Bush wipes ass on Fifth Amendment, again.

[theweaselking]

Bush orders property seized and assets frozen of anyone and everyone who the Secretary of the Treasury, or any of his appointed underlings, deems

(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 poltical 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
(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.

Take a look at that closely.

If the Treasury department thinks you *might* have done something, or if you *might* have provided assistance to someone who might have done something, or if you are *accused* of acting on behalf of someone who *might* have done that, all your assets can be seized and frozen. All of them. Making it illegal for you to buy coffee with cash.

Check out the really weaselly part of (iii): If I had my bank account frozen based on the "gut feelings" of somebody in the US, I'd probably want to call a lawyer to take them to court and act on my behalf, right?

Read (iii). Any lawyer who takes my case gets their assets frozen. Any newspaper who reports on my case gets their assets frozen. Anyone who takes my poor homeless ass in and gives me a place to live when my rent bounces? Assets frozen.
Extra-weaselly: (iii) is an actionable item separate from (i) and (ii), and acting on behalf of someone whose assets are frozen *is itself* an actionable offense, regardless of the legitimacy of the freezing - meaning that even if I'm frozen for totally blatantly trivial reasons, the lawyer who helps me prove that in court is himself unambiguously in violation of the order.

Oh, and there's explicitly no need for review, no need for fact-checking, no need for warning or notification, and no process that needs to be followed to get designated a victim, here.

Comments

[falconwarrior.livejournal.com]

Please save us Canada. You're our only hope.

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

Uh...

We'd love to, really, but... how exactly? :S

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

You kicked our ass in 1812, can't you do it again?

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

Ah, the glory days.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Underground railroad.

Start setting up those refugee camps now.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

That's standard procedure, in some ways. The IRS, for example, can freeze assets before any court gets involved if they think someone is committing tax fraud or not paying income taxes. Just after 9/11, assets of "known" (read: "suspected") terrorists and terrorist organizations were frozen with the help of financial institutions world wide. There were no formal accusations in court.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

But if you're suspected of tax fraud, and I (in a fit of generosity) pay your rent so you have someplace to live for the next month, is it possible for them to freeze my assets?

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

For that matter, are the assets of accountant who goes over your taxes and the lawyer who represents you in the fraud case frozen as well?

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think so, but hear me out anyway.

If I were committing tax fraud, and you did anything that could conceivably be considered as enabling me to continue to commit tax fraud, you'd promptly be the target of a criminal investigation as well, with the possible consequence of having you're your assets frozen, among other things.

Having one's assets frozen during an investigation of an activity that requires money or the tracking of it is not a punishment, it's a requirement of basic investigations: Freeze everything you can, and backtrack from there. This is the same principle that says that having one's computer seized when one is being investigated for possession of child pornography isn't a punishment, it's just part of the investigation.

As I understand it (and IANAL) the argument made was that *anything* one does that is helpful to a terrorist is by definition allowing her to continue to commit acts of terrorism. If you give a terrorist a place to live, the Authorities In Charge want to know how you know her and what other gifts youv'e given her and if you're a terrorist who has slipped under their radar up until now. If you give a person who has not paid income taxes a place to live, the AIC are likely to glare viciously but write you off as some misguided soul who wants to help a friend.

(I'm sorry I took so long to respond. I've been out of state for a while.)



(Lessee: child pornography, terrorism, non-payment of income taxes, tax fraud. Hello, government employee who is reading this comment!)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Hello, government employee who is reading this comment!

How did you know--oh, you didn't mean me. :)

> If you give a terrorist a place to live, the Authorities In
> Charge want to know how you know her and what other gifts youv'e
> given her and if you're a terrorist who has slipped under their
> radar up until now.

...even if she's not a terrorist. (I confess that at this point I have gotten the impression that when it comes to terrorists, there is often a gulf between the deeming of significant risk and, you know, evidence. At least evidence that is discussed and that the accusee may respond to.)

I understand that when the scene of the crime is an asset (be it a bank account, a computer, or a storefront), it gets preserved for the investigation, and this if often an inconvenience, but it nonetheless reasonable.

But that seems quite different from freezing the assets of someone when you don't know if there's been a crime yet, and another leap from there to freezing the assets of someone (or something) who does anything to aid a person who hasn't even been tried and convicted yet.

I mean, there are people I don't know well enough to swear on a stack of Bibles that they absolutely *wouldn't* commit a terrorist act. But if they were my neighbours, I might go over and feed their pets if they gave me a key, or pick up their kids from school when I go down to pick up my own (because they are busy trying to find a lawyer who will take their case, which is kind of difficult when they have no money and the lawyers know that *they* may get all their assets frozen for doing it).

Somehow, such neighbourliness does not strike me as reasonable grounds, you know?

[adagioweapon.livejournal.com]

That's not what that means.

[mcfnord.livejournal.com]

as if the dollar hadn't depreciated enough.

[jackoutofthebox.livejournal.com]

This sounds like the Salem witch trials,

1) If we think your a witch, we'll arrest you
2) anyone who comes to your defense is in league with a witch and they can be arrested too
3) all your property will be given to the town to use as cost of your trial.

yah, another sign that Bush has never done well in American History. I really can't see how they're going to make the defending lawyer collusion stick. It's too vague.

[tripperfunster.livejournal.com]

More like...When we toss you in the water, if you float, you're a witch and we get to burn you at the stake. If you sink and die, then you were probably innocent. but....you can't sue!

[mantispid.livejournal.com]

Gold, guns, and lots of ammo, baby.

YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG!!!!

[ellakite.livejournal.com]

This Presidential order does NOT violate The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution! How dare you make such a claim!

It's the Fourth Amendment that's getting tossed in the shredder by this Executive Order.

Re: YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG!!!!

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"