Bush invalidates Fifth Ammendment by Executive Order

[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.

There should only be one "bar" what did I DO wrong or what was I going to DO that is illegal (VERY, VERY, rare one, that)?
What PROOF do you have to show it?
Outside of that, fuck-off.

That is it... nothing else... end of story.

Sad and sick that our administration are so corrupt and their policies are grounded in everything that this nation has been against since it began.
A group of disgusting terrible people who should be behind bars already, I am ashamed of us that they are not.

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

Again, it is not due process if it is AFTER THE FACT!

[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.

[Undertoad]

The due process part is in court; the part where they get their keys taken away and put in jail is long before they're proven guilty.

edit sometimes not

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not, they keep their keys until they are proven guilty.

[Undertoad]

Do they drive home?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, somebody has to pick them up, but they still have a license until they go to court for due process. They could drive home if the Breathalyzer or blood test proves them sober.

[Aliantha]

UT, you mentioned earlier in this thread that the US is no nearer the bottom of the slope that you once thought it was on.

I'm wondering what you're basing this judgement on.

From the outside looking in, it would appear that the reverence that the US was once held in has slipped quite remarkably in the last 10 years. To me that would suggest that something's not going right and unless something has changed, you're still on the same path.

[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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

recognizing house fires

[Undertoad]

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".

No, that's part of the process too, just not part of my process. But there it is: the process, one of many hidden protections that nobody notices because it's not explicitly written out. Apply that process to the rest of your thesis in this thread, watch how it changes.

And when I see this same imperfect tableau you do, I wish to give the government the *minimum* necessary to get the job done.

In a wartime situation I wish to pound the enemy relentlessly. There is no minimum. Tread lightly has been tried here and sadly failed.

I believe in the parsimonious granting of this kind of power because it is soooo hard to roll back.

EOs are pretty much the easiest form of governance to roll back. I've already documented that in this thread.

This EO exceeds the minimum by a long shot.

Not having any understanding of the risk of monies being used in Iraq, and how much they are and where they come from, I can't say. Very surprised that you have such knowledge.

Assuming of course that you got a day in court.

That damn sky just keeps on falling, doesn't it?

[Undertoad]

From the outside looking in, it would appear that the reverence that the US was once held in has slipped quite remarkably in the last 10 years. To me that would suggest that something's not going right and unless something has changed, you're still on the same path.

That's a different slope than the one we're talking about.

[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.