http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html

I was looking for people who were more "legally savvy" to explain to me exactly what this entails. Becuase this sounds, to me, as though Bush can withhold people's finances for doing something as broad as "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"

The way I read it. Assets could be frozen or siezed if donations are made or material is bought for insurgent or anti goverment groups.

Well part of my question was, if such a distinction on who is "anti-government" is made by the Bush Administration then we are'nt we creating the possibility that such a law will be misused against the American people? Against....say......Bush's opponents?

The way I read it someone would have to make a material or financial contrabution to some individual/ group who is acting against the current Iraqi Goverment. Speaking out against the war wouldn't count.

Basically its says that Bush has the right to seize any assets of anybody "undermining" the Iraqi Reconstruction effort.

The key phrase

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq

As one might imagine, the word "undermining" is a huge generalization. Bush can use it to decide that the Democrats in Congress are 'undermining' Iraqi reconstruction by talking about a withdrawal.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

The way I read it. Assets could be frozen or siezed if donations are made or material is bought for insurgent or anti goverment groups.

I agree. If any support is given to the opposing forces then those entities providing the support (or their funds, properties or other things of value) fall into the jurisdiction of the US they are subject to seizure by the US Government.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Basically its says that Bush has the right to seize any assets of anybody "undermining" the Iraqi Reconstruction effort.

The key phrase

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq

As one might imagine, the word "undermining" is a huge generalization. Bush can use it to decide that the Democrats in Congress are 'undermining' Iraqi reconstruction by talking about a withdrawal.

Oh come now Mmarsh. read a bit of it before you make that asumption. It clearly states what is considered "undermining".

(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.

It goes on to say:

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.

So please. Let's dispense with the broad spectrum and deal in the details. You know that is where the lawyers and trouble makers are going to look for loopholes.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Basically its says that Bush has the right to seize any assets of anybody "threatening" the Iraqi Reconstruction effort.

As one might imagine, the word "threatening" is a huge generalization. Bush can use it to decide that the Democrats in Congress are 'threatening' Iraqi reconstruction by talking about a withdrawal.

Pu-leeeeese. If you read it you know exactly what means.

Hmmm went from threatening to undermining. methinks he corrected himself.

I did correct it. I misread it and I corrected myself. Unlike some people, I can admit and correct my mistakes.

I did read the entire thing, its vague. Let me ask you this way. Its simple once you think about it.

This Law is targeted at Americans at home, or people who live here. How many Americans/US residents at home or abroad are actually contributing aid to the insurgence in Iraq?

Lets be honest. Very, very, few.

So if very few people are giving aid to the Iraqis insurgents why did Bush just sign an executive order that grants himself sweeping executive power against this non-existent threat. And before you answer that, remember that one of the things the Patriot Act allowed was was the ILLEGAL AND WARRENTLESS wiretapping of American citizens. So abuses of executive power no so implausible as you all might wish to believe.