Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment

Posted by kdawson on from the deprived-of-life-liberty-or-property-without-due-process-of-law dept.

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.

9 of 853 comments (clear)

  1. We're in a national emergency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003

  2. Historically speaking by Ravenscall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....
  3. Re:Inflammatory misleading headline by eln · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    The language is ridiculously broad and does appear to violate the 5th amendment. It appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. The language is very broad and open to interpretation by the Secretary of the Treasury, who serves at the pleasure of the President. This is absolutely begging to be abused.

  4. Bush just got his "legacy". by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Along with Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus.

    From the Executive Order:

    I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by 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, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.

    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.
  5. Stop using the term "executive order" by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Two important points that prove Slashdot != digg by Minter92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"

  7. Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!! by uarch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not partisan to protect the 5th amendment.

    The complaint the poster had is that the headline "Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment" is intentionally misleading and just another one of kdawson's political rants.

  8. Re:MOD UP by Petrushka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how many people commenting here are aware of the nature of this "emergency". Here's a WP article on it that gives the full text of the executive order declaring the emergency. The neutrality of the WP article is "disputed", but here are the salient bits of Executive Order 13303:

    I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

    I hereby order:

    Section 1

    Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

    (a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, 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.

    So, yes, the reason the fifth amendment has been overturned is for the express purpose of immunising U.S. oil companies against any legal action relating to anything they choose to do in Iraq.

  9. Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!! by Grave · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Fifth Amendment states:

    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 Fifth Amendment in no way specifies exclusions. In fact, it very bluntly states, "nor shall any person". So if just a single person is subject to the sort of search and seizure described by this executive order, it has violated the fifth amendment.

    Now, I'm not clear how you can view being upset by this executive order a "political rant". This isn't politics, it's a violation of the very principles that this country was founded on. The recent attempts by congress and the executive branch to defeat our constitution's provisions for the rights of US citizens makes me angry. Not that-guy-just-cut-me-off angry; not the-power-went-out-just-as-I-was-about-to-defeat-t hat-boss angry. Angry to the point of wanting to run for office to make sure no other dipshit tries to pull this kind of thing off.