President signs executive order banning Iraq war opposition

[Krenshau]

If you are against the Iraq war, the president can now take away your property (if you are in the U.S.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

Here is the explanation to Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-4.html

Summary:

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to...pose a significant risk of...undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

I interpret this as meaning that if you (U.S. citizens in the U.S.) pose a significant threat to the efforts of the Executive branch to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq, then the government can, without due process, keep you from having property. So, if you urge Congress to leave Iraq before the President wants to leave, and it looks like Congress is being swayed by "you" (the U.S. citizens), then you can be thought of as a "significant risk of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". You have been forewarned by our President.

[Shaggy Hiker]

He's a bonehead, but I don't read this in a very negative light. He talks of acts of violence. Sure it could be interpreted broadly, but by who?

[Krenshau]

By him.

[nemaroller]

If you are against the Iraq war, the president can now take away your property (if you are in the U.S.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

Here is the explanation to Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-4.html

Summary:

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to...pose a significant risk of...undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

I interpret this as meaning that if you (U.S. citizens in the U.S.) pose a significant threat to the efforts of the Executive branch to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq, then the government can, without due process, keep you from having property. So, if you urge Congress to leave Iraq before the President wants to leave, and it looks like Congress is being swayed by "you" (the U.S. citizens), then you can be thought of as a "significant risk of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". You have been forewarned by our President.

I don't see the 'without due process ' part. It does mean they can seize property without giving you notice - which for his intentions makes sense. You can't seize terror funds by issuing a letter to show up in court or else.

What can happen is your property may be seized first, then you will have the opportunity to go through due process.

But all in all - its just a means of securing funds and property of suspected people immediately without *****footing around in court by which time the funds would have been transfered offshore - which means they can easily be transfered back and start the whole thing over again.

[FunkyDexter]

The without due process part is covered by this:-

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

Note that none of these parties are part of an independent judiciary.

It does refer to acts of violence, which somewhat tightens up any potential for abuse of the act, but certainly doesn't remove it. Making a threat can legally be considered an act of violence in GB and I imagine that's the same in the US (though I suspect the police and courts would unlikely to take you seriously) and anyone who's been on a large protest march knows how easy it is to find yourself being accused of violence by the police, even if you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and trying to get out of said wrong place as quickly as possible. Would the Fathers for justice protestors who flour bombed Tony Bliar be considered to have been violent - arguably so. And the key point is that this doesn't have to go through any legal process beyond three members of the government deciding they don't like your face.

[nemaroller]

It makes no mention of foregoing due process. It simply states the property will be seized immediately - effectively frozen.

After that happens, the affected party has due process available in the courts.

[mendhak]

Hey, at least they're taking away your civil liberties a little at a time rather than all in one go.

[FunkyDexter]

After that happens, the affected party has due process available in the courts

Ah, so guilty until proven innocent. That's alright then.

[nemaroller]

Ah, so guilty until proven innocent. That's alright then.

This doesn't erase normal criminal proceedings. It simply clarifies the ability for seizure of assets during those proceedings.

And it's not the first time its happened. During WWI and WWII many civil liberties were put 'on hold' - including in the UK.

While Bush's 'war on terror' is not popular among civil liberty advocates - there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, and quite a number of foiled plots.

Would you consider the following limiting of civil liberties?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4742589.stm

[FunkyDexter]

Would you consider the following limiting of civil liberties?

Yes I would and I've actively campaigned against it. Indeed, that partcular law led to us failing Condaleeza Rice's 'test' of a proper democracy. Namely, that, if you can't stand in front of your government building without fear of arrest, you're not living in a democracy.

This doesn't erase normal criminal proceedings. It simply clarifies the ability for seizure of assets during those proceedings.

No, it allows the government to take punitive action against the individual without recourse to an independent judiciary. Dress it up however you like, if the onus of prof is placed on the acused to prove their innocence instead of on the accuser to prove guilt, then you might as well take your democratic values chuck them out the window.

During WWI and WWII many civil liberties were put 'on hold' - including in the UK.

Comparing the war on terror to WWI or WWII is pretty thin, don't you think? The situations aren't really very alike are they?

there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11,

There weren't any before 9/11 either. What's your point?

[nemaroller]

Yes I would and I've actively campaigned against it. Indeed, that partcular law led to us failing Condaleeza Rice's 'test' of a proper democracy. Namely, that, if you can't stand in front of your government building without fear of arrest, you're not living in a democracy.

No, it allows the government to take punitive action against the individual without recourse to an independent judiciary. Dress it up however you like, if the onus of prof is placed on the acused to prove their innocence instead of on the accuser to prove guilt, then you might as well take your democratic values chuck them out the window.

Comparing the war on terror to WWI or WWII is pretty thin, don't you think? The situations aren't really very alike are they?

There weren't any before 9/11 either. What's your point?

I don't want to jump into a quoting conversation.
But there was an attack before 9/11 and in fact at the Twin Towers when a bomb exploded in the below-ground levels of the towers. Obviously no country is completely secure, but that doesn't mean you leave the front door wide open and make it easy for terrorism to occur.

WWI/II were conventional in that it was between countries - yet the reason for fighting was based on fear of German domination, and the reason for fighting now is based on fear of radical Islamic domination.

And finally, the onus is still on the government to prove you are guilty. If found innocent, obviously the seized property is released. This still in no way circumvents the courts, it simply changes the capability of seizure. Yes, I would concede it could be used maliciously on innocent people - but that is highly unlikely given the media's hypersensitivity to this current presidential administration and the fame hungry mindset of some lawyers.

[FunkyDexter]

Fair enough, I'll ammend my statement to 'significant atacks'. If you think 6 people is significant you should have tried British in the 70s and 80s.

Indeed you don't leave the door open, but niether do you remove Habeus Corpus, one of the principles underpinning the democracy which underpins the American value system.

Do you really fear Islamic domination? I mean reeeaaally fear it in the way that Facist domination in the 30s and 40s was feared? Germany had controlled the entirety of Europe from the Frances border to the Polish border, including Scandinavia. The western balkan states were controlled by a facist Italy was vying for control of the Mediteranean and had taken control of large portions of Eastern Africa. Facist Spain was in control of the last piece of Europe. And thats before the Allies declared war and long before civil liberties started being removed. By the time the US got involved that control had extended to include France, most of industrialised Russia, most of the Northern African Coast and the rest of the Balkans and the Japanese had joined and taken control of most of the pacific rim. Germany, Italy and Japan were all serious military powers. With the exception of GB and the American continent Facists had control over the entire industrialised world. Facist domination was a real threat.

Muslims (and I'm including the moderates as well as the radicals here, just to give your argument as much fat as possible) control an area ranging from Turkey to Pakistan and most of Africa. For the most part it's not industrialised, it's third world. None of these nations is a significant military power and they don't have the industrial wealth to become one. The comparison is ridiculous.

You don't fear Islamist domination at all (unless you're seriously deluded). What you fear is an islamist attack. And I have to tell you, the consequences of that attack are unlikely to have any direct impact on your life. Statistically you would have to be seriously, SERIOUSLY unlucky to be directly affected by it.

edit> tightened up a few of my WW2 facts, consequences of writing in a hurry I'm afraid

And finally, the onus is still on the government to prove you are guilty.

No it isn't. Clearly. The government can take punitive measure without needing any proof whatsoever. It's then up to the individual to seek redress. If you can't see how that is a suspension of due process then you're lying to yourself. And if history teaches us anything, it teaches that an organisation that is given powers will, at some point, use them. Organisations are made up of individuals and indviduals are corruptable, incompetent, vengeful, jealous and have a general desire to cover their own ass and push their own agenda any way they can.

[nemaroller]

Indeed you don't leave the door open, but niether do you remove Habeus Corpus, one of the principles underpinning the democracy which underpins the American value system.

For better or for worse, Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the past during times of war or national emergencies.

Do you really fear Islamic domination? I mean reeeaaally fear it in the way that Facist domination in the 30s and 40s was feared? Germany had controlled the entirety of Europe...None of these nations is a significant military power and they don't have the industrial wealth to become one. The comparison is ridiculous.

First, Pakistan is quite industrialized and technological and I would not remotely consider it 'third-world' by Western standards.

Iran has the tenth largest military in the world and are quite active in securing nuclear power. Regardless, it doesn't take a large army or resources to commit mass destruction.

My Islamic domination point was made to highlight the reason for Bush's 'war on terror'. He is a religious conservative and certainly portrays that out on the world stage.

As far as due process, I'll respect your opinion that it has been violated. If most Americans thought it had been, you would see quite the controversy in the US mainstream media which has not at all been cozy with the current presidential administration. It hasn't been suspended here - but certainly has been by two previous US presidents.

[bgmacaw]

but niether do you remove Habeus Corpus, one of the principles underpinning the democracy which underpins the American value system.

That darn Abe Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Both of them had anti-war protestors rounded up and jailed, at least until the courts stepped in.

Do you really fear Islamic domination? I mean reeeaaally fear it in the way that Facist domination in the 30s and 40s was feared?

It wasn't particularly feared in the US until after Pearl Harbor. Look at some of the speeches America First'ers like Charles Lindburgh were giving right up until then. It was largely seen as a European problem that we should not get involved in and that it might have the bonus effect of stopping the 'Red' threat. Japan's activities were seen as non-threatening as long as they were only attacking targets in China and Korea and FDR's embargos were seen as inflaming the situation by many.

Our objective these days is to prevent the rise of a potential enemy state that would be as big a threat as WWII Axis or the Soviet Union. We also know that these threats start small and grow big quickly so if we can nip them in the bud we'll be a lot safer.

The government can take punitive measure without needing any proof whatsoever. It's then up to the individual to seek redress. If you can't see how that is a suspension of due process then you're lying to yourself.

You need to also look at the state and federal seizure laws concerning drugs, firearms and some other items. If the police want to muscle you they can have your bank accounts frozen, property seized, and leave you with nothing at all until you do want they want you to do. And this isn't something new either, its been around for over 20 years. This executive order just defines a new class of victim for this government power trip.

That said, I doubt that they'll use it unless there is a real threat that they can prove in court. Seizures and abuse of government investigative power have cause political problems in the past, particularly during the Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon administrations so over-using them now wouldn't be a particularly smart thing to do.

[Krenshau]

Here is the issue. The target of this executive order is NOT terrorist, it is U.S. Citizens. A terrorist who is not a U.S. Citizen can use federal courts to fight against the federal government. A U.S. Citizen has NO recourse in response to this executive order.

Also, our government is becoming hostile, not only against other countries, but its own citizens that disagree with the policies. Note in the executive order that it says "due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States". In other words, it is not just a threat against national security that they oppose, IT IS THREATS AGAINST FOREIGN POLICY. If a U.S. Citizen opposes Foreign policy, their property can be taken. This executive order doesn't not give any method to prove innocence. When did opposing foreign policy become a crime?

Dictionary.com defines a threat as "an indication or warning of probable trouble". If the White House sees you, or me, as an indication of probable trouble. Then they can destroy your life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness. Things that all U.S. Citizens are supposed to be guaranteed.

People say that these things were done during some other war, so it is OK. Let's not forget that before this war, we looked back, as U.S. Citizens, in shame on those things. Now, somehow we feel that they are OK because people are afraid. I say give me liberty, or give me death. That is why the Iraqi's are fighting against our military, now. That is why we should be against this war. War is a tool for governments to increase their control and domination of people, both Citizens and non-Citizens. This executive order by our dictator is further proof of that. A real leader of Democracy would work with the Congress, and the U.S. Citizens to make our country safer. Instead, he demands our subjugation.

In WWII people sacrificed materials, money, time, and family members for the good of our country. Our "President" doesn't want us to make those sacrifices, he wants us to sacrifice our liberty, freedom, autonomy, and lives.

[System_Error]

If a U.S. Citizen opposes Foreign policy, their property can be taken.

Where does it say this? If I want to sit at home and oppose the current foreign policy, it will have no effect whatsoever on whatever the **** bush is trying to do in Iraq or sway congress.

Muslims (and I'm including the moderates as well as the radicals here, just to give your argument as much fat as possible) control an area ranging from Turkey to Pakistan and most of Africa. For the most part it's not industrialised, it's third world. None of these nations is a significant military power and they don't have the industrial wealth to become one. The comparison is ridiculous.

You don't fear Islamist domination at all (unless you're seriously deluded). What you fear is an islamist attack. And I have to tell you, the consequences of that attack are unlikely to have any direct impact on your life. Statistically you would have to be seriously, SERIOUSLY unlucky to be directly affected by it.

The ignorance is appalling.

[grilkip]

The ignorance is appalling.

Don't be too harsh on the man, he doesn't receive Fox News.

[Krenshau]

Where does it say this? If I want to sit at home and oppose the current foreign policy, it will have no effect whatsoever on whatever the **** bush is trying to do in Iraq or sway congress.

Sitting at home is not opposing, that is disagreeing. Opposing means to actively resist. I know it may seem like splitting hairs, but you have to remember that most of this stuff is written by lawyers, and you have to be precise in the use of words. Politicians are very skilled (usually) at saying things in ways that most people won't recognized the true meaning of.

What I don't understand is how people can see this, and give the President the benefit of the doubt. "Oh, it will never come to that." or "It is just in case." Why do people think that a President that has done the things that he has reportedly done won't use this power? His administration reportedly spies on U.S. Citizens. It has been reported that this administration kidnaps people and puts them in secret prisons. Then, denies them defense, and even a hearing. I believe these reports. If these reports are true, then why wouldn't he use this. I think people are having the ostrich syndrome.

I hope that people in the U.S. will become activated to change foreign policy, even if the President tries to throw them in prison. It is a shame to see Britain following our lead.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy, much like Reagan's War on Drugs. Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and is being used as an excuse to suspend or violate whatever treaty or law Bush likes. All this over one attack, and largely a unilateral move by the White House crowd. Sure, a toothless congress rubber stamped some action, but that's just political cover for all involved. Congress never had a spine and Bush new it. Had congress shown some spine, he wouldn't have asked for anything up front. The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Can any president decide that an amorphous non-national ideology is sufficient reason to break all the rules?

As for there being no attacks since 9/11, there weren't any for ten years before that by this group. The most recent terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were Oklahoma City and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both of those were right wing white guys. Saying there have been no attacks is just a form of propaganda. For one thing, it ignores the statistical history of terrorist attacks, and for another it makes sure that terrorists are defined as "others", when in fact the majority of attacks on Americans have been by Americans.

[nemaroller]

It would be rather interesting to see that if say Clinton or Obama are elected - will they repeal the 'hideous' laws the Bush administration enacted?

For a democratic party pick - I'm torn between Obama and Clinton. Clinton in office would bring experience to the office which unfortunately Obama may not have yet. However, Obama certainly carries the look of someone who weighs all sides of an issue - and his election would break the current Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle. Although I think its safe to say the current Bush destroyed any possibility for future Bush presidents.

For a Republican pick - I still like Mitt Romney. He answered the question how to handle immigration form rather well - 'Enforce the laws we have on the books'. It didn't involve spending money on a fence, or granting amnesty - simply giving teeth to the mostly sensible laws we enacted years ago.

No matter who becomes president, I think their first test in the eyes of the public will be how elegantly they can handle our involvement in Iraq. Certainly the reporters and columnists will be commenting on the differences.

[FunkyDexter]

For better or for worse, Habeus Corpus has been suspended in the past during times of war or national emergencies

It was wrong then and it's wronger now. Arguing that something has been done before is not an argument for doing it again.

Iran has the tenth largest military in the world

I make it 8th if you count number of men but it depends how you order it. If you order by military spend (which is far more realistic in todays high-tech world) then they drop down the list like a stone: US military budget = $518bn. Iranian military budget $6.3bn (figures for 05/06). That less than 1.5%! They're simply not a threat to you.

You need to also look at the state and federal seizure laws concerning drugs, firearms and some other items.

I disagree with them so it's not surprising I disagree with extending them. I don't think that the fact that an injustice exists within your system is a good reason to create another.

'Enforce the laws we have on the books'

Give that man a cigar! I mean it. I hate the tendancy that politicians have (and our Tony was one of the worst for this) who think that passing a new law is the answer to solving a problem. There's almost always existing legislation that's perfectly adequate. My cynical bones tell me that they're just tryng to 'look busy'.

The ignorance is appalling

Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent deconstruction of my argument . Perhaps you would like to point out the innaccuracies within that post.

Don't be too harsh on the man, he doesn't receive Fox News

Actually I do, I just don't often watch it.


edit> Please forgive all the quoting, I just find it an easy way to organise my post.

[bgmacaw]

A U.S. Citizen has NO recourse in response to this executive order.

This executive order is no different from drug related seizure orders and laws. The court system can be used to retrieve seized property, although this is generally an expensive legal undertaking. However, I think if this law was abused many lawyers would take such a case pro bono.

As for the rest of your post, it sounds like you have a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[bgmacaw]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy.

Look up the Authorization for Use of Force law passed by Congress after 9/11.

Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq

A different Authorization for Use of Force law was passed to deal with Iraq since it did not come under the 9/11 authorization.

The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Just like the EU did with Kosovo.

Can any president decide that an amorphous non-national ideology is sufficient reason to break all the rules?.

Ask Abe Lincoln about that one.

[System_Error]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy.

Yeah, and I'm getting pissed at his updates on the Iraq situation. Everytime he's suppose to address the nation with an evaluation, he says "It's too early to evaluate. I need more time." A year later he says the same thing.

What a huge mess he's created and he's not doing anything to clean it up. I would really, really hate to be the next president. You know this won't be cleared up.

Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent deconstruction of my argument .

Your welcome. I thought your well reasoned and intelligent comments deserved a lengthy response of agreement.

[Xanith]

My problem with the war on terror was that it was a war created out of whole cloth by Bush. There is no declared war, and there is no clear enemy, much like Reagan's War on Drugs. Of course, the one attack was used as an excuse to attack Iraq, and is being used as an excuse to suspend or violate whatever treaty or law Bush likes. All this over one attack, and largely a unilateral move by the White House crowd. Sure, a toothless congress rubber stamped some action, but that's just political cover for all involved. Congress never had a spine and Bush new it. Had congress shown some spine, he wouldn't have asked for anything up front. The UN didn't back him and he ignored the UN.

Call it the war against radical Islam; I’ve always hated the “war on terror” euphemism. I would have to disagree that there is no clear enemy, radical Islam is the enemy. The only reason people think it is not clear is because elements of radical Islam are everywhere; there is no one country one can point too.

Radical Islam has been at war the west for over 30 years now; it wasn’t until 9/11 that the world actually decided to pay attention to it. For Americans terrorist attacks were something that happened “over there” so it wasn’t something to worry about. 9/11 made America and the world stand up and take notice that terrorism can happen anywhere, even over here.

I don’t know of any treaties that are being suspended or violated by Bush. Perhaps you can enlighten me of these?

Remember Pearl Harbor was also just “one attack”.

The UN backed the US in words by passing Resolutions; unfortunately the UN has a poor record of not backing up those words with actions.

X

[Krenshau]

I think anyone that doesn't think anything wrong is happening is just sticking their head in the sand. While I originally didn't think that we should go to war with Iraq, after the arguments were put out about the people of Iraq wanting our help, I thought it was good. However, my life long belief that actions speak louder than words showed me that we were not over there to help anyone except ourselves (the U.S. government that is). I am very opposed to our occupation of Iraq (and if people say we are liberators, not occupants, then why did we apply to the U.N. to be classified as occupiers of Iraq?). I am opposed to our government, our "President", our "Vice President", and most of our Congress. I don't just disagree, I oppose them. That is how I know that I could become subject to this "executive order". But, I say, "Give me liberty, or give me death".

As for Presidents, I really, really, really want Ron Paul to win. I think U.S. citizens are generally too ignorant to make that wise of a choice.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Call it the war against radical Islam; I’ve always hated the “war on terror” euphemism. I would have to disagree that there is no clear enemy, radical Islam is the enemy. The only reason people think it is not clear is because elements of radical Islam are everywhere; there is no one country one can point too.

I agree, but you'll never find a mainstream politician who will say they are fighting a religeon (damn I can't spell that word!). The fact that they are all over the place is what I meant by amorphous. There isn't necessarily one group, one viewpoint, one center, or any such thing. Osama isn't all that important in that his dispatch wouldn't put an end to anything.

Radical Islam has been at war the west for over 30 years now; it wasn’t until 9/11 that the world actually decided to pay attention to it.

Probably a bit longer than that. Technically, that fight has been going on for about a thousand years now in one form or another. That means little to Americans, since we tend not to know our own short history, but it means a huge amount to some of the islamic states who routinely make reference to obscure events of hundreds of years back with the full confidence that others will know what they are talking about. A group with a very long memory has all kinds of grievances.

For Americans terrorist attacks were something that happened “over there” so it wasn’t something to worry about. 9/11 made America and the world stand up and take notice that terrorism can happen anywhere, even over here.

I don't quite agree. While it was the biggest attack, it was not the first. Oklahoma City didn't cause anybody to rally round the flag, despite the few hundred dead. I think it was more than the attacks, but the fact that the attacks were perpetrated by somebody who was decidedly "other", and therefore easy to demonize.

I don’t know of any treaties that are being suspended or violated by Bush. Perhaps you can enlighten me of these?

There's probably a list, but the two that come most readily to mind are ABM and the Geneva Conventions.

Remember Pearl Harbor was also just “one attack”.

Not really. The military had long assumed that they would end up fighting Japan. If you read any history of the time that isn't lightweight, you will realize that most of the military planning (such as it was) revolved around the coming war with Japan. They were the "yellow menace". Much of the country knew it was coming, they just didn't know when. However, they weren't that far off on the when, either. I remember reading about a dispatch to Pearl warning of the possibility of attack by Japan in the days prior to the actual event. Perhaps "At Dawn We Slept" (the title of a book on the attack), but we knew the war was coming eventually, and that one attack just triggered it.

The UN backed the US in words by passing Resolutions; unfortunately the UN has a poor record of not backing up those words with actions.

And we are now gaining a reputation for having a poor record of backing up actions with wisdom.

[Lord Orwell]

I wonder if this thread counts as actively protesting foreign policy? Kiss your property good-bye. And i am not sure about this, but don't executive orders have to be approved by at least one branch of congress? I would think it would work both ways. They need presidential signature, why wouldn't he need theirs?

As for the oaklohama city bombing, who would we rally against? Rednecks? That's half of the country.

As for due process, if you have ever actually HAD something siezed ( i had some stuff siezed as evidence against someone else), you would realize that if they list it as "evidence" you will never see it again. Do you think ANY of the drug laws are fair? "Found drugs in your car - thanks for the car". and that's not the worst of it. There is a similar law on the books that lets the FCC sieze your property if you have an illegal transmitter. This includes an amplifier on a CB. They have a history of tracking amplified CBs and siezing the entire car and i have heard of them taking people's homes when they were using a base station with an amp on it.

People just don't realize the dirty dealings the government is actually up to until it affects them directly. A more recent example is the "eminent domain" scandal where they wanted to sieze a bunch of people's homes (in california?) so they could sell the land to a developer. City claimed it was for the "ecenomic good" of the community. Nevermind they weren't going to compensate anyone for the siezed land.

[homer13j]

Nevermind they weren't going to compensate anyone for the siezed land.

They were compensated. The gov't gave them what is called "fair market value" for the property.

Of course it's the faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy that gets to decide exactly what is "fair" but it's not like they received absolutely nothing...

[Lord Orwell]

if i remember correctly this time, they were claiming the houses were a blight on the neighborhood or some such nonsense.

[homer13j]

The same thing happened here in a suburb we affectionately refer to as "Flakewood."

This city has THE highest tax rates in the state of Ohio, and has held this distinction for at least two decades now. But it's so-called "progressive" (hippie) government believes this is not enough (it never is). Unable to raise taxes any further, they began to look at other ways to raise revenue. One way was to demolish the city's west end and replace it with upscale high-end housing and shops by declaring the entire area as "blighted." Only a citizen's revolt prevented hundreds of homeowners from losing their homes and receiving a fraction of what their properties were actually worth.

Never mind the fact that the so-called "blighted" area in question just happens to overlook the Rocky River Reservation and also happens to have the highest property values in the entire city while a large chunk of Flakewood's east end can be accurately described as blighted...

Hippies piss me off.

[Lord Orwell]

Don't blame the hippies. Blame the electorate that put them in charge. In any case that is why there were lawsuits in california. It was in an upscale residential neighborhood there as well. They even did a CSI episode based on it where the area was considered blighted because the crime rate (perpetrated by one person) was higher than average.

[MasterBlaster]

And this is suprising? No one in the US owns their own property. Don't believe me? Try not paying your property taxes and see what happens. You just rent it from the government.

[Lord Orwell]

you also don't own anything you plan on reselling (inventory tax in some states, such as mine)

[bgmacaw]

Probably a bit longer than that. Technically, that fight has been going on for about a thousand years now in one form or another. That means little to Americans, since we tend not to know our own short history,

"...to the shores of Tripoli" There's a bumper sticker I saw that had the USMC emblem and the caption, "Fighting Terrorism Since 1804".

[Shaggy Hiker]

The fights against the corsairs began even earlier, but that's getting closer.