|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2007 : 07:18:22
|
Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act
| I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. |
GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House,
July 17, 2007. |
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
| No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
This executive order seems in direct conflict with the constitution.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 07:25:36 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, saw this in the news a few days ago.
Kinda gives me the creeps... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 07:43:29 [Permalink]
|
Since when is an act of violence a protest?
I'm no fan of Bush, but the executive order seems pretty clear to me: people who commit or aid terrorism in Iraq will have their U.S. assets frozen.
Or is it the lack of due process that's the problem here? If so, perhaps Jerome should have quoted this part:Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 08:05:44 [Permalink]
|
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; |
Seems vague to me...could apply to a lot of things (like war protesters?) Do I think this would be used to squash war protesters? Probably not...
Also, the rest of Sec 5.
| I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 09:36:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; |
Seems vague to me...could apply to a lot of things (like war protesters?) Do I think this would be used to squash war protesters? Probably not... |
You've left out the beginning:(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (A) and (B) are subsections of (i). It all depends upon there being an act of violence or a significant risk thereof which does (A) or (B). Protesting the war isn't going to cut the mustard, even if the protest turns into a riot (a riot which, itself, wouldn't threaten Iraqi stability).
On the other hand, if your chosen form of war protest is to bludgeon Iraqi government ministers, you're going to have a problem with this Executive Order.Also, the rest of Sec 5.| I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. |
|
Yeah, I thought it was clear enough with just the first part: we're going to freeze your assets, and because they can be transferred at a moment's notice, we're going to freeze them without telling you or anyone else that we're doing so. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 10:22:48 [Permalink]
|
This wording of the document ...| ... to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. |
... seems to limit its effect to the real baddies, like Al Qaeda, the insurgents, and Bush's whole invasion and occupation.
Does anyone know if this is a legally-required "finding" that must be made prior to freezing bank assets?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 10:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by pleco
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; |
Seems vague to me...could apply to a lot of things (like war protesters?) Do I think this would be used to squash war protesters? Probably not... |
You've left out the beginning:(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (A) and (B) are subsections of (i). It all depends upon there being an act of violence or a significant risk thereof which does (A) or (B). Protesting the war isn't going to cut the mustard, even if the protest turns into a riot (a riot which, itself, wouldn't threaten Iraqi stability).
|
Ah, you're right, I didn't read it correctly. Those are subsections. Thanks for pointing that out. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 12:05:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Does anyone know if this is a legally-required "finding" that must be made prior to freezing bank assets? |
It looks like section 5 covers that by saying, in effect, "if we go through legal channels and due process, the bad guys are going to find out and transfer their assets before we can freeze them." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 14:47:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Does anyone know if this is a legally-required "finding" that must be made prior to freezing bank assets? |
It looks like section 5 covers that by saying, in effect, "if we go through legal channels and due process, the bad guys are going to find out and transfer their assets before we can freeze them."
|
Ah-hah. Then that signals that he knows it's illegal, and the "finding" is just a cover for the event Bush gets called into court, or impeached.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 18:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Note:
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Civilians are not "in actual service in time of War" and therefore are were protected.
But Bush seems to have done away with that, and the Democrats don't have the balls to stop him. Am I missing something? If not, then welcome to a new dictatorship. Beyond the obvious, who defines what "aiding terrorism in Iraq" is? Suppose he decides that supporting Cindy Sheehan is aiding terrorism in Iraq.
. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 20:03:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
Beyond the obvious, who defines what "aiding terrorism in Iraq" is? Suppose he decides that supporting Cindy Sheehan is aiding terrorism in Iraq. |
I think the language in the Order is pretty specific. It's all about material support. For supporting Cindy Sheehan - even materially - to be covered by that order someone would first need to show that either Sheehan herself is a violent Iraqi terrorist or that she materially supports violent Iraqi terrorists.
The whole freeze-your-assets-without-due-process thing is bad enough without having to go overboard with these doom-and-gloom scenarios.
Along those lines, what does it take for, say, the IRS to freeze one's assets? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 20:39:40 [Permalink]
|
| pose a significant risk of committing, an act... of violence that have the... effect... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq ... |
If it is determined that someone may commit violence that effects politics concerning Iraq their property can be seized without due process.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 21:47:40 [Permalink]
|
Something that I think is being overlooked here:
it's impossible to freeze someone's assets and keep it secret after the fact.
If the Bushies were to use this against, say, Cindy Sheehan or any other vocal opponent of their policies, they would be in the position of having to admit openly that they are using Executive power to inflict extrajudicial punishment for purely political reasons. There would be no way that they could escape that admission.
Think that would be accepted by anyone outside the irreducible 30% of mouth-breathing personality cultists? At a time when even Republican politicians are trying to draw a distinction between themselves and Bush?
This is Little Boots trying to make himself look like a deciderer, not a fiendish plan to destroy his domestic political opposition. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 21:51:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ktesibios
Something that I think is being overlooked here:
it's impossible to freeze someone's assets and keep it secret after the fact.
If the Bushies were to use this against, say, Cindy Sheehan or any other vocal opponent of their policies, they would be in the position of having to admit openly that they are using Executive power to inflict extrajudicial punishment for purely political reasons. There would be no way that they could escape that admission.
Think that would be accepted by anyone outside the irreducible 30% of mouth-breathing personality cultists? At a time when even Republican politicians are trying to draw a distinction between themselves and Bush?
This is Little Boots trying to make himself look like a deciderer, not a fiendish plan to destroy his domestic political opposition.
|
This power will likely be used by the next administration. Or in the case of civil unrest against many lower members of opposition, not against leaders. This allows the fear of confiscation of property to lay on the fringe people whilst not drawing attention to a "lighting rod" and creating a martyr.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/20/2007 21:56:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:04:03 [Permalink]
|
My turn next on the slippery slope, Jerome.
Um... Oh, I know: the first thing Hitler did was to outlaw private ownership of firearms! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:19:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
My turn next on the slippery slope, Jerome.
Um... Oh, I know: the first thing Hitler did was to outlaw private ownership of firearms!
|
My appreciation of history is not so simple; but it is usually needed to have a lightly armed population for tyranny.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Confiscated Property for Protesting?
