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.

Comments

"...not much media notice"

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:Sounds like...

[Mycroft_514]

Yeah, the one Cindy Sheehan just sold.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[w3woody]

The order gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to immediately and without notice freeze all assets of anyone suspected of either directly or indirectly attempting to undermine the Iraqi government as well as anyone who has financial dealings, directly or indirectly, with such people.

No; the relevant section linked in the original article states:

Section 1(a)(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: ...
Section 1(a)(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 ...
Section 1(a)(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. (ie., blocked because they are intent upon committing or supporting violence, as in section 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii) above.)

Sections 2 and 3 support the clauses set forth in section 1. (The "prohibitions set forth in this order" language in section 2, for example, refer to the text in section 1.)

It's not good enough for the purposes of this order to be engaged in transactions with people in Iraq--it also requires that the purpose of those transactions is to either directly or indirectly support violence in Iraq.

To suggest that this violates the fifth amendment is absurd: when a police officer, on arresting someone and discovering a gun in that person's belt buckle then removes the gun--is that a violation of the person's fifth amendment rights? Please...

Re:Except

[GSwarthout]

Wow, an "informative" mod for pure conjecture.

Re:Inaccurate write up

[DaveV1.0]

What part of "acts of violence" do you not understand, dumb-ass?

Are you really so ignorant as to be unable to read a simple sentence?

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Why would this issue be different from any other? We are geeks, a necessary part of our enjoyment of life is splitting microscopic hairs.

Normally, only a handful of soulless geeks support evil oppression when working for a corporation that does paid work providing tools to the Chinese government to track and capture and jail dissidents.

But that's over there. This is over here. This is different.