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.
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?
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
"...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....
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.
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.
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 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.
It's amazing how often this comes up. The media is -not- controled by the government. It doesn't have to be. All the US media is right now is a platform for whomever seems to know what theyre talking about to speak with the world unchallenged. We dont have a muzzled media, we just have an ignorant 24/7-entertainment-economy driven one. That means, without external control, it happens to coincidentally serve the interests of mobs, governments, and people wishing to dish out misinformation unchallenged (in any serious manner). Who gets to get on the soapbox? Wealthy People Powerful People Pretty People (ie, your old high school popular-kids clique)
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.
The US Government has been freezing the assets of those it determines to be "bad guys" for a long long time now, well before GWB was a twinkle in his mother eye. If this violates the 5th ammendment then we have been doing so for many decades.
Personally, I don't think it's so much that the media is controlled by the government, but rather that both the media and government are largely controlled by the same interests.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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.
If you freeze my assets, I have no use of them. That is the same as seizure. If the Supreme Court has decided otherwise, that's a pretty lousy decision in my opinion.
As for the IRS seizing property, there is at least some sort of process that happens before they do that. They don't just go in without any prior warning and take everything. It's arguable if what they do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than what this order gives the Treasury Department the authority to do.
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
The original and unabridged order is linked in the summary, go read it. The problem with relying on the Secretaries of Defense and State to serve as checks and balances with this is that all three of those officials are Executive Branch people who serve at the pleasure of the President. If the President orders this for a particular person, chances are good that all three of these people will rubber-stamp it. You cannot have true checks and balances existing entirely within one branch of the government.
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?
The US government has been violating the Constitution from pretty much the day it was ratified. This is why people need to realize that the Constitution really is "just a piece of paper" in the sense that it can't do anything to defend your rights. Individuals always have the ultimate responsibility for defending themselves, their rights, and their property.
"You have as much Freedom as you are willing to demand, and as you are capable of defending." has never been more true.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
If you freeze my assets, I have no use of them. That is the same as seizure.
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
It's arguable if what they do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than what this order gives the Treasury Department the authority to do.
Uh, you do know that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, don't you? The bottom line is, as has been pointed out by numerous posters, this kind of authority is not unusual, nor is it a violation of the fifth amendment.
Hope is the currency of fools
Do you think a suspected drunk driver gets a trial before his car is seized? No. How about someone whith what appears to the officer to be cocaine on the front seat? No.
He gets his car back if he's proven innocent, so he's not permanently deprived of it. But it's seized and used as evidence against him first. In some cases, he has to sue to get the property back even though he was acquitted or the charges were dropped.
Also, a search warrant isn't a trial, but it at least needs a judge.
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.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Where do you live that this happens? I've never lived anywhere where someone picked up for suspected DWI gets his car 'seized'.
If no one can not drive it home for said person, they will often tow it to impound, but, for the towing fee, the person or his designated actor can pay the fee and get the car back.
Maybe it varies from state to state.
Depending on where you live..if you're tanked and pulled over. Best thing (according to the lawyers I've spoken with) is to not say a word, and just hold your hands out for the cuffs. Don't take any field tests...they are just trying to collect evidence on you.
Also, refuse to take any tests at the station...you can start by refusing until your lawyer gets there (risky, even with the extra time, your BAC may still be at the ridiculously low .08)....best to just refuse.
Depends on the state you are in...you will most likely get charged with reckless driving, still lots of fines, and possibly termination of driving privs for a year, but, at least is not a DWI. Often, with good lawyer you can get restricted driving privs back to go to work, etc.
Anyway, as you see...DWI laws can vary greatly from state to state.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Here's the relevant portion of the 5th (with my emphasis)... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; If the government can block my access to my property, then I can make no use of it, hence I am deprived of it. Are we really going to try to split some microscopic hair over this? Does anyone really believe that the writers of the Constitution meant for something like this to be legal? Unfortunately Congress probably can't do a thing about this, and it will have to go to the Supreme Court to be resolved, which can take quite a while. Of course in the meantime, the administration will be doing as they please. I'm so glad that Bush loves freedom so much that he's willing to go to these lengths to preserve it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
Important note: the "in time of War or public danger" clause applies to those in the military in service at such times. My other comment on this Executive Order is this. First note that this is an Executive Order
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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,
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.
1) They have a warrant
2) Eminent domain
You are probably right that this happens anyway, in extreme cases like terrorism. But they are expanding "terrorism" into a lot of gray areas.
"1. 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.
2. No person shall 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.
3. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
The Founding Fathers thought those rights were vital for a functioning democracy... and they had been through an actual war on U.S. soil. I'm inclined to trust their judgement on what we can 'afford'.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
If you find a guy cutting the electrical wires to people's houses, do you wait until after he is convicted to take away his cutters? If someone is on a murderous rage, do you wait until after he is convicted to block access to his gun? If someone gets caught drunk driving, do you wait until he's convicted to stop them from driving?
As long as the person ultimately gets due process, there is nothing wrong with temporarily blocking access to the tools used to commit a crime.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Wow- so you are saying they can freeze my assets, secretly, without court review, for the rest of my life, as long as they maintain the ruse that I might get them back someday.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
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?
---
Welcome to another edition of... Smells Like Republicans!
the Orwellian Special!
Sounds good.
What provisions exist in this order to make it absolutely sure that these asset freezes are temporary, and that the target gets a trial in a rapid fashion?
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
I don't think so. Suppose I am suspected of a crime. The police obtain a warrant, search my house and remove, say, my computer as evidence. They did not freeze my computer, they siezed it, per the 4th ammendment -which actually uses the word siezure. And even though the police have siezed my computer, they cannot, contrary to what you have stated, sell it. If, at the conclusion of my legal troubles, I am found not guilty, or never go to trial, the computer must be returned to me, which cannot be done if it has since been sold by the police.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
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"
Define temporarily. A week? A month? A year? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years?
As this administration is well known to apply new and twisted logic to the common usage of words, temporarily could very well mean indefinitely.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I appreciate that nobody in the USA cares about the difference any more in their mad rush to throw away all their liberties, but pedantry compels me to point out:
He gets his car back if he's proven innocent
Nooooo. He gets his car back if he's not proven guilty. It's a very VERY VERY basic part of the infrastructure of the relatively egalitarian society you used to have.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you find a guy cutting the electrical wires to people's houses, do you wait until after he is convicted to take away his cutters?
In order to take away his cutters you have to have Probable Cause that he was indeed the one doing the cutting. This executive order makes no such distinction.
If someone gets caught drunk driving, do you wait until he's convicted to stop them from driving?
Yes, you do. I don't know where you live, but here in Minnesota presumption of innocence still applies. As far as the traffic stop itself, the officer has to determine probable cause - e.g. field sobriety test, or smelling alcohol on your breath, or observing errant driving behavior.
As long as the person ultimately gets due process, there is nothing wrong with temporarily blocking access to the tools used to commit a crime.
Justice delayed is justice denied. That's why we have Habeas Corpus
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Is saying we should get out of Iraq "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction"?
Is saying we could get out of Iraq threatening the peace and stability of Iraq?
What about rallies, peace marches, and so on. Some people (read trolls and idiots that moderate posts down and think freedom and liberty are the same thing) may interpret this as just what it says and assume that unless you are actually doing something over in Iraq that it fits this category. The problem is that in law, semantics plays a bigger part in how things are interpreted and this can have broad reaching authority over freedoms.
This administration is really scaring me, and I am waiting for them to say something to the affect of, we need to keep this administration in office for the security of the nation and not allow Hillary Clinton (or any one else) to be president.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Sorry dwm, but I disagree with this as noted below:
No. The relevant part of the fifth amendment states:Blocking the use of property is not legally the same as depriving someone of it (although, admittedly, practically-speaking it comes pretty close). If this were a violation of the fifth amendment, so would the IRS putting a lien on someone's property for tax purposes.
"Blocking" said use of property is pretty much the same thing... unless of course you think that said property will be magically released before damage to the owner('s life, liberty) occurs.
The "definition" Bush('s writers) are using is:
are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt inWhich pretty much means "Seized" - and either way is the same as depriving someone the use of.
Of course, either way, you are forgetting one of the most relevant parts in that Amendment - though you did quote that part:
without due process of lawThis is the other part of the Amendment that is being "violated" - which you neglected to point out while defending this action as Constitutional.
Sorry that I beg to differ with you. Semantics dont make something right (your claim of this being constitutional) - and the 2nd part of this is quite semantically undisputable (the lack of due process).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The order cites IEEPA (passed 1977 under President Carter) and National Emergencies Act (passed in 1976 under President Ford). Now you may or may not think that these are good laws but please stop making stuff up about how this is all 9/11 overreaction. Emergency powers have a long history and tend to creep up on you.
The horrible thing is that you're wrong. Corporate interests do NOT control the government or the media. The government, the media, and large financial interests, and most of the US population is completely -complicit- in what goes on here. Thats what keeps me up at night. Even thought they CAN change things (if they couldnt, then they would be 'controled'), everyone is actually largely uninterested in doing things differently.
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.
The Founding Fathers thought those rights were vital for a functioning democracy... and they had been through an actual war on U.S. soil. I'm inclined to trust their judgement on what we can 'afford'.
Yea, but they were old guys, and lived way back, so what they say doesn't really matter. Plus they never saw star wars or used the internet. You can't really know much without that....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
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...
When you're arrested, you get indicted and then tried in front of a court of law. When the Secretary of the Treasury declares you a terrorist collaborator, what recourse does one have? Where is the due process?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Nothing new here, really. In the auspices of the "War on Drugs" property is seized all the time, without due process involved. The rights of the American Citizen have been undermined well before September 11, 2001. The American populace didn't care when it only affected the drug using portion of the populace, and they won't care now that it only affects those that may or may not be aiding the enemy or hindering the progress of a group of hand selected corporations. This game has been over for longer than many would like to imagine and the citizenry lost.
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.
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.
> If the government can block my access to my property, then I can make no use of it, hence I am deprived of it.
>
> Does anyone really believe that the writers of the Constitution meant for something like this to be legal?
Mod up +1000: Clueless Slayer!
I am thoroughly disgusted by buffoons who want to change one word slightly and reintpret the Constitution as having no validity.
"No, you aren't deprived of it. You just can't ever have it back ever again if we don't want to give it back, and you have no legal way to even try."
Would they agree with this?
"No, you aren't being deprived of life. You are just having your heart stopped and your cells are allowed to die from lack of oxygen."
To which the incompent, deserving-of-death idiots will reply, "Ahhh, but they could always give you back your stuff. They couldn't give you back your life!"
Yes, idiots. But they can always give you back your stuff even if they deprive you of it fully and Constitutionally. You've got it all bass-ackwards.
And does it even "feel" like upholding the spirit of the Constitution? What's that?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
No, it can't be just a ruse. They actually have to intend that you might, in theory, get it back someday.
That, without oversight via courts, or laws, there is no way to force them to ever, ever look at the issue again, is irrelevant.
I, for one, welcome our new honest, no rusing overlords.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Good points.
One thing though... Assume for a moment that an innocent person is caught
up in this. He/she/it is unable to use their bank accounts for an extended
period of time. What happens to the mortgage on their house? The bank might
well foreclose. Bills they had, they don't get paid, who is going to pay
the interest on the charge cards as they remain unpaid and bump to the highest
rates allowed, and accumulate late charges. Suppose they are married. What
happens to the spouse, if that spouse A, doesn't have a job and a separate bank
account or B, has both, but this is unaccessible due to the relationship to
the spouse? They might have kids. Maybe in college, except, not any more,
cause the tuition is not being paid.
Will this bill put things right for the affected people if they are found innocent?
emt 377 emt 4
Don't know where you are getting this from, but treasury has had the right to search and seizure without warrant for well over two hundred years. It was initially instituted to prevent smuggling, and the US Coast Guard (then the Revenue Cutter Service) still conducts warrantless searches and seizures.
Justice delayed is justice denied. That's why we had Habeas Corpus
There, fixed that for you.
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.
Bingo. Your rights can only be taken if you allow it.
What really surprises me is that anyone thinks this is a new thing unique to this administration. The difference is the reporting on it. Burning people alive in Waco and shooting women in children in Ruby Ridge was "justified force" on "religious fanatics" or "white separatists", government surveillance/harassment of civil rights leaders in the 50s/60s was policing of "subversives" (the few rare times it was actually reported), but people get their panties in a wad about "violating the civil rights" of "terrorists"? I'm not saying they're wrong to be upset, they should be, but where the fuck have they been? Most of the people whining today are old enough to have at least been conscious during waco/ruby ridge/elian gonzales/etc. and yet those incidents are apparently a blank spot in their memory.
Welcome to the real world, folks. If you're worried about your rights being trampled upon, do something about it. I suggest becoming familiar with the phrase "cold dead hands".
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Which 'emergency' did Bush cite in this order again?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
Exactly. Is the US honestly in a more dire position today than it was in the late 18th and early 19th Century ? It was the publically stated aim of the then superpower: Britain to invade and recover its American possesions.
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
You are completely wrong. Let's go to the original source, the acts that created the treasury department. For some background on the how and why, I'm using what I recollect from history class in school. That being many years ago, I tried the Wikipedia article United States Treasury Department and I see nothing substantiating any claims about the Treasury department conducting search and seizer. And the US Coast Guard has nothing to do with the Treasury Department.
...." and provide no links. I'm open to being wrong, but don't challenge someone elses sources unless you present your own.
I find it funny when people say things like "I don't know where you are getting this info from, but I think
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
Naw, BushCo love freedom for all citizens. Now, just have to redefine what a citizen is...
I drank what? -- Socrates
The passage that follows clearly delineates who is affected by this order, and gives only the Secretary of the Treasury authority to act.
Not true. At the end of the Order, it states that the "Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government..." So, its true that the Secretary of the Treasury has the initial authority, but he may give that authority as he pleases to any agency that asks for such.
Certainly if any ol' traffic cop can impound your car because you are suspected of driving drunk, the Secretary of the Treasury can do the analogue?
SecTreas can do even worse. Read: "... to pose a significant risk of committing..." By the drunk driving analogy, this would be arrest on DWI by the officer observing you walking towards a parking lot.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
That's almost like saying that "I just don't allow you to eat, it's not like I deprive you of your life" -- to me it's the same shit, I don't care if you can't sell my assets, I care that I don't have access to them anymore (I've been deprived of them)
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
You claimed "And the US Coast Guard has nothing to do with the Treasury Department.", but the US Coast Guard article you linked says "The roots of the Coast Guard lie in the United States Revenue Cutter Service established under the Department of the Treasury in 1790."
-----------
100% pure freak
The government can already cease your assets and sell them with little recourse in the name of the drug war which started long before the Sept 11 attack. Freezing at least allows you the time to win the case and get your stuff, in the drug war if your boat or car is ceased you are basically told to buy it when auctioned and try to recoup that cost during the trials. That's absurd. The fact that this has yet to go up to the Supreme Court or been a flood of articles in various papers throughout the nation however indicates that the Vogon's in charge don't just use their potentially abusive powers indescriminately.
So? The founding fathers also thought that having a professional army was a waste of taxpayers' money and that they instead should arm Joe Public to form militias. And look where you are now: A HUGE professional army "defending" around the globe while the 2nd Amendment has been twisted into something that gives a possibility for people to "go postal" or "do a Columbine".
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The magic words are "probable cause". Much can be accomplished in the name of probable cause, including civil asset freezing / forfeiture. You might need a warrant, but if all you need is probable cause, it's probably not that hard.
I believe the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 raised the burden of proof to "preponderance of the evidence", which is a positive. But I believe they can still freeze for 60 days, pending a court telling them that they can't. They're just required to tell you about it. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have time to read the whole thing right now.
However, the law seems to still be all over the place, as the drug laws and organized crime laws frequently have their own provisions for asset freezing/forfeiture. Beyond that, when you throw in terms like "agent of a foreign nation", it seems like the whole book is thrown out the window (see Reagan/Libya, lots/Iran). Throw in "presidential powers during wartime" and you start reading a whole new book.
Oh, and the Treasury dept. freezes and seizes assets all the time. It's just usually foreign assets, or through the IRS (which I don't believe are warrants, just procedural). Think of all the charities you've possibly heard of the last few years who's assets were frozen due to "suspected terrorist ties". Of course, those were based on an Executive Order as well. I have yet to read a decision by a court that the funds must be unfrozen (not that it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it).
Note that the CNN article ends with "The grounds for blocking Global Relief's funds would be disclosed in court, the spokesperson said." That suggests to me that they didn't need to explain it before (i.e. get a warrant).
Oh, and the Coast Guard really was a part of the Treasury (most of the time) until 1967. It's on their web page. I didn't know that either.
This sig was generated randomly by one million monkeys with Speak 'n Spells. . .
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.
Are you so sure? Let's see that quote again...
I don't know if you've been keeping up with what's happening in Australia at the moment, but we have a man currently being held (though that's a story in itself) on a charge of giving his mobile phone SIM card (which had some free minutes left on it; he was leaving the country) to his mother's cousin whom he barely knew. See, he recklessly didn't bother to ask if his mother's cousin whom he barely knew if he was going to try to blow up the terminal at Glasgow International Airport at any point in the future.
This, apparently, is part of the definition of "material assistance".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If anything, people are far less in touch with civil rights nowadays, mainly because we've convinced ourselves that they're permanent and we can never lose them (this is America, home of the brave, etc. etc.) We think that because we're technologically advanced, have hot-and-cold running water, electricity and an SUV that we're truly "Free" Unfortunately, most people don't notice that a "right" or liberty is missing until they need it. They wonder what the hell happened, maybe they dimly remember something about their parents or grandparents having had that particular liberty, but by then it's far too late.
... can you imagine what would happen if the proprietor of a hardware store offered high explosives for sale? Well, I think at a minimum we're talking a stiff prison sentence. Now certainly, such explosives are something few of us need, and in this day and age it would be a bad idea to permit casual sales of dynamite. But it is a freedom that we all had once, and lost. Believe it or not there are many others, all of them taken away for one reason or another, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. But we let it happen, because it's easier to just believe our leaders when they say "we're assuming even more power, and restricting you at the same time, but really it's for your own good" than to fight and make them prove it to us. And lately, they've discovered that they can just scare us to death and get any power they want, although I think (I hope) that as a society we're wising up to that one. I don't know, though.
By way of example, back in the early Fifties, my father, his three brothers and his sister decided to drive out West and look for the Lost Dutchman gold mine. They never found it, alas, which is why I'm here posting on Slashdot rather than enjoying a cold one on the yacht that I'm sure my father would have left me. In any event, one of the things they needed was some dynamite, so on the way they stopped at a local hardware store in a small town somewhere and picked up a case, along with some blasting caps and a detonator. No problem. They went to a number of the usual places that people had searched for the mine, widened a few underground passages with some carefully placed charges, and then came home. On the way back they remembered they still had most of a case of dynamite left, so they went out into the desert and spent an afternoon blowing holes in it.
I'll wager that a lot of you don't believe me, but it's true. At that point in time nobody had thought to restrict our ability to buy high explosives, because nobody had been making political statements by blowing things up. Every time some moron decides to do something dangerously antisocial the government uses it as an excuse to ban that particular behavior and take away whatever existing freedoms it can get away with. The moron goes to jail (unless we're very lucky and he blew himself up too) and the rest of us live in a society that is just that much less free.
Flash forward about fifty years
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Due Process is the process provided by law. If the courts rule it unfair it will be changed again but they are subject to the law. There is nothing about due process that is set in stone that a new law couldn't change.
Case in point, the suspension of habeas corpus. The new due process is a military tribunal if you happen to fall into a certain category. And the Supreme court suggested it be done this way in one of the jurisdictional challenges with the club gitmo residents.
I didn't say the use is right, just that it can happen. Congress has 90 days to pass a resolution defeating the executive order or it become full force with the law behind it. Of course congress could pass a law restraining the president from giving this order but then there would probably be a constitutional challenge that no one in congress really wants.
So because someone can "go postal" or "do a Columbine" we should forfeit our rights? Just because someone can get drunk and drive and kill a family of five, should everyone be prohibited from owning a car? Twisted my left foot... With the government (under both Democrats and Republicans) getting ever more powerful, now MORE THAN EVER we need to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Our "huge" professional army is to defend us from foreign threats. Our 2nd Amendment rights are to defend us from each other and, more than anything, from our own government.
Not twisted at all. The founding father made the right to bear arms pretty friggin' clear, and they were right on the money. The need for a large standing army has changed over time, but the need to be able to defend one's self from others and our own government has not changed.
I 100% categorically deny the assertion that the Constitution is an impediment to fighting evil. It was wrong when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, it was wrong with the alien and sedition acts, it was wrong with McCarthy, it was wrong with the Japanese internment, it's wrong with the DEA seizures, it's wrong with this document.
It's still wrong.
Some regulatory takings are wrong. I tend to agree that property owners are entitled to some consideration when their property is devalued due to regulations.
But, just because that's wrong, doesn't make this right. Again: Binary thinking. Bad.
Individual liberty and real property rights are more important than fighting terror/Communism/the Japanese/Johnny Reb.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Definition of deprive.
In another light, if you deprive (see above) me of food, I will starve. I don't care whether you eat the food (your definition of seize), or simply lock it up in a fridge (your definition of freeze).
Either way, I starve.
So who's mangling the English language?
Ron Paul
What, me? Never.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?