Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution ArticlesTitle: New Bush EO - Total Asset Seizure For Opposing Iraq Reform?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general77/seiz.htm
Published: Jul 22, 2007
Author: www.gambling911.com
Post Date: 2007-07-22 14:31:50 by robin
Ping List: *Eminent Domain* Subscribe to *Eminent Domain*
Keywords: None
Views: 72
Comments: 1
New Bush EO - Total Asset Seizure For Opposing Iraq Reform?
New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment 7-20-7 Did anyone get the license plate of that Mack truck that ran us over yesterday? By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact. Click here to read this new little gem out of the Bush Administration. - What's it say, you ask? The White House will decide if you are in any way "undermining efforts" in Iraq, or related to Iraq or pretty much anything else, the Treasury Department is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc
- Although good in overall notion (stop terrorist funding), the ridiculously broad language in this order takes the 5th amendment, and flushes it down the toilet. As an example, if it appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines, without any proof, is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. No due process, do not pass go.
- The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:
- 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.
-
- The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
- How does the Secretary of the Treasury feel about a t-shirt that says, 'Stop the War?' Is such a T-shirt considered destabilizing?
-
http://www.gambling911.com/Executive-Order-Fifth-Ammendment-071907.html
Subscribe to *Eminent Domain* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Ron Paul for President
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
|