Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment

RalphTWaP writes "Tuesday, there wasn't even a fuss. Wednesday, the world was a little different. 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." There hasn't been much media notice of this; the UK's Guardian has an article explaining how the new authority will only be used to go after terrorists.

We're in a national emergency?

[Anonymous Coward]

with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003

Historically speaking

[Ravenscall]

I wonder if this will be seen as a tipping point when historians will look back at how the United States became a fascist nation, or if it will be seen as just part of the slow decline that began with the Johnson administration.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[eln]

The order gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to immediately and without notice freeze all assets of anyone suspected of either directly or indirectly attempting to undermine the Iraqi government as well as anyone who has financial dealings, directly or indirectly, with such people.

The language is ridiculously broad and does appear to violate the 5th amendment. It appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. The language is very broad and open to interpretation by the Secretary of the Treasury, who serves at the pleasure of the President. This is absolutely begging to be abused.

Bush just got his "legacy".

[khasim]

Along with Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus.

From the Executive Order:

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.

Yeah, that's a single sentence.

What, specifically, is the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" that he speaks of?

Personally, I find his threat to the Fifth Amendment to be far WORSE than anything anyone in Iraq can do.

Go ahead and mod me down. It's the truth whether you want to hear it or not.

Re:"...not much media notice"

[QRDeNameland]

Personally, I don't think it's so much that the media is controlled by the government, but rather that both the media and government are largely controlled by the same interests.

News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters??

[DrDitto]

When did Slashdot become a political blog?

MOD UP

[HomelessInLaJolla]

May be an AC but I don't think many Americans knew that we were officially in a "State of Emergency".

Even if we mod the parent up, though, I don't hold much hope that many Americans will spend more than a few moments thinking about what that really means.

Re:The short version...

[trolltalk.com]

"Err, how many anti-war (or anti anything) folks are going to be transferring money overseas"

... with this latest, there are probably more than a few Americans who wish they could transfer their assets and themselves somewhere else ...

... its just another brick in the wall ...

Re:There it goes

[endianx]

It's true. I wonder how many of the people here who always talk about the erosion of liberty in the US are still going to vote for a Clinton/McCain/Obama/Giuliani type candidate in the primaries. (Or not vote in the primaries at all.)

If you want liberty, vote for Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com]. If you can't stand voting for someone running as a Republican, vote for Mike Gravel [gravel2008.us].

Re:Summary dishonest

[ArcherB]

That section you just described is the "we are doing this because..." part, and is NOT the description of what acts qualify to repeal a person's 5th amendment rights.

It pains me to say that you are correct.

In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.

I don't see this in the order. I see things like (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: This is not a "political act", but an act of treason. I feel these people would be getting off light.

The rest deal with providing material support, which is nothing new.

I guess you should be happy that he doesn't take Orwell's view:

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

Stop using the term "executive order"

[MobyDisk]

First, the President of the United States does not have any magical "executive order" powers that make new laws or grant new powers. An "executive order" is given by the president to one of his cabinet members. It is just the same as your boss telling you to do something. If you don't do it, or don't do it well, you will be fired.

Unfortuntaely, somebody didn't tell this to George Bush. Reading the order you can see that he really thinks that he can tell the Treasury department to seize people's money. It's surreal to see this, because I really think that the guy just doesn't know that he doesn't have this power. And it's weirder because people seem to pretend like he does, and actually follow them. Indirectly, I guess that means he does have the power. It's very weird.

What would help, is if people (including the press) would stop acknowledging them as "executive orders" because they aren't. Call them "strongly worded requests" or "presidential demands" or something. George Bush writing this has no more relevance than if I wrote it. The press should be making him a laughing stock.

Re:The short version...

[tkiesel]

Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but I don't see anything stopping the Secretary of the Treasury from using this for political purposes. If you go to an anti-war demonstration, you just might be undermining efforts to promote political reform in Iraq (as defined by the Bush administration).

The "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" phrase is in 1.i.B in the document [whitehouse.gov]. If you look, because of 1.i, both 1.i.A and 1.i.B only apply to persons committing "an act or acts of violence" with the purpose or effect of 1.i.A or 1.i.B

So, if someone committed an act of violence at an anti-war demonstration, and said act of violence was intended to undermine progress in Iraq, then yes, that person would be hosed. But anyone who doesn't act violently is immune from that clause. Unless.....

Anyone want to take a wager on whether the Bush administration would engage in Clintonesque "it depends on what the meaning of violent is" semantic dancing?

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we really going to try to split some microscopic hair over this?

Why would this issue be different from any other? We are geeks, a necessary part of our enjoyment of life is splitting microscopic hairs.

Does anyone really believe that the writers of the Constitution meant for something like this to be legal?

The winds blow one way and then the next on whether it matters what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution. Modern courts have certainly found that the word 'deprived' does not have the same legal meaning as 'siezed'. While we can all argue all day on Slashdot what we take from the text the only interpretation that matters at all is that settled on by the courts, and they've settled. They've yet to well define the difference between 'public' and 'private' with regard to the taking of property but that is another issue.

Unfortunately Congress probably can't do a thing about this

That is not unfortunate, that is a good thing. It is the way the system is supposed to work and it is for the long term good.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[MightyYar]

If you find a guy cutting the electrical wires to people's houses, do you wait until after he is convicted to take away his cutters? If someone is on a murderous rage, do you wait until after he is convicted to block access to his gun? If someone gets caught drunk driving, do you wait until he's convicted to stop them from driving?

As long as the person ultimately gets due process, there is nothing wrong with temporarily blocking access to the tools used to commit a crime.

Re:Stop using the term "executive order"

[MobyDisk]

Okay, replying to my own post, but this is interesting:

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act [wikipedia.org] is what Bush seems to be claiming he can do this under. Is anyone familiar with this who can comment?

Two important points that prove Slashdot != digg

[Minter92]

I've lamented slashdot sliding into digg land lately, but reading this has shown me important ways slashdot is way above digg.

First, the depth of discussion. People are posting multi paragraph intelligent statements and responding to each other without rancor. People seem to actually have some grasp of the topic. On digg the comments would be, "BUSH TEH DEVIL hax his internets."

Secondly, despite the fact the headline is inaccurate and somewhat inflammatory, on digg the headline would have been, "BREAKING CONFIRMED: Bush tells american public to FUCK OFF"

Re:Summary dishonest

[ArcherB]

FYI, the Secretaries of Treasury, State, and Defense are all part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial, hence the apt phrase "secret process outside the courts" which you objected to.

No, I objected to "In fact, political acts are included". That is nowhere in the order. I understand that there is nothing expressly forbidding it, but regardless of what the executive order says or doesn't say, if this is used to silence political opponents, the uproar will be enough to have congress overturn this executive order and possibly (probably) lead to impeachment proceedings. Keep in mind that while an executive order is law, it can be overturned by congress, so oversight exists.

According to you, if I go to a large demonstration against the Bush Iraq policies and there is a significant threat that there may be violence there then I am a traitor to my country. Sheesh. There is a significant threat of violence just driving to the damned demonstration.

Depends on what you call a protest. If you stand in the road and block the shipment of supplies to our troops overseas, then you are doing the work of the enemy and therefor, a traitor. Carrying a sign and calling it a protest should not protect you if you are offering aid and comfort to the enemy. Disrupting supply lines by standing in the road near a Seattle port is the same as planting a roadside bomb on the Basra Highway. However, if you are standing in front of the White House with a sign that says "Bush is a punk-ass chump!", then no, you are not a traitor.

Re:"...not much media notice"

[jofny]

The horrible thing is that you're wrong. Corporate interests do NOT control the government or the media. The government, the media, and large financial interests, and most of the US population is completely -complicit- in what goes on here. Thats what keeps me up at night. Even thought they CAN change things (if they couldnt, then they would be 'controled'), everyone is actually largely uninterested in doing things differently.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Duhavid]

Good points.

One thing though... Assume for a moment that an innocent person is caught
up in this. He/she/it is unable to use their bank accounts for an extended
period of time. What happens to the mortgage on their house? The bank might
well foreclose. Bills they had, they don't get paid, who is going to pay
the interest on the charge cards as they remain unpaid and bump to the highest
rates allowed, and accumulate late charges. Suppose they are married. What
happens to the spouse, if that spouse A, doesn't have a job and a separate bank
account or B, has both, but this is unaccessible due to the relationship to
the spouse? They might have kids. Maybe in college, except, not any more,
cause the tuition is not being paid.

Will this bill put things right for the affected people if they are found innocent?

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[MobyDisk]

You are completely wrong. Let's go to the original source, the acts that created the treasury department [ustreas.gov]. For some background on the how and why, I'm using what I recollect from history class in school. That being many years ago, I tried the Wikipedia article United States Treasury Department [wikipedia.org] and I see nothing substantiating any claims about the Treasury department conducting search and seizer. And the US Coast Guard [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with the Treasury Department.

I find it funny when people say things like "I don't know where you are getting this info from, but I think ...." and provide no links. I'm open to being wrong, but don't challenge someone elses sources unless you present your own.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[gutter]

Can you explain to me what the hell is partisan about wanting to protect the 5th amendment? If this president issued an executive order that he and Cheney got to eat babies would you support it because he's a Republican?

Re:As a law student...

[Alchemar]

and if you fall under it's affects, then you have no money to defend yourself and an attorney is not allowed to help you, because that is considered aiding a terrorist. It falls under the same catagory of not being able to file against secret wiretaping so long as it is secret. It doesn't matter if something is illegal if the courts are not allowed to rule on it.
 
  If you don't think that this order will be abused, do some research into what happens when money is seized on the grounds of it being drug money, but then all drug related charges dropped. The money ends up in a legal limbo. They get told they can have it back as soon as the courts find them not guilty.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[uarch]

It's not partisan to protect the 5th amendment.

The complaint the poster had is that the headline "Executive Order Overturns US Fifth Amendment" is intentionally misleading and just another one of kdawson's political rants.

Re:MOD UP

[Petrushka]

I wonder how many people commenting here are aware of the nature of this "emergency". Here's a WP article on it [wikipedia.org] that gives the full text of the executive order declaring the emergency. The neutrality of the WP article is "disputed", but here are the salient bits of Executive Order 13303:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1

Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, 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.

So, yes, the reason the fifth amendment has been overturned is for the express purpose of immunising U.S. oil companies against any legal action relating to anything they choose to do in Iraq.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[toriver]

So? The founding fathers also thought that having a professional army was a waste of taxpayers' money and that they instead should arm Joe Public to form militias. And look where you are now: A HUGE professional army "defending" around the globe while the 2nd Amendment has been twisted into something that gives a possibility for people to "go postal" or "do a Columbine".

not another red herring

[Sjobeck]

Hey, I am Dubya The Dolt, I have an idea, let us (ie: wipe my feet on the Constitution, in stark contrast to my oath of office) attack the symptoms (ie: near universal understanding of those who want the American killers out of their country) of the problem, not the problem itself (ie: force-feeding so-called government/capitalism to people who have rejected it for the last 3000+ years).

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[Danse]

To say that the government denying you access to (or use of) your property is the same as being "deprived" of it is illogical and simply not true.

Please go look up the definition of deprived. Then do a little reading on due process. Then come back and post. You're talking about zoning and land-use restrictions, which are very different things than an executive order that simply overrides our laws and constitution. I can't talk to my local rep or congressman about this, or even vote against it. It's not even a real law. It's simply a declaration by an executive branch that insists that the law doesn't apply to it for a variety of bizarre, yet morbidly fascinating reasons.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[sumdumass]

Due Process is the process provided by law. If the courts rule it unfair it will be changed again but they are subject to the law. There is nothing about due process that is set in stone that a new law couldn't change.

Case in point, the suspension of habeas corpus. The new due process is a military tribunal if you happen to fall into a certain category. And the Supreme court suggested it be done this way in one of the jurisdictional challenges with the club gitmo residents.

I didn't say the use is right, just that it can happen. Congress has 90 days to pass a resolution defeating the executive order or it become full force with the law behind it. Of course congress could pass a law restraining the president from giving this order but then there would probably be a constitutional challenge that no one in congress really wants.

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[Grave]

The Fifth Amendment 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.

The Fifth Amendment in no way specifies exclusions. In fact, it very bluntly states, "nor shall any person". So if just a single person is subject to the sort of search and seizure described by this executive order, it has violated the fifth amendment.

Now, I'm not clear how you can view being upset by this executive order a "political rant". This isn't politics, it's a violation of the very principles that this country was founded on. The recent attempts by congress and the executive branch to defeat our constitution's provisions for the rights of US citizens makes me angry. Not that-guy-just-cut-me-off angry; not the-power-went-out-just-as-I-was-about-to-defeat-t hat-boss angry. Angry to the point of wanting to run for office to make sure no other dipshit tries to pull this kind of thing off.

Re:Inflammatory misleading headline

[the_bard17]

Definition of deprive [reference.com].

In another light, if you deprive (see above) me of food, I will starve. I don't care whether you eat the food (your definition of seize), or simply lock it up in a fridge (your definition of freeze).

Either way, I starve.

So who's mangling the English language?

Re:MOD THIS UP, kdawson MUST GO!!

[painlord2k]

The EO say "seize" not "confiscate". There is a not so subtle difference. The first is a temporary measure, the second is permanent. They will keep the money and the assets until the owner show himself and ask them back.