Outright Suspension of 5th Amendment

[mwfanelli]

I am not ready to believe this is true but it is posted on the whitehouse.gov website.

If it is true, I really wonder is Bush and his Republican toadies will cancel the election next year because of "terrorist threats". This is added to the FBI leak that states vastly increased spying on American citizens in the near future.

Read it, it is scary as hell. I have never suggested this before, but Bush must be stopped. Impeachment, although ugly, may be the only way to control his wild self-delusion of grandeur.

If false, it is certainly an excellent joke. But just the fact that this story is very believable is horrible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

[KenB]

Want scary?

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/femalist.htm


Bush is a noob and an amature when it comes to breaching Constitutional principles.

[schrackman]

I am not ready to believe this is true but it is posted on the whitehouse.gov website.

If it is true, I really wonder is Bush and his Republican toadies will cancel the election next year because of "terrorist threats". This is added to the FBI leak that states vastly increased spying on American citizens in the near future.

Read it, it is scary as hell. I have never suggested this before, but Bush must be stopped. Impeachment, although ugly, may be the only way to control his wild self-delusion of grandeur.

If false, it is certainly an excellent joke. But just the fact that this story is very believable is horrible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

It appears to be true, at least from what I can gather on the net.

But also it seems only to target those who are somehow contributing (whether by financing or other means) to impede the progress in Iraq by assisting terrorists. So if this is the case, and it appears so to me (somebody correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment), then how does this violate or threaten the 5th amendment? Property can be confiscated today if indeed such is used in the committing or perpetuating of an act of crime, such as dealing drugs.

[mwfanelli]

It appears to be true, at least from what I can gather on the net.

But also it seems only to target those who are somehow contributing (whether by financing or other means) to impede the progress in Iraq by assisting terrorists. So if this is the case, and it appears so to me (somebody correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment), then how does this violate or threaten the 5th amendment? Property can be confiscated today if indeed such is used in the committing or perpetuating of an act of crime, such as dealing drugs.

OK, a bit of a frustrated rant follows....

Read it again. It is so vaguely worded that it can be used against anyone for anything remotely tied to "terrorism." Bush himself has stated that critics of the war are "aiding the terrorists." Hmmm. Is the FBI, CIA, NAS, etc. spying on this forum? Don't laugh, its not that far-fetched any more.

The fact that something this broad and heinous could be slipped under the radar (why did it have to be "under the radar" in the first place?) and, even worse, gets a yawn from many people, tells me that Americans are getting used to extreme government control, unwarranted (and without-warrant!) snooping, and political toe-the-line-or-else edicts.

By the way, this executive order was discovered by the british Guardian newspaper, not an American source. We are in very deep trouble and very few people realize it.

The correct quote (not the incorrect popular version) is:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned."

So, lets start the modern American version: "I am not a terrorist therefore I am not concerned..."

[schrackman]

Okay, I hear your rant, but that doesn't address as to how this executive order will threaten or violate the 5th amendment. The government can suspect anyone; proving their suspicions and enforcing this order, however, is quite another thing.

In other words, the government just cannot block property, freeze assets, or confiscate anything that belongs to you without sufficient evidence of your assisting terrorism, like sending funds to certain organizations or funneling it to people tied to such organizations.

So in your mind, tell me how in particular you think the government will suspend our 5th amendment rights through this order.

[mwfanelli]

Okay, I hear your rant, but that doesn't address as to how this executive order will threaten or violate the 5th amendment. The government can suspect anyone; proving their suspicions and enforcing this order, however, is quite another thing.

In other words, the government just cannot block property, freeze assets, or confiscate anything that belongs to you without sufficient evidence of your assisting terrorism, like sending funds to certain organizations or funneling it to people tied to such organizations.

So in your mind, tell me how in particular you think the government will suspend our 5th amendment rights through this order.

"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."

Yet another no-warrant no-court-order search and seizure.

[JSPhoto]

I would think if Bush were REALY concerned about terrorism that he would close the borders down AND remove all illegal aliens from the country. There would be massive moves to remove the illegals, so why does Bush want to continue taking rights away from Americans and give rights to illegals?
It seems to me he's trying to get the illegals to support anything he wants to do, and if you were an illegal given amnesty or even citizenship wouldn't you support that person or party that got you your freedom?
This thread and the illegals are intertwined somehow.... but whats the real story?

JS

[schrackman]

"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."

Yet another no-warrant no-court-order search and seizure.

Here's the way I read it, Michael.

The order does not commission outright seizure; rather, it authorizes blocking property. That means the government can prevent someone from transferring his property (such as funds) to a terrorist organization or a person known to offer sympathetic assistance to terrorist causes. To give previous notice for this would no doubt make the order ineffective. If the gov were required to give previous notice, just imagine all the red tape the gov would have to go through before it could even begin block the next $100,000 deposit into a Hamas or Al-Qaeda bank account overseas. Where's the logic in that?

Now, I don't read where seizure is specified in the order. Seizure pertains to government taking away property without compensating the owner, which would then violate the 5th amendment. UNLESS, of course, such property was used in the commission of a crime, such as the dealing of drugs. So there are seizures that are legal and justified, but this order is not about seizure from what I can read.

Interestingly, I have read a few sites where some people are claiming this order is aimed at war protesters. The langauge of the order, to me, however, does not even hint at the idea that if one raises his voice in opposition to the war in Iraq, that the government will have the right to go after them and their property.

Frankly, I think there are a lot of fear-mongerers out there, and I don't really care for them. They want us to be afraid of the government, when in fact it should be the other way around. At least that's how our founding fathers felt and acted.

[schrackman]

I would think if Bush were REALY concerned about terrorism that he would close the borders down AND remove all illegal aliens from the country. There would be massive moves to remove the illegals, so why does Bush want to continue taking rights away from Americans and give rights to illegals?
It seems to me he's trying to get the illegals to support anything he wants to do, and if you were an illegal given amnesty or even citizenship wouldn't you support that person or party that got you your freedom?
This thread and the illegals are intertwined somehow.... but whats the real story?

JS

I agree, JS. For the life of me I can't fathom why it is politicians want to take a strong stance against terrorism and then wish to loosen our borders at the same time. But I suppose this is what we get for electing career politicians.

[SmartWombat]

It is all a matter of trust in your politicians.
Not fear, just trust.
Sure, the politicians you have elected now might not misuse the laws, but in the future?
There are few checks or balances against the power of the government without an independent judiciary.

It's true that without popular support, a politician can not remain in office.
But while they're in office before you have a chance not to vote for them again, they can make any decisions they want to without reference to the constituency that elected them.
There is no way a modern government can be afraid of the people they are supposed to represent, until elections roll around every few years.

You have to remember that they're all career politicians, that's what our systems of government makes them.
The huge expense of political campaigns means you have the best politicians money can buy.
Not directly for cash, but a quid pro quo to those that got them into their position by supporting their party and their campaign.

That's what is behind the "cash for honours" affair here.
Interesting that it was sparked off by Scottish politicians' complaints to the police.
Though that's inventing a conspiracy
Similarly the changes to our House of Lords, which represents a check against the excesses of the Parliament.
That's not a conspiracy removing an obstacle to power

"Trust me, I'm a politician" isn't something you hear often.
Well not unless accompanied by a cheesy phoney grin anyway.

[mwfanelli]

It is all a matter of trust in your politicians.
Not fear, just trust.
Sure, the politicians you have elected now might not misuse the laws, but in the future?
There are few checks or balances against the power of the government without an independent judiciary.

It's true that without popular support, a politician can not remain in office.
But while they're in office before you have a chance not to vote for them again, they can make any decisions they want to without reference to the constituency that elected them.
There is no way a modern government can be afraid of the people they are supposed to represent, until elections roll around every few years.

You have to remember that they're all career politicians, that's what our systems of government makes them.
The huge expense of political campaigns means you have the best politicians money can buy.
Not directly for cash, but a quid pro quo to those that got them into their position by supporting their party and their campaign.

That's what is behind the "cash for honours" affair here.
Interesting that it was sparked off by Scottish politicians' complaints to the police.
Though that's inventing a conspiracy
Similarly the changes to our House of Lords, which represents a check against the excesses of the Parliament.
That's not a conspiracy removing an obstacle to power

"Trust me, I'm a politician" isn't something you hear often.
Well not unless accompanied by a cheesy phoney grin anyway.

"Blocked" (and "person" defined as anyone declared by the administration as a "terrorist") is defined in that document as "...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..." That is seizure without actually using the word.

Another definition of terrorist is given as "...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." In other words, helping someone whose property has been seized makes you subject to seizure as well.

Heres another good one: "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." You can't even offer things as basic as food, housing, or medical care under this provision to someone whose property has been seized. Remember, this is all before there has been any proof whatsoever of real misdeeds.

And don't forget the administration escape clause. After all, we wouldn't want Bush to actually be responsible for any of his felonies: "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."

The language tries to hide it, but this is truly a suspension of the Constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. This isn't Bush just defying Congress, it is an act of treason against the United States and its citizens.
.

[Sushigaijin]

I don't see anything in this that translates properly to "remove all illegal aliens(sic.) from the country" or that impugns illegal immigrants as part of the "terrorist" agenda. I think that is just connecting one issue with another totally unrelated issue. Terrorist does not equal illegal immigrant, and illegal immigrant does not equal terrorist. Kind of like GW's now infamous Iraq equals terrorists, and terrorists equal Iraq - both of which we know are false. In my opinion, this thread and "the illegals" are not intertwined. Or rather, were not intertwined before they were forcibly inserted into it.

Forcing "the illegals" out of the country has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism, or with removing property rights from people with a "constitutional presence in the United States" (verbatim, from the bill itself.) "Constitutional presence" here obviously means protected by the constitution - the bill even knows and admits that it is walking the razor's edge of constitutional rights. This bill is regarding property rights, removing illegal immigrants is not.

[schrackman]

"Blocked" (and "person" defined as anyone declared by the administration as a "terrorist") is defined in that document as "...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..." That is seizure without actually using the word.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Seizure is to deprive one of his property, not simply block it from being used for the continued support of terrorism.

Another definition of terrorist is given as "...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." In other words, helping someone whose property has been seized makes you subject to seizure as well.

I don't know if that's another definition of a terrorist, but it sure fits the definition of an accomplice to terrorism.

Heres another good one: "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." You can't even offer things as basic as food, housing, or medical care under this provision to someone whose property has been seized. Remember, this is all before there has been any proof whatsoever of real misdeeds.

Correction, whose property has been "blocked."

Secondly, it is implied by the writing that there would be sufficient proof before this order can be carried out upon anyone:

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

So, will the gov block Mr. Fanelli's funds just because they want to and can? Don't count on it. Unless of course, you give these three governmental department heads reason for doing so.

And don't forget the administration escape clause. After all, we wouldn't want Bush to actually be responsible for any of his felonies: "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."

Michael, you're being a bit paranoid. This is not uncommon language in certain types of executive orders. See one of Clinton's orders, section 902.

The language tries to hide it, but this is truly a suspension of the Constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. This isn't Bush just defying Congress, it is an act of treason against the United States and its citizens.

Now you're sounding like a total conspiracy theorists.

I've read everything you've had to say about this executive order, Michael, but I really think you're trying to read something between the lines that just isn't there.

Point blank you have nothing to worry about so long as you're not funding a terrorist or assisting the enemy.