Re: We probably didn't need the fifth amendment anyway, we weren't really using it

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Date: July 21, 2007 12:23:10 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: We probably didn't need the fifth amendment  
anyway, we weren't really using it

Dave,

For IP.

-jsq

> From: Victor Marks <victormarks () gmail com>
> Date: July 20, 2007 5:04:23 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: Re: [IP] We probably didn't need the fifth amendment anyway,
> we weren't really using it
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> For IP if you so desire.
>
> The standards in the Executive Order is that the property of a person
> may be blocked if the person has

You quoted part of the decree but stopped just before this clause:

> > (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.

 "purported to"
 "directly or indirectly"
 "has the purpose of evading or avoiding"
 "conspiracy formed to violate"

Suspicion is enough for taking someone's property; maybe yours.
Maybe even suspicion of conspiracy to evade.
So if you speak up against this decree and the executive
suspects you're part of a conspiracy, that could be enough.

> And so on - here, the person has to have committed some act. This is
> less reprehensible than what is known in the US as civil forfeiture
> law. That act has to be in support of violence or destabilization of
> the government in Iraq.

Or suspicion of evading or avoiding or conspiracy.

Is "less reprehensible" the standard to which we now hold the
President of the United States?

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html
>
> discusses civil forfeiture law, and how it has been used in the US.
> So this isn't the first time that the government has decided to
> concern itself with property and how to skirt what we may consider
> due process.

> ... given life and then forfeited to the government for "their"  
> criminal
> misconduct. "

> I find the latter more offensive than the former, particularly with
> relation to the 5th Amendment.

Is this the Cato way of saying "Clinton did it, too?"
or in this case, "some medieval monarch did it, too?"

Is *that* the standard to which we now hold POTUS?

Silly me, I thought *this* was the standard:

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
 the Office of President of the United States, and will
 to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend
 the Constitution of the United States."

Meanwhile, the next day an Undersecretary of Defense
accused a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
of aiding the enemy by asking if there was a plan that could
be used for withdrawal from Iraq.  A member who happens to be the
leading candidate for president from the opposition party.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20cnd-clinton.html? 
_r=1&oref=slogin

The undersecretary meanwhile continues to refuse to supply information
requested by that member of the appropriate Senate oversight committee,
and the administration refuses to respond to subpoenas by the
House Judiciary Committee, and says it will not permit the
Justice Department to enforce those subpoenas.

When an administration that has thus declared itself immune
to oversight by Congress also says that suspicion is enough
to take the property of anyone who might have provided even
"logistical support" or "services" to an enemy it has chosen,
I think that should be taken seriously as a problem.

It's a small step for such vague labels to include "propaganda"
such as requesting contingency plans or having open debate,
as in the accusation by the Undersecretary of Defense.
Remember, this decree comes from the same president who has
habitually had anybody who shows any political opinions
not the same as his ejected from his public meetings.

We're not talking about misuse of property takings during
criminal or even drug cases, rife though such abuses may be,
and as welcome as fixes to them would be.

We're talking about a decree for unconstitutional property
takings for political purposes in the name of a war started
under false pretenses by the president who decreed it.

It doesn't take much knowledge of history to be worried about that.

> Regards,
>
> Victor Marks

-jsq



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com