Have you guys noticed this new executive order?

[lozina]

I did a search for "executive" but didn't find it so sorry if repost, this is from July 17th...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...007/07/20070717-3.html

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(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;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

 

[Genx87]

Pretty sure this is a repost.

 

[will889]

The next step would be deeming a dissenter as an enemy combatant. It may come to that if there were any true social revolt but unlikely. More than likely things will go on in a transparent way because people here want to hold on to what they have even of the gov't morphs itself into hegemony and eventual classical fascism. The latter is unlikely except under the surface and by that time all rights would be suspended. If you have a pres and his admin in power that just can't be ousted and the majority of people don't want in office and don't agree with the political events then you basically have people running the gov't other than what it would seem and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. I get the feeling that everything that is transpiring was decided quite some time ago by a select group of very powerful people that are in absolute control of the US and have the people on the other side of the isle locked down in fear over the complicity of events unfolded that probably goes back quite some time.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision.

I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

Time will tell.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

Oh, really?

Then why the vague language which could be used to encompass pretty much anyone they want?

Why is there no mention of such a person having to be found guilty in a fair trial as part of the judicial system ?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

Wasn't Germany's Enabling Act just meant to stabilize the country and remove any "major violators" from inhibiting such? See how well that one worked out.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

Wasn't Germany's Enabling Act just meant to stabilize the country and remove any "major violators" from inhibiting such? See how well that one worked out.

links?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wasn't Germany's Enabling Act just meant to stabilize the country and remove any "major violators" from inhibiting such? See how well that one worked out.

links?

Text

And also, for future reference:

http://www.google.com

 

[Kwaipie]

Silly Americans. Everything Bush does is legal until the Supremes slap him down. Never has a president pushed the boundaries of executive privilege so much.

 

[umbrella39]

Has bush run out of pages of the Constitution to wipe his ass with yet? Or do we have to wait until next November to find out..

 

[Hacp]

Looks like we won't bee seeing Cindy Sheehan anymore.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

Wasn't Germany's Enabling Act just meant to stabilize the country and remove any "major violators" from inhibiting such? See how well that one worked out.

links?

Never took a history class, eh? Comes back to the old adage: "Those who ignore / forget / don't understand (pick one) history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Deleted member 4644]

It's called due process. A US citizen who had their property taken could go to court and would probably win on about 50 claims, including free speech.

If and when we no longer have courts, that will be when we are fuscked (we are moving in that direction).

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Is this the start of enforcing this executive order?

Clinton Aids ?Enemy Propaganda' With Talk of Pullout, Official Says">http://www.nysun.com/article/58851</a>

"a top Pentagon official scolded the presidential hopeful for reinforcing "enemy propaganda" with talk of a withdrawal of American troops. "

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: lozina


So basically, if you so much as take any active role in opposing Bush's plans for Iraq (for example, a protest, speaking out, or perhaps a Congressmen even voting no to some Iraq related law Bush wants) the Bush cronies (Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) could deem you an interference to the "stability" of Iraq or it's "economic" progress and can seize your home, your property, and eveyrthing else you own in the US ???

You have definitely exaggerated the spirit of this decision. I'm sure this is meant for major violators and not protestors, please.

How sure are you? Would you bet your life on the order never being abused by the government, given that the language was written so (purposefully?) vaguely?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
It's called due process. A US citizen who had their property taken could go to court and would probably win on about 50 claims, including free speech.

If and when we no longer have courts, that will be when we are fuscked (we are moving in that direction).

lol.

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

Last I checked, neither the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense were part of the judicial system. So much for due process...

 

[StageLeft]

The spirit likely doesn't include protestors, but as mentioned yes it's vague and one could interpret it to mean basically even people on P&N who state that the Iraq war is a mess and that Bush is a mental midget.

 

[simondedalus]