OT - Unbelievable: Bush Just Rescinded the 4th & 5th Amendments to the Constitution

[NoMyths]

An Executive Order. I ... I just don't have words for this. I thought it was a fake site at first. To sum up the legalize as it seems to read: if you are accused of aiding terrorism, the government can now seize your property and resources without due process.

It's very difficult to not sound ranty at times like these.

Link: Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Full Text:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

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. I hereby order:

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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(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.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

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.

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.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

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.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

[Flasch186]

im not seeing this on any mainstream news yet....

reading this and trying to understand this it is quite scary. Reminds me of V for Vendetta, I picture his face on the big screen saying this to the people.

[NoMyths]

Flasch, that's the White House's website.

[MikeVic]

Witch hunt!!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Flasch, that's the White House's website.

I understand, Im just saying I want to see what the news places start saying about this....opinions and the such. Its obviously fact, Im just talking about what the uproar will be...or should be.

[Flasch186]

before my grandad passed away we got into an argument where I told him that someday the government will simply be able to make people go missing....

He said, "Thats ok. We've got a lot of people here."

He was a funny guy.

[Brillig]

I don't get it. Where in the EO does it say the government can seize your assets? The way it reads to me it sounds like the government can freeze your assets.

Now I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if the two are legally distinct. But I'm guessing that's how they're getting around the constitution.

[DaddyTorgo]

WOW

this really makes the fearmongers of the past look like prophets

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Brillig

I don't get it. Where in the EO does it say the government can seize your assets? The way it reads to me it sounds like the government can freeze your assets.

Now I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if the two are legally distinct. But I'm guessing that's how they're getting around the constitution.

You are right that this only a freeze and not a taking. However, a freeze is a seizure for constitutional purposes (since you can't use the money or goods) - at least this is what I thought the rule was - I'm trying to find out for sure.

However, I don't think this EO is an enormous deal for the reasons argued here. The executive already has similar authority to freeze accounts in different instances (ie materially supporting terrorism). To me, this really isn't about the search and seizure problems. Instead, for me, the bigger issue is the ambiguity of disturbing Iraq's stability or economic reconstruction. A lot of benign activities can be said to affect those things. Halliburton and mercenaries could easily be labeled as committing acts of violence or materially supporting such acts in a way that disturbs the economic reconstruction and stability in Iraq. The limits of the class affected seem very unclear and potentially very broad.

Edit: unless I'm missing something, this EO doesn't operate differently than these sorts of seizures:
https://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_...errorists.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...002090733.html
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js4058.htm

[Darth Guapo]

[JediKooter]

I'm no law expert by any means, but, aren't there already enough laws where the government or law enforcement can freeze or seize your assets? So, wouldn't this executive order be rather redundant since, basically, being a terrorist or engaging in terrorist activities would be illegal anyway?

[molson]

Hyperbole really isn't helpful. When the first introduction to an argument is an enormous exageration, the argument seems like fluff right off the bat.

It's like the "Bush is the worst leader in history" guy in that other thread, who then tried to back up his claim.

[Brillig]

Nice kitty though. Except for the demon eyes.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Don't worry... In just over 500 days we have better than a 50/50 chance of Democrats taking control of the executive branch (provided there is no executive order overturning the election on grounds of keeping America safe.)

Once the Dems are in control, Republicans will never allow circumventing of the Constitution such as this!

[Pyser]

ill just cir-sum-vent this argument, m go blue!

[terpkristin]

I'm speechless.

And dumbfounded that this was released on TUESDAY JULY 17th and nobody has said a THING about it (from a news perspective).

/tk

[WVUFAN]

If I'm reading this right, this order gives the government the right to freeze assets of anyone who has helped (financially or otherwise) the insurgents in Iraq or helped with terrorist activities within the US.

I'm ... I'm not seeing the problem with this. Freezing of assets are fairly commonplace in other criminal activites, such as organized crime for years. There was no constitutional issues then. What's the difference?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If I'm reading this right, this order gives the government the right to freeze assets of anyone who has helped (financially or otherwise) the insurgents in Iraq or helped with terrorist activities within the US.

I'm ... I'm not seeing the problem with this. Freezing of assets are fairly commonplace in other criminal activites, such as organized crime for years. There was no constitutional issues then. What's the difference?

The government already has the right to freeze assets for those who help insurgents and/or help terrorist activities. This EO covers a much broader population. As I noted before, it could easily include any Haliburton employee or other contractor in the country. I don't have any particular constitutional objection to the EO, but I think it is unnecessary and problematic because of the expansive number of people it could cover.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If I'm reading this right, this order gives the government the right to freeze assets of anyone who has helped (financially or otherwise) the insurgents in Iraq or helped with terrorist activities within the US.

I'm ... I'm not seeing the problem with this. Freezing of assets are fairly commonplace in other criminal activites, such as organized crime for years. There was no constitutional issues then. What's the difference?

I think I have a problem with the "who" gets to decide who has helped. If I buy a PS2 on Ebay and its successfully shipped to me in the US and someone was tracking this from the Feds. Its possible that they could decide that the PS2 was a fake made in Indonesia by the Tamil tigers and i helped. I could my assets (all 2 of them) frozen with no due process, right?

That's what I have a problem with.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think I have a problem with the "who" gets to decide who has helped. If I buy a PS2 on Ebay and its successfully shipped to me in the US and someone was tracking this from the Feds. Its possible that they could decide that the PS2 was a fake made in Indonesia by the Tamil tigers and i helped. I could my assets (all 2 of them) frozen with no due process, right?

That's what I have a problem with.

That's been true for a long time. This new EO has nothing to do with that. You get due process in your ability to contest the freezing of assets.

[JPhillips]

This is the part that bothers me

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

Most of it isn't that big of a deal, but seizure of assets shouldn't occur before a crime is committed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's been true for a long time. This new EO has nothing to do with that. You get due process in your ability to contest the freezing of assets.

you do get due process? hmmm, than I guess my big problem is the idea of freezing it before a crime is committed WITHOUT having to prove that a threat is imminent to some sort of impartial court....ie a FISA type setup.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

As I noted before, it could easily include any Haliburton employee or other contractor in the country.

OK, in that case I'm not worried. There's no way Bush is going to make trouble for any fellow Haliburton employees.

[spleen1015]

Be a good boy and you have nothing to worry about.

[EagleFan]

The sky is falling!!!! The sky is falling!!!!

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Be a good boy and you have nothing to worry about.

Thats exactly the problem, if you are a good boy, and they decide they dont like you, they can say "we thought he was going to do something bad" and freeze your assets. NO CRIME has to be commited. They can freeze them anytime they want.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

before my grandad passed away we got into an argument where I told him that someday the government will simply be able to make people go missing....

He said, "Thats ok. We've got a lot of people here."

He was a funny guy.

I hate these POL threads, but this was funny.

Thread redeemed.

[st.cronin]

I may be wrong, but don't some states have similar policies for drunk drivers? I believe in Alaska, and possibly New York, if you're accused of a DUI they can take your car, even before you get convicted. I think actually in Alaska they can take your car even if you weren't the one driving.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I may be wrong, but don't some states have similar policies for drunk drivers? I believe in Alaska, and possibly New York, if you're accused of a DUI they can take your car, even before you get convicted. I think actually in Alaska they can take your car even if you weren't the one driving.

They can also take away your freedom before you are found guilty of a crime, and keep you locked up awaiting trial, if they think you are either a flight risk or a risk to commit further crimes. I think some of this is in the same vein. The real problem though is the nebulous definitions of what constitutes support for the insurgency.

They already assert the right to hold you forever without a trial, so this is the kind of thing I just assumed they were doing all along.

[Young Drachma]

In before the lock.

Oh wait, wrong boards.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm no law expert by any means, but, aren't there already enough laws where the government or law enforcement can freeze or seize your assets? So, wouldn't this executive order be rather redundant since, basically, being a terrorist or engaging in terrorist activities would be illegal anyway?

so basically the government needs to get a horse?