectrum. Socialist libertarian is a oxymoron. Socialism requires authority such that libertarianism is off the table.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'