[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The entire point of this order is the part you originally bolded:

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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in

The idea, I'm sure, is to seize assets in the US that are intended for use in Iraq.

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

Duh. I got that already, and as you can see, I already agreed with you.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The same kind of EO has been used for quite some time, for exactly that purpose. For example, Clinton did it during the Bosnian conflict in EO 12934.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi.../pdf/12934.pdf

Clinton had six such EOs to address Haiti. For example 12872:
(side: this is not just a "b-b-but clinton did it!" objection. I tried to find other examples but there is precious few resources on EOs.)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt too on your motivation for this cite, despite the fact that I agree with your observation. Nevertheless, I read that EO. I can see the use of a lot of boilerplate legal text. Y'know what I don't see in Clinton's EO? I don't see anything about immediate unannounced seizure. Apparently due process wasn't yet flatlined in 1994.

By the way, you and I have different understandings of what is meant by "due process". I understand it to mean "by the process and in accordance to the law". Unfortunately. Since by signing an EO automatically makes it law... But there are other aspects of due process that begin well before a seizure or arrest, despite your misguided assertions that the police actions initiate due process.

Have you never heard of search warrants? I know the Bush administration has, despite their disdain for them. Even the IRS, unquestionably the most (in)famous Federal institution in the nation when it comes to seizing property, offers many pre-seizure communications with the accused. There's even one called a Due Process Hearing. So the IRS understands that communication before the execution of the sentence is part of due process, but the Bush doesn't. Great.

You may disagree, given your expressed understanding of due process. Here's what it is and why it's a big problem for me. The sole penalty for violating Bush's EO is the seizure of property. Since it can be done *legally*, instantaneously, and at the discretion of the Treasury Sec'y, or his deputees, the whole thing reeks of a kangaroo court, of a damn lynching, like a farcical Monty Python sketch. "If he's innocent, the pond of truth will reject his money and it will float to the top. Otherwise, he was guilty." Give me a break.

Where else in our whole society, Michael Vick's current situation notwithstanding, do we hang 'em first and try the body later? Don't you see the penalty happens before the proof? Don't you see that *that* is the violation of due process I protest?!

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Back to Biggie:

By that rule of thumb, I believe the earth has left you homeless.

Which brings me to the other thing I didn't see in Clinton's EO, that I did see in Bush's and that I have a big problem with. Nowhere in Clinton's EO is there any language suggesting that bad actions the risk of bad actions was equally illegal. Cause I might? That's a reason to impose the sentence? That is weak. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The law is the ugly, ugly place where the glorious ideal meets deep dark reality. Almost by definition, the law sucks as hard as reality sucks.

That's a poetic image, but I disagree. I see the law as the structure that permits our individual realities to coexist without conflict. And when conflict is not avoidable to have a civilized way to resolve it. But I don't see it as ugly.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know who's really seriously punished because they might do something? DUI. The drunk driver hasn't hurt anyone, you realize. S/he has only increased the likelihood that s/he will hurt someone. The drunk driver may be an excellent driver in fact; you'd trust Mario Andretti at .08 more than most drivers at 0.00. 999 out of 1000 drunk drivers will get home without incident. 100% of the DUIs who are stopped before hitting anything, have not hit anything or hurt anyone. And it's 99.99999% more likely you'll be arrested and prosecuted DUI than under this EO. You got a problem with DUI prosecution? Drunk drivers have been waiting for someone to lobby on their side.

Wrong. Drunk drivers are arrested when found to be drunk while driving. The contract voluntarily and explicitly agreed to when you and I applied for our driver's licenses was that a field sobriety test would be considered admissible as evidence. Even then, there's no compulsory test. I can refuse to be tested, but, under the terms of the contract, the law, I surrender my license at that moment.

Furthermore, driving is a privilege, not a right or a required part of living. Having some property is. I can opt out of the whole driving scene, never be at risk of the dangers you outline. But how can I live, at all, without being under a cloud, at peril for having my assets seized under the terms of this EO? I can choose to do no violence. But how can I ever be free of the risk of violence? Always their call... I don't like that situation. Drinking and driving, lots of choice there. I can pay my taxes and never worry about having to file that form in the earlier link. But there will always be some risk, some potential for violence. That should not be a crime. Hell no.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh, you missed it again! Maybe you didn't read my last message so carefully. My due process begins at the moment everything I have is seized. At that point, we begin the legal process in which my role is examined. Did I collude in the crime, and to what extent? What did I know and when did I know it? If you were actually planning a crime and I knew about it, this would have to be proven in a court of law.

I like my chances; rule #1 is Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.

Good luck with your chances of having that particular fig leaf offer you any real protection in court. Assuming of course that you got a day in court.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Of course, well before the seizure, the feds involved would probably vet their information, because if they know there's no proof I colluded, taking my stuff will be a major waste of their time and probably a horrible political embarrassment.

Here you're invoking the very concept of due process you deny everywhere else. The "vetting" before the seizure. Man, that's part of the due process too. It may be that we simply disagree on the scope of the term "due process".

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Do we have a guarantee the system can't be used arbitrarily? No. There is no guarantee given in any civilized nation in the world. This is not due to the current administration. This is reality, in which we are imperfect animals.

Again, we agree. And when I see this same imperfect tableau you do, I wish to give the government the *minimum* necessary to get the job done. I believe in the parsimonious granting of this kind of power because it is soooo hard to roll back. This EO exceeds the minimum by a long shot. Fuck, just seize everybody's everything, write it up in a short little EO to make it legal, and save all this agonizing. Easy, yes. Effective, yes. Right, no.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The real problem with the administration is not that they put together an EO to try to stop people from transferring millions of dollars to Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran to buy AK47s and shaped charges and night vision goggles. The real problem is that they have such a lack of leadership as to turn an ordinary EO into more fuel for the fire. Fighting the war in Iraq with no more than the same tools used to promote Democracy in Haiti, is now a full-fledged libertarian crisis for some folks. That's how divided we are. That's what it's come to. And maybe we had to, but goddamn, it sucks.

*sigh* There are real problems with this administration, with this country, with our laws and other systems. But for now that's a whole other thread.