Politics Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
posted by on July 19 at 9:51 AM
Some very vague icing on the the yummy Patriot Act cake! (Emphasis addded.)
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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(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.
[…]
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
Read the whole frightening thing at—yes!—the White House website, probably equipped with a handy hit tracker for everyone’s security.
mmm.... freshly baked fascism!
what's it going to take to convince you, ms. pelosi? i don't even care if he's not convicted. i want his hand slapped in front of the rest of the planet.
So does this mean all the Senators and Congressmen who oppose the war can have their shit taken away?
So, are the 52 Senators that would have voted to withdraw going to be first on that list? Yikes.
And even if a Democrat gets in the White House, do not expect them to recind this directive. The one rule of politics to remember is once you (or the position you are in) gains power, they never let it go.
The American Experiment has failed.
Freedom costs a buck'o five.
@ 2 and 3: probably not those guys as they have a pretty big seat at the Power Table. But, if you were a troublesome peacenick and or environmental movement agitator (see fire-bombing extremist) I would think you would be fair game. It's hard not to look at these types of directives and their comments about "restoring the power of the executive" and not think they are planning some sort of bloodless, or even bloody I suppose, coup. That said, @4 is probably right regardless of the next president.
@2 & 3 - No, it's only about people who have committed acts of violence or, vaguely, pose a "significant risk" of committing violent acts that undermine our glorious experiment in Iraq. The only thing Congress poses a significant risk of doing is Jack Shit.
I actually think this is his bridge too far. He's fucking with something at the heart of America: money. The first time he uses this against someone rich and inconvenient, all the other rich people will get scared and their pocketbooks will open up to the opposition. He'll be impeached in less than a week.
@8,
Well, yeah. That's why he'll never use it to freeze the assets of Saudi royalty who finance bin Laden. This is only going to be used on people everyone hates.
Oh, and who are mostly powerless.
If this country had any sensibility at all, we would've thrown this monkey in the trash bin years ago.
ITMFA!
@1- his HAND slapped? W needs to be taken out to the tool shed!
@ 11 - Sensibility is pre-9/11 thinking.
"The only thing Congress poses a significant risk of doing is Jack Shit."
Hear hear. Viva la revolution!
And the band plays on...
This is really fucking scary.
#11 The tool shed? W and Dick need to be sent to ass-rape prison.
It seems to me that the property language is intended for use against people such as those who interfere with the movement of material. Think the Olympia protestors trying to block the shipments of body armor and the like from leaving the port.
What a horror. Did you also feel the temp drop with this news? The link I have below is a more than a little chilling as well and I hope (I hope, I hope, I hope) the former Reagan economist who wrote the story it links to might be the foil-hat wearing kook I would want him to be, but then, it reminded me of what Sandra Day O'Conner warned about 16 months ago...
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/170707_former_reagan.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/03/10/sandra-day-oconnor-warns_n_17093.html
@ 11 & 16:
if he (and cheney) are impeached, but the senate doesn't convict, a al the mighty clenis in 1998, then all it amounts to is a slap on the wrist. or hand. whatever.
NO republican senator is going to vote to convict Bush & Cheney - they've propped this duo up for 7 years of utter incompetency. the trial will be for show only.
after all: President Pelosi, with her "San Francisco Values"? not in this millenium (although, if they tried it, they might like it...).
This just in (according to comcast.net):
"The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda."
They are getting a room ready for her in Gitmo.
You guys think there was an election in 2000? There wasn't. You think there was an election in 2004? Oops wrong again. This government was installed by the Corporations for the Corporations. The same Corporations that killed JFK. Oh yea did you know George Senior was in Dallas the day JFK was shot? Did you know he cant remember where he was on that day and still can't. Wake up America! There won't be an election in 2008! Just a dog and pony show! and yes they are going to have to admit soon WE ARE LIVING in an Up and Coming FACIST STATE!. Coming soon to a theatre near you!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).