Bush declares Martial Law. Country yawns, changes channel

[kpete]

Bush declares Martial Law. Country yawns, changes channel
by shpilk
Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM PDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Executive Order:
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Fact sheet Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

I've had a chance to look more carefully at the Executive Order.
It is a blueprint for tyranny.


Not by itself, but in conjunction with everything else Bush has done, all of the other Executive Orders this does finally seal the crypt.

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.

No courts involved.
No legislation to control it.
No redress of grievances available.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/18/235042/926

[midnight]

1. I'm not sure I understand this horrible piece of legislation.

Do you care to explain what it means?

[kpete]

2. it means:

'Applicable law' doesn't make much sense when you have just outlined virtually unlimited powers for your branch of government.

[shadowknows69]

3. Bingo

King George will rule as soon as a terrorist, or hurricane even farts in our general direction.

[ClintonTyree]

5. Or anyone with suspected terrorist ties....

which, in the dark secretive world of the Bush administration, could mean just about anyone.

[shadowknows69]

6. I suspect it will include

everyone that posts on discussion boards like this one. Wait for it.

[CoffeeCat]

70. Are DUers all ready doomed?

Just asking...

[badgerpup]

39. I've sent emails and called my senators...

...about this little piece of legislation.
Sometimes they aren't as cognizant of what's going on in D.C. as those of us at D.U. are. Perspective is one reason; we're (for the most part) watching the joint like hawks from a distance, and they're right there in the middle of all the foofooraw.
ANYWAY...
received this email today from Senator Tester re: "you haven't signed the "Restore Habeas Corpus Act" yet, Sir" email I sent...

Thank you for contacting me about the unprecedented concentration of power in the Bush Administration. Many people have written to me expressing a concern about this issue.

Throughout the first six years of the Bush Administration, the Congress failed to provide meaningful oversight of this administration's actions. From the intelligence failures that led up to the Iraq War to the appointment of unqualified political associates to important government positions, like the head of FEMA, the Bush Administration was never held accountable by the Congress.

We need to immediately restore the sense of balance among the three branches of government as outlined in our Constitution. The Congress already has begun to provide more oversight of the Bush Administration by holding regular hearings on Iraq, the politicization of the Justice Department, and numerous other issues.

However, there is much more to be done. We must truly begin the process of responsibly ending the war in Iraq and take steps to re-examine legislation such as the Patriot Act, which I believe grants far too much power to the President. It is also time to examine the effects of the use of Presidential signing statements and the administration's overt protection of political allies on the health of our democracy.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me. I hope that you will contact me again in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester
United States Senator

So do it already! Geez....:banghead:

[Ernest Partridge]

78. "Legislation?"

This isn't "legislation," it's an "executive order."

Congress has nothing to do with it.

It's so, because the Prez makes it so.

Doesn't that define a "dictatorship?"

[phatandinnocuous]

81. Yes and no

Executive orders have been around for a long time, but this little gem is just another cog in the wheel of dictatorship. Executive orders have the same weight as a statute, and you are right, Congress has little to do with them. However it can be ixnayed by Congress if they write another statute to override it. That can be vetoed by the Pres. Congress can also not fund the Executive Order. (wikipedia) The problem with this one is that it says that any person can be charged, and three people in the Executive branch can charge them. Like almost all the major terrorism legislation that has passed in the last six years, anyone can be charged by a very few for virtually nothing and can be held indefinitely without counsel and without a trial. Scary shit.

[Guaranteed]

73. All it means is that Bush delegated powers *given to him by the IEEPA*

to his Secretary of the Treasury.

Whatever the IEEPA is.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. It isn't a piece of legislation. It's an Executive Order from Bush.

[kevin4589]

82. This means that the country would be ruled by fiat, pretty much like the dictatorship in Burma

Who would have thought the so called democracy in the U.S. would turn out to be so shallow.

[fasttense]

4. Seems the bushes have set themselves up a pretty sweet deal.

If they could just find a National Emergency to hang their hats on, they can take over the US legally, well sort of. I have a hard time believing the bushes wont use the power they have acquired.

[shadowknows69]

7. I don't consider it legal

Our Constitution doesn't find it legal. If it happens we need to form the Army of the Constitution and bring this shit on.

[Cha]

66. Yeah, the Army

of The Constitution. Like those militant 2nd Amendment, "Right To Bear Arms", Dudes!

[phatandinnocuous]

83. It's totally legal

and has been for a couple hundred years. (see wikipedia) Bush is the first president to use them as a way to break the law, however; in other words, he is neutering the constitution with them, making Amendments and principles of law obsolete for the "war on terrorism." It's a very tricky tactic, and very effective. And a tactic that Madison and Jefferson feared. I'll go a step further: it's evil. The best thing to do is write your Congress people and tell them to draw up legislation to counteract the executive order.

[Cerridwen]

19. bush has already declared a national emergency - EO 13303

It's dated May 2003 - link and snippet below

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) .pdf link here

I asked yesterday if someone would take the time to prove that this is specific to "that threat" only and doesn't imply a broad-scope national emergency. No luck.

I still hope someone says I'm wrong about this. If not, we're in a state of national emergency as you read this. Here's a link to my post yesterday in which I mention each of the EOs which combined with the "Patriot Act" could lead us into a "perfectly legal" form of fascism.

Someone, please, tell me I'm wrong.

edit: missing word

[AntiFascist]

33. Something tells me this has to do with the decline of the US petro-dollar n/t

[Cerridwen]

40. In what way? Could you elaborate a bit for those of us

who are trying to keep score?

Thank you.

:hi:

[AntiFascist]

43. Thanks for asking...

what is starting to come to light is the fact that one of the primary reasons we are in Iraq is for the oil. The PNAC documents outline the strategy of controlling Middle Eastern oil, even President Carter once stressed the importance of controlling the Persian Gulf <for the purpose of ensuring the flow of oil>. Traditionally oil has been traded in US (petro) dollar currency: this allows the dollar to maintain its value while the US increasingly goes into debt, approximately 50% of that debt, or more probably after the invasion, goes towards the Pentagon and enriching the coffers of defense and war profiteers.


Since this strategy primarilly benefits only the United States, it makes sense that those governments which oppose this policy would offer to trade oil in other currencies such as the yen or the euro. Prior to the Iraqi invasion, Saddam was planning to switch to the Euro. Now, Iran is demanding that Japan pay for their oil in yen. Meanwhile, the value of the dollar continues to fall and this could eventually have dire consequences for the economy.

[Cerridwen]

46. And so, they seize the assets of anyone trying to do any trade

the U.S. government and its corporate interests consider dangerous to the petro dollar currency.

Or, as you've reminded me, to illegally invade and occupy a country whose leader is threatening to bypass U.S. economic and corporate interests.

I knew some of what you posted but I hadn't made the currency connection to the EO. So, the real reason Iran is next on "our" list is because they're going to the yen?

Well, we were warned. shrub said "Money trumps peace."

edit to add: Thank you for responding and explaining it in such a way I was able to follow. :hi:

[AntiFascist]

48. You're very welcome...

sometimes its hard to gather all the connections available on DU.

If I can add my own bit of "propaganda," watch out for more increasing risk of al-Qaeda attacks in foreign countries (possibly in Europe or Japan?) just to remind them that they too may need the protection of joining forces with the US.

As for Iran, it lies along the PNAC path that leads to no less than Saudi Arabia itself. Watch for this to really split Saudi opinion as to whether they should side with the globalist neocons or the local interests of Middle Eastern people.

[Cerridwen]

50. Saudis? But, but, they're our allies.

Adding :sarcasm: tag here.

Hmm, so, is the bush family friendship with the Saudis because they plan to share the spoils or is it a case of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"? Machiavelli would be confused by this regime.

I'm bookmarking this thread now so I can refer back to your post (and many other great ones, too) when the things you said to watch for begin to unfold.

[AntiFascist]

51. It's because the Saudis own them and us, almost literally...

not that we depend on OPEC oil as much as we used to, but they have amassed a huge amount of money and have invested deeply into many of our corporations, including those controlling right-wing and mainstream media. I'm sure they could also create havoc with our economy if they wanted to. I really think 9-11 was intended as a warning to the American people and Congress as: look at what we could do to you if you don't cooperate. The Bush family itself is probably split, but this has been tolerated because we don't want to overtly become enemies of the Saudi ruling class. Rather, lets pick a fight with Islam in the name of Judeo-Christianity and turn it to the advantage of the status quo oligarchy.

[Cerridwen]

56. Which would explain why 14 Saudi nationals attack the U.S. and

we invade Iraq/n.

I've read elsewhere that 9/11 had to do with a warning shot across the bow toward either the bush family or the U.S. government or both. I still remember, as I'm sure does everyone else here, the feeling of horror as I was watching that day unfold. What I don't remember feeling was surprise. That lack of surprise shocked me almost as much as the attack itself. I, a little old member of the "unwashed masses", was not surprised we finally experienced an attack on our own soil and that the attack consisted of citizens of one of our "allies". I was only surprised it hadn't happened sooner. That is perhaps, why I was especially cynical when I heard rice say "no one could have expected..." I didn't expect it but I wasn't surprised by it - but I wasn't a National Security Advisor nor a member of the D.C. inner-circle.

So, it appears "we've" created the monster who will destroy us. Irony abounds.

[KoKo]

79. But, wouldn't this order allow them to seize the assets of Saudi's or anyone

who has money in the US to "stabilize" the dollar if it came to the Euro being the method of payment for oil revenues? If there is fear of this happening wouldn't it be better for Bushies to seize the assets than to allow a huge financial crash? :shrug:

[AntiFascist]

86. Financial threats are probably the worst thing they could do...

Saudis may be threatening a (stronger) alliance with Iran, which could mean even more financial support for the Shia in Iraq. It may be possible that if SA and Iran ally, could they take control of the Iraqi oil fields and then US-biased oil companies could kiss the oil goodbye?

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070515/2007051502.html

Saudi - Iran ties to foil enemy plots: Rafsanjani
Saudi Arabia-Iran, Politics, 5/15/2007

Regular consultations between Iran and Saudi Arabia would prevent enemies of Islam from achieving their goals particularly on creating discord among Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Iran's Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said yesterday.

<snip>

King Abdullah said Iran has established a consolidated bond among Islamic nations and governments through its wisdom and farsightedness.

[go west young man]

75. That also explains why they tried to slander Putin in the U.S. press

last year for kissing a young boy on the cheek. They attempted to make a Russian custom into an act of pedophilia. It was right around the time Putin was talking of switching the currency to the Euro and reclaiming the Sakhalin Island Oil Fields for Russia.

[Divine Discontent]

84. actually...

he lifted the boy's shirt and kissed him on the belly. if it matters, but I just wanted to get the correction since I remember watching the video on TV. I don't know what to make of what he did other than it was just an awkward way to show affection to someone else's kid you've never met. But it wouldn't surprise me to see the MSM use it as a tool to attack.

[TalkingDog]

8. Well, hell, what do you expect them to do?

I mean, getting off the couch and turning off the TV are HARD WORK!!!

Freedom isn't free, there's a hefty f*ckin' fee....and mostly that means WORK! How'z about I donate to a cause or buy a chocolate bar or sumpin'? Now go away, the commercial is over.




My favorite Future Famous Dead Artist: KarenParker

[jody]

9. Does Patriot Act allow presidents to confiscate/use terrorist assets without congressional oversight

USA PATRIOT ACT Public Law 107-56

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1702) is amended--

* * * * * * * * * * *

(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.

[texpatriot2004]

10. More proof that * is the # 1 terrorist. And the reason they won't

impeach is...?

[ananda]

11. The reason "they" won't impeach is because..

.. we, the people, are not numerous and activist enough to make them.

It's because "they" are bought or cowed, they are part of the corrupt
corporate system that runs this country and the miserable, irresponsible
media.

Sue

[bdamomma]

12. we have to stay several steps ahead of them on this.

I just sent both of my Senators of RI alerting them to this Executive directive and the Presidential Directive 51, and asked to review them and get back to me on it. I was very explicted to ask if these Directives are the final "nail in coffin" for our Republic or Democracy and if we are to be thrusted into Martial law/Dictatorship.

[Lars39]

13. I wonder if they also think that they can avoid bloodshed this way.

That they think they can prevent full-scale riots in the streets by not fully addressing the real problem, ie dictatorship.

[grassfed]

27. they expect people to rise up eventually

huge protests probably won't be organized before a "terrorist event" and then it's over

[Marr]

37. It's because they think they're going to just inherit Bush's powers.

They naively assume that the GOP is just going to coast along into destruction with Bush, and the Dems will step into power without effort.

It's stupid, but they seem to believe it.

[NotGivingUp]

61. Why They Won't Impeach

by Butler Shaffer

snip

If one takes the trouble to examine the matter from the perspective of the machinations that dominate all political behavior, the answer becomes apparent. Though Republicans and Democrats have their personal and minor policy differences, they are in agreement on one basic point: their “bipartisan” support for the preservation and aggrandizement of the power of the state. They understand – as do members of the mainstream media – that their principal obligation is to serve the well-being of the political power structure that long ago laid uncontested claim to the ownership of modern society.

The interests of Democratic and Republican officials alike are best served by the maximization of political power. If “government” is defined as an agency enjoying a monopoly on the lawful use of force within a given territory, what politically ambitious person would not want to enjoy as much of that power as he or she can muster? And since such a purpose not only suits the interests of the ruling establishment, but defines its existence, a symbiotic relationship between these two groups is easily fashioned.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer160.html

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. I forwarded this to KO last night and my Congressman this AM. eom

[bdamomma]

16. kick

[snappyturtle]

17. Could this directive be construed to mean: anti-war protestors

(U.S. persons)in theirs acts are a threat to the stabilization efforts in Iraq? And does this also mean that the government can seize the property and assets of these people? Why isn't this stuff on the news? Never mind...I just answered that one myself. Let's keep this kicked. K&R

[rucky]

63. It's whatever the hell they want it to be. n/t

[dkofos]

18. That is what I am most afraid of. That *ush will go thru with this

and the sheeple will yawn and go watch amerikan idle, because it doesn't affect them YET.

[OneBlueSky]

20. Democrats and Republicans alike are scared shitless of BushCo . . .

and particularly of Dick Cheney . . . have they already figured out that BushCo is going to declare a national emergency and remain in office indefinitely? . . . gotta wonder . . .

[Babsbrain]

21. I have one question about this "area" 51 directive

What will change?

Sounds like we are already there.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. The way that I read this makes me believe that Shrub has declared war on Congress.

According to this any person or entity that gets in the way is considered threatening the Iraq government. It's interesting that he extended the powers to the military to carry out this order.

[bdamomma]

28. he is a defiant little prick.

[flyarm]

23. gives himself the right to take away the property of anyone who opposes the war in Iraq,

Two days ago, Bush put out a new Presidential Order.



If I read it correctly,BUSH basically gives himself the right to take away the property of anyone who opposes the war in Iraq, and do it without any warning whatsoever.



Excerpt:

(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.

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

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.



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

[hfojvt]

52. only if we

"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence"

Presumably 'significant risk' needs to be proven somewhere. I believe the purpose of this order is "if I am part of a terrorist sleeper cell and am arrested" then my property is blocked so I cannot transfer all my funds back to Al-quaida or wherever while I am sitting in jail. It only blocks a transfer. It does not seize anything.

Asset seizures OTOH have been part of the 'war on drugs' now for well over a decade, maybe for twenty years. Koontz has one of his characters claim that the whole David Koresh incident was about seizing the assets of the Branch Davidians (see: "Dark Rivers of the Heart") Interesting stuff for a novel, but I am not seeing alot of it in the real world.

[NancyBreen]

65. Does this mean MSNBC can have it's assets taken over because

they allow Keith O to tell Bush to go serve his time in Iraq and also mentioned the Impeach word? Is this how the dictators of the world "take over the media"? :mad:

[rocktivity]

24. Then let's ask both the media and Congress what they intend to do about it

Yo, Keith--one special comment, coming up!

:mad:
rocknation

[LibertyorDeath]

25. This is a threat aimed at Congress

The battle between the executive branch ( thugs in the White house )

and the Congress ( the peoples representatives ) continues.

exec branch to Dem Congress shut the fuck up on Iraq or

we'll seize your personal property.

They're getting very desperate at this point.

[bdamomma]

30. oh, yes they are, very defiant, well, hopefully we can be too.

[windy252]

31. Can someone explain to me,

Is there no process for questioning the legality of an Executive Order? If there is, what is it? Sorry for the question.

[LibertyorDeath]

88. The Supreme Court decides the legality of an Executive Order

It is currently stacked in their favor.


Good question...

[jelly]

91. The EO stinks any way you look at it, but

do people here really think he has the intestinal fortitude to use it against Congress? Seems like it would be a crystal clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine, no, for a president to punish congress for doing what it has a right to do under the Constitution (pass bills aimed at ending the war in Iraq)? Is there some "martial law" exception that I am unaware of or has the Decider decided to unilaterally amend the Constitution?

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. Yes, even here at DU a thread on it didn't get as much attention as it should:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1369934
title: New Executive order. I need it put into understandable terms. What does {it mean for us who oppose the occupation of Iraq.}

Very, very scary. What is the WH planning while Congress is in recess this summer? The stage is all set for the move to full totalitarianism after a false-flag domestic "terrorist" attack.

K & R - this needs to be shouted from the rooftops

[blues90]

29. All they have done does seem to sew it up is a real controlled package

Where if you are not careful of what you do or say you could end up in a world of hurt .

They have systematically designed a dictatorship that seems to be under the radar for most people and most people are not paying attention .

It makes it almost impossible to know if you have crossed their line .

[conspirator]

45. It's simple when it gets umbearable to the average american it's time to pick up guns n/t

[CoffeeCat]

71. When does all of this kick in?

They've spun an intricate web of Fascism, and they have all of the power.

I'm wondering when they throw the net around the citizens of this country.

What are they waiting for?

[AntiFascist]

32. The Shadow Government takeover would be complete n/t

[Quantess]

34. K & R!

[Disturbed]

35. These Exec. Orders along with the lack of Habeous Corpus

adds up to a Fascist Police State.

[KAT119]

36. ARREST THESE WH ENEMY COMBATANTS NOW!!! K&R.

[timtom]

38. Why in hell

would anyone take these illegal edicts seriously and treat them with any degree of compliance?

Signing statements
Executive orders

Fiddlesticks!

"I had my fingers crossed..."

[IChing]

41. NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW

5th amendment to the constitution.


No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Laws are not executive orders

[SayWhatYo]

42. I did a quick search on google with that headline

and ended up at the freerepublic. It looks like it's not going over too well over there either. If you're interested in reading that, then just go google and search the headline posted here.

[AntiFascist]

44. All the more reason Bush wants it to be a dictatorship n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. This has to be kept kicked towards the top. eom

[Megahurtz]

49. I Hope Everyone Has Seen THIS Post Too!

:wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1381062

:scared:

[nolabels]

54. Okay then, the prediction was of a need to stir up a hornets nest in Iran

It's just so much easier when their options get so limited. The more you know about them the more stupid they seem. An air strike on Iran to shake the heat, what other options do they have :shrug:

[Megahurtz]

57. I'm Afraid That

you are probably right. :(

[Rosemary2205]

53. I have nothing to fear

the national guard is in Aye-raq and my local cops can't control a whole state gone berserk.

When the tanks are patrolling my neighborhood then I might put down the remote and peek out the curtain to see what all that racket is about. I don't have any A-Rabs on my street or at my job so I don't think they'll come here.

((do I really need the sarcasm thingy?)

[hfojvt]

55. keeripes people step away from the tinfoil

I'm not seeing the martial law here, not that I fully understand alot of this legalese nor want to wade through volumes of "50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq" and assorted gobblydegook.

I read this to say that people who pose a significant risk of committing violence or who have committed violence will have their assets block. This would be while they are awaiting trial for the threat or for the violence, since those are illegal acts. So what? It just makes it harder for a presumed terrorist to jump bail or for the terror organization to retain their assets even though they have lost their operative.

Wake me up when the ACLU, or somebody more versed in legalese issues a warning.

Which makes me wonder, has the ACLU called for impeachment?

[Megahurtz]

60. Okay Just Remember Don't Fall Asleep at The Helm

lest you go down with The Titanic. :tinfoilhat:

[NotGivingUp]

58. sure sounds like a dictatorship to me. nt

[Initech]

59. So can we PLEASE declare it a dictatorship yet?

Sure sounds like it.

[Kablooie]

62. Odd how executive order trumps the contstitution and any established laws, isn't it?

The law is whatever Bush says it is. That's the law.

[and-justice-for-all]

64. No courts involved.No legislation to control it.No redress of grievances available.

Then Bush can go fuck his self!

[pauldp]

67. Don't worry, none of it is true. Bush is incompetent remember?

There is no way he could have more power than King George
did in the 1700's - he's an incompetent boob. He never could
have pulled something like that off.

:sarcasm:

[paparush]

68. This Just In: Popular Left-Leaning Discussion Board Goes Mysteriously Silent

as none of its members can be found. Authorities believe that all members of the popular internet site, Democratic Underground, have been denied internet access under the President's recent Executive Order - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

[file83]

77. News from the soon future....

Your headline nailed it.
:thumbsup:

[provis99]

69. is this directed at Iranian assets?

I mean, investments by Iranian nationals and corporations in US property and corporations? That seems a more likely motivation for the executive order than some grand conspiracy theory that this is the smoking gun for a Bush dictatorship. After all, Bush has accused Iran of funneling weapons and supplies to Iraq, so an order like this would be a natural prelude to seizing Iranian assets. I'm not inclined to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon yet. I would wait for something like Nazi Germany's Enabling Act first.

[zonmoy]

72. has there been any coverage of this on the mainstream media

kind of hard to get a big reaction on something that only people who read conspiracy bloggers and left wing media outlets have heard about.

[Guaranteed]

74. It's hilarious that everyone seems so worked up about this, but no one actually

seems to have the first clue as to what it means.

The paragraph posted delegates powers already given to Bush by the "IEEPA," whatever that is, to the Secretary of the Treasury. Anyone have anything more than that, before we start cracking open each others' skulls and feasting on the goo inside?

[Exultant Democracy]

76. I agree. It seems like the scope is this is far more limited then

what you would gather from the posts above.

[MilesColtrane]

89. International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Passed into law in 1977, it allows the President to freeze or confiscate the assets of an "unusual and extraordinary threat" that comes wholly or mainly from outside the U.S.

When an embargo is declared upon a country or organization this is the law that allows it.

Read it here:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/ieepa.pdf

I'm bullish on tin foil manufacturer's stock. However, by all means, go right ahead and appeal for Duers to be calm.
It just means that much more succulent brain goo for me.

[outlookin_in]

80. Iraqi pullout laws disallowed under this, right?

"...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."

Doesn't this sentence apply to whatever or whoever
"obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq?" 

So wouldn't any withdrawal laws passed by Congress or Senate,
or even any instructions from either body that affect the Bush
definitions of "orderly reconstruction, restoration,
maintenance of peace and security..." become reason for
the punitive actions to be taken?  Look at it: it covers the
past present and future presence of our troops in Iraq.  

The positive side to this moment is that we will determine a
clear picture of the nature and intent of the Congress,
because this is a threat on them and what they do to respond
to it will tell us a lot.  Will they wait until he tries to
enforce it, or will they see this mad man needs to be removed
from office.

Does this order mean that people who contribute to the support
of websites that by Bush's definitions impede the Iraq goals,
with words of dissent, could be charged?

Last: obviously from the moment this Bush stole the first
election from Gore he decided that the Constitution did not
matter.   So I don't think he cares how often people think
that these orders are not legal.
 

[Quantess]

85. Can we get Bush to wear diapers?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

87. ummm, I have a suggestion

Can we just find a Speaker of the House who will put ImpEachMeNt on the fucking TABLE??????

I am so sick of feeling like I need to grab my ankles or I wont fit in that I could scream.

[lebkuchen]

90. How will Bush enforce martial law?

He needs to keep his private army in the Middle East and Central Asia. Due to his low popularity and active duty/Guard/Reserves headed toward 5th deployments, I don't think he's got the manpower at home to enforce his own unconstitutional exec. orders. Which is not to say his attempts at martial law don't scare the hell out of me.

The German SS didn't require a large organization to get rid of its "riff raff" because "good" Germans were more than happy to spy/report on each other. All the SS had to do was round 'em up. Bush tried to get the US Postal Service to do the spying, and it refused. I'm hoping there aren't enough "good" Americans do take up the slack. Considering popularity ratings, I don't think there are.

Further, Bush doesn't even have the alliegance of most of his military/generals.

[benEzra]

92. Goes right along with the recent request by "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales

to allow the administration to revoke any citizen's right to buy/own a gun if the administration deemed that person worthy of watching.

There is a pattern--no due process, no redress; if some executive branch paper-pusher decides you look suspicious or subversive, you're automatically guilty.

Whoever gets in in '08 is going to have a lot of executive orders to repeal, methinks.