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.
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?
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!
"...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.
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?
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".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
The part you quote is just the preamble and carries no legal weight.
The summary is mistaken, yes (though not dishonest). The actual situation is far worse than Slashdot's summary describes.
The actual language refers to persons who "have committed, or... pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of" undermining etc.
In other words, you do not have to do anything to be affected by this law. All the Secretary has to assert is that you were probably going to do something that had a bad effect.
Whether you had the intention to undermine Iraqi reconstruction is irrelevant. Whether you actually did anything is irrelevant.
This isn't just overturning the 5th Amendment, it's erasing it and replacing it with thoughtcrime.
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.
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
Watch the press for a few years and it's patently obvious that "word comes from above" when anything like this happens.
The medium is the message. If you watch TV, you won't see anything of any real importance. Get out of TVLand and you'll find a wide variety of news and opinion. The fact is, Americans have become fat and lazy. Most of us get our "news" from the medium that is least capable of providing insight and understanding, and most geared toward instant emotional gratification.
As an aside, if you'd ever worked in government, you'd know that there is no Ministry of Information Control. Your "patently obvious" observation is just a way of ducking the real problem. The real problem is the laziness of the American public. We are throwing away our republic. We should be throwing away our televisions.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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?
Namaste
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.
Uh, I don't think you parsed that English correctly, that's not what the sentence says.
...
Let me cut out some of the extra fluff. The first sentence says
"I find that, due to unusual threats posed by violence in Iraq and efforts undermining economic reconstruction in Iraq, it's in US interest to take additional steps. I hereby order..."
The first paragraph is just an introduction. It says that the point of the Executive Order is to hurt those who are trying to hurt Iraq; that has no legally binding meaning, except as a justification to why it's being done.
I also don't have a problem with the gov't blocking bank accounts of terrorists. They already do this. Part (i) of Section 1 goes after people who are doing the terrorism. Part (iii) is the interesting one:
"""
(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
"""
See what happens there? They aren't referring to terrorists; they are referring to people who may be indirectly linked to terrorists. That's where the privacy rights people get up in arms. If I buy oil from the Saudis, and the Saudis donate the money to a charity which turns it over to terrorists, do I "indirectly" help them out? Who gets to define what "indirect" means; if it's the executive branch, it isn't a jury of your peers...
Ambiguity like this covers a wide swath of activities. I'm not claiming something crazy like they are going to start arresting people for buying gas, but it's not hard to read this order as "we now have the power to arbitrarily arrest people, but we only plan to apply it to terrorists."
I wish the logic said the power "CAN only" be used against terrorism. But instead, they the new power is claimed encompassing some ill-defined "indirect contributors" group, and a press release was made saying it "WILL only" be used against terrorism. The later depends on you trusting the government to hold its word; doesn't always seem to be true.
I don't have a problem with the gov't blocking the bank accounts of terrorists!
Even if they decide your mother is a terrorist?
And don't try help her out with her defense cause you'll get your assets frozen too.
And be very careful which candidates you support, if they say the wrong thing...
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.
What part of whether the executive order is valid or invalid do you think will impact the executive branch's decision to enforce it?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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.
As a practical matter, though, it is valid until a court says otherwise, since the Dept. of the Treasury will treat it as valid, and so will your bank.
And as long as it's only used against legitimate threats, courts will be reluctant to declare it invalid, since that will also mean letting some scumbag off. And the more often it's wielded successfully, the more validity it accrues through precedent. Of course it is always possible, no matter how long this has gone on, for a court to strike it down on Constitutional grounds, but it becomes less likely.
For a real-world example of a very similar sequence of events, consider the court decisions from Miller to now regarding gun control. By the time you get to an outright ban on automatic weapons in the 80s, you've got a clear violation of the 2nd (whether you think that's a good idea or not is beside the point), based entirely on a chain of precedents going all the way back to Miller. It's arguable that Miller was, itself, bad case law. But it doesn't matter now, because it's been upheld as valid for so long.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
How're you going to petition a judge without a lawyer? How'll you get a lawyer without your bank account?
That's the real danger in this Executive Order. They've given themselves the right to deprive you of most of your liquid assets without placing you in jail (where you would have access to some legal defense through the the public defender service).
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
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.
I don't think they could link protesters to this. The person needs to be directly and knowingly assisting terrorist activities related to Iraq in order to be covered by this order.
...then your assets can be frozen. Remember the rhetoric about how the anti-war movement was emboldening terrorists, and encouraging them to keep fighting? It wouldn't be a terrible stretch to claim that opposing the war "has the effect of threatening the stability of the Government of Iraq".
Unfortunately not. Check this:
(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:
This means that whether or not you intended to support terrorist activities, if the executive branch determines that your actions had "the 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;
What if you loudly oppose and try to stop the gargantuan no-bid Iraq reconstruction contracts being awarded to corrupt US contractors like Haliburton and Bechtel? Sounds pretty close to "having the effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction".
Now, perhaps a jury of our peers would think differently, but if you're asking the underlings of the president to make the judgment calls on this, such stretches of logic are entirely possible, and therefore very likely.
From the Whitehouse link, right before the section you quoted, it says: FYI, the Secretaries of Treasury, State, and Defense are all part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial, hence the apt phrase "secret process outside the courts" which you objected to.
Your claim that the well defined legal term treason is identical to the secret determination of a group of three members of the Bush administration that I merely pose a risk of committing violence in order to change their insane policies in Iraq (which they could easily interpret as undermining their efforts there) is worthy of Kafka.
According to you, if I go to a large demonstration against the Bush Iraq policies and there is a significant threat that there may be violence there then I am a traitor to my country. Sheesh. There is a significant threat of violence just driving to the damned demonstration.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
Have you see the bullshit our government has been doing to our country (and others) over the past 7 years? If you don't think we're in a national emergency, you haven't been paying attention.
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.
Read it again.
You're not in error, you're simply not reading it from the perspective of what the power claimed in the Executive Order can be used for. The stuff you talk about in item #3 in your list isn't a limitation on that power, and the Executive Order is expanding it.
Also, let's say that Congress does repeal IEEP. That means that the few limits on the power (items of non-value, CD's, microfiches, etc.) would be wiped out, and it would give the President the power to pretty much do whatever he (or she) wants. That's what the IEEP was passed in the first place, to say that the power isn't without limit.
Of course, this administration doesn't recognize any limits on its power. When it does run up against a legal wall, it simply ignores the wall and does whatever it wants to anyway. Like I said, if you trust these guys, I think you're a bit naive and I obviously disagree with your assessment of their character. But more importantly, you're also setting the precedent that whomever is in office next (likely one of those evil liberal Democrats) will have the same powers.
If that's okay with you, then sure, go ahead and ignore the klaxons. It's not so okay with me, though.
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.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?