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.

Hello!

[fredrated]

America! Are you still there?

Re:Hello!

[tool462]

The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that Americans (well, ~70% of them anyway) are attempting to undermine the economic and political reformation in Iraq. As a result, America has been seized. Thank you, and have a nice day.

The short version...

[KingSkippus]

Here's the short version with a lot of legalese stripped out:

All property and interests in property of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

Because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made.

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.

Re:The short version...

[inKubus]

Yeah, at first I thought it applied only to stuff IN IRAQ. But it is about the United States. It's about HERE. Bascially it says that anyone who is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" can have their assets frozen. Naturally, the "war" in Iraq is one of those efforts. So if you try to "undermine" it, which could mean protest, or could mean physically blocking it, they can freeze your assets. This is likely to be tested in court, and likely to procede to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, any threat will be neutralized. It's the classic time gambit. You can get a lot done breaking the law if you have 5 or 10 years before any judgement will be made on your actions. I've always thought the executive order was far to broad. It would be a good power if used for good and not evil, but when you are corrupt (documented corrupt, such as those videos of Bush addressing the rich people) the power has the ability to destroy freedom. We're paying the price for complacency.

People, please donate to the ACLU [aclu.org]. Put your money where your mouth is, and give it to the people whose job it is to question this stuff full time.

Re:The short version...

[xappax]

People, please donate to the ACLU.

But make sure you donate a lot all at once, before your assets are frozen for supporting a political organization that's "undermining" Bush's Iraq War effort.

Re:The short version...

[ecklesweb]

You left out a significant bit, when I've reinserted with emphasis:

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

Your anti-war demonstration scenario is only going to get your property frozen if it's a violent demonstration.

Re:The short version...

[DragonWriter]

Your anti-war demonstration scenario is only going to get your property frozen if it's a violent demonstration.

Or, rather, if executive branch officials without outside review decide that your demonstration suggests some potential future inclination toward violence.

Re:

[Peter Trepan]

Your anti-war demonstration scenario is only going to get your property frozen if it's a violent demonstration.

If only one person in a thousand is the type who gets violent at a demonstration, and your demonstration has five-thousand people, your demonstration will probably contain violence. Then you are the ringleader of a violent demonstration with the aim of destabilizing Iraq (by bringing the troops home, for instance.) Then anyone who has donated to your PAC is guilty of providing financial support

Re:

[lena_10326]

You can be arrested for assault if you gently place the tip of your index finger on a police officer. And, any type of assault is violence as far as the government is concerned.

You can also be charged with assault if an officer trips over his clumsy feet, falls down, and hits his head while pursuing you, trying to apprehend you, or forcing you to leave the scene. You could very well be in the right, but if the officer gets hurt while dealing with you, you will be charged with assault.

Re:The short version...

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

Since legalese can be difficult to decipher, I'll give you a break on this one. Keep reading, and note the parts that use the word "or". Here, I've re-reinserted it with another emphasis.

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq *or* undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

Since that clause includes multiple uses or "or", any one of those conditions can cause you to get screwed, since the language is so purposely vague. That would include donating money or items to a charity that the US Gov't labels as an organization that undermines economic reconstruction or political reform in Iraq. Or, even just giving "emotional support" to such organizations through your words on a blog or on Slashdot.

Actually No, its worse.

[Irvu]

See this part:

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets

instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

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:

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

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:

1. Contact your House Rep [house.gov]
2. Contact your Senator [senate.gov]
3. Forward this article to your local paper.
4. Send it to your local radio station, especially any drive-time station.
5. And forward this to your local TV station, and national stations.
6. Write clear and concise e-mails about how bad this is to your friends and family urging them to do the same.

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.

Sample Letter to Congress.

[Irvu]

Below is a sample letter to your House Rep and Senators. Feel free to take it, rewrite it as desired and to send it in. Also try to keep it concise. They like short letters. When sending it the best way is to actually fax it to their D.C. offices (you will need to call for the fax number probably) or so mail it to one of the local regional offices for forwarding. Mail sent directly to D.C. is first sent out to Maryland to be irradiated and usually arrives several weeks late.

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:

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

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,

Checks and Balances.

[Irvu]

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.

Okay, so I read the thing, and...

[Penguinisto]

Here's the part everyone misses (emphasized):

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 [wikipedia.org], because that's the limit, safety-valve, maximum, etc. ( the unabridged version is here [treas.gov] (PDF format). It says, in a nutshell, that:

1. there is an annual renewal period after the first 12 months, by Congress. This wee presidential order is by nature restricted to that as well.
2. It can be terminated by Congressional legislation at any time
3. There is a list of people which you're not allowed to do biz with (the Wikipedia link shows the current list). If you do biz with those folks under stated conditions, you get your funds seized... not because "they don't like your politics" or other such happy hyperventilated horse excrement. They have to prove you're doing business with someone on that list.

So can we shut down the klaxons now? Or at least show me where (specifically) I may have produced an error (with proof, please).

/P

Re:Okay, so I read the thing, and...

[KingSkippus]

Read it again.

You're not in error, you're simply not reading it from the perspective of what the power claimed in the Executive Order can be used for. The stuff you talk about in item #3 in your list isn't a limitation on that power, and the Executive Order is expanding it.

Also, let's say that Congress does repeal IEEP. That means that the few limits on the power (items of non-value, CD's, microfiches, etc.) would be wiped out, and it would give the President the power to pretty much do whatever he (or she) wants. That's what the IEEP was passed in the first place, to say that the power isn't without limit.

Of course, this administration doesn't recognize any limits on its power. When it does run up against a legal wall, it simply ignores the wall and does whatever it wants to anyway. Like I said, if you trust these guys, I think you're a bit naive and I obviously disagree with your assessment of their character. But more importantly, you're also setting the precedent that whomever is in office next (likely one of those evil liberal Democrats) will have the same powers.

If that's okay with you, then sure, go ahead and ignore the klaxons. It's not so okay with me, though.

What the ... ?

[khasim]

Personally, and IMHO, there were much harsher means and policies in place during WW2 (not just concerning Japanese-American citizens), and the Presidents during that war were Democrats.

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?

Re:What the ... ?

[inKubus]

Yeah, and especially because this is a war everyone admits WE CAN'T WIN. If we use the same standards to measure WWII, we basically lost because guess what, there are still Nazis. In fact, a lot of them live in America! We didn't declare war on the Nazis, we wanted to liberate Europe from the German army under command of Hitler. Likewise you cannot declare war on radical Islam because that's an abstract thought, not an organization. Fools.

Godwin aside, I like that analogy.

[khasim]

If we use the same standards to measure WWII, we basically lost because guess what, there are still Nazis. In fact, a lot of them live in America!

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 m

Re:

[trolltalk.com]

"Err, how many anti-war (or anti anything) folks are going to be transferring money overseas"

... with this latest, there are probably more than a few Americans who wish they could transfer their assets and themselves somewhere else ...

... its just another brick in the wall ...

Re:

[PinkPanther]

how many anti-war (or anti anything) folks are going to be transferring money overseas, exporting goods or monies intended to oppose Iraq's reconstruction

I think you misread that. It says that the assets of any individual deemed to be a "problem" are blocked...not just the assets that have been transfered/exported/imported. ALL assets are blocked:

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 o

Sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:

[ImaLamer]

+5 funny in this case is +5 insightful

The new authority will only be used ...

[sdo1]

"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?

Re:The new authority will only be used ...

[spun]

I understand why, but I don't care that you lack outrage. What you are supporting is unconstitutional. That is the rulebook of our land and I would lay down my life to keep fools like you from torching it. You are also woefully ignorant of history. Please read up on COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]. This sort of shit has a long and sordid history of being used against people who disagree with those in power.

Innaccurate and misleading

[raitchison]

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)

Re:Innaccurate and misleading

[whoever57]

This isn't about seizure of anything, it's about freezing of assets,

This is a distinction without a difference. If you cannot access the money in your account, it is no different from the money being siezed. You have still been "deprived" of it (which is the actual word used in the fifth amendment).

Except

[lazyl]

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.

We're in a national emergency?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

MOD UP

[HomelessInLaJolla]

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.

Re:MOD UP

[Petrushka]

I wonder how many people commenting here are aware of the nature of this "emergency". Here's a WP article on it [wikipedia.org] 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.

Uh Huh.

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

"...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?

Re:

[Control Group]

I did read it. There are two parts that trouble me:

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

Emphasis mine. Which means you don't actually have to have done anything, they (and, by they, I mean three unelected officials) have to believe you might do something that they also believe might be intended to have a specific effect. And the effects they're talking about don't say anything about terrorists, just about underminin

Historically speaking

[Ravenscall]

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.

Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges

[idontgno]

Sad to say.

The root password on the U. S. Constitution is "The Global War on $SUBJECT"

I hate to say it but...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

just shoot me

[planckscale]

Listen Dick (I'd say George but we know who's written this crap), if you're going to arrest me, intern me, drain my bank account, plus confiscate my computers, auction my house and impound my car, instead of going through all that trouble, take that carbine off "safe" and put one through my gray matter. I mean really, it's a lot cheaper in the long run right? And this is what it's all about right? Money. Don't waste your time on lawyers, courts, health care, facilities, and food, just dig a big pit and bury me. What the hell, bullets cost money too, just cuff me and bury me alive! Then again, what the hell, don't even bother with me. Just tax the shit out of my paycheck, tax me for anything and everything, then send my job overseas, send me a monthly pittance, close the supermarkets (like in Detroit), and starve me to death. Because after all, we're not people just like you, we're unmotivated slime that can't cut it in the new world economy. So hey, if it makes you feel better, and you want to put it in writing go ahead and make it legal. Just remember, a hungry mob is an angry mob.

Fourth Amendment

[Belacgod]

Not the Fifth. The Fourth. These are unreasonable searches and seizures, not efforts at self-incrimination.

Re:Fourth Amendment

[Control Group]

Or rather, the emphasis would have been mine if I hadn't just been posting over at ars and not mentally switched back to HTML.

That should have read:

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.

As a law student...

[sjwaste]

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.

Re:

[PhxBlue]

What part of whether the executive order is valid or invalid do you think will impact the executive branch's decision to enforce it?

Re:

[Control Group]

As a practical matter, though, it is valid until a court says otherwise, since the Dept. of the Treasury will treat it as valid, and so will your bank.

And as long as it's only used against legitimate threats, courts will be reluctant to declare it invalid, since that will also mean letting some scumbag off. And the more often it's wielded successfully, the more validity it accrues through precedent. Of course it is always possible, no matter how long this has gone on, for a court to strike it down on Consti

Stop using the term "executive order"

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:

[MobyDisk]

Okay, replying to my own post, but this is interesting:

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act [wikipedia.org] is what Bush seems to be claiming he can do this under. Is anyone familiar with this who can comment?

Way too fscking vague ...

[gstoddart]

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

So, would that include:

• anti-war demonstrators
• Democrats
• Republicans who no longer agree with Bush
• anyone who disagrees with his policies

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.

Fifth Amendment and Analysis

[Goobermunch]

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

It doesn't over turn the 5th amendment because...

[posterlogo]

...it's completely INVALID (no "executive order" can overrule established law, let alone the bill of rights). What I can't figure out is why is the administration even bothering with this? Where the rights of US citizens are concerned, if the SecTres were to actually seize (or freeze) the assets of a citizen without a court order, dozens of legal organizations would leap at the chance to take it all the way to the supreme court. Although I don't agree with most of the supreme court's recent decisions, I think that if they really are as strict at interpreting the constitution as they claim to be, there is no way this would pass as constitutional. Although, Scalito and Roberts seem to be deferring to executive priveledge at every opportunity, so it is still sort of frightening nonetheless. My guess is this will be narrowly targeted towards non-citizens, either resident aliens or visa holders, who are associated with Islamic charities. It is already illegal to contribute to terrorism, but now the government can act without any evidence at all.

---
Welcome to another edition of... Smells Like Republicans!
the Orwellian Special!

the debate is framed incorrectly

[oohshiny]

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.

Legal Analysis

[uncreativeslashnick]

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.

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 ...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.

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.

Two Words

[dmadole]

Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com]

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[eln]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[raitchison]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[psykocrime]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Chibi Merrow]

"You have as much Freedom as you are willing to demand, and as you are capable of defending." has never been more true.

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".

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[eln]

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.

Re:

[dwm]

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, a

Re:

[benhocking]

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.e., you've effectively deprived me of them.

Uh, you do know that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, don't you?

I'm not the original poster, but if you put the emphasis in the "right" place, that doesn't contradict what he said:

It's arguable if what they do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Danse]

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.

What language do you speak? They are able to deprive you of your assets without any due process.
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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Dr. Manhattan]

It's funny how people claim that 'things are so different after 9/11, we can't afford all these civil rights.'

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'.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[dbrutus]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Marty_Krapturd]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Gilmoure]

Naw, BushCo love freedom for all citizens. Now, just have to redefine what a citizen is...

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Moofie]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[MobyDisk]

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.

You are right. It is a violation of the constitution, REGARDLESS of the fifth ammendment. The treasury department does not have the right to seize or freeze assets. The government can take your property only if:
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.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Due Process of Law and Tyranny.

[twitter]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[RobertM1968]

Sorry dwm, but I disagree with this as noted below:

No. The relevant part of the fifth amendment states: ...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.

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 in

Which 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 law

This 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).

Re:

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[smooth wombat]

there is nothing wrong with temporarily blocking access to the tools used to commit a crime.

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[quanticle]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[eln]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Slashdot == kdawson's political blog

[Mr. Underbridge]

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?

Two important points that prove Slashdot != digg

[Minter92]

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"

Re:Two important points that prove Slashdot != dig

[mjbkinx]

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 [digg.com] and has >4500 diggs, but yours comes close enough.

Re:Two important points that prove Slashdot != dig

[Orange Crush]

On digg the comments would be, "BUSH TEH DEVIL hax his internets."

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.

MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear that this guy is using slashdot as his own personal soapbox to grind his own personal and political axes. Some of the stories he posts as "news" is so ridiculously partisan, it's disgusting.

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.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The steady rollback of the Enlightenment *is* news for nerds.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[Walt Dismal]

I protest, in defense of Dawson. This Executive Order, issued IMMEDIATELY by Bush once he knew Congress could not stop his war effort, is clearly of importance to the people of the United States. The EO is yet another power grab and can be abused quite easily in these days of secret courts and no habeas corpus. The EO in effect threatens the ability of US citizens to protest government policy aimed at attaching the oil assets of Iraq for the sake of Cheney's oil induistry friends. The tone of the rightwingers attacking Dawson, and their repudiation of the desirability of posting this information, show them to be rabid defenders of the establishment. Given that the establisment is corrupt and criminal, I'd say Dawson is in the right and you loudmouthed mob of O'Reillys are in the wrong.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[uarch]

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.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[Grave]

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.

Re:

[mr_mischief]

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[cayenne8]

"Do you think a suspected drunk driver gets a trial before his car is seized?"

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.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[kahei]

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.

Re:

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[lawpoop]

/disagree.

Notice the "time of War or public danger;"

I don't think you're parsing this correctly. The "time of War or public danger;" belongs only to the first part; you can tell by the semi-colon. They seem to have written several sentences into a single sentence. Semi-colons appear where we would put periods today. Here's how we might write it today:

"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."

Re:"...not much media notice"

[jofny]

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)

Re:

[QRDeNameland]

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.

Re:"...not much media notice"

[Infonaut]

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.

Bush just got his "legacy".

[khasim]

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.

Re:

[endianx]

It's true. I wonder how many of the people here who always talk about the erosion of liberty in the US are still going to vote for a Clinton/McCain/Obama/Giuliani type candidate in the primaries. (Or not vote in the primaries at all.)

If you want liberty, vote for Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com]. If you can't stand voting for someone running as a Republican, vote for Mike Gravel [gravel2008.us].

Re:

[eln]

That's the preamble of the order, and I don't think you're reading it right. All that says is that due to these violent acts, the President finds it necessary to write this order. It does not say that one must actually commit these acts to fall under this order. The types of activities that would cause you to fall under this order are enumerated further down, and are not all related to violent acts. They include things like undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction or political reform (so d

Re:Summary dishonest

[jamie]

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.

Re:Summary dishonest

[bockelboy]

It still gets worse:

From the section on whose assets can be frozen.
"""
or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly,
"""

So, if someone accuses you of doing this (she's a witch!), they can freeze your assets. Forget being able to face your accuser, presumed innocence, fair trial, etc. I thought we left Salem a long time ago.

So, what happens after they freeze your assets because your neighbors said they say you at a communist, err... terrorist, meeting?

"""
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
"""

In other words, if we screw up in freezing the assets, we don't give you the right to file a lawsuit or any procedure to get your things back.

Lovely.

Re:

[quanticle]

If I were to march in a random anti-war protest, and the next day the gov't makes my bank account vapor-lock, then I could petition a judge and demand evidence and/or proof that I was somehow "posing a significant risk of committing" a violent act.

How're you going to petition a judge without a lawyer? How'll you get a lawyer without your bank account?

That's the real danger in this Executive Order. They've given themselves the right to deprive you of most of your liquid assets without placing you in jail (where you would have access to some legal defense through the the public defender service).

Re:

[Control Group]

Read the executive order. Specifically:

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

"[T]o pose a significant risk of committing" is the particularly troublesome part. It's bad enough that we've got three unelected officials getting to determine if someone has committed a crime - thereby underminin

Re:

[bockelboy]

Uh, I don't think you parsed that English correctly, that's not what the sentence says.

Let me cut out some of the extra fluff. The first sentence says

"I find that, due to unusual threats posed by violence in Iraq and efforts undermining economic reconstruction in Iraq, it's in US interest to take additional steps. I hereby order..."

The first paragraph is just an introduction. It says that the point of the Executive Order is to hurt those who are trying to hurt Iraq; that has no legally binding meaning, e

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. That paragraph explains the reasons he cites for creating the order, not what acts are punishable. What is punishable: (from TFA)

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

While this text *does* explicitly mention violence, it includes 'pose a significant risk of committing'. Having done quite a bit of research on that wording for debate, I can say with reasonable certainty (although IANAL so I could be wrong) that 'significant risk' is roughly equivalent to 'reasonable suspicion', which is legally defined as a MUCH lower standard than 'pr

Re:

[AeroIllini]

You missed the next section:

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order... (emphasis added)

So, it's not just violent acts. Supporting the terrorists who actually commit the acts counts as well. I don't think they could link protesters to this. The person needs to be directly and knowingly assisting terrorist activities related to Iraq in order to be covered by this order.

That being said, if the person is a US citizen, the 5th Amendment still applies, and the Supreme Court has a few things to say about it. If the person is not a US citizen, then extradition treaties ap

Re:

[ArcherB]

That section you just described is the "we are doing this because..." part, and is NOT the description of what acts qualify to repeal a person's 5th amendment rights.

It pains me to say that you are correct.

In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.

I don't see this in the order. I see things like (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: This is

Re:Hyperbole much?

[pla]

The language is a bit vague, but calling this a defeat of the Fifth Amendment is overly hyperbolic.

"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 offence 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."

I have to agree with you, this only strikes down one part of the 5th amendment. Of course, one could argue that, already having lost all those other silly little rights, this puts the last few nails in the coffin; bet technically, this EO alone doesn't kill the 5th.

As for those (not you specifically) arguing that the government already had this power - The last clause in what I bolded above makes the key distinction there. The government can seize our assets after "due process of law" has played out. Not before. After.


"The Republicans hate your freedom!"

And they do... But so do the Democrats.