New Executive Order

WNxRogue

WNxRogue

Active member
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.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.
 
Last edited:
03USMC said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...



Pu-leeeeese. If you read it you know exactly what means.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
If you list any more to port you'll capsize.

It takes care of the "very few" who are doing it. It Treasurey the teeth it needs to freeze,sieze or investigate. Which is why they are mentioned so much.
 
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...

The PATRIOT act was passed by congress right? The POTUS signed it into law. If you blame anyone blame everyone. The act has since then been revised if I am not mistaken. Any way you slice it or dice it you are blaming one man when the entire US government had a hand in it. I personally do not find anything wrong with it as I have nothing to hide. The PATRIOT act made the wiretapping LEGAL with or without a warrant. As I read it something called a roaming wiretap is used. Also they have to report wiretaps within a certain time frame. So I am not sure where you get the ILLEGAL part from. It also goes on to state something about suspected terrorist acts. How can you know if they are a terrorist if you can not monitor them? Any way you spin it, congress said it was ok to do so, the POTUS said fine let's do it. End of story. Read up on the PATRIOT Act and some of the history behind it. You may be surpirsed to find there was already something very similar in place.

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,
Click to expand...

Note it pretty much leaves all current agreements alone. But also, note it says "all persons" in this paragraph. It does not list nationality. It gives powers to the US government (this includes current and future government) and persons employed by the US government to execute this directive on US controlled soil.
 
Last edited:
03USMC said:
If you list any more to port you'll capsize.

It takes care of the "very few" who are doing it. It Treasury the teeth it needs to freeze,sieze or investigate. Which is why they are mentioned so much.
Click to expand...

My friend, its time for you to more a tad more skeptical of what you're told. If you really don't think the government doesn't have another agenda, then perhaps you'd be interested of this Bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale :).

These people have the credibility of a TV infomercial.

I seriously doubt the extremely little money that is being sent from the US to Iraq would be enough to justify the paper on which this order was written. Especially when there are other avenues of financing to focus on, like this year's Opium crop in Afghanistan, or from our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
 
Last edited:
Most of the patriot act is just modifying existing laws to meet the current time frame...

Have you even ever looked at the patriot act?

Last time I checked the US Government was far more than one man, however the democrats would like you to think that everything is the fault of one man therefore covering their asses...But then you must wonder why if it is only one man doing all this then what the hell are the rest of them doing??? Politics as normal ;)
 
mmarsh said:
My friend, its time for you to more a tad more skeptical of what you're told. If you really don't think the government doesn't have another agenda, then perhaps you'd be interested of this Bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale :).

These people have the credibility of a TV infomercial.

I seriously doubt the extremely little money that is being sent from the US to Iraq would be enough to justify the paper on which this order was written. Especially when there are other avenues of financing to focus on, like this year's Opium crop in Afghanistan, or from our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Man you mean the super shammy and super orange don't really work that well. Damn that Billy Mays. Now I'm bummed.:crybaby:



There is a vast difference in being skeptical and being hypercritical of everything that comes out of the goverment. Fact is you try to close all loopholes before it becomes an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top