So what you're saying is that we can depend on the good judgment of the executive branch to only use this power on bad guys.

<sarcasm>Right. Because they've shown such good judgment in the past.</sarcasm>

UT: Yeah, it looked like a thread killer, but I don't think it is, really. Unfortunately, the conversation part of the thread, the back and forth part, needs some.. tension, some difference. Without that, everyone's saying, Yup, I agree. And in this case, the only dissenting voice is UG's. This happens sometimes, but in this case, since his remarks are the nail sticking up, *that's* what gets hammered down.

We wound up all agreeing, unanimously, that this Executive Order is a bad idea. Great. Now what do we talk about? UG's fidelity to the definition of "fanboy"? The only thing I see that doesn't apply is the word "young", but then we're talking about UG again.

Show of hands: Who thinks this EO is a bad idea? Too bad I can't retro this thread and put a poll on it. EO: Good Idea or Bad Idea.

The thread's not dead. But without being fanboyish a'la Digg or Reddit, I say this is wrong wrong wrong.

Frankly, I see this as doing the bad guy's work for them.

What are we at war *for* anyway? I know we're *against* terrorism (don't get me started on the semantic stupidity of being at war with tactic). But, I guess, we're at war *for* the United States of America, wouldn't you agree?

For me, the USA is not merely territory; indeed, we're in no danger of losing any territory in this war. It is not just people, because the USA was here before me and all of you were around, and will be here after we're all gone, so it be can't just people. As well as I can articulate it, the USA is territory, and people and a million other things, held together by our system of government. Literally, without our government, there would be no USA. And our government, that government of the people, by the people and for the people, hangs together because of our mutual respect for our laws.

Without our laws, there would be no government, there would be no USA.

And *THAT* is why I'm incandescent with anger at the actions of the Bush administration. This particular action is a poster child for what's wrong. It tears down the very stones that make the foundation of our country. If you love the USA, you must hate actions like this. This *is* the destruction of our country.

It is far less dramatic than a plane flying into a building, but it is far more insidious. We lost lives and property on September 11, 2001. That was certainly sad and tragic; it was shocking to see foreign invaders attack us. On July 17, 2007 we lost a part of the Constitution, the definition of our country. This was a hundred times more sad and tragic, shocking and disgraceful because it was done by the very person in charge of upholding the Constitution, **SWORN** to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I won't pretend to know what's inside Bush's head. I'll grant myself the small comfort of faith in human nature, and forgo the question of his motives. I'll believe that he believes his motivations are good. But I am dead set against his methods. I've remarked elsewhere on the Bush Administration's famous effectiveness, but preventing the bad guys from destroying America by destroying it himself is the wrong thing to do, even if he's doing it brilliantly.

If you want to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, don't start by demanding "I'm mad as hell! Who's with me!"

Googling for the phrase "there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination" finds it in use in two places:

1. Progressive blogs who are furious at Bush for the use of the phrase in this EO.

2. Previous uses of the phrase in other EOs.

Having myself believed in several sky-is-falling slippery slopes, I can only suggest to you that you have fallen into the same trap as I did ten years ago. I was pretty certain we were on the slope. And I was convinced of it by people more worried than I, using crazy rhetoric exactly like this thread title.

The only thing that finally convinced me otherwise was the passage of time. It turned out that, after ten years of my cautioning against the slope, we are no closer to the bottom than we were back then.

So, wow. I'm wiser now, but what a pain in the ass I must have been. I can only thank my remaining friends for having the patience to deal with me during those times.

-

You are wrong about this, Biggie. If need be, let time be the judge. It's always the final arbiter after all.

I guess it depends on what slope you were worried about. The one that this EO is most similar to- drug war forfeiture- is one that we have gotten much closer to the bottom of in the past 20 years.

Maybe it just seems like we're not going down the slope because they keep moving the bottom down.

People, especially those under BushCo. need to tell them that his executive orders are "just pieces of paper".

If I see a house on fire, I'm not going to undertake to determine truth from a fair conversation with people, I'm gonna yell "FIRE!" You're right on one part though: this is *my* house on fire, and I am mad as hell.

On the subject of truth, fair conversations and such, what is your opinion of this recent Executive Order? You've only said "you're wrong, Biggie". I'd like to know your mind on the subject.

What's your point? I can understand why progressive blogs would be furious with Bush's language and actions--no surprise there. I can just as easily understand writers at the other end of the spectrum giving it a pass. So what?

My objection is that, in my layman's understanding, this phrase overrides the protections (or obstacles, if you're on the other end of the scale) offered by due process. It's a big deal, it's in the Constitution. It's a direct negation of an important part of what makes ours a more perfect union. Furthermore, it's a part that *I* can easily see myself benefiting from.

I don't have much power, not even a tiny fraction of the power the government has. Nothing approaching the physical force that can be brought to bear, nothing like the financial resources available to the government, nothing close to the legal power, whether it's interpreting the existing laws, or, indeed, making *new* laws at the stroke of a freakin' pen. I do have the shared devotion to our country, shared by those that would be assigned (or volunteer) to defend me. And in their arsenal, due process is a powerful tool.

Due process would let other people see what's happening. The facts, as the government sees them and as I see them, would have the chance of an equal hearing. Maybe my side will not prevail. But perhaps one of those judges or juries would have a different opinion than the government, yay me. But without due process, I don't get the chance to even have my day in court. That is a problem for me, a big problem.

I don't know where your head was at ten years ago, but I do know what I wrote in the thread title. What's your objection to it? Crazy rhetoric? Are you kidding me? I suppose I could have refined it thus:

Bush's recent Executive Order invalidates *part of* the Fifth Ammendment.

Ok, protection against self incrimination remains intact. Likewise double jeopardy remains illegal, blah blah blah. Really? Sorry, that's not my thread title. I don't find the one I did use to be much like Chicken Little at all. Did you read the EO? Do you disagree on the facts I've presented. Nevermind your dislike of my tone, do you or don't you agree that this EO overrides the due process protections of the fifth ammendment?

I may seem combative on this point, but seriously, if I'm wrong on the facts, I sincerely want to be reassured that our Constitution is intact. And if it's not, if our ship of state has sprung a leak, you're damn skippy I want everybody to know about it. I'm not combative, I'm worried.

I'm glad you made it through those ten years. I'm glad your friends stuck by you.
-

Wrong about what? Have I said something untrue? Have I misquoted someone? I have said that this EO is wrong, and I have said why I think so. Please tell me what you think is wrong here.

It invalidates nothing! If it did invalidate the fifth amendment, the amendment was already invalidated in 2001 and 2003. But it wasn't. And it wasn't invalidated by any of the other previous EOs signed by other Presidents intended to address other asset seizure situations.

If a judge was presented with a search and seizure case today, would s/he say, "Oh no, sorry, Bush signed several EOs which appeared to layman's eyes to invalidate this, case dismissed."

The Legislature often writes unconstitutional laws and the Executive signs them. Holy crap, end of the world noticed! But they aren't really tasked -- really! -- with the job of determining what's Constitutional. The Constitutionality of a law is determined by the courts.

The courts can rule that an EO is unconstitutional and away it goes. The Legislature can rule that an EO is not law and away it goes. But more often an EO is nullified by another EO.

OK, you don't know what "due process" means. If you are suspected of a murder, you will not be given "prior notice" that the cops are going to arrest you. You won't get a polite phone call asking you when you want to show up at the station.

Your due process does not end with your arrest. It starts with it. It continues through your arraignment, your prosecution and your appeal.

Similarly, if your assets are seized, your due process does not end.

And so we come back to the question posed by post #2, which I would note is the second post in the thread. You answered it by claiming that UG was a fanboi with no concept of the rule of law.

That's weak, mister, so I'll ask the question again.

Do you find anything in the EO that says you couldn't unfreeze these assets by due process upon discovery?

Think about it, but don't investigate it. If you do, you'll find that precisely the same language has been used in every overseas asset seizure EO for ages. Clinton used it on Haiti. Haiti! What a fucking bully, that Clinton! Who stuck up for the Constitution then?

Yep, I did. But I was wrong then, and you are now.

Oh yes, and also on the Sec'y of the Treasury matter:

If you really think about it, for even longer than a minute, you'll realize that having the Secretary of the Treasury be the sole arbiter of whether a case is prosecuted or not, actually limits the scope of the EO.

Amendment 6, which this EO does not address, tells us the accused enjoys the right to confront the witnesses against him. There aren't going to be 10,000 cases in which the Sec'y is a witness when s/he must at the very minimum produce evidence for each one.

The points that it would be hard to actually use, or that it would be easy to overturn, or that it wouldn't be impossible to fight; don't address the matter of whether it is ill-conceived, or the matter of whether concerned citizens of a democracy should take not of, and encourage discussion of, such actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . But I guess your main point was objection to the use of perceived hyperbole.

Well I think it's a good idea to seize assets that would go to our biggest enemies in the world, because it's better than having to go and kill them. I understand the controversy in that, and I'd like to discuss it, but the hyperbole makes it nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about it, and I think that's a worse problem. It's hurting America, as Mr. Jon Stewart once told them on Crossfire.

Our "biggest enemies in the world" are people that "[undermine] efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" ???

Could that possibly include protestors, planning demonstrations against war profiteers? Better be on the safe side, and keep our mouths shut.

If there were no bars, the tiger would eat us mercilessly!

But there are bars, so do not let the fear of lack of bars guide your actions.

Hell, let's remove a few bars, right?


It's not like that tiger is ever gonna bite anyone's face off...

In logic, one counter-example is devastating.

In the real world, one counter-example is expected.