Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
43
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#61
Shhh...Be careful, they are watching you.
While that's an entertaining and funny comment, as I said it's not that it's going to happen, or that it could happen. It's that it CAN.

I see no viable justification for the laws not being specific.

Why should we leave it up to interpretation (which means potential for abuse)?

They could VERY EASILY have written it with specific intentions. They left it vague intentionally and that is what I have a problem with.

There is no reason to leave any room for abuse. NONE.

You can have your laws and still allow for protection of freedom under the constitution.

If you aren't a citizen of the United States of America I don't care what our government does to you. I don't care if they torture you. I don't care if they take everything you have.

BUT, if you ARE a citizen, I don't care if you blow up half of Oklahoma. You should still have the right to due process. If you are guilty, do you deserve it? NO, but if you did do it, due process wil not save you. BUT IF YOU'RE INNOCENT and due process is not there, you are screwed.

THAT is why we have that protection and THAT is why it should not go and THAT is why it is written in the constitution.
 
Jun 29, 2004
3,426
123
1,693
43
Northwest OK
#62
I'm not one to get quite as fired up as Aaron, but overall, he's right.

What's the point behind these executive orders? If you said "to help stop terrorism," I can completely understand that. But I beg to differ. We can get almost everything that Mr. Bush has tried to get through his executive orders through legal means. The wiretaps are a prime example. They can get a warrant. Heck, they can get a warrant after the fact. They just don't want to. Why? I don't know.

If the government is wanting to go through somebody's assets and property in order to find evidence of terrorist plots, there is a legal way to do that so long as they have probable cause and keep to the 4th amendment. If they just want to seize somebody's stuff because they think they're not on our side (loosely worded, I know), then that's wrong, and the 5th amendment is in place for that reason in addition to the whole not-being-forced-to-testify-against-yourself thing.

If you want to stop the terrorists, I honestly believe that you can do that and stay within the framework of the Constitution. You just have to trust people to do their jobs. If these executive orders are an attempt to simplify the process, I don't have a problem with that per se AS LONG AS it doesn't start trampling on the Constitution. Based on what we're seeing in some of these executive orders, I think there is a reason to be concerned.

For the record, I'm not a "Bush-hater." I've been a major Bush supporter overall. However, I've been more and more concerned about many of his decisions, especially during his second term. I understand that our adversaries are unlike any that we've faced before. I know that fighting terrorism is about like saying you're going to fight evil in general. How do you know when you've won? Is it possible to win? Since this "War on Terror" could and probably will last longer than the Cold War, I think we need to be especially careful about protecting our civil liberties. At the rate we're going, we could find ourselves in a very scary situation in as little as 10-15 years if it's not corrected. Call Aaron paranoid if you want. I think his viewpoint has a great deal of merit.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#63
While that's an entertaining and funny comment, as I said it's not that it's going to happen, or that it could happen. It's that it CAN.

I see no viable justification for the laws not being specific.

Why should we leave it up to interpretation (which means potential for abuse)?

They could VERY EASILY have written it with specific intentions. They left it vague intentionally and that is what I have a problem with.

There is no reason to leave any room for abuse. NONE.

You can have your laws and still allow for protection of freedom under the constitution.

If you aren't a citizen of the United States of America I don't care what our government does to you. I don't care if they torture you. I don't care if they take everything you have.

BUT, if you ARE a citizen, I don't care if you blow up half of Oklahoma. You should still have the right to due process. If you are guilty, do you deserve it? NO, but if you did do it, due process wil not save you. BUT IF YOU'RE INNOCENT and due process is not there, you are screwed.

THAT is why we have that protection and THAT is why it should not go and THAT is why it is written in the constitution.
Please explain how you would write it more specifically. I think it's already pretty clear.

Here we go, let's break it down.

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,
First of all, it's just PROPERTY, it's not like your RIGHTS have been snatched from you.

(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:
ok, so acts of violence....

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
threatening peace or stability of IRAQ....

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
specifically hindering reconstruction, political reform, and humanitarian assistance in IRAQ.....

(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
people assisting the terrorists with money, weapons, etc....

(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.
people who act on behalf of those already caught....

(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.
prohibiting provisions to the people already caught, and prohibiting the reception of those goods...


I think it's pretty damn clear who the President is targeting, and if you can't figure it out, or you think that somehow this could be targeting you or any other innocent American, then you have a serious case of paranoia.

Again, this is certainly not the first time that certain "rights" may have been suspended during wartime, and it certainly won't be the last. The rights are always restored following wartime, so I really, honestly don't see any reason to get your panties in a bunch over this.

In fact, the only real entity who should be concerned about this is IRAN, as they are the ones specifically fulfilling every single thing mentioned above!
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#64
I understand that our adversaries are unlike any that we've faced before. I know that fighting terrorism is about like saying you're going to fight evil in general. How do you know when you've won? Is it possible to win?
The same way we defeated Nazism, by making it unpopular.
 
Jun 29, 2004
3,426
123
1,693
43
Northwest OK
#65
The same way we defeated Nazism, by making it unpopular.
Maybe I'm hazy on my history, but I don't remember Nazism being defeated by becoming unpopular. We just kicked its @$$. :)

First of all, Nazism had a face and a name. It started and ended with Hitler. Simple target. Simple objective.

Some might argue that terrrism's face/name is Osama bin Laden, but we all know that's just one organization out of God knows how many. And you're not talking about one country (Germany), you're talking about something scattered over an entire region (actually, the whole world). This also isn't traditional warfare. This is guerilla warfare and suicide attacks.

These guys are being told that when they blow themselves up, they'll get something like 40 virgins in their form of heaven. How do you make that unpopular?

I don't know, maybe I just need you to explain what you mean in more detail. I just don't see very many (if any) parallels to defeating Nazism and defeating terrorism.

This is a little off-topic from the original thread, isn't it?
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#66
Maybe I'm hazy on my history, but I don't remember Nazism being defeated by becoming unpopular. We just kicked its @$$. :)

First of all, Nazism had a face and a name. It started and ended with Hitler. Simple target. Simple objective.

Some might argue that terrrism's face/name is Osama bin Laden, but we all know that's just one organization out of God knows how many. And you're not talking about one country (Germany), you're talking about something scattered over an entire region (actually, the whole world). This also isn't traditional warfare. This is guerilla warfare and suicide attacks.

These guys are being told that when they blow themselves up, they'll get something like 40 virgins in their form of heaven. How do you make that unpopular?

I don't know, maybe I just need you to explain what you mean in more detail. I just don't see very many (if any) parallels to defeating Nazism and defeating terrorism.

This is a little off-topic from the original thread, isn't it?
About the only parallel I was trying to draw is that Nazism has become an unpopular ideology, a Nazi will get laughed at today if he tried to run for office. One day Islamic extremism will become an unpopular ideology. A lot of people are confused as to how we do this. It's simple really. The reason young boys go to these nutjobs who preach hatred is because they feel like they are missing something, they are deprived of something and have become disillusioned with government. We get rid of the nutjobs, and we give the young boys a successful democracy in which to live. Problem solved.

We get rid of the nutjobs by killing them. We set up the deomcracy in Iraq.

The next step is for Islam to have an internal reformation. What is preventing this from happening? The radical fundamentalists. Radical fundamentalism will become unpopular in a successful democracy, as much as it is unpopular here. They will lose support because the people will be experiencing a good economy and a higher standard of living, good fortunes.

Democracy brings peace wherever it goes. If you'll pay attention, you'll notice that all the war in the world is caused by Dictators hell bent on conquering the world and bringing its people into submission. Who wouldn't agree that if N. Korea was democratic, Venezuala returned to a democracy, Iran came out of the dark ages of a theocracy, Cuba was democratic, Saudi Arabia was democratic, China was democratic, Russia made more progress on its democracy, Iraq became democratic, that if all of these nations had a strong democracy like America, that the world wouldn't be a better place?

The Bush-haters will have you believe that he is the cause for all the grief in the world. Obviously they are blinded by their pure hatred for him, they just can't stand to see somebody in office that has a strong will.

I for one have faith that our government does the right thing. I think it's done well up till now, and that it will continue to do well. The only beef I have is with the parties, get rid of the parties and this country truly would be the greatest ever on Earth.
 
Jun 29, 2004
3,426
123
1,693
43
Northwest OK
#67
Okay, I see where you're coming from, but it seems a little overly simplistic. I don't know, maybe you meant for it to be. I just think the situation is much more complicated, and the solution is less clear. I'm not saying that it's not winnable, mind you, it's just a very broad enemy when you're fighting terrorism.

I understand the mission in Iraq, and I generally agree with you. However, there are some complications. First, there seems to be steady stream of nutjobs coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria. Makes that part of the job a lot harder. Kill a nutjob, another nutjob takes his place. I know there can only be so many nutjobs, but will they put enough nutjobs out there to convince the U.S. to quit fighting? Some in this country have already said "yes."

Second, creating a democracy in Iraq is far easier said than done. We can't even get the Sunnis and Shiites to agree on how to tell each other to f*** off. Getting them to run the country together is going to be very difficult, mainly because it's up to them and not us.

Third, creating a democracy in itself will not generate a successful economy. Now, I do think that Iraq has the infrastructure (once rebuilt) and natural resources to have an excellent economy, but a democracy alone won't bring that to fruition.

I think we share several common values and beliefs. We mainly have a difference in point-of-view. I think your solution to the defeat of the Islamic radicals is possible but not probable given the current circumstances. I'm not optimistic, nor am I pessimistic. I certainly won't claim to be a realist (that assertion always annoys me). I see myself as overly cautious. I can still see this war, particularly in Iraq, going either way, and I'm well aware that we need to see some serious progress soon if we don't want our lawmakers pulling our forces out.

Wow, this post had absolutely nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. I hereby declare this thread officially hijacked. Sorry. Does that make me a terrorist? ;)
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
2
0
#70
Our founding fathers had fears, but I don't think they envisioned how the world has now evolved and the pressures that our Presidents are under to protect our country. It would not take many more terrorists acts like 911 to create similar historic hysteria in our time too.

President Bush's Executive Orders: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of Executive Orders argue that these two passages do not imply Constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121897.htm



THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN TIME OF WAR

Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.

President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened.

Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html
 

SlingBlade

I Like Them French Fried Taters
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 14, 2004
5,738
105
1,693
43
Whitehouse, TX
#71
Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Fact sheet Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined 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 designated pursuant to this order, or 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.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

GEORGE W. BUSH

The White House,

July 17, 2007.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,893
7,920
1,743
36
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#72
Please explain how you would write it more specifically. I think it's already pretty clear.

Here we go, let's break it down.



First of all, it's just PROPERTY, it's not like your RIGHTS have been snatched from you.



ok, so acts of violence....



threatening peace or stability of IRAQ....



specifically hindering reconstruction, political reform, and humanitarian assistance in IRAQ.....



people assisting the terrorists with money, weapons, etc....



people who act on behalf of those already caught....



prohibiting provisions to the people already caught, and prohibiting the reception of those goods...


I think it's pretty damn clear who the President is targeting, and if you can't figure it out, or you think that somehow this could be targeting you or any other innocent American, then you have a serious case of paranoia.

Again, this is certainly not the first time that certain "rights" may have been suspended during wartime, and it certainly won't be the last. The rights are always restored following wartime, so I really, honestly don't see any reason to get your panties in a bunch over this.

In fact, the only real entity who should be concerned about this is IRAN, as they are the ones specifically fulfilling every single thing mentioned above!
I still don't think you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Allowing something like this to come into law means you're trusting the judgment of the government to determine if someone is guilty of falling into one of those categories before being judged by a jury of their peers with the evidence and facts laid out on the table. Not just evidence can be taken, all possessions. This can happen to someone that you don't even know is guilty or not. The government sure knew Iraq had WMD's and that an 8 year old kid is a terrorist didn't they? Why wouldn't I trust them? :rolleyes: Maybe, just maybe, it can be your name that somehow ends up on this special list of terrist fighting and be made an example of and then maybe I can post your story on here and defend you against all the Bush supporters who find nothing wrong with this.
 

Aaron C.

AKA Shortbus
Jul 20, 2005
4,389
0
0
43
Edmond, OK
www.ultimatenurse.com
#74
This is a total waste of my time because no one is going to change their opinion no matter how wrong they might be :D

I do want to comment on one thing before I leave this debate:


First of all, it's just PROPERTY, it's not like your RIGHTS have been snatched from you.
Please see the Military Commissions Act which preceded this one.

Have a great weekend everyone!
 

SlingBlade

I Like Them French Fried Taters
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 14, 2004
5,738
105
1,693
43
Whitehouse, TX
#75
I'm really struggling in finding how this pertains to anything other than Iraq and the efforts going on there.
Me too....those of you with alterior motives have taken your bias and ran with it. And, IMO, have made yourself look like idiots for not knowing what you are talking about yet arguing anyway.:rolleyes:
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
2
0
#78
Caring for the faithful execution of the law

In Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In the case, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "the Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."

Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#79
Me too....those of you with alterior motives have taken your bias and ran with it. And, IMO, have made yourself look like idiots for not knowing what you are talking about yet arguing anyway.:rolleyes:
It's a prime example of how they take anything related to what Bush does or says and try to smear him as best they can. It's purely political, and it's disgusting.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
65
Edmond
#80
Well US law does not equal international law and Iraq & Afghanistan do not equal the US so why would he be trying to sign something into US law if it were strictly for Iraq or Afghanistan?
I suppose it was signed to be able to seize assets and accounts of those who are attempting to derail the reconstruction or the government in Iraq. Since almost the entire damn order was about Iraq...