Bush invalidates Fifth Ammendment by Executive Order

[BigV]

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by BigV

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 think the standard answer to this is "don't do anything wrong, and you won't have to worry about it" although that needs to be revised to "don't be suspected of being associated with anyone who is suspected of doing anything wrong" ... doesn't exactly give you a peaceful, easy feelin' ...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

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;

That puts every US soldier at risk of having their assets snatched, indeed every US citizen.

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 left out one of the governments favorite charges, "Conspiracy to (fill in damn near anything). Very difficult to defend against.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by BigV

Let me ask you some questions, UT. What the heck does this EO do?
...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?

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. 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:

I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, hereby
order:
Section 1. Except to the extent provided in regulations, orders, directives,
or licenses, which may hereafter be issued pursuant to this order, and
notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or im-
posed by any international agreement or any contract entered into or any
license or permit granted before the effective date of this order, all property
and interests in property of persons:
(a) Who have contributed to the obstruction of the implementation of
the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 841 and 873, the Governors
Island Agreement of July 3, 1993, or the activities of the United Nations
Mission in Haiti;
(b) Who have perpetuated or contributed to the violence in Haiti; or
(c) Who have materially or financially supported any of the foregoing,
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, including their overseas branches, are blocked.

(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.)

Back to Biggie:

Do you want to live in a country where you can be punished because you might do something? I don't.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know who's really seriously punished because they might do something? DUI.

No, they are punished for breaking a law society has agreed to, BUT, not before they are proven guilty. Not because someone suspects they might, because they have had due process first.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

(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.)

Funny. Of course you have no problem finding material on Clinton, because people bitched about Clinton being the Devil (and still do) as much as they do now about Bush. I find the polar opposition fascinating. I suppose you could say it doesn't matter who is in office, or which party they belong to, but there is a general problem with our system, or the perception exists that there is.

Here in this thread we have two different viewpoints on the same subject matter. Yours (UT), like any other, is based on the lessons that your years of experience have taught you. Your aged wisdom tells you: everything will just work itself out somehow. Should we cross our fingers, will that help?

I suggest a point-of-view that trumps this feeling you have: ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. That is not an alarmist stance. You (UT) may have had an alarmist stance in the past, but what you're doing now is over-compensating. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

Funny. Of course you have no problem finding material on Clinton, because people bitched about Clinton being the Devil (and still do) as much as they do now about Bush. I find the polar opposition fascinating. I suppose you could say it doesn't matter who is in office, or which party they belong to, but there is a general problem with our system, or the perception exists that there is.

And this process will repeat itself if Hitlery Clinton is elected. And we can all switch sides of the table and start the process anew.