Today's comment is by Mark Nestmann, our Wealth Preservation and Tax Consultant and President of The Nestmann Group.
Dear A-Letter Reader,
Over the years, I've been criticized for my skeptical view of the "War on Terror." But my critics have become most vocal when I dared to condemn the President Bush's authority to simply name some person or group as a "terrorist" and confiscate their property based merely on that bald assertion.
I've been called a "terrorist sympathizer," a "traitor" and "an apologist for militant Islam." But now, I'm delighted to report there's at least one courageous federal judge who agrees with me.
In a ruling made public Nov. 28, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins struck down a major part of Bush's Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists." The order gives the president the authority to label groups "terrorists," and to seize their property, without any legal process, and give them no way to challenge the designations.
Judge Collins ruled that the order was too vague and infringed on the right of free association, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, any person or group could be named a "terrorist" under the President's authority for any reason. Or, as Judge Collins observed, "for no reason."
Judge Collins also concluded that the Executive Order giving the Treasury Secretary the right to designate other persons or groups as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) was unconstitutional. Under the Executive Order, the Treasury Secretary could dub anyone a "terrorist" based only on their association with any of the 27 groups or individuals on the original list. That's because it "contains no definable criteria" for designating individuals and groups as SDGTs, and because it "imposes penalties for mere association."
However, Judge Collins' decision is hardly the end of the systematic dismantling of constitutional protections made in the name of the War on Terror (and in earlier "wars" such as the War on Drugs and the War on Money Laundering). The government will surely appeal this decision, and while the appeal is pending, it is likely to petition to permit seizures of "terrorist property" to continue.
Moreover, as I've pointed out in my blog, the Treasury Department says there is nothing the government can't confiscate once the President declares a national emergency, as President Bush has on numerous occasions to pursue the "War on Terror" (see http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/2006/10/the_us_says_it_.html )
Not to mention the shameful laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, such as the Military Commissions Act. That particular act allows the President to throw anyone in prison, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process whatsoever. So long as you're classified as an "enemy combatant," there's no requirement that a trial via military tribunal, or in civilian courts, ever take place.
Still, Judge Collins (who also was the first magistrate to invalidate any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act) represents an encouraging, albeit small, countertrend in the U.S. judiciary. Judge Collins represents someone willing to stand up to the President, even in the face of overwhelming public support for the War on Terror.
I hope more courageous jurists like Judge Collins step forward. They represent one of the last hopes of rescuing our republic from the scourge of totalitarianism.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation and
Tax Consultant on behalf of The Sovereign Society
Phoenix AZ
assetpro@nestmann.com
www.nestmann.com
P.S. Now your property, your assets, and anything else you own can be seized in the name of the War on Terror. Learn how you can legally fight back.