Guest guest Posted August 26, 2004 Report Share Posted August 26, 2004 > M > Wed, 25 Aug 2004 > U.S. can seize assets, no conviction required > > From the Providence Journal: > > http://www.projo.com/sharedcontent/east/patriotact/content/projo_20040710_pa > tday7x.21fb25.html > > U.S. can seize assets, no conviction required > > BY GERALD M. CARBONE > Journal Staff Writer > > > Section 806 of the USA Patriot Act allows the > president of the United > States to take the property of anyone who is > " perpetrating " or " planning " > terrorism against the country, its people or their > property. > > Any person or group found to be planning to > commit a criminal and > dangerous act to coerce government policy could lose > all assets, regardless > of whether they actually commit the crime. > > In an analysis of the Patriot Act written for > Congress, Charles Doyle of > the Library of Congress wrote: " broad as the > president's war powers may be, > they would hardly seem to provide a justification > for section 806, which . . > . is neither limited to foreign offenders nor > predicated upon war-like > hostilities. " > > This section of the Patriot Act employs > " forfeiture of estate, " > allowing the government to take all property. This > is unusual in American > legal tradition, which has historically employed > " statutory forfeiture, " > limiting seizure to assets derived from, or used > for, a crime. > > A person whose property is seized under 806 also > loses the right to pass > property to heirs, creating what the U.S. > Constitution calls " the corruption > of blood. " > > Article III of the Constitution protects people > from punishment for the > acts of their ancestors. > > This is why, Doyle noted in his analysis, > " President Lincoln insisted > that the confiscated real estate of Confederate > supporters should revert to > their heirs at death. " > > Waiving the rules > > The Patriot Act also addresses property > forfeiture in Section 106, > titled Presidential Authority. > > This section says that when the United States is > " engaged in armed > hostilities, " the president may seize " any property " > within U.S. > jurisdiction from " any foreign person " that the > president determines has > aided in " such hostilities. " > > This section has its roots in a 1917 law called > the Trading With the > Enemy Act, which gave the president power to seize > assets in any national > emergency. > > This power had been weakened under the 1977 > International Emergency > Powers Act, which limited it to times of war. > > Section 106 of the Patriot Act amends the 1977 > law to restore the > president's authority to seize property in any > national emergency. > > The Trading with the Enemy Act once involved > President Bush's family. > > In 1942, the U.S. government seized assets of > the Union Bank because it > was controlled by Fritz Thyssen, who helped bankroll > Adolf Hitler's rise to > power. Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather, > was a director of that > bank when the United States seized it. > > The government later reimbursed him $1.5 million > for his single share in > the bank. > > Section 106 also reinforces the government's > authority to make its case > for property forfeiture in the secrecy of a judge's > chambers, and without > the defendant present. > > This section also lets courts waive the Federal > Rules of Evidence to > protect national security, permitting hearsay and > other evidence that might > normally be inadmissible. > > Sections 106 and 806 do not require conviction > of a property owner for > the government to seize assets. > > Section 106 applies only to foreign-owned > property, but 806 applies to > " any individual, " including any American, who the > government says is > planning to coerce people or government policy > through a criminal and > dangerous act. > > Doyle told Congress that besides Article III of > the Constitution, these > amendments might violate two of the amendments in > the Bill of Rights: the > Eighth Amendment, barring excessive fines, and the > Fifth Amendment's > double-jeopardy clause, which applies to forfeitures > that are so punitive > " as to negate any presumption of remedial purposes. " > > Gerald M. Carbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.