Protest war, lose your property?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by S.A.M., Jul 23, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/under-the-radar-ten-warning-signs-for-today/

    On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to “block” the property of people in the US found to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence which might undermine “political reform in Iraq.”

    The terms “significant threat” and “act of violence” are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush’s definition of “political reform in Iraq” would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?

    The vague language also includes outlawing “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.” What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be “blocked”?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    civil rights no more
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. desi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,616
    Its about time we got some serious legislation to use against those proterrorist America haters.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,829
    Freeze your balls for Uncle Sam!

    We must remember that this is the administration whose Department of Education once included teachers in its purview of terrorists. Remember, this executive order actually strengthens our civil rights.

    (Don't get me wrong; I don't know how that would work. But, apparently, making every effort to recruit terrorists into enemy organizations is helping to guarantee our safety and security. Next thing we know, the quickest route to Portland will be the plunging of testes into liquid nitrogen and running a book on how many toothpicks shot like arrows from rubber-band bows it takes to shatter the damn things.)
     
  8. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The order revolves around the phrase 'act of violence'...but doesnt spell out what this means specifically, and against whom specifically.

    Vague wording is wide open to abuse.
     
  9. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    I read the release at the white house on this last week or so, and the "blocking property of those who threaten stabilization of Iraq" is preceded by the condition of doing, or planning to do it, violently.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    This is utterly wrongful. When's the election again?
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,829
    November, 2008. The Tuesday after the first Monday.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2007
  12. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Let me know when Bush actually starts seizing private property for protesting the war. 'Cause, all of you are so sure it's about to happen, I'm sure there'll be oodles and oodles of stories of how Bush is taking private property.

    OH... it's from the Dissident Voice a wholly impartial and unbiased news source.

    ~String
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Read the order. The bar is set pretty high in there if you muddle through the legalese. It's not protest the war and you lose your house, either. That's ridiculous...
     
  14. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    oh well go to war or don't we don't have a choice in the matter anyway
     
  15. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just stirring up the waters again, eh, SAM? Playing on the fears of the pussy-foot alarmists in our midst. You know full well the lemmings will ALWAYS bite on something like this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If you had actually READ that Executive Order, you'd have found that has some VERY high requirements in order to be triggered. Pretty much on the exact same level as traitorous acts - which have very stringent parameters.

    You do realize that you're in the wrong vocation, don't you? You could do an excellent job as Minister of Propaganda in some third-world country. You'd have a place in the news every single day.
     
  16. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    She also linked to the original document at whitehouse.gov.

    I personally do not see the significance of this, assuming the law will be applied the way it appears to me, but I find your sarcasm ironic. You find the concept of a property seizure unlikely when for years they can just seize American citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial, if they call them enemy combatants. Given that that has already actually happened I personally find the idea of property seizure a sadly realistic possibility.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,829
    Given that we had to wrench civil asset forfeiture in drug cases out of the hands of law enforcement's greedy clutch, it seems reasonable to think this is going to go just as badly.

    With civil asset forfeiture, one of the things the law enforcement community could not understand was why they had to prove someone guilty before seizing the property. Another was why they should give it back after the person is acquitted.

    The WoD is a pretty good guide to what will happen with the WoT.
     
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Actually, they can't. They can seize NON American citizens and hold them for years without a trial, but I the US Supreme Court has heald that all US citizens must be given a trial. I'd like to see some evidence that the US has been seizing US citizens off the streets and holding them (I mean, besides the nightmarish tantrums thrown out by people "claiming" that it's true: some hard facts would be nice).

    ~String
     
  19. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    It's sad that some Americans don't even know.

    What tantrums do you refer to? Anyway, if being an American citizen or not is a worthwhile distinction in how we should treat prisoners, here you go:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)#Habeas_corpus
     
  20. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    The Padilla case doesn't prove the massive civil rights violations previous posters in this thread have suggested.
     
  21. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    It's worse.
     
  22. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    I agree.
     
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Hardly. It's one VERY extreme example and not even close to being typical.
     

Share This Page