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: D. Long who wrote (212637)	7/20/2007 1:36:19 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793974

Let's see how good of a lawyer you make. (1) Say Tom runs an Internet anonimizer service whereby anyone can communicate with anyone without being tracked (there are several of these on the net already. They were primarily founded by people who wanted to provide anonymity to developing countries' dissidents, but then they took a life for local use as well.) Now say that the government claims that AQ or some other terrorist group is using this service to communicate with some antigovernment forces in Iraq. As the government lawyer, can you justify actions of the Secretary of Treasury, should he want to seize all assets of Tom? (2) Say Dick runs a foundation similar to Doctors Without Borders and collects money for medical supplies and sends medics to war zones, including some restive regions in the Sunni triangle. As the government lawyer, can you justify actions of the Secretary of Treasury, should he want to seize all assets of Dick and/or his charity foundation? (3) Say Harry is a political dissident who is against the Iraqi government which Harry believes is made up of a Iranian stooges and gangster politicians. Harry further believes that the sooner this government is toppled, the better off America is going to be and gives fiery speeches on the subject. Say a lot of Iraqi anti-government forces use Harry's speeches and arguments to incite violence against the Iraqi government in Iraq. The Sec. of Tres. then determines that Harry's speeches have "undermined efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq." As the government lawyer, can you justify actions of the Secretary of Treasury, should he want to seize all assets of Harry if he refuses to shut up and give up his free speech right? I bet given the full text of this executive order, any lawyer worth half his salt could make a plausible argument for seizure of assets of Tom, Dick, and Harry. Now whether or not he could make those charges stick in the supreme court is another story, but in the mean time Tom, Dick, and Harry would have to live without even the shirt off their backs and find lawyers who would defend them for free or for IOUs for an unknown length of time. ST PS Do you think if anyone bankrolled Tom, Dick, and Harry's defenses and livelihood, the government could seize his assets too under the guise of conspiring with the anti-government forces? PPS Do you think just the threat of above scenarios would persuade many people to just be obedient little citizens?