The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Bush bans Iraq protest?
VBakes
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Here's the article. what do you guys think of this? Personally I find it absurd, but then, Im no political scholar. Thoughts?
Therman Murman?......Jesus.
VBakes on
0
Posts
And then he'd just be like YOU FOOLS! I AM ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT!
According to Russian legal experts... What the fuckass?
Anyway, he would have some legal precedent. We did it in WWI (and I think WWII, thought I'm not sure).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.
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.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
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. 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.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
edit: MINE'S BETTER
Well that's a bad omen if there's ever been one.
The USA was in a declared war during each of those periods. Congress hasn't declared war on terrorism so it wouldn't apply now.
The Court will cheerfully toss this on its ass, and again it's probably not impeachable, but seriously, dude, someone needs to check your motherfucking meds.
Congratulations. You have just become what they always claimed you were. Get your ass out of office with a quickness.
We seem to have an executive branch these days that does not feel it is subject to any sorts of checks and balances.
I mean, I see where it says they can freeze monetary assets of people setting off bombs in Iraq, and the assets of those who give those people money and support, but where does it say anything involving protest?
Only if those protestors "pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" according to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Take that as you will.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Not really.
Because they would have to show somehow that Joe Protester and his sign on fifth avenue gave a service or benefit to a specific person committing or about to commit an act of violence in Iraq. Which is, of course, impossible.
We both know that many, many Iraq protests - I'm thinking in particular of the World Can't Wait idiots here - are filled with people who could reasonably be construed to pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.
Actually, they don't have to show that. The Secretary of the Treasury doesn't have to show anything, he just has to decide that there is a significant risk.
That's the problem here, they're circumventing due process. Again.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Here is the July 17th press briefing about the Executive Order. Anyone spending two minutes passively paying attention to it can conclude that the article in the OP is total bullshit. Yet it gets on Digg's front page nearly a dozen times in one day.
Hey, I'm not arguing against you. The effects of this order are determined mostly by how loose a definition of "significant risk" the executive branch wants to go by. It's not going to cause UC Berkeley sophomores' college funds to get seized just because they marched down Telegraph Avenue one day; but on the other hand these kind of flagrant attempts to fuck due process in the ass should not go ignored.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not sure that I trust Snow Job to interpret the law accurately, either.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
He doesn't interpret much. He just talks. The communications director is likely the one doing the interpreting.
The sad thing is that someone would have to be the victim of what this encompasses before it would ever get to that ruling, meaning that it'd have to be enforced first; or at least, the duration of the time it takes to appeal the case through and get a verdict from the Supreme Court, which could seriously piss in the cereal of whoever gets to be the first person abstractly construed as violating this.
Yeah, exactly.
This kind of consolidation of power in the executive branch should be alarming in and of itself without having to resort to catastrophic rhetoric like claiming that the order "outlaw all forms of protest against the Iraq war."
I know that they want to dress it up a bit to get people interested; talking about due process and executive power isn't nearly as sexy as going "ZOMG it's just like 1984!" (Seriously, name-dropping Orwell? Isn't that in the Top Ten List of Liberal Cliches That Make Moderates' Eyes Glaze Over?) That they feel the need to do that is a a pretty sad indication of the political illiteracy of the American citizenship.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In one thread I'm being accused of "taking equivocating to new extremes," and in here I'm apparently an anti-Bush reactionary. Guess I've finally proved I'm moderate.
The point is that they draft the order using fuzzy language and then send the press secretary out to say, "Oh, don't worry, we might be carrying a really big stick but we promise only to use it against foreign insurgents!" Thanks, Tony, that makes me feel much better.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not exactly Bush's greatest fan either, I just don't see this EO as a big deal. What pisses me off is the sheer amount of ignorance spreading whenever a twisted article like this hits; every damn Digg article about this is skewed way beyond anything I would respectfully call "news."
It's just kind of weird that they're doing this considering how high a chance the democrats have of taking over next election.
Yeah, I totally flipped a shit when I read the actual text of this EO when it was issued (stumbled across it a few days ago). As you said, it's wording is exceptionally open to interpretation and could reasonably be used against someone like me who has done some protesting domestically and work in the Middle East and North Africa.
I seriously hope that the executive branch gets trimmed back down to size after Bush is out of office. Because this is getting absurd.
Republican: Assuming that he isn't either a closet despot or a bush worshipper, he should begin to reduce executive powers. I say this less because I have faith in humanity then because republicans are supposed to be conservative, which means small goverment.
Democrat: The next democrat president is going to most likely make cleansing the whitehouse of bush policy his number one priority, if only to score huge points with the disgruntled masses.
[Tin-foil Hat]That is if there is an election....[/Tin-foil Hat]
But democrats want to bring the troops home. That emboldens the terrorists.
Therefore, voting for a democrat becomes "providing services for or to the benefit of" and gets you locked up. Far more efficient than the caging lists and provisional ballots were.
CHECKMATE.
Does this only count for protests linked to an orginization backed by a bunch of money? If the treasury is involed then I figured there would only be a problem if some money was linked to 'terrerists'.
Yes, but it's also actually a legitimate website for our government.
Oh biased, paranoid article, why did you have to tip your hand so soon? Had you begun without invective it might have taken a few more paragraphs for me to laugh at the idea of an executive order overriding the first amendment and stop reading.