Goodbye 5th Amendment... RIP (1791-2007)

[aspire]

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

Basically, this could in broad terms mean that anyone speaking against the Iraq war can have their property confiscated without any form of due process, something clearly against the 5th Amendment which states:

"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."

Whats your take on it?

 

[Trotter]

Discussion, good. Getting into political discusions/arguments, bad.

Don't make me close this.

 

[molsen]

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

Basically, this could in broad terms mean that anyone speaking against the Iraq war can have their property confiscated without any form of due process, something clearly against the 5th Amendment which states:

reading comprehension > you

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within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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

since when is speaking violent? and how does this kill the 5th amendment? wasn't it already killed after 9/11?

besides, all this order adds is the ability to seize property. EVERYTHING ELSE in it has already been ordered in 2002, 2003, and 2004. where was your concern back then?

lemme guess, you copy/pasted this from digg? or maybe reddit?

 

[tommyboy123x]

I'm not too knowledgeable with things like this but let me take a stab at it..... just tell me if i'm way off or something..... anyways.....

lets say i'm a huge drug dealer using my parent's house to make / store / sell drugs. If they have some kind of proof they are allowed to seize all the assets until we can prove drug money did not pay for them or fight to get them back...

Not to get too political but the way this administration has been finding loopholes like mad (i.e. how cheney isn't part of the executive branch because he has legislative duties) I'm not too surprised.

Now if they were to do soemthing like this to a lifeless fool yelling that iraq is a waste of time, it would be WAY unnecessary but I believe they are talking about extreme situations.

Nonetheless the way they word things like this is just insane...

 

[molsen]

I'm not too knowledgeable with things like this but let me take a stab at it..... just tell me if i'm way off or something..... anyways.....

lets say i'm a huge drug dealer using my parent's house to make / store / sell drugs. If they have some kind of proof they are allowed to seize all the assets until we can prove drug money did not pay for them or fight to get them back...

only if that drug money was supporting violent acts against the Iraq war, as outlined in the part I quoted. accept you and your parents would probably just get held in some detention center with no chance of getting out.

the 5th amendment became broken at the end of 2001......this exec. order just adds the ability to seize assets, that's all.

 

[Trotter]

are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in

"Blocked", not taken away. Reads the same as "frozen" to me.

The order is pretty straight-forward. It has to do with people and the supporters of people who are or may try to destabilize the government in Iraq. I would assume that includes supporting terror organizations, as well.

Sounds good to me.

 

[tommyboy123x]

lol AND SUPPORTING PIRATING WILL GET YOU THE SAME PUNISHMENT!!

 

[molsen]

i dont understand how people are reading this and going "ZOMG! tyranny! the 5th amendment is gone! 1st amendment gone! we can't protest!"

illiteracy is still a problem in this country apparently. maybe we should elect barbara bush for president

 

[Trotter]

ROFL!!! Actually, she's better than all who plan on running...

 

[molsen]

what about ron paul?

omg politics!