Can you dumb that down for me? Who gets to define “significant” in “pose a significant risk”?
There was a discussion yesterday about Cheney’s Energy Policy, and one of the arguments was that if you don’t have anything to hide, you’ve got nothing to lose.
I wonder if we’ll see that argument here.
When will Bush supporters give-in and admit this administration has eroded, undermined, and destroyed all of our civil liberties?
All of my civil liberties have been destroyed? Huh, I hadn’t noticed. What specific civil rights have been taken away from you? Why aren’t you sueing someone?
"Who gets to define ‘significant’ in ‘pose a significant risk’?"
According to the document, “the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.” That certainly isn’t what I thought “due process” meant in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But then, the Fifth Amendment is just part of the Constitution, which doesn’t seem to mean much of anything these days anyway.
.
"Who gets to define ‘significant’ in ‘pose a significant risk’?"
According to the document, “the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.” That certainly isn’t what I thought “due process” meant in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But then, the Fifth Amendment is just part of the Constitution, which doesn’t seem to mean much of anything these days anyway.
But, but, but…the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I heard that somewhere.
But what about Clinton?
And what of Al Queida and Saddam?
And what about the children?
24 is always a pre-cursor to real life.
This is how it is done on 24.
our greatest blunder and an embarrassing machinery for social control.
No, that would be the tax code.
all I could think while I read the decree was how Bush will now be forced to seize his and Cheney’s own property since they are responsible for the destabilization of Iraq.
It is a legitmate complaint that the government has been eroding our civil liberties to a degree since 9/11
It is clearly not factual that ALL of them have been destroyed.
However, any infringement on civil liberty is a bad thing.
The “If you don’t have anything to hide” argument is bogus. We all have things to hide, and it is not good to give the government sweeping power, unless you think the government can be trusted 100%.
Does anyone think that? I mean, for those who do trust the government to spy on our phone conversations and take our property without a trial…would you still trust the government if Hillary wins the next election? Obama? Ron Paul?, Giuliani?
You never know who the government is going to be in the future, if you give them a lot of power, you better hope you can trust whoever it is.
“take our property without a trial.”
This happens all the time, typically with the IRS, but also with RICO.
You still have the right to sue to get it back. Have fun with your civil suit in federal court. See how many years it takes.
I actually know a guy who went through this once. He was the victim of a bad drug bust by a bad cop who eventually went to jail. The drug charges were a joke, but the IRS levy of $1,000,000 or so was not. It took him years to get out from under.
Right, your friend is an example of why this is bad. We should be rescinding the governments ability to do these things, not expanding it.
Right, your friend is an example of why this is bad. We should be rescinding the governments ability to do these things, not expanding it.
Art probably agrees with you. It’s just that when a Republican takes away your rights, he feels its more important to point out that its not just Republicans who do it.
Who is this directive likely to apply to? I’m stumped.
BTW, it is ENTIRELY reasonable to bring up all the other situations in which the government can seize your property without due process. It outrageous even if Bush isn’t responsible for it, people.
Who is this directive likely to apply to? I’m stumped.
Anyone who makes a contribution to a charity that is shown to promote terrorism, as an example.
Ah. Dumb question, but don’t they already do that?
Or maybe I’m mixing things up. I am under the impression that we’ve already frozen the assets of several charities that we say funnel money to terrorist groups. This directive would additionally allow the government to sieze the assets of those individuals donating to like charities?
Ah. Dumb question, but don’t they already do that?
Or maybe I’m mixing things up. I am under the impression that we’ve already frozen the assets of several charities that we say funnel money to terrorist groups. This directive would additionally allow the government to sieze the assets of those individuals donating to like charities?
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
To go another direction, I think this EO could apply to folks based on their political views…
Not according to the language, and aside from that, even I don’t think the administration would try something that extreme.
What I’m getting out of this is that in addition to seizing the assets of charities (or “charities”) giving money to terrorists, the government wants to seize the assets of individuals giving money to the charities that give money to terrorists.
If I’m mistaken in that interpretation, I’m standing by for correction.
I think you are probably correct, but the language is pretty broad.
So, let’s get this straight,…the Administration has issued an Executive Order (a commonly used device) saying that if you help terrorists (criminals, by law) or help counter your own country’s military, they can seize the assets or money involved in your doing so?
What’s the problem again? I didn’t read the entire EO yet, so it’s entirely possible I missed the problem.