Subscribe to ePluribus Media



ePluribus Media Store


Want Headlines via Email?
Enter your email address:


Help Save 1.800.SUICIDE


President Bush's Executive Order: Revoking the Right to Dissent?

by rcs1

promoted by roxy317 -- we need to keep this story on our radar

From the White House, on July 17th comes this new executive order, signed by President Bush:Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.  It's short, easy to absorb the key points -- if one has a certain tolerance for legalese -- and scarey 'cuz it sounds as if the Tories are laying plans to seize the property of the American Patriots.

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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

Jump below the fold to see how White House Press Spokesman Tony Snow describes it.


commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
from Kuna (for balance, a la Fox)
During a [July 17,2007] White House briefing, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the order "targets terrorist and insurgent groups, including those assisted by Syria and Iran, that are not covered by existing authorities." " ... What we have is something that fills a gap left in other executive orders, to make sure that we have the means to go financially after anybody who is trying to go after the efforts to secure freedom and democracy in Iraq, " Snow said. The order is aimed at "insurgents and those who come across the border," he added.

Prior executive orders dealt with financial flows to former members of the Saddam regime as well as members of al Qaeda in Iraq, "but there are other players in this game," Snow said. "So anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the borders, who may not fit neatly into those other two categories -- this provides ways of going after those who provide financial, logistical or other support for them."

Okay.  Breaking it down, what do these "certain people" (as referred to in the title of the Executive Order) have to do to get their property blocked?
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;


I don't mean to be a stickler for details, but what is the criteria used to determine "pose a significant risk"?  Would that entail participating in an antiwar rally?  Writing letters to congressmen and women expressing anti war sentiments?  Sending money to the Quakers (Friends) since they do significant outreach to help young men and women understand military recruitment and who wish to seek alternatives?  Anyone buying a persian rug?  Seriously, on what basis?

The order goes on to explain item B -- which is in itself quicksand (Bush's only A grade is in Quagmire building) -- that lovely phrase, undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction or political reform -- Breathtaking.

Can't get better, can it?  Take a look:

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.

 So gawd help you if you donate to the legal fund for anyone who's property been ...what's that euphemism again?... blocked.

There are several better dissections of this order by writers a whole lot smarter than I am. For a quick list:

This order is one of the scariest things I have read lately.  Joe McCarthy's skeleton must be cackling with glee.


Update [2007-7-23 10:26:42 by Cho]: Rba's commentary on the tactical "hows" of the shellgame /smoke this President and his administration employ to consolidate power is worth a read.

Display:
directed at Congressmen? Hmmmmmmmm

by avahome on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:08:24 AM EST
it is one of the scariest yet to come out of Bush's brain.  I try not to be an alarmist, but ....

by roxy317 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:55:35 AM EST
All of the recent Executive Orders are building on one another.

by susie dow on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Their "takeover" is approaching completion, and they've done it in plain sight.

by rba on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
aside for the moment the fact that both the President and VP have (in trust?) investments which qualify for blocking, there is this in Section 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 border.


by rba on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:56:19 AM EST
Seriously, what investments do Cheney and Bush have that would qualify for blocking their property... that's a story in and of itself!

by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 12:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here are the actual asset listings for Cheney, and Bush from OpenSecrets.org.  (Bush is a real stretch, but Cheney . . .).

Scenario:  Halliburton hires KBR as a sub, who subs to XXX Co. out of Pakistan for labor, who further subs out to a labor broker, who hires people from the NW provinces.  Since the NW provinces are known to be areas under the control of terrorists, Halliburton is "indirectly" importing terrorists into Iraq, and paying them to say, work in our chow halls.

Guess we'd have to block Halliburton, eh?  Funny if it weren't so damn plausible.

by rba on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bet she'd could dig it out!


by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
on this latest "order":

NWO Report via Buzz at BuzzFlash:

It is curious to note that after the enactment of this new law there has been no protest by any of the other political leaders in the United States, with the exception of the only Muslim member of the United States Congress, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, and who compared President Bush to the Nazi War Leader Adolph Hitler by stating the attacks upon the World Trade Center could be likened to the burning of the Reichstag.

A good dissection with commentary.

Raw Story weighs in with this ...

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts -- a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War -- by quoting the "strong words" which open Roberts' latest column: "Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."



by roxy317 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 12:13:38 PM EST
with the discussion of this executive order.  It refers to previous acts and executive orders that I believe you have to examine to understand the context of this new executive order:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

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, ...

Has anyone found an ongoing discussion or piece on the IEEPA or other executive orders this mentions above?  

by standingup on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:01:00 PM EST

to the lack of criteria for what constitutes undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform as well as the section
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.
which on the surface would disallow say for example, contributing to the legal defense fund for someone whose property has been "blocked."

by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just find it difficult myself to feel I have a good understanding without having the other information.  It's similar to receiving one of those changes to your insurance policy in the mail with a renewal and needing to review the policy to exactly what the change involves and means.

by standingup on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US Settles Suit filed by Oregon Lawyer ...

Under the terms of the settlement filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Portland, the government also issued an unusual apology to Brandon Mayfield for the "suffering" caused by his wrongful arrest and imprisonment. It acknowledged that the ordeal was "deeply upsetting" to Mayfield and his family.

This was a hideous case of mistaken identity ... I lived in the Portland Metro area when this gentleman was arrested.  From what I remember, all of his assets were seized, family displaced, he was thrown in jail ... and "Oh, oops, sorry about that".  And all of this was before the new EO ... so yes, we should all be very worried about this EO.

by roxy317 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I was thinking about the protesters in New York at the RNC -- and then the subsequent discovery that there is a new presidential manual for handling the "crowds" when the president "visits."... I need to go find those links.

by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They came in with an agenda that crosses all agencies, but the media - including print - has yet to compile the "big picture".  Ivins/DuBose laid much of it out in "Bushwhacked" in 2003, Suskind/O'Neil added more in 2004, a slew of authors have dissected the Iraq fiasco, and there are major magazine articles covering people and/or individual incidents, but no "global" overview.

In my perfect world I would find people/sites with subject matter expertise in each cabinet agency, and build a several-layer-deep database behind each block on each org chart.  Fairly straightforward project given the amount of data available, but it would take a near-Guckert level of time.

Massively parallel processing.

by rba on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looks like the $hrub narrowed the list a bit from an early run at EO's.  One I've been studying lately references those items you point out, and then some.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010924-1.html

Executive Order on Terrorist Financing
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism
September 24, 2001

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1214 of December 8, 1998, UNSCR 1267 of October 15, 1999, UNSCR 1333 of December 19, 2000, and the multilateral sanctions contained therein, and UNSCR 1363 of July 30, 2001, establishing a mechanism to monitor the implementation of UNSCR 1333,

dotdotdot

Of course it was directed at foreigners but has a handy sketch of what makes a terrorist which is the issue that drew me to that particular EO.  

Sorry, have not studied it deeply enough for insight to your question.


by luaptifer on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"those coming across the borders" in Snow's press briefing.  Of course, that's on the surface the evil doers trying to come into our country... but maybe I am missing something... that it is a code phrase for refugees?  Immigrants?  What am I missing here?


by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 05:17:39 PM EST
You're not missing anything.  Tried and true sleight-of-mouth:  be general, let the public fill in the blank(s).

They are simply not being challenged on any of their statements.  You'd think any reporter with half a brain would call them on specifics (Who exactly are "those coming across the border" Mr. Snow?).

This WH is probably the best I've ever seen at talking directly to the public through the compliant media.  Doesn't anyone remember that WoodStein got their story with virtually no White House contacts?  Apparently not.

by rba on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 05:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

being able to "get" means you have been "got."

by Cho on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!

ePluribus Media

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

members


community front page

make a new account


Username:
Password:

create account | faq | search | community front page |