Bush invalidates Fifth Ammendment by Executive Order

[BigV]

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

Fact sheet Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

--snip--

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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.

--snip--

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

Bush says that if the Sec'y of the Treasury decides that you poses a risk to the stabilization of Iraq, your property can be seized.

Think about that for a minute. I'll wait.

If you're a US citizen, your property could be "blocked", legalese for "you can't use it". Why? If one person says so. Which one person? The Secretary of the Treasury. Or anyone he delegates authority to. Or anyone to whom that authority is redelegated.

Due process? Overruled! "...there need be no prior notice...".

The crime for this punishment? Something like supporting someone who violates this order. If the Charity-R-Us ran afoul of this order, and you put a dollar in their donation box, all your property could be forfeit.

Bush is a pathetic bully. You know why he picks on civil liberties? Because they can't fight back. He's no better than the big kid on the playground menacing the little kids. Who'll stick up for the little kids?

Who will stick up for the Constitution? Will you?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Now look, do you find anything there that you couldn't unfreeze these assets by due process upon discovery?

Does not matter... due process should be first.
He is and always has been a punk-ass-bitch.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

First or last, the results are the same either way -- process.

One can certainly see how this would impede electronic funding of terrorist operations, which is the whole point. Yelling about Bush being totalitarian (he isn't, but only the ignorant don't get that -- he is fighting a war and trying to win it, and the ignorant seem to believe he shouldn't) forgets that day by day January 2009 marches closer and GWB terms out, in accordance with the Constitution. Some bozos will mutter, "We hope!" and I say to the bozos, "Oh, puh-leeze! You know what I hope? I hope the Republicans take back at least one house of Congress and keep the Presidency, because I want us to win and the Democrats quit wanting that about 2003!"

If the Dems get the Oval Office in January 2009, they will have irredeemably lost the war by February.

The war is not here and he and his fellow morons started that unnecessary invasion, we should leave those folks alone.
Proper process is the only process.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

First or last, the results are the same either way -- process.

Good grief, your fucking with us now. Not even you can believe that shit.

[Flint]

It'll sound like a cliche, but: cognitive dissonance, man. People can "believe" whatever they need to believe.

[Rexmons]

Patriot Act is to the Constitution as Anti Christ is to _____.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now look, do you find anything there that you couldn't unfreeze these assets by due process upon discovery?

The Constitution prohibits seizure without due process. Period. Notice that unlike the wiretapping laws, this one includes US citizens.

As for unfreezing, how much do you think that would cost in legal fees? $10,000? $50,000. How long would someone have to wait, while bills piled up and foreclosure became more and more possible?

If someone did lose their house because of this, how much would it cost and how long would it take to recover compensation from the government, assuming they could be sued?

The reason this is an executive order and not a law is that it's a blatant Constitutional violation that would have never made it through both houses, even with a Republican majority.

[Griff]

Everyone knows that government has continually grown in size and scope during this past century, but how and why has it done so? Is this growth inherent in the nature of government or because of some greater social needs, or are there other causes?

In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs shows that the main reason lies in government’s responses to national “crises” (real or imagined), including economic upheavals (e.g., the Great Depression) and especially war (e.g., World Wars I and II, Cold War, etc.). The result is ever increasing government power which endures long after each crisis has passed, impinging on both civil and economic liberties and fostering extensive corporate welfare and pork. As government power grows, writes Higgs, it achieves a form of autonomy, making it ever more difficult to decrease its size and scope, and to resist its further efforts to increase its reach, so long as the citizenry remain uninformed of its true effects.


An oldie but still right on the mark.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Good grief, your fucking with us now. Not even you can believe that shit.

No shit, "First you get arrested, locked-up, THEN we.... "
"see how we did that"?
"you like that?", "It's all backward now, something fun for tha' kids ta' watch!"
"Next week we are going to garnish wages, then if you DON'T speed, we may give you your money back".

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I ain't buyin' your argument.

When are your assets seized? When are the assets of anyone you know seized? When are the assets of anyone you don't know seized?

It is acutely annoying how certain people have squawked at every single solitary measure taken by an Administration trying to win a war -- and apparently on the grounds that such measures might win the war. Fatuous and fascistic, for my money. The squawkers have no plan nor any desire to win it, so fuck 'em with a splintery fence post lubed with Ass In Antarctica(tm) pepper sauce.

Hotsauce.com rates this pepper sauce at three or four flamy icons, depending on which page you look.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

When are your assets seized? When are the assets of anyone you know seized? When are the assets of anyone you don't know seized?

Why would they make the rule if they don't plan to ever use it? What people seem to overlook with these "special powers" is that somebody has to decide who the bad guys are. Today, you think you agree with the people who would make that decision. If people you disagree with were elected, the rule could still be used. Think ahead a little. The government doesn't deserve this much power, they aren't that trustworthy.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I only see this ever being done to terrorist funding channels. The Administration sees it that way also -- such is their instinct, in contrast to the instincts of the previous Administration.

Those who are really worried can always consider that it's easier to revoke or revise an Executive Order than it is to repeal a law.

[Flint]

Why make it, with the reasoning that it would be easy to revoke?