New Executive order. I need it put into understandable terms. What does

[alfredo]

it mean for us who oppose the occupation of Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq



White House News
Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.

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.

[acmavm]

1. What the hell is this double speak?

[datasuspect]

2. does this allow for the confiscation of property of people who disagree with the regime?

pretty scary shit.

[angstlessk]

3. It's ALL about the oil law in Iraq..and those opposed to the takeover

by multinational oil industries of the resources of the Iraq people...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

85. I've read the damn thing three times through. It's so open-ended, 6 degrees removed could be seized

So, can we go get Halliburton and Blackwater and all those assholes?

DUH!!! dumb question

[HamdenRice]

4. Appears to be an asset seizure order

You may be aware that law enforcement has very broad powers to seize property -- bank accounts, cars, boats, etc. -- used in drug trafficking. This appears to be an order granting the president to seize property that he determines has been used to fund terrorism in Iraq.

The strange part of it is that it appears to grant him the power to seize property without a trial or hearing, and without even notifying the person whose property is seized.

Obviously this could be misused to seize just about anyone's property because the determination appears to be entirely up to the president.

Because it is operationally vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears to be mainly targeted at bank accounts and other funds, but could be interpreted to apply to any property whatsoever.

If anything could motivate the conservatives to finally get on board for impeachment, I would think it would be the president taking broad power to seize property. I mean, they don't care about the president's ability to kidnap, torture, execute extra-judicially, or imprison indefinitely any person he chooses, but when you start messing with bank accounts ....

On edit: This appears to be promulgated under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which grants the president the power to declare economic emergencies. Other presidents have declared economic emergencies in the past, eg in the event of national strikes, inflation, etc. Congress limited the president's power to declare economic emergencies under International Emergency Economic Powers Act to renewable one year emergencies. Presidents have used International Emergency Economic Powers Act mainly to impose sanctions on, or seize assets of, various countries. Recently presidents have used them to seize assets of alleged terrorist groups, and this is an extention of that, extending it to groups that do bad things in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act

The reason it applies to persons or property in the US is because the federal government can only really control assets in American banks.

[datasuspect]

5. notice that the words "terrorism" and "terrorist"

do not predominate in this order.

[endarkenment]

9. nor is 'act of violence' defined

so for example 'resisting arrest' in a police riot during an antiwar demonstration could be construed as an 'act of violence'.

[HamdenRice]

13. Right, but it does seem limited to ...

persons or groups who commit acts of violence or may in the future commit acts of violence.

Technically, if you demonstrate against the war, the president can seize your bank account.

[Nothing Without Hope]

81. Yes, true conservatives would loathe this - IF they actually HEARD about it.

Think the bought-and-sold corporate media or their bought-and-sold congress representatives are going to explain to them what is really happening?

Me, neither.

[Megahurtz]

116. Someone Should Post This

on FreeperRepublic. Heads would start spinning!

[IChing]

6. I read that too as very ambiguous and alarming

That could be read as anyone and everyone could be suspect this line especially.

"any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,"

[Swamp Rat]

7. The Thief Who Would Be King - Send this to Lou Dobbs and Jack McCafferty!

[MindPilot]

8. A Handmaid's Tale was the first thing that came to my mind.

Remember the very first thing that was done to de-empower women was the freezing of their assets? You suddenly notice you ATM card doesn't work anymore, you don't have a checking account, you don't have a mortgage, you don't have a car loan. When Trans Union has no record on you, in a capitalist society, you essentially no longer exist.

This is some seriously scary shit and it is--at least in my mind--directed at anyone who would dare to disagree with Bush's War. And with today's technology thousands could be instantly turned into non-persons with the stroke of a pen and a few mouse clicks.

Skinner? That donation I sent you a month or so back? You better launder that real good.

[MiniMe]

10. And section 8 says you can't sue them if they are wrong

Why are they so worried about that?

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. It seems to say...

1) Define a class of persons who threaten the "stability" (sic) of Iraq either directly or indirectly, with members of this class determined by the Treasury Department with the consulation of the State and Defense Departments;

2) Prohibits people identified as members of the above class from engaging in financial transactions, either directly or indirectly (ie through some agent or agency not a member of the above class);

3) Prohibits people who are not members of the above class from engaging in financial transactions with people whom they know to have been identified members of the above class when such transactions are made with the intent to circumvent this order;

4) Allows the Misadministration to classify a person as a member of the above class and not tell said person or any other person who might engage in financial transactions with said person;

5) Grants authority to the Department of the Treasury, with the consultation of the State and Defense Departments, to do whatever the fuck they want in order to enforce this order;

6) Guarantee that existing laws, rules, etc remain in effect and are not cancelled out by the issuance of this order;

7) Pay lip service to the Constitution by claiming that this is not an imperial decree made by King George, deo gratias rex res publica Americae.


Actually, similar rules already exist with regards to financial transactions of various other "terrorist groups." All this order does is expand those rules.

[HamdenRice]

14. Transactions clause is probably designed...

to prevent the targets from transferring their assets to others to escape the operation of the order.

[alfredo]

19. I have little faith that he wouldn't abuse this EO.

[zabet]

12. My take on this...

If you speak too loudly against Bushco and cause their take over of the Iraqi Oil
to hit the least little bump in the road - you are guilty and they take all your
property and assets..you will be too poor to worry about anything but feeding your-self
and finding shelter.

[kestrel91316]

15. I wouldn't put it past King George to use this thing to freeze the assets of

his political opposition.

[CabalPowered]

16. Section 5 is very troubling

"...there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order."

[Cerridwen]

17. EO 13303 "I hereby declare a national emergency"

Please, tell me I am reading this wrong and the declared national emergency is specific to financial transactions (bad enough, I know) and not a broad brush "we're in a state of national emergency and therefore I can do as I please (said king george)" kind of national emergency.

Here's the link to a .pdf of http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf">EO 13303 and a link to a .pdf of http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03sep20030800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-22543.pdf">EO 13315 which expands EO 13303.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that
the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development
Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein,
and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever
arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests
therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and
maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development
of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat. (emphasis added)

The person who occupies the position of president has expanded powers during a national emergency. If these two EOs have declared a national emergency.... Tell me that to deal with that threat. narrows the scope of the national emergency thereby narrowing the scope of presidential powers. Right?

[Cerridwen]

25. Someone answer this, please. Would this be the national emergency

some here have mentioned being the "tipping point" into expanded executive powers for the presidential office?

[alfredo]

31. Has he declared a national emergency? Could this be intimidation

against those in the Iraqi government who oppose the oil law?

[Cerridwen]

43. Don't know - can't get an answer as to whether or not I've read

the series of EOs correctly.

If I have read them correctly, we're currently in a state of national emergency (Since May 2003) which broadens executive powers including the power to implement martial law.

[alfredo]

57. I guess we should consult a lawyer or two.

[Cerridwen]

61. I keep hoping one of our DU legal eagles will chime in. :D

We've got some great talent and knowledge around this board - I was hoping to hear from some of them. Mostly I was hoping they'd tell me that I've read those EOs incorrectly.

I'll keep hoping.

[alfredo]

64. We have to wait for some to get off of work, decompress, and log on.

[Cerridwen]

:D And keep kicking this so they see it and respond.

:kick:

[alfredo]

69. Please do. It already has over 5 recs, so it is on the front page.

I guess.

[Cerridwen]

73. Thanks, for the reminder. I added my recommend to my

various :kick:s

I always forget the recommend part.

[alfredo]

79. Thanks

[HamdenRice]

68. I don't think this is quite as unusual as most think

Look at my post 21 and check out the link to the Wiki article in post 4.

In a nutshell, we have had some kind of national emergency or another continuously going on with expanded presidential powers since the 1930s!

[Cerridwen]

71. I realize, but this is the first time we've had a "Patriot Act" in addition

to a national emergency, which, in my opinion which I'm hoping someone will tell me is wrong, means potential abuses which no longer have even the semblance of checks and balances. The existence of the "Patriot Act" changes the complexion of a state of national emergency in ways I can't yet imagine.

[HamdenRice]

72. Yes, I agree

It's the accumulation of bush's power that is frightening, but this order is just one brick in the ediface, not necessarily a tipping point and sadly not very unusual.

[Cerridwen]

76. Have you read the 4 EOs which work in concert with this one?

EO 13303 declares a national emergency.

EO 13315 expands the scope of the national emergency.

EO 13290 takes additional steps with regard EO 13303 (expanded by EO 13315).

All of which are then "modified" by EO 13364 to allow the U.S. to pillage Iraqi natural resources, i.e., oil.

It's like a gradual devolution into...something not called democracy.

[truedelphi]

97. he could reasonably state that the emergency started today when Reid tabled the

Motions which will thereby defund the war.

And all the Democrats in COngress could be $5it canned to Gitmo.

The thing is, in a normal world, this EO is too broadly written with too many terms too poorly
defined.

But given that the neocons control the Supreme COurt it doesn't seem that that will matter either.

[Cerridwen]

102. Yeah, it seems others here are thinking the same.

The picture I keep getting as I'm "connecting the dots" is becoming uglier and uglier.

[lonestarnot]

110. Can you post the expansion, I can't open the link.

Perty please with sugar on top.x(

[Cerridwen]

117. Aw, of course. Gimme a minute or two and I'll see if I can find text

versions of the EOs.

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

119. Cool.

[Cerridwen]

120. Try this link - straight to whitehouse.gov - I'd copy & paste but it's long

and that'd lengthen the load time for everyone.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

[TomInTib]

53. Under the PATRIOT Act, a declaration of "national emergency" can suspend elections.

And that's the Law.

[Cerridwen]

56. So, there's a very real possibility that the EO from May '03

could trigger the suspension of elections - and other democracy killing, but fascist enabling events?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me I read the four EOs; which declare a national emergency, expand the national emergency, and further define the national emergency and emphasize the national emergency in EO 13303; incorrectly.

So far, no takers.

Pretty scary on a board which has several members who love to take down any "conspiracy theory" posted and others who just like to tell others they are wrong.

Someone, please tell me I read these incorrectly. Please.

[lonestarnot]

111. hmmmmf. May as well declare another fucking war rat heya.

[ThomCat]

18. If I'm reading that right,

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

What do they consider "undermining"? And how do they define "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform"? This seems like it could be used to confiscate the property of anyone who even protests what's going on in Iraq.

[HamdenRice]

22. Hi Thomcat! nt

[ThomCat]

23. Hi, HamdenRice!

InfoManiac and I were talking about you recently. She wants to have dinner out in Queens at some point, and we'd love it if you could join us. :)

[HamdenRice]

24. Yeah! Let's eat our way down Queens blvd!

I now believe the best food in the city is in Queens, and will surely join you guys.

[file83]

94. That's exactly how it can be interpretted and enforced. You can also read it as:

(Just read the bolds)

(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

So it other words, if you might protest the war with the purpose of pulling the troops out of Iraq, that might threaten the stability of the Government of Iraq.

Then they take all your bank accounts, investments, real estate, freedom....

And it would be 100% legal for them to do it.

Unconstitutional? Yes.

But legal? Sure.

[L. Coyote]

96. I was just holding an Impeach sign at a protest. Can they seize my assets now?

I don't think so! But, I was undermining efforts by Bush to steal all the oil! So, maybe that "political reform" was being undermined by my actions.

[Canuckistanian]

20. Looks like everything is set up now

One little "national emergency" declaration and the dictatorship is complete.

Than ALL these executive orders and little-known provisions in the PATRIOT Act will be enacted.

America democracy is dying before your eyes, people.

[alfredo]

30. We can't just look at one action, we have to see them as a whole.

[Canuckistanian]

91. Exactly

Because IF that time comes, people will be connecting a lot of dots.

And it'll be too late.

[alfredo]

107. We have to stand up now and peacefully & legally remove those

who want to destroy our democratic state so those who come after us will not be in a position where they feel violence is the only option left.

[Megahurtz]

121. But WHO's Gonna Do It???

Nancy Pelosi???

I certainly don't see it. :banghead:

[alfredo]

124. It will have to come from the bottom. We are the ones who hold up the

whole thing. We can let it fall or we can kick out the supports. We have the tools of persuasion, namely our checkbooks and labor. But the people will have to feel they have no choice but to act. Will they wake up soon enough. Will they overcome the fear of retribution from their bosses or the government.

[HamdenRice]

21. It's a very sad commentary on Congressional vs presidential power

If you read the Wiki article, it's clear that this power did not originate with Bush. Presidents have been declaring economic emergencies since the Roosevelt administration. In the 70s, Congress realized there were a number of still on going emergencies that had been declared and never ended, so they stupidly expressly gave the president the power to declare emergencies, limiting the length of the emergencies to one year.

I think that what happened with Iraq is that the first president Bush declared an emergency with respect to Iraq back during the first gulf war. Bush II had to lift all those emergencies after toppling Sadam so that Americans could do business in Iraq.

This particular order seems to be part of an effort to re-institute various sanctions against Iraqis that had been lifted.

But Congress should never have given the office of the president such sweeping power in the first place.

[intheflow]

26. K&R. This is the first thing I've read on DU for two weeks.

:scared: When did he issue this illegal and immoral decree?

[datasuspect]

27. july 17 2007

[intheflow]

28. Thanks. n/t

[redacted]

29. As I read this, the focus seems to be on VIOLENT acts. But free speech isn't violence.

Yes I know that any order can be abused, but this doesn't seem to be directed, even remotely, at those exercising nonviolent rights.

Your thoughts? Did I read this incorrectly?

[datasuspect]

32. "risk" is an operative word in this

the construal of violence is extended to risk of violence, which is enough to trigger the provisions of this order.

[alfredo]

34. Demonstrations against the war? Can that carry a "risk of violence"?

[datasuspect]

36. this administration is capable of any kind of malfeasance

demonstrators can be labeled as terrorists.

[alfredo]

37. haven't they already done that with animal rights groups?

[datasuspect]

38. not exactly sure about that

but it wouldn't surprise me.

good catch re: this thread though.

[ThomCat]

46. Yes. The DoJ has decided that environmentalists and animal rights

advocates are the biggest potential terrorists in the US. Not the white supremisist, christian identity, militia nut-jobs. Not the anti-abortion people. Vegans and environmentalists.
:mad:

[alfredo]

60. I wasn't sure if it was national or just Texas.

[alfredo]

33. Violent doesn't need to be physical. It could mean fierce opposition.

It could be forceful rhetoric.

[HamdenRice]

35. "pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence"

In other words, if the president believes that you pose a risk of committing violence, he can seize your assets.

In other words, obviously it is ostensibly aimed at violent actors, but the way it is phrased, anyone who the president thinks might some day commit or facilitate an act of violence is a potential target.

He might say you fit the profile of an anarchist demonstrator or some such nonsense.

[alfredo]

40. Couldn't it also be applied to congressmen who are trying to stop

the war. It would get in the way of bush seizing Iraq's oil.

[redacted]

49. Or candidates? Ron Paul? Or GOP senators against the war?

More and more of the latter every day.

[alfredo]

62. This could be benign, but all we have to go on is how bush has acted

in the past. It just seems like he is building the case for a full blown dictatorship just like he said.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. Is he threatening Congress????????? eom

[alfredo]

41. That was just what I was thinking.

[Frustratedlady]

77. That was my first thought, too. My second thought was...

..if they try to shut us up, they would have to gag Congress and all the Dem candidates.

Knowing this administration and how they twist laws around, I wouldn't put it past them to put those threats into action if Congress (Waxman and Conyers) get too close to learning the truth to their questions and/or impeachment procedures begin. JABT

[alfredo]

106. Let's see how aggressive congress will get at restoring our

democracy. A cornered dog is very dangerous.

[Marr]

45. Seems to me like redeployment would be categorized as "undermining

efforts to promote political reform in Iraq"-- at least by Bushies.

This certainly seems like the sort of thing you'd expect from a cornered, soon-to-be-irrelevant, wannabee dictator.

[BeHereNow]

42. Good lord... talk about a bloodless coup, electronic is more like it.

If THEY say you are guilty of this, because you wrote a check to
some charity THEY say is guilty, they just switch off your bank account.
Pretty scary shit when you combine it with all the other travesties
they have in place, Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc...

They are tightening the noose and making sure
no assets or people, leave the country.
That would be because they know many people
will try to get out WITH their assets.
It's fascism, plain and simple.

BHN

[TomInTib]

55. Under the PATRIOT Act, a declaration of "national emergency" can suspend elections.

I believe that is exactly what we are facing.

[BeHereNow]

58. Suspend election, freeze assets, prevent traveling outside of the US. You name it-

They've thought of it.
Scary shit, huh?

BHN

[TomInTib]

78. We don't even know the half of it.

And they locked it down with all of those "signing statements".

We are very fucked.

And if you don't like it, KBR is building some fine resorts for you to remain well-fed for the rest of your life in all of these fine places such as South and West Texas, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, etc..

I'll see you on the barricades.

Tom

[BeHereNow]

80. That's the trouble, it has all been done with stealth and no attention paid to it.

I think if the general public KNEW about ALL of it and what it means, they would
riot. Really, I do- fact is, not one media outlet, left or right
(and yes I include Mike Malloy and Amy Goodman among others)
has even mentioned the long list of signing orders that have
basically made it all legal. Hitler did the same thing you know.
Forget our representatives; they are complicit.
And all fantastically wealthy now, so screw the rest of us.

BHN

[TomInTib]

86. Congress is powerless now.

To undo all of those statements would be virtually impossible.

The grave was dug right under their noses.

[BeHereNow]

87. Well, that's the part I have trouble with, AS IF they didn't KNOW about these EOs???

I have a really hard time believing that these people didn't know where this
was all leading. Hell, if WE can go to the WH web site and read these
orders, understand the danger in them and such, are we really supposed
to believe that our representatives can't?

BHN

[TomInTib]

88. Because they are ALL bought and sold.

Rove has had everyone scared witless for six years.

I don't think many of them ever thought it would come to this.

I have a great theory I call "The expanding table".

Maybe when I get back home I will PM you, for I am glacially slow on the keyboard.

[BeHereNow]

89. Okay, I'll check back with you later- I'm running to the market myself.

Peace-
BHN

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. I have been worrying that he is planning something during Congressional recess

And that the insistence on waiting until September to judge the surge, as well as this and other executive orders that imply dictatorial powers, are related to it. This just adds to my fears. Bush is a madman and the greedy criminals behind him will stop at absolutely nothing, as they have demonstrated repeatedly.

Oh yes, I fear Congressional recess and what will happen then. It's all set up that a "domestic terrorist attack" (including, of course, a false flag attack as I believe 9/11 was) would set Bush up as a dictator and dissolve all other branches of government. This new executive order is a way of disarming any opposition, in my view.

[BeHereNow]

48. "disarming any opposition" and preventing people from leaving with their money

That's what I think is coming.
I think they are expecting flight of citizens
once the full horror of the economic storm hits.
If they do attack Iran, the whole country will fall.
People will attempt to get out.
If they stage another attack and declare
martial law, people will try to get out.
This is all about preventing people from leaving with their assets.
They are going to be watching for unsual banking transfers.
People who try to move their money out of the country, etc.

Homeland Security and all the TSA shit is about keeping
us IN, not keeping the "terra-ists" out.
They have been conditioning us to submit to
the jack boot treatments for years becuase they
fully expect a large number to flee once their
plan is revealed.

My thoughts on the matter anyway.

BHN

[Nothing Without Hope]

67. I'm far from the only one fearing a move to totalitarianism this summer:

a guest editorial at BuzzFlash:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1153
Elliot D. Cohen:

This Summer, Will America Officially Become A Totalitarian State?

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 07/16/2007 - 10:26am.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

The unfolding of events over the past 7 years and the recent emergence of certain key facts point to the prospect of an ominous conclusion: before the summer is up, America will be brought under martial law with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm.

In May 2007, Bush posted a national continuity policy to the White House Web site that bypasses Congress and puts him in charge of all three branches of the federal government if there is a "catastrophic emergency" -- vaguely defined to include anything from a destructive hurricane to a terrorist attack. This leaves democracy in America dangling on a thin thread of chance that such a "catastrophe" doesn't happen.

On Wednesday, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said he has a "gut" feeling that Al Qaeda will launch another terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland sometime this summer. Chertoff's "gut feeling" comes on the heels of the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which maintains that in the past year, Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure and has grown stronger along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

(snip)

So, this summer (or sometime before the 2008 presidential elections), will America officially become a totalitarian state brought under martial law by a ruthless dictator? If Chertoff's gut is right, just add the current national continuity policy and the conclusion follows.

(snip)

[BeHereNow]

70. When you connect the dots between all these EO's, it does not look good at all.

One would have to be brain dead not to see the set up for
exactly what Cohen and others have expressed about this
KKKabal.

BHN

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. I agree, but you will never hear about it in the corporate media or even from

most Dem congress members. Probably something similar happened the other times representative bodies have been displaced by dictatorships. They don't really expect something so catastrophic to occur.

I am very scared.

[BeHereNow]

75. Me too.

They are certainly up to no good.
Of that, we can rest assured.

Makes me wish I had been stashing more cash and
metals. Maybe the only way out of the country,
sooner than we think.

Do remember that they passed the order
that said any significant bank transactions,
withdrawals, transfers or deposits of
precious metals had to be reported to
Homeland Security...

Like I said, they've thought of everything and not
a peep from the corporate owned news or politicians
on any of it.

BHN

[KelleyKramer]

47. Iran?

I saw a report the other day that Iran was pulling all their investments and assets out of Europe for fear that they would seized and/or frozen.

This could have something to do with that??

[OzarkDem]

50. Could be another way to provoke them

giving Bush an excuse to invade. Scary times. I hope Congress stays in session during August to keep him from doing something even more dangerous than ever.

[redacted]

51. Can the Congressional leadership require that Congress stay in session?

[lonestarnot]

112. Call an ER session.

[BeHereNow]

52. The wording refers to people in the United States.

Specifically.
But yes, I think it is related to Iran in that
the shit is about to hit the fan in the US economically.

BHN

[BeHereNow]

54. Exact wording-

"all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States,"

That means when the shit hits the fan and people try to get out,
they will find it a little difficult if their assets are frozen.

If Cheney orders the "Iran Plan," our economy is going to
crash worse than it already has.
They know it, thus the pre emptive plan to
prevent further loss of US based assets.
Seriously, this is what I think this is about.

Foreign accounts that are US based could also
be frozen. They want to prevent the flight of
existing capital whether provoked by continued
falling currency value, a complete crash due to
another attack or the pending Cheney attack on Iran.

BHN

[intaglio]

59. Question isn't this covered under "Unlawful searches and seizures"

in the Constitution?


not that B*sh gives a toss about that document

[BeHereNow]

63. Well, basically he just decided what unlawful is.

If you are accused of what the order says is unlawful,
then it is not unlawful for them to seize your assets
because you are now a criminal.

That is the really fucked up part-
They get to say who is guilty.

BHN

[lonestarnot]

113. hmmmmf ready now to

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Trading with the enemy act? T'was in damn books

what is george trying to do now? Oh more authority for himself... should we start calling him Your Highness?

[wildbilln864]

66. Iran have assets in America?

Maybe it's a way to seize them!? :shrug:

[Disturbed]

82. "They get to say who is guilty."

No Habeous Corpus. Looks like the busholin Regime is wrapping up the final stages of their Neo Fascist Police State.

[wildbilln864]

83. yep, n/t

[BeHereNow]

84. To believe otherwise is to buy a ticket to ride "The Ship of Fools"

I just caught that movie the other night when I couldn't sleep.
Reminds me so much of the Duers who still think "it
can't happen here" because the knights in shining armor
wouldn't let it.

To those democratic leaders and their True Believers, I ask,
"Why are you not addressing THIS?"

BHN

[alfredo]

125. We've had a trade embargo against them for a couple decades. I doubt

they have any here, or if this EO has anything to do with Iran. It might be good at persecution anti war groups.

[malaise]

90. Is it time to impeach yet? n/t

[jgraz]

92. Oh no, that would distract us from the really important issues

Hmm...turns out the minimum wage ain't so important if you don't have a bank account.

[BeHereNow]

93. Precisely- why are they talking about wages and ignoring the fact that your account can be frozen?

I think that is a fairly reasonable question and I also think
it is time to start withdrawing/liquifying what ever you can without
your bank raising the red flags of the Homeland Gestapo.

If you read this order carefully, most every DUer who has
ever posted anything against the Iraq war could be accused
of what it declares as a violation.

Not to mention the whole enemy non-combatant shite.

BHN
:tinfoilhat: firmly in place, because I put nothing past them.

[BrainGlutton]

95. Does this mean he can freeze Harry Reids assets?!

[IChing]

98. Just listened to Mike Malloy and Thom Hartman today!

Hartman was talking to Constitutional lawyer and he said this
was a law set by a king who could decide that just protest
against the war could be construed as treason and your
bank accounts could be taken away.

On Malloy there was the same alarm.

This is a decree and not a law from congress.

Send this executive order to everyone you know

KICK for freedom

[IChing]

99. If you want to hear the show with Hartman here is the mp3 link

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/hour1_7-18-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PORTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_KPOJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide

[Cerridwen]

101. Thanks, IChing. For your post and for the info about Malloy.

It seems some of us are seeing some writing on a wall somewhere and we need to get others to begin the walk toward the wall.

[ClayZ]

100. A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq

Three fingers pointing at himself!

[lonestarnot]

115. And what government of Iraq?

:rofl:

[Contrary1]

103. This part is pretty scary:

"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..."

So, once the government has taken everything away from a person, this means it would be a crime to feed them.

[alfredo]

108. damnatio memoriae Just like the Roman Empire did.

[Emit]

104. Thom Hartmann discussed this EO with Bruce Fein today

among other things:

PODCAST:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/hour1_7-18-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PORTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_KPOJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide


He mentioned E. V. Debs, who was arrested in 1918 under the Espionage Act of 1917 (Among other things, the Court cited Debs's praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft.)

After Fein, Hartmann continues to discuss it, quoting certain passages of the EO.

edited to add link

[Zodiak]

105. This is some seriously evil stuff

Too bad that the typical American is so immersed in the mythology of American stability and exceptionalism that it will be too late.

I was scheduled to leave the country to do some work in the Czech Republic. There is no way I am going to get my passport on time. Could it be that the passport delay has something to do with this, too?

[BeHereNow]

109. It has certainly been discussed, the passport issue.

My brother is STILL waiting on getting his back from
Africa. He was flying copters over there and
his passport was hung up somewhere.
He is back in the states now, but has no passport.

I would wonder how many other Americans,
other than those applying for new ones, have
found that their US passports are suddenly tied
up in other countries...

Makes you go "HMMMM?"
Doesn't it?

BHN

[alfredo]

118. I'm not allowed to immigrate. It wasn't from an illegal act, it was

from my government service. I can travel, but I was restricted for 5 years. I couldn't leave the country. My writing is subject to censorship, but I don't know what the boundaries were. I think it was for commercial writings.

You know in fascist states, they don't take away your rights totally, just the ones they determine we don't need. It's for our own good.

[Megahurtz]

122. Sure Looks That Way Now

doesn't it? :(

[Babsbrain]

114. the little SOB better be careful...

the two people who first come to mind hurting the stablization of Iraq are the little general himself and his sidekick Dick

[JacquesMolay]

123. If I didn't know better, this might be some kind of prelude to fascism...

... there's another thread suggesting that they may be cracking down on 'domestic activists'. Maybe they're thinking they might start with war protesters.

[alfredo]

126. Or pushy congressmen/women

Not only can their assets be seized, they can be disappeared.

[alfredo]

127. I sent this letter to my congressman

On Monday July 17, 2007 the White House released this Executive Order entitled, "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

There has been a lot of speculation about this EO. Some fear it will be a way for Bush to punish anti war activist, or even members of congress who dare to challenge his absolute authority. In light of his contempt for our form of government I can't help but think he would use these powers he has granted himself for less than noble reasons.

What is your take on this Executive Order?