CAN HE REALLY GET AWAY WITH THIS--Bush Outlaws All War Protest

[Strathos]

Why aren't we marching on D.C. right now?


July 19, 2007
Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war. 

President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq”, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html and which says: 

”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.” 


[Mme. Defarge]

1. Thank God we're set

for a Democratic landslide election in '08. That'll take care of things.
:argh:

[movonne]

2. maybe not....marshall law...watch and see...I guess you know by

they will do anything to keep power...Ron Paul had some interesting things to say about this....

[Wiley50]

14. It's Martial Law. Marshall Law works the next county over from Marshall Dillon n/t

[Toasterlad]

19. Tee Hee!

[terrya]

20. There was Owen Marshall, Counsellor at Law

:shrug:

[Strathos]

3. But he can fuck up a lot between now and the elections

Why is Congress letting him do this?

[Mme. Defarge]

5. Because they know more

than we do.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Impeaching him today

wouldn't stop him from doing anything.

[jgraz]

15. Didn't you hear? Voting Democratic now counts as a war protest

We've had our name forcibly changed to Enemy Combatant Underground.

[The Stranger]

4. Reason Number 5,429,208 to impeach.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. No he didn't

take a deep breath.

[warren pease]

17. And given the honorable track record of this administration...

... this latest insult will never be used politically -- unless it is. Or maybe it's just another self-enrichment scam, given BushCo's penchant for stealing anything that isn't bolted down. Maybe this is just a ploy to grab a few Hollywood limo liberals' beach houses and country estates.

And it's by definition for the good of the country, of course, since support for BushCo is synonymous with patriotism -- or so I'm occasionally told by representatives of the permanent lunatic class who infest this country with their idiocy, GOP-lust and statist subordination.


wp

[Breeze54]

7. Impeach the rat bastid!!

:grr:

[Snarkoleptic]

8. Best not post in any anti-Bush threads on the subject of Iraq

or * will have Gonzo freeze your bank accounts.
Free speech is bad...baaaaad...now watch this drive.

[The River]

9. This Is Another Step Towards Dictatorship.

Go look at this thread if you
think nothing is going to happen.
Desperate leaders do desperate things!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=296354&mesg_id=296356

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Sorry I would comment but I am late for my anti-war protest

:)

[IDemo]

11. It's not about protesting

This is being posted again and again with the absurd headline "Bush outlaws" - etc. The Chimptator can evade or ignore laws that Congress passes with signing statements, but the last time I checked our Constitution, creating law is not part of his job. He cannot "outlaw" or criminalize anything by decree. That is the job of Congress.

The order specifies that it applies to persons deemed to "have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence." These are already criminal acts, the order just adds confiscation of property to the mix.

[Breeze54]

21. What part don't you understand?

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

It's vague and gives leeway to the anti-war/bush demonstrators/marchers.

Lest you forget....

Police Crack Down On Anti-War Protesters From New York to Colorado Springs to San Francisco

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0319220

"People have a right to protest; people can say what they think." Those were the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday, the day after millions protested against George Bush's plans to launch a first-strike attack on Iraq.

But across the country demonstrators questioned how much of a right they still have to protest.

In New York the Justice Department teamed with the NYPD to deny protest organizers a march permit. They cited national security. Once the protest began on Saturday unknown tens of thousands of demonstrators were penned in by police blocks from the stage. Many never saw the stage or heard a speaker. Some 300 people were arrested.

United for Peace and Justice organizers are holding a press conference to discuss the reports of rampant police misconduct.

In Colorado Springs anti-war protesters are blasting local police for using riot gear, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse participants as a peace demonstration was winding down on Saturday. But according to a report in today's Denver Post, police maintain the response was appropriate.

And in San Francisco 46 demonstrators were arrested. Five remain this morning in police custody.

--------------------------

Published on Sunday, August 21, 2005 by the Associated Press
Pittsburgh Police Arrest Five Anti-War Protesters, Two Injured, in March
by Joe Mandak

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0821-01.htm

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania -

Police charged four people protesting the war in Iraq, two of whom suffered minor injuries from the police response, when 60 people disrupted traffic by marching the wrong way down a busy one-way street toward an Army recruiting station.

Carole Wiedmann of Sewickley is taken into custody by police. Carol Wiedmann, 68, of Sewickley, was taken to Presbyterian University Hospital after being bitten in the thigh by a police dog, and was to be charged with disorderly conduct and failure to disperse. (Photo/Pam Panchak, Post-Gazette)
The Pittsburgh Organizing Group planned the Saturday morning demonstration. A spokesman for that group, David Meieran, accused police of responding with "inappropriate and excessive force."

Meieran claimed some protesters were pepper sprayed and Tasered; he said a 68-year-old woman who was not resisting was bitten by a police dog.

Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said.

The Taser victim and the dog bite victim were being treated at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital. Winkler confirmed that the older woman was bitten in the leg by a police dog when she refused a police order to disperse.

more.....







More were posted on DKos ... and they were unbelievable!

pittsburgh cops out of control
by kevin Saturday, Aug. 20, 2005 at 1:59 PM

as a participant of todays rally, i witnessed police enter the crowd of unarmed peaceful activists. they drug a girl dressed in black from the sidewalk to the street and tasered her mercilessly as she lay on the street screaming. police also released pepper spray in the vicinity of a six year old girl (one of the dissidents children)
after the childs pain eased, she asked "why are they beating people?" a child asked why she was harmed by the men who are supposed to protect her!
there are also reports (unconfirmed) of a disabled mans wheelchair being overturned by the forceful actions of cops out of control!

clubs and tasers used on unarmed civilians and chemical weapons on children

now we know who the real terrorists are
pittsburgh police

worse than saddam!!!!

[Telly Savalas]

27. That shit never happened before this supposed edict?

[Breeze54]

31. Odviously, it has. Look at the dates.

But this BS 'edict' gives 'them' more leeway, like Abu Ghrab (sp?) and Gitmo.

[warren pease]

22. You forget the 'unitary executive'...

... who has proclaimed himself lord and master over all branches of government, and solidified that claim by neutering congressional democrats, packing the courts with wingnut lackeys and turning the DoJ into Bushie's own avenging hordes of doom.

He has made a mission out of creating his own alternative universe of unconstitutional faux-law, as aptly demonstrated by not bothering to go to congress for a declaration of war against Iraq, in violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

"...or to pose a significant risk of committing..." And who defines that one? Could it be that the DoJ, despite their outstanding track record of supporting due process and equality under the law, might just see some political gain in waging "preemptive war" on those whose political opinions indicate that they might pose a significant risk of actually entertaining an unorthodox thought.

And what's the legal definition of "significant?" Is this post significant? I don't know, and it's a good bet they don't either. But it's convenient to have such repressive crap on the record in case I decide to, ohhhh, maybe throw a gas cannister back at a robocop next time Portland goes nuts because Cheney oozed into town for another zillion dollar fund raiser.

And it "...just adds confiscation of property to the mix." Which is like the surgeon saying, "well, now that we've removed your spleen, let's have a go at your large intestine, too." That's perhaps the weirdest justification I've ever heard on this subject, and there have indeed been some serious attempts at historical revisionism.


wp

[WinkyDink]

23. And if the SCOTUS agrees with him and not you?

[IDemo]

25. There are a wealth of genuine reasons for impeachment without fabricating another one

These types of posts (OP) add to the general Cuckoo's Nest quality of GD lately. It does nothing to advance the cause of getting rid of Bush by taking decrees like this completely out of context. However one wishes to define the action, it does not 'criminalize protest'.

How can it be so difficult to focus on the real issues without resorting to all of the Rex-84 style hogwash? These threads are worse than the Anna Nicole epidemic.

[Breeze54]

35. Go back to sleep.

DON’T TALK!

http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/grand-jury-9feb04.htm

snip-->

There is a move underway to paint anti-war protest as illegal support for "terrorism” under the USA Patriot Act and it raises the specter of using anti-dissent federal laws from World War I that are still on the books. Those laws sought to criminalize the promotion of “disaffection” among the armed forces or impede military recruitment. The Sedition and Espionage Acts were used during that period to jail hundreds of antiwar activists and ban anti-war publications from the U.S. mail.

What we are seeing is a pattern of selectively “federalizing” local law enforcement, literally making “a federal case” out of local dissent, and creating federal “dissent verboten” zones around the President and federal institutions.

more....

-----------------------

Thursday, December 15th, 2005

Pentagon Caught Spying on U.S. Anti-War and Anti-Nuclear Activists

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/155219

Newly leaked Pentagon documents have confirmed the military has been monitoring and collecting intelligence on anti-war groups across the country. Peace protests are being described as threats and the military is collecting data on who is attending demonstrations. We speak with William Arkin, the former Army intelligence officer, who obtained the secret Pentagon documents. Earlier this week NBC News exposed the existence of a secret Pentagon database to track intelligence gathered inside the United States. The database including information on dozens of anti-war protests and rallies particularly actions targeting military recruiting.

The list included: counter-military recruiting meetings held at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Forth, Florida. Anti-nuclear protests staged in Nebraska on the 50th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki. An anti-war protest organized by military families outside Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And a rally in San Diego to support war resister Pablo Parades. The Pentagon database described all of these events as threats.

The documents obtained by NBC also indicate the Pentagon is now conducting surveillance at protests and possibly monitoring Internet traffic. One Pentagon briefing document stamped "secret" concluded: "e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the nternet." The same document indicated the military is tracking who is attending protests in part by keeping records on cars seen at protests.

more....

[Usrename]

42. He gives himself the power to seize your property. All of it.

Without any possibility of review by the courts.

Not quite the same thing as 'criminalizing protest'.

[Usrename]

41. There is no requirement that any criminal conduct be engaged in.

Just the act of purporting that something happened is enough. There is no review by any other branch of government. By the way, when I first saw it, I just assumed it only applied to Arabs and Muslims, it never occurred to me that he would use it against political opposition.

(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.

[w8liftinglady]

12. does this apply to us?And help me show where

I am formulating my next ltte based on this

[LSK]

13. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[pingzing58]

18. He's protecting Halliburton and his friends who are "rebuilding Iraq."

Here's the killer: "(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;...." His true purpose with this Executive Order is that no one in the U.S. can interfere with Bushco's economic reconstruction (making he and his friends richer) of Iraq.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Nothing could be better for the anti-war movement

than if thousands of ordinary, dissenting Americans were put out in the streets by this order... The public sympathy would be overwhelming, and the cadre of completely radicalized protesters willing to do ANYTHING would be strengthened hundredfold.

Bush will never use this order against us if he knows what's good for him and his kind. It would be the first step toward having all the politicians in DC and all the richest people in America swinging from the nearest lamppost.

[checks-n-balances]

28. Hoperully, the press will not only actually televise it;...

but actually televise it truthfully without the offiial WH spin/talking points...

[cynatnite]

26. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't read like your headline at all...

bush said this:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

http://www.fmnn.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46163

To me, this reads like if you're found guilty of committing acts of violence or conspiracy to commit acts of violence that threatens their Iraq policy they'll confiscate your stuff. It's nothing like what you're saying it is. They're not criminalizing protesting the Iraq war. I'm not saying this is a good law and in fact could be wide open to abuse.

Like I said. I'm no lawyer and DU has some great legal minds that could analyze this. I'm curious to know what they think.

[mainer]

29. key words: "pose a significant RISK of committing"

So you don't even have to commit an act of violence. All you have to do is "pose a risk". And who determines that you pose a risk? THEY DO. You don't have to do anything violent. You could simply turn up at a protest march, and they could decide that you "pose a risk."

I think this gives Bush an awful lot of leeway to declare any one of us "a risk."

[cynatnite]

30. and you'll see how far that statement gets in a court of law...

which isn't far unless they have the evidence to convince a judge or a jury. Bush isn't the one who'll be implementing this thing. The cops on the ground will and that's a far cry from outlawing protests.

[Breeze54]

33. Your post makes no sense at all.

Bush is THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE NATION!

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. Ummm....No, he isnt.

Unfortunately however, this numbnuts is;

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

Bush is the Chief Executive. He's the CEO but he ain't no cop.

[Breeze54]

39. The President is also the Chief of the Government.

That means that he is technically the boss of every government worker.

The Nation's Chief Executive

The primary duty of the president of the United States
is to make sure that all U.S. laws are carried out and
that the federal government is run effectively.

In effect, he is the 'top cop'.

[A HERETIC I AM]

46. Breeze, I'm sorry but you're wrong on this point.

Is the Mayor of a city the "Top Cop" or is it the Chief of Police or the District Attorney?

The President does not have Law enforcement powers. That job is delegated elsewhere.

The Presidents primary duty is NOT to "make sure that all US laws are carried out and that the federal government is run effectively." The Presidents Oath of Office states;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The job of making sure "US Laws are carried out" falls to the Justice Department.

[cynatnite]

37. you say that like you really believe that...

:rofl:

I believe that's Gonzo and he can't even most of the senators to like him let alone support him.

[Usrename]

45. The FBI works for Gonzo.

They can seize your assets!

[Usrename]

43. The president has given himself the power to seize property.

All of it.

Do you see some process for judicial review there?

I don't.

The courts will save us! :rofl: :cry: I think you need help.

[onecent]

32. This is total Bullshit

[libnnc]

47. So what does it mean Counselor?

What's your interpretation?

If we're not to freak out then what the fuck does it mean and why declare the damn thing now?

Seriously. What the hell does it mean?

[Hydra]

34. Here's what I don't like about this

"or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"

It's bad enough that he can simply say that you "pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence," but since only HE can decide what constitutes "economic reconstruction and political reform"(IE, Oil Privatization Law), you could be considered undermining his "efforts" by simply asking him if he thinks his plan is workable, let alone legal or just.

It reminds me of the Military Commissions Act- not a peep in there about who it COULDN'T be applied to.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[sarcasmo]

38. This is only just the start.

Kick and Nom.

[OneBlueSky]

40. if Congress doesn't stop them soon, it may well be too late . . .

whether they have the votes to impeach doesn't matter . . . it really doesn't . . . they weren't there when the Select Committee on Impeachment began considering the Nixon case, either . . . the point is that the Congress has a responsibility to impeach if "high crimes and misdemeanors" are suspected . . . and in BushCo's case, they are not merely suspected . . . the evidence for many is in the public record and is, in fact, prima facie . . .

further, time may well be running out . . . Bush is not issuing all of these draconian Executive Orders for the possible benefit of some future president . . . his mind doesn't work that way . . . he fully intends to activate them at the earliest possible time -- even if he and his co-conspirators have to orchestrate a national crisis . . .

when that happens, it will be too late . . . the Constitution, and the powers of Congress, will be "suspended" in the interest of national security . . . they won't be ABLE to impeach . . . and those who dare to question the dictatorship may well find themselves in "re-education" camps -- with no habeus corpus . . . websites like DU will be shut down . . .

the problem with Congress is that they're more afraid of Bush than they are of losing their country -- a state of affairs I find both baffling and thoroughly disgusting . . . future generations -- if there are any -- will shake their heads and ask "Why didn't they stop them?" . . .

[radfringe]

44. IMPEACHMENT - THE NEXT STEP

investigations and hearings are all well and good - but it's just the first step, and won't amount to anything unless congress is prepared to take the next step - which is impeachment

assuming there will be (s)elections in nov-'08, and assuming the votes will be counted and not fabricated - there's a good chance the next president could very well be a Democrat

the thought of all that imperial unilateral power which bush/cheney have amassed passing into the hands of a democrat should have the republics pissing in their pants