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.
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?
with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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 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.
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.
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
Not the Fifth. The Fourth. These are unreasonable searches and seizures, not efforts at self-incrimination.
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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!
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
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
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!
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.