All right, recess it over. Climb down off the "bars" and back to class. Good grief.
Let me ask you some questions, UT. What the heck does this EO do? I mean, ten days ago, could you have committed acts of violence that threatens the Government of Iraq with impunity? Was the violence and potential violence outlined in this order legal two weeks ago? What has been going on?
I have read and reread this order and I see two actions that are now prohibited:
Violence, or the risk of violence that is:
(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;
and now the penalty for that violence or risk of violence is seizure. I'm pretty sure we already had laws that prohibited violence in this country. Why this new one? (I have an idea why.)
Another thing I find troubling, very troubling, is the criminalization of potential. You brought up murder earlier, let's play that out a little here. If I shoot someone dead, that's murder. It's a crime, and I should be punished. But what about having a gun? There's a much greater risk of shooting someone dead if I have a gun than if I don't, and in this EO, to extend my analogy, committing murder, and the risk of committing murder are precisely equal, subject to the same penalty. You'll be rotting in jail long after the lawyers stop yammering as to what "significant" means. What kind of determination of "significant" do you expect from a federal mindset that won't allow fingernail clippers and bottles of breast milk on airplanes due to the "risk" of hijacking? Ok, to be fair, the Feds recently increased the volume of breast milk allowed on planes from the previous three ounce maximum, but it still must be declared.
Do you want to live in a country where you can be punished because you might do something? I don't. It was merely stupid and annoying to have to throw out my shaving kit at the airport security screening, but under this EO, the stakes are much much higher. And, for pity's sake, how can you defend yourself against a charge of potential violence when all your assets are seized? I hope to God Due Process descends from the clouds in a flaming chariot to smite my enemies, but I'm not holding my breath.
I said I have an idea why this new rule was made. I agree with you that it is a good thing for our enemies to have no resources to use against us. That's what I think this rule is really about. They took an action that was already illegal, violence, and wrapped it up in a new set of penalties. Then, watch carefully, they wrapped it up in a recursive bow of complicity. Are you violent against Iraq? If you are guilty, then your assets are seized. Nothing new here, except perhaps the penalty. But this is the new twist: any person, entity, or United States person is equally guilty of violation of this order, and subject to the same penalties, seizure, if that person/entity/citizen has supported the person who committed the violent act.
I don't find this scenario much of a stretch. Let's say I'm a bad guy. I am guilty of violating this order. In the course of my planning, I posted on the cellar, setting up my evil plan. You are guilty by association. Everything you have is seized. Where is your due process now?
So. Once again, I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt and grant him credit for good intentions. But this is a messed up rule. There was a story in this morning's news about medical marijuana. Legal in California, illegal in the United States. So the DEA is sending letters to the landlords of these shops saying all kinds of scary things about jail and forfeiture. On the face of it, it's legal because Bush signed it. But that doesn't make it right. We're just one brick closer to Hell, thanks to this work.
|
