Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (212583)	7/19/2007 4:56:56 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793970

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.

To: KLP who wrote (212583)	7/19/2007 9:21:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793970

I don't think it is blatantly "illegal" per se. Government can seize your assets for a number of reasons, including for tax evasion. But it is just a very bad executive order and I don't think congress can do much about this. It will have to go to the Supreme Court, that despite being populated with supposedly "coservative" judges, has shown less regards for personal property or liberty in recent years than I'd like. In any event, it is unknown when the issue will be resolved by them. First the government will have to seize the assets of someone. Then we'd have to hope that person is not kept incognito in gitmo or somewhere else and will actually fight the claim. Then we'll go through all the government shenanigans and delay tactics. Then if all else fails and it looks like the government is about to lose, they will withdraw just so that the case will not set a precedent.