Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hell Freezes Over, MDorBust Slams Bush!  
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1

HOLY CRAP!

WTF!

Hey Bush, here's some light reading for you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

Blatant seizure of property and assets of US Citizens without due process or compensation isn't allowed Dubya.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Thread starter):
Blatant seizure of property and assets of US Citizens without due process or compensation isn't allowed Dubya.

Not that it's related, but I've had concerns about eminent domain ever since the SC made that judgement about it (what, last year?).

I hope I'm not like Blackbird, but they both stink of government encroachment.

-R


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1461 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Thread starter):
HOLY CRAP!

WTF!

I'm not sure you should jump so high just yet... I'm not a lawyer, but after quickly reading this, isn't this basically the same thing as state and local governments seizing cars/boats/airplanes used in the commission of the crime of traffic-ing drugs for resale?

Quoting MDorBust (Thread starter):
Blatant seizure of property and assets of US Citizens without due process or compensation isn't allowed Dubya.

Like I said, in the drug cases not only does this happen, but the car/truck/boat/airplane/whatever are taken at the time of arrest and aren't given back until proven NOT-GUILTY...



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 2):
I'm not sure you should jump so high just yet... I'm not a lawyer, but after quickly reading this, isn't this basically the same thing as state and local governments seizing cars/boats/airplanes used in the commission of the crime of traffic-ing drugs for resale?



Quoting MDorBust (Thread starter):
Blatant seizure of property and assets of US Citizens without due process or compensation isn't allowed Dubya.



Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 2):
but the car/truck/boat/airplane/whatever are taken at the time of arrest and aren't given back until proven NOT-GUILTY...

If used in the conduct of the crime it is seized as evidence.

Additionally, any property that can be proven to have been gained using the proceeds of illegal activity may be seized.

Again, due process is involved.

There is a world of difference between that and seizing any and all property of a US citizen, in the US who may have been involved in indirectly supporting insurgent activities in a foreign nation.

Here's a scary part:

Quote:
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.

Due process just got suspended.

Here's another scary part.

Quote:
or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly...

..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 ...

Anyone here send a donation to a charity?

Do you know if that donation may have gone indirectly to an organization which committed a terrorist act?

Your property can now be seized.


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,

And I imagine this will be defined as 'trying to pass a bill that sets a timetable for US withdrawal'.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Anyone here send a donation to a charity?

Do you know if that donation may have gone indirectly to an organization which committed a terrorist act?

I guess donating to feed a hungry kid could be out the window, then. Might be helpful for them to provide a list of known terrorist sympathizers that act as such (as charities).

Sounds awfully convenient for somebody to one day take away the property of one's political enemies.

-R


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20782 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

< obligatory liberal spin >

When does his term end again? It really can't be a moment too soon at this rate.

< /obligatory liberal spin >



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Well, they should sieze the word processor of whoever typed that up! I've never seen such a crappy job of outlining!

That aside, most of the things itemized on the order that would make one liable to such action would land you in prison or get you a death sentence so I don't think I'd sweat the seizure of my lawnmower yet. If it was possible that I could be convicted of this: "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of..." I think I might have bigger problems than my puny-ass bank account.

It is obvious from the language of the order that we are not talking about targeting Democrats here, we are talking about insurgents and people who aid insurgents, terrorists and people who support terrorists in a material way.

This kind of war has never existed in all of our history. Clearly ALL laws of warfare became obsolete on 9/11 and we will NEVER AGAIN face the organized military of a sovereign nation on the battlefield. IEDs and the like are the future.

What would YOU do about it?

Remember, coming in second or lower is not an option.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
If used in the conduct of the crime it is seized as evidence.

Additionally, any property that can be proven to have been gained using the proceeds of illegal activity may be seized.

Again, due process is involved.

I don't know why you're getting all worked up about this. First of all the authority was granted to him by Congress. Secondly, the seizure is subject to judicial review (and therefore due process). Third of all, the government seizes property all the time BEFORE due process has been afforded. Every single search warrant authorizing the seizure of property in an investigation meets this requirement. Even if an arrest warrant is issued concurrent with the search warrant, the defendant is presumed innocent and has not been adjudicated guilty of anything. Prejudgment/pre-conviction seizure is the norm in criminal cases. Hell, prejudgment seizure can also be affected in most civil cases by either the government or a private party.

Given the ease with which financial assets can be moved throughout the world, the giving of notice before the seizure would be all but futile unless the account was frozen immediately concurrently with the seizure.

I'm 100% against emminent domain abuse and violations of the 5th amendment, but this isn't even a close call.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
If it was possible that I could be convicted of this: "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of..." I think I might have bigger problems than my puny-ass bank account.

That's the catch Slam.

That's not the only thing they can seize all of your property for.

That's just (i).

There's also (ii)

Quote:
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;

and (iii)

Quote:
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.

(iii) is the scary one.

Purported (rumored) to have acted on behalf, indirectly, of any person whose property blocked pursuant to order.

"Acting on behalf" gets defined as giving or receiving anything.

Check it out, if Al Queda send you a dirty bomb in the mail, the US Govt can seize all of your property according to this.

That's seriously messed up.

Quoting Pope (Reply 8):
I don't know why you're getting all worked up about this.

Because it's a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Quoting Pope (Reply 8):
First of all the authority was granted to him by Congress.

The authority to violate the Constitution?

I think not.

Quoting Pope (Reply 8):
Secondly, the seizure is subject to judicial review (and therefore due process). Third of all, the government seizes property all the time BEFORE due process has been afforded. Every single search warrant authorizing the seizure of property in an investigation meets this requirement


Uh what?

No.

Search warrants must be issued by a court of law. That's the due process. You don't get to search and seize things then go to court and ask if it's okay.

Quoting Pope (Reply 8):
Even if an arrest warrant is issued concurrent with the search warrant, the defendant is presumed innocent and has not been adjudicated guilty of anything.

Those would be court ordered warrants right?

Meaning that the pursing party has had to present it's case before a judge and make a demonstrateable need for the warrant?

Just making sure.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

You're assuming the due process of law means only judicial authority. But nowhere in the Constitution is that stated. Due process is frequently afforded solely through executive branch authority. For example, if you are denied social security benefits, your redress if FIRST through the executive branch and ONLY when those appeals are exhausted, through the judiciary.

Furthermore, on a daily basis extrajudicial searches and seizures occur. For example, when a police officer arrests you, searches you incident to arrest and then seizes the property there has been absolutely no judicial branch involvment.

If you go through customs and the customs officer believes you have something illegal in your possession they can seize it even without arresting you. You have to first appeal within US customs and then to the courts.

In both the above examples, the judicial due process review comes after the fact - as in this case. Anyone who has their property seized can appeal the seizure to the judiciary.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
For example, if you are denied social security benefits, your redress if FIRST through the executive branch and ONLY when those appeals are exhausted, through the judiciary.

When did social security benefits become a constitutionally protected right such as security in your property?

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say that your social security benefits will be protected by due process.

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
For example, when a police officer arrests you, searches you incident to arrest and then seizes the property there has been absolutely no judicial branch involvment.

Did you just compare a search pursuant to an arrest to whole sale seizure of property?

That's funny, in order to get arrested, you have to actually be suspected of having committed a crime. Not so with this new Executive Order. Furthermore, only what property that is on the person or in his immediate control may be seized at the time of arrest. The Executive Order states, "all property and interests in property of the following persons." Also, a police officer seizes your property because you have been seized. When you leave custody, so does your property (exempting property retained as evidence).

So there we have three clear deviations from your example.
1) Committing a crime
2) All property
3) Property seizure without arrest.

Just for double chuckles for the people supporting this who really haven't read it.. Hamas could shut down the GOP by making a campaign donation to them under a pseudonym.

Quote:
b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to... (ii)the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

According to the Executive Order all property of the GOP could then be seized by the Federal Government.

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
If you go through customs and the customs officer believes you have something illegal in your possession they can seize it even without arresting you. You have to first appeal within US customs and then to the courts.

Just like the TSA.

I'll chuckle the day these twits get their constitutional comeuppance.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1308 times:

Spreading this around via the internet to as many people you know who give a damn about civil rights might be a good idea....

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

Man, I wish they'd just write that crap in plain English so I could understand it!

Let me get thsi straight: this order states that if the government of the United States finds out, or even thinks, you're doing something to harm another nation, they'll take your property here? Is that what this is saying?

If it is that, then MDorBust is right, and this is just outlandish.


User currently offlineCheckraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 12):
Spreading this around via the internet to as many people you know who give a damn about civil rights might be a good idea....

But if you do that, the black Suburbans might show up.  Smile


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
If it is that, then MDorBust is right, and this is just outlandish.

What we are seeing (and it isn't just in the US) is a piece-by-piece move towards a police state, with civil rights trampled in the rush to provide security. People who would ordinarily resist this kind of BS have been completely intimidated by the fear factor after several years of brainwashing by their so-called leaders. Franco's Spain was a very secure place with cops on every street corner -- but it wasn't very free.

Amazing actually. Peope with an otherwise healthy distrust of government -- which to me is key to the maintenance of democratic ideals -- are completely acquiescent when that government removes their civil liberties in the name of security. Was it Benjamin Franklin who said those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither?



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1170 times:

Arrow,

You are right about a piece-by-piece move towards a police state. The thing that amazes me is that there's nobody who seems to think this is wrong, as it goes against a number of basic rights.

And you were right, it was Benjamin Franklin who made that statement.


Andrea Kent


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

Liberal definition of paranoia: Being afraid of terrorists.

Conservative definition of paranoia: Being afraid of counterterrorism measures.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2776 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17):
Conservative definition of paranoia: Being afraid of counterterrorism measures.

 checkmark 

Que up the, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care about the G monitoring your phone calls and emails" crowd.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2776 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

Would my assumption be correct that, under this new EO, anyone who contributed to this charity, mistaking it for "Goodwill Industries", a legitimate major U.S. charity, stands to have their money and property seized by the U.S. Government, without any recourse?

User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 976 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Man, I wish they'd just write that crap in plain English so I could understand it!

Right! I mean, seriously, can they not just come out and define what the definition of "is" is?

 biggrin 



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 952 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Anyone here send a donation to a charity?

I used to give to the Red Cross. I'll wait until a U.S. Government Safe Charity List is published, with specific instructions on safe donations.

Under this EO, if you click on a terrorist sponsored website, you are liable to have your assets frozen.

Does anyone esle feel a cold breeze suddenly?

[Edited 2007-07-26 05:05:13]


Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Still In Denial Over Iraq posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:09:12 by Falcon84
Student Prooves Hell Is Frozen Over.... posted Thu Oct 12 2006 15:46:01 by DeltaDC9
Conservative Anger With Bush Over Foreign Policy posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:33:03 by RJpieces
States Sue Bush Over Fuel Efficiency posted Tue May 2 2006 20:27:13 by SATX
Kerry, Eduards Blast Bush Over Katrina posted Tue Sep 20 2005 04:21:30 by TACAA320
Man Kills Himself At Ground Zero Over Bush posted Sun Nov 7 2004 07:19:44 by Jcs17
Bush Shows Large Lead Over Kerry...how Realistic? posted Fri Oct 29 2004 20:00:57 by MaverickM11
Bush Thought War Over By Now posted Sun Apr 6 2003 13:19:00 by Malina
GW Bush Has Flown Over The Coo-Coo's Nest! posted Tue May 7 2002 11:32:59 by Superfly
Hell HAS Frozen Over! posted Fri Jan 26 2001 15:41:00 by Woody