The difference between these two is that one of them is creating internment camps for innocent people, and the other is taking the wealth of people who enabled genocide to help victims.

That both involve a skip of some civil liberties is hardly a meaningful similarity

> The difference between these two is that one of them is creating internment camps for innocent people, and the other is taking the wealth of people who enabled genocide to help victims.

They certainly weren't considered "innocent" back in the day, at least according to some of the newspaper editorials.

>A Los Angeles Times editorial dated February 28, 1942, stated that:

>As to a considerable number of Japanese, no matter where born, there is unfortunately no doubt whatever. They are for Japan; they will aid Japan in every way possible by espionage, sabotage and other activity; and they need to be restrained for the safety of California and the United States. And since there is no sure test for loyalty to the United States, all must be restrained. Those truly loyal will understand and make no objection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...

One of the major things that led to the internment camps was an incident where a Japanese fighter pilot who was shot down during the attack on Pearl Harbor was helped by Japanese-Hawaiians who had lived in US terriorty for years. The Japanese-Hawaiians attacked the guard, helped the pilot escape, burned down a neighbor's house, and took hostages. This caused many Americans to fear that the war effort would be sabotaged by ethnic Japanese (and Germans/Italians, who were spied upon but not placed in camps in large numbers as it would have been infeasible to do so due to their high American population) citizens who had more loyalty to their homeland than their country.

>The behavior of Shintani and the Haradas was included in an official Navy report dated January 26, 1942. The report's author Navy Lieutenant C. B. Baldwin wrote: "The fact that the two Niʻihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japanese domination of the island seemed possible, indicate[s] [the] likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident

That is irrelevant.

An interesting use of double quotes around emergency, given the topic.

Since it will be governments (maybe) seizing those assets and not members of HN - would that be sufficient to not horrify you?

>Since it will be governments (maybe) seizing those assets and not members of HN - would that be sufficient to not horrify you?

I'm not arabic/muslim so the chances of me being targeted by anti-terror regulation is probably fairly low. Yet, I'm still against them. This comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...#Text

I think it's pretty rich to link to that poem given the context. It's a poem about the rise of authoritarianism, a poem Putin could have mistaken for a blueprint rather than a warning. Today as people speak out in Russia they are arrested, and that insulates Putin to believe he has the power and right to invade foreign countries. To use this poem as an argument against measures taken to nonviolently stem the tide of authoritarianism is particularly perverse, especially when what we're talking about here is no more abhorrent than seizing luxury assets like yachts and apartments from billionaires.

>It's a poem about the rise of authoritarianism [...] To use this poem as an argument against measures to stem the tide of authoritarianism is particularly perverse

And bypassing due process is also authoritarian. It might be in service of an anti-authoritarian goal, but that just gives me "the world must learn of our peaceful ways, by force" vibes.

It's not bypassing due process. The process is: "Are they Russian oligarchs? If yes, confiscate everything."

Reactions to war a blunt like this. It could have been avoided only by Russia.

> It's not bypassing due process. The process is: "Are they Russian oligarchs? If yes, confiscate everything."

It's quite literally bypassing due process, unless I'm misunderstanding something here.

1. Will there be a trial? The fact that the assets were seized without trial, and that no suggestions of a trial be held suggests that OP (and most people here) are not advocating for trials. If that's the case, I have a hard time understanding how that could be considered "due process".

2. what crimes did the oligarchs actually commit? when was "being a russian oligarch" criminalized? there were russian sanctions that were passed, but those do not give the government authority to expropriate assets

3. any laws passed to expropriate assets sound suspiciously like bill of attainder, which would be banned by the constitution. At best it would allow you to expropriate assets of people who still have connections to putin/russia or whatever.

> And bypassing due process is also authoritarian.

No it is not, and even if it were, it's decidedly not the brand of authoritarianism that was being warned about in the poem.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on this idea that heretofore unspecified "due process" (what process is due, you haven't suggested) has been violated.

Yet as far as I'm aware, all appropriate processes and procedures were followed by our elected representatives in the course of levying sanctions against foreign nationals. Please point out where any process that was so due was circumvented. What exactly is the due process being violated?

To understand how sanctioning foreign nationals is not authoritarianism, consider the process by which the sanctions came to be. We came together in November of 2020 to elect a new government, entrusted with among other duties, the task of executing a foreign policy. That foreign policy is being executed now, which involves seizing assets of foreign individuals engaged in waging war against an ally. The seizing of assets is done under law, which was written and passed by our elected representatives, and signed into law buy our elected head of state. If at any point in time we deem their actions unfit to represent us, we are able to elect a new government to replace them. This is not authoritarianism. Calling this process authoritarian gives Putin a pass, because it's not at all like what happens in Russia.

I'm sorry you feel like some Russian billionaire's "due process" was violated, but that's simply not the case, and even if it were that is not "authoritarian". Not every bit of government overreach is "authoritarianism".

> that just gives me "the world must learn of our peaceful ways, by force" vibes.

I'm sorry, but as a point of fact it's government force that is used to preserve and enforce property rights. How do you think private property remains private if not for the government's monopoly to arrest and imprison? Peace and goodwill toward men is not keeping the property of Russian oligarchs private -- it's the threat of imprisonment for violating them.

My advice to you is if you're really worried about the issue of civil asset forfeiture, this is not the right context to argue against it. Billionaire Russian oligarchs are not a sympathetic group to champion, and it's really in poor taste in the moment. Your effort is better spent fighting concrete injustices faced by ordinary Americans, rather than making dozens of posts on HN defending... Russian oligarchs engaged in a war of aggression.

>Yet as far as I'm aware, all appropriate processes and procedures were followed by our elected representatives in the course of levying sanctions against foreign nationals. Please point out where any process that was so due was circumvented. What exactly is the due process being violated?

You realize that sanctions =/= expropriation, and we were talking about expropriation?

>I'm sorry, but as a point of fact it's government force that is used to preserve and enforce property rights. How do you think private property remains private if not for the government's monopoly to arrest and imprison? Peace and goodwill toward men is not keeping the property of Russian oligarchs private -- it's the threat of imprisonment for violating them.

I'm not against "force" here, I'm against invoking authoritarian policies to fight authoritarianism. If there are some anti-due process terrorists running around, and the government decides respond by sending them to gulags/gitmo without trial, they shouldn't get to claim the moral high ground. At the very least, the irony shouldn't be lost on them.

>My advice to you is if you're really worried about the issue of civil asset forfeiture, this is not the right context to argue against it. Billionaire Russian oligarchs are not a sympathetic group to champion, and it's really in poor taste in the moment. Your effort is better spent fighting concrete injustices faced by ordinary Americans, rather than making dozens of posts on HN defending... Russian oligarchs engaged in a war of aggression.

Yeah, but the whole point of due process is to protect the unsympathetic. If they're sympathetic they can at least try to win in the court of public opinion. For the unsympathetic, due process is literally all they have.