KLP, I think there may be a slight problem with your answer:
First, the order can be done without prior notice. How can one's lawyer get involved if no one but those who are about to do it know it is going to happen?
Second, the seizures can occur when someone is "suspected" of doing something. The last time I checked, we all have the right to a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, or we used to. It is the foundation of our legal system, or it was. It is the basis of personal freedom, or it used to be.
Third, all assets are seized without notice. How does one pay for an attorney if all of one's assets are seized without notice or hearing?
Fourth, the order gives the Secretary of Treasury the right to seize all of someone's assets if they have financial dealings indirectly with such people. "Indirect?" If I invest in some enterprise (private or public) that includes someone the government, unknown to me, has secretly decided is an enemy, our indirect relationship allows the government to seize my assets?
This is ridiculous. It is impressive how many people who distrust the government's ability to do almost anything efficiently with regard to public programs are quite content to give it carte blanche to proceed in secret, without the slightest bit of oversight, in the name of security. Why so many people are happy to give away their civil liberties in exchange for false promises of increased security is beyond me. |
