Screw the Fifth Amendment!

[Loserbait]

Sure, I'm a bit late... but I still don't see a thread about this...

What are people's thoughts on this?

[DragTheCigaretteKing]

Before i thought GWB is being a complete fuckface. I mean he's using Iraq as an excuse to constantly bomb another country for oil , block illegal immigrants ( even though i feel sorry for the people who waited days to enter the country legally ) and COMPLETELY DISREGARD more important causes like the environment and rebuilding the economy HE destroyed.


After reading that I have the sudden urge to call this entire presidency unconstitutional.The forefathers of the US didnt plant the garden just so this brat can burn it.

Being the grandson of a veteran of WWII , AND a brother to a marine who's now in the navy. I take America seriously unlike this president who has noone to lose in this war.

[kimcicle]

The significance of this Executive Order is not in its current or expected application, but in its collateral effect; the precedent it might set. It will be very easy for the government to twist the legal jargon in the Executive Order to conform with whatever agenda is set.

However, the Executive has had this 'power' since the Clinton Administration when he signed Executive Order 12919. This is borderline alarmist bullshit and it will probably never ever be actually used. Not to mention that it's wording says things very similar to many other laws/orders that seek to stop the transfer of funds of certain groups.

I'm suprised that more people didn't get into a tussy over the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive from last May (NSPD 51/HSPD-20).

So getting all huffy over an Executive Order that was brought to your attention by Digg or whatever website you read really is a waste of time. Get huffy if/when you believe an Executive Order is unconstitutional and they try to apply it, and then attempt to get away with it - that's when you have to make a stand. There have been many more Executive Orders with stronger language and I haven't seen anybody make threads about it here.

And let's be really honest about President Bush here. He's not going to turn the country into a police state and he's not going to seize the property of people he didn't like. There's no precedent, and the president doesn't have enough direct authority to make that happen, especially when such behavior goes directly against the core values of the party supporting him. He also isn't going to postpone any elections, as once again that would turn his own party against him. If he loses any more support from his own party, then every veto he attempts is going to be overturned, and every bill he presents will be laughed right out of the house and senate.

[Beer Can]

Originally Posted by hyper kitten

Before i thought GWB is being a complete fuckface. I mean he's using Iraq as an excuse to constantly bomb another country for oil , block illegal immigrants ( even though i feel sorry for the people who waited days to enter the country legally ) and COMPLETELY DISREGARD more important causes like the environment and rebuilding the economy HE destroyed.


After reading that I have the sudden urge to call this entire presidency unconstitutional.The forefathers of the US didnt plant the garden just so this brat can burn it.

Being the grandson of a veteran of WWII , AND a brother to a marine who's now in the navy. I take America seriously unlike this president who has noone to lose in this war.

Lemme guess, you didn't actually read it.

Also, "Screw the fifth Amendment?" Excuse me? Maybe I'm just dense, but what does this have to do with the 5th? You know, the right not to have to testify against yourself in court, etc?

So let me get this straight. Basically, if the Treasury and DoD can find that someone is monetarily causing troubles in Iraq, they can block that person's transactions? Okay, I guess I can see how this has the potential to snowball, but realistically, it's a stretch.

Basically, as Kimicle said, it's not an issue right now, and even in the future, it only might be an issue. I see no reason to panic.

[DeusExMachina]

The only amendment I care about is the 2nd one

[aTalkingCow]

yeah...umm...this has nothing to do with the 5th...and seems to me to be an embargo on iraq...but then again, I'm not familiar with legal jargon like this.

So don't start flaming me for it, but this seems to be perfectly normal.

(bush is still a bloody idiot.)

[kimcicle]

Originally Posted by aTalkingCow

yeah...umm...this has nothing to do with the 5th...and seems to me to be an embargo on iraq...but then again, I'm not familiar with legal jargon like this.

It has everything to do with the 5th Amendment. I'll bold the parts that go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by The Linked Executive Order

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, 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,

Originally Posted by Fifth Amendment

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.

Pretty much what the Executive Order is summing up is that the US Government can seize the assets of anybody found to be supportive of any groups that are fighting against US forces in Iraq at any time. The Fifth Amendment promises to protect the citizens of the United States from the government denying due process of law for citizens and from the government taking property without compensation. If the government pointed a finger at you and said YOU HELPED UNDERMINE THE US FORCES IN IRAQ, theoretically they could go ahead and arrest you and freeze your assets before you can be proven guilty. Which, completely goes against what the Fifth Amendment stands for.

[Beer Can]

Originally Posted by kimcicle

[quotes]

Oh, damn, right. Forgot about that last clause in the 5th. Well, I just failed High School Gov. class.

But this is kind of interesting. Someone could make a claim to have been found guilty of working against the US war effort under this order, and could therefore say going to court would be in violation of the double jeopardy clause. Even though it, you know, circumvents the right to trial by jury.

Yeah, this actually is pretty poorly worded, come to think of it.

[Blackraven]

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

The only amendment I care about is the 2nd one

Isn't that the one that big-time software piraters use as an abuse against their freedom of choice? Using it as a scapegoat to justify their "counterfeiting" activities?

Anyhow, this may not be much of a heavyweight however abuses can rise from this (especially if there are any misinterpretations of the order). I can see Democrats rise up in arms (again) and start another bitchfit against the rival camp.

But case in point though as this is isn't big news at all. This IS just some of the sort of things that you can expect from Dubya, whether we like or not.

So yeah, it's either we're with him or against him. Don't you just love politics

[dat shit cray]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

Isn't that the one that big-time software piraters use as an abuse against their freedom of choice? Using it as a scapegoat to justify their "counterfeiting" activities?

uhhh no it's the one the NRA loves and goes to bed with every night.

[DeusExMachina]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

Isn't that the one that big-time software piraters use as an abuse against their freedom of choice? Using it as a scapegoat to justify their "counterfeiting" activities?

Anyhow, this may not be much of a heavyweight however abuses can rise from this (especially if there are any misinterpretations of the order). I can see Democrats rise up in arms (again) and start another bitchfit against the rival camp.

But case in point though as this is isn't big news at all. This IS just some of the sort of things that you can expect from Dubya, whether we like or not.

So yeah, it's either we're with him or against him. Don't you just love politics

2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. Ill only go as far as a bolt action Armalite AR30 though. I won't get any full auto assault rifles.