Bartcop | BuzzFlash | Huffington-Post | blah3.com | Eschaton | Today in Iraq
The first election winner in history to declare the results are a fraud!
  Chat | Problems posting? | FAQ | Crooks & Liars | Digby | The-Sideshow | Forum Bloggers



Support the Forum








Click for www.electoral-vote.com




BCForum Bloggers
By Blogrolling.com















Subject: "New Executive Order gives Bush right to confiscate property" This topic is ARCHIVED.
First topic | Last topic
Printer-friendly copy | Email this topic to a friend
Top Bartcop Forum Bartcop Forum Topic #416349
Show all folders

RussBLibMon Jul-23-07 05:51 AM
Member since May 06th 2002
11525 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"New Executive Order gives Bush right to confiscate property"


          

Add another item to the pile of offal.

from Marc Perkel...
http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

Dear Church of Reality Members,

I just found this article and it's pretty shocking that we in America allow this to happen and apparently without notice. I don't know it it's actually targeted at the anti-war movement as the writer suggests but I can see where he might come to that conclusion. What I find more shocking is that this didn't make the news that I watch and I watch a lot of news. I will share it with you and see what conclusions you come to about this.

Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
"If it's real, we believe in it."

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 20, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"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."

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. So far, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack).

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007)

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a "national emergency" without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government...."

Were NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy figurehead.

NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under Martial Law:

"This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.)

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda.

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

ANNEX

TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

July 17, 2007

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

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.

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

Below is the text of the Message to the Congress of the United States regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

(There has been no response by the US congress or commentary by individual Senators or Representatives.)

Office of the Press Secretary July 17, 2007

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

White House News

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

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that 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.

I issued this order 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.

In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, 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.

The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined 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 designated pursuant to this order, or 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.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority 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 my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House,

July 17, 2007.



(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)

For news: TruthOut Buzzflash
My blog: RussBLib's Blog

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

New Executive Order Could Lead to Endless Chain of Repression, pandora, Jul-23-07 01:22 PM, #1
Subpeona showdown?, RussBLib, Jul-23-07 01:40 PM, #2
And there are still those who say ...., Brian, Jul-23-07 04:09 PM, #3
RE: no doubt - it's a rough road ahead, Bushbegone, Jul-24-07 06:19 AM, #4
      I think we all have pretty much agreed ..., Brian, Jul-25-07 08:31 PM, #6
All your stuff are belong to us., Zomar, Jul-25-07 06:25 AM, #5
RE: NSPD 51 - Getting any attention in the media?, pandora, Jul-27-07 08:23 AM, #7
I haven't heard a peep, RussBLib, Jul-27-07 08:48 AM, #8
It's on WorldNut Daily!, pandora, Jul-27-07 02:56 PM, #10
WP: Bush order on freezing assets is unusually broad, pandora, Jul-28-07 06:53 AM, #11
I was a bit confused, pandora, Jul-27-07 08:55 AM, #9
ACLU issues warning on "Material Support" Executive Order, pandora, Aug-02-07 08:59 AM, #12

pandoraMon Jul-23-07 01:22 PM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"New Executive Order Could Lead to Endless Chain of Repression"
In response to Reply #0


          

....
So what could this mean in practice?

The Secretary of the Treasury could put a freeze on your financial assets, including your home:

If you were at an anti-Iraq War and the Treasury Secretary asserted that you might commit an act of violence.

Or if you threw a pie in the face of a legislator-say, Senator Lieberman-as a way of drawing attention to his support for the war.

Or if you set up a speaking engagement for, or bought a lunch for, an Iraqi oil worker who might have damaged a pipeline or burned an American flag to protest the oil bill that Bush wants the Iraqi parliament to pass-a bill that would give away that country's oil to ExxonMobil and other multinationals.

The language in this Executive Order is so sweeping that it could be used to nab just about anybody in an endless chain of repression. Any person who even is "purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly" someone whose property has been frozen by this order will also have his or her property frozen.

So the Treasury Secretary could freeze your brother's house on the specious grounds that your brother might be violent at an anti-war protest, and if you hired a lawyer to help your brother with his case, both you and the lawyer you hired could have your financial assets, including your homes, frozen.

There seems to be no limit to the Bush powergrabs.

What he can't get legislatively he's seizing by Executive Order.

He's got our democracy by the throat, and he keeps squeezing it.

And still the Democratic leadership in the House won't wave their hands for impeachment?

We have a renegade in the Oval Office.

He is subverting our Constitution.

And the only remedy is impeachment.

We must apply that remedy before it's too late.
.....
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx072007







"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

    
RussBLibMon Jul-23-07 01:40 PM
Member since May 06th 2002
11525 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Subpeona showdown?"
In response to Reply #1


          

(Mother Jones is really starting to increase its output. And I hear that they will be the first American news organization in years to open a major bureau in Washington D.C. this fall.)

Subpoena Showdown

Washington Dispatch: Empty chairs at committee hearings in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the continued fight against executive privilege.

By Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
July 21, 2007

When White House Counsel Harriet Miers failed to show up at a House Judiciary Committee hearing at which she had been subpoenaed to testify about her involvement in the Justice Department's firing of nine U.S. Attorneys the committee answered back with a Monday deadline for White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the same matter or face contempt charges.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Ca.) chairs the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which is responsible for recommending and issuing subpoenas in Congressional oversight matters. She called the administration's claim of executive privilege, "out of order." "Those claims are not legally valid," Sanchez said. "Mrs. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now." The subcommittee upheld Sanchez' contempt citation in a 7-5 party line vote. For Miers or Bolten to be officially held in contempt, the full Judiciary committee would have to rule the same way, and then so would a majority of the House in a floor vote.

Congress and the Bush administration are heading toward a courtroom showdown over the White House's refusal to honor subpoenas through its claims of "executive privilege." And if the issue goes to court, it would constitute a dramatic shift from Democrats' previously stated position. During a June 28 conference call with liberal bloggers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned, "on some of these issues, the courts are not friendly to us because they are all in the family," she said. "Especially in the District of Columbia, if we wanted to challenge them in Court on anything, the decision would not be in our favor."

"Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege," Pelosi added. "So the press asked me this morning, 'Does this mean you're going to hold them in contempt next?' I said 'No, we're going to let the process work out' because you have to build the record."

The administration has recently been building that record. On two consecutive days last week, the president's claims of executive privilege stood directly in the path of ongoing Congressional oversight investigations. On Wednesday, before the Senate Judiciary committee, a one-time Bush aide named Sara Taylor dodged a series of questions about her role in the U.S. Attorney scandal, citing the fact that the president had instructed her to honor his executive privilege. The next day, a chair reserved for Miers sat empty in the House Judiciary hearing room.

These haven't been the only times the administration has refused to abide by Congressional subpoenas. In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled her intent to dodge a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), who is seeking her testimony in his investigation into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. Rice has contended that her actions and statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war were carried out in her former role as National Security Adviser-an appointed position that does not require Senate consent-and were therefore protected by executive privilege.

But there's one more reason to expect a courtroom clash: effective Constitutional limits have prevented Democrats from accomplishing even the simplest components of the change they promised during the '06 campaign.

On important actions such as climate change legislation and war funding, Bush has either vetoed, or threatened to veto, any serious bills that make it through Congress. At the same time, smaller issues have become victim to a series of parliamentary tactics that some-most recently Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on the "Young Turks" radio show-suggest are intended to block Democrats from accomplishing anything substantial for purely political reasons.

Perhaps because these tactics are technical and obscure (how many citizens know that getting anything out of the Congress these days routinely requires a supermajority of votes in the Senate?), the fallout has been hard on Democrats, who are now widely perceived to have blown their mandate.

And that's just legislating. Their entirely separate call to oversight is a function that should be easier to carry out, if only because issuing subpoenas does not require a supermajority. But the president has signaled that he's willing to use executive privilege as an effective veto over Congress' subpoena power-and therefore their oversight.

While Democrats move towards a courtroom battle, they face a stark choice: If they challenge and lose, they may strengthen the right of executive privilege for years to come. If, on the other hand, they don't go to the courts at all, they may entice future administrations to run roughshod over the oversight prerogative of the legislature. The difference is that the latter option would reinforce the perception that they were brought to power to check the president, but have simply decided not to do so.


Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including Mother Jones.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/07/miers_subpoena_showdown.html?src=email&hed_20070723_ts1_subpoenashowdown

(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)

For news: TruthOut Buzzflash
My blog: RussBLib's Blog

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

BrianMon Jul-23-07 04:09 PM
Member since Sep 02nd 2002
6980 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user Add this user to your buddy list
"And there are still those who say ...."
In response to Reply #0


          

... "we don't have enough evidence to bring off impeachment proceedings, or enough votes to make them stick."

WHAT, in the name of Koresh, does it TAKE to wake such people?

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

    
BushbegoneTue Jul-24-07 06:19 AM
Member since Sep 28th 2004
3681 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: no doubt - it's a rough road ahead"
In response to Reply #3


          

How are we as a country going to get the stalwart Republican Senators to agree to impeachment? The Senate needs 60 votes to end the fillibuster. We are a bit short.

Why would the Republican Senate vote to impeach Bush when they are themselves hiding a closet full of skeletons related to Iraq? Remember we live under the Congressional Military Industrial complex. Hell, we'll need to impeach some Senators before we can get Cheney, even. I believe some don't want the Bush fire wall removed. It exposes their crimes.

I know what the remedy to our Constitutional crisis is but am thinking that it's going to be a tough road just to consider it gets heard. We need to have a trial and get some of the charges out there so the people can consider the evidence. Thats is what I want recommended from House Oversite.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

        
BrianWed Jul-25-07 08:31 PM
Member since Sep 02nd 2002
6980 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user Add this user to your buddy list
"I think we all have pretty much agreed ..."
In response to Reply #4


          

... that CONVICTION (in the Senate) of the Bush miscreants is unlikely, given the present makeup and lack of clear-cut, smoking-gun evidence of intentional wrongdoing. (They can (and will) plead they were doing what they thought was best for the country, even lying to Congress, and the people don't count anyway).

HOWEVER, that doesn't rule out TRYING and doing the Majority's level best to bring about an INDICTMENT, just as the Republicans pushed through the Articles of Impeachment against Clinton

Of course it's 'political.' What in Washington isn't? To do nothing is to give tacit approval to Bush's overreaching, to Gonzales' lies, to the rape and pillage of democratic (small "d") process.

If the Congress is not to be forever gelded, it HAS to assert itself NOW.

House of Representatives - DO YOUR DUTY!!!

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

ZomarWed Jul-25-07 06:25 AM
Member since Apr 23rd 2002
2683 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"All your stuff are belong to us."
In response to Reply #0


          

Good god. Are you serious? Is this real?

We MUST Impeach!

Zomar

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

pandoraFri Jul-27-07 08:23 AM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: NSPD 51 - Getting any attention in the media?"
In response to Reply #0


          

Nobody I know has heard about this.

Did Olbermann cover it?
Did Anyone?


"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

    
RussBLibFri Jul-27-07 08:48 AM
Member since May 06th 2002
11525 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"I haven't heard a peep"
In response to Reply #7


          

People used to talk about "Clinton fatigue," which was, of course, media inspired. Now, I think we have "outrage fatigue," again aided and abetted by the media, but in a different way.

Good column by Ian Welsh on this...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072307K.shtml

The Assault on Due Process and Civil Liberties
By Ian Welsh
Firedoglake

Saturday 21 July 2007

One event that caused a lot of discussion and concern this week (with Paul Craig Roberts going so far as to say it was the last necessary piece being put in place before a possible coup) was the release of a Presidential order giving the administration the power to freeze assets of any person or entity considered to be "undermining" efforts to stabilize Iraq. The order is very broad, but according to a couple of lawyers I consulted, probably not illegal, and may not be unconstitutional (unless you really do read the Constitution with strict attention to original intent, which despite their claims, few Supreme Court judges do.)

To me what was interesting about the order, aside from the apocalyptic possibilities (which I don't, frankly, rule out as "unthinkable") was both that it's probably legal and that it's really nothing very extraordinary.

No, not extraordinary. The US has been allowing assets to be frozen and to be seized; has been allowing punishments to be inflicted for decades. This is just taking the refusal to follow due process to its logical extreme.

Now I'm neither a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and the last time I took a course in the law was over 20 years ago. But here's my layman's understanding of what's supposed to happen before someone can be punished severely in countries with due process protections.

Be charged with a crime;

Have their day in court;

Have competent counsel of their choicel

Being able to face their accuser and see the evidence against them; and,

Have the judge able to take into consideration the circumstances of the crime in sentencing after a Jury (for serious crimes) has determined guilt.

Let's run through those one at a time:



(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)(=)

For news: TruthOut Buzzflash
My blog: RussBLib's Blog

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

        
pandoraFri Jul-27-07 02:56 PM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"It's on WorldNut Daily!"
In response to Reply #8


          

...


Bush executive order threatens 5th Amendment?

On Tuesday, July 17, President Bush issued an executive order that could be interpreted to outlaw anti-war protest.

This new executive order empowering the federal government to freeze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability and its government is so broad it could be applied to any domestic opponent of the Iraq war who has assets in the U.S., charges a former Reagan administration official.

White House press secretary Tony Snow explained the order targets terrorist and insurgent groups not covered by existing authorities who come across the border from countries such as Iran and Syria.

But constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein charged the order violates the Fifth Amendment's requirement that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Fein, associate deputy attorney general under Reagan, asserts it "empowers the president to destroy anyone he says plays a significant risk of undermining the rehabilitation or political reform in Iraq."

"The is a stunning assertion of executive power that creates a Sword of Damocles over anyone opposed to the war or otherwise who might come under the umbrage of the president," Fein told me.
....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56823




"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

        
pandoraSat Jul-28-07 06:53 AM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"WP: Bush order on freezing assets is unusually broad"
In response to Reply #8


          

....
By WALTER PINCUS
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Be careful what you say and whom you help -- especially when it comes to the Iraq war and the Iraqi government.

President Bush issued an executive order last week titled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq. In the extreme, it could be interpreted as targeting the financial assets of any American who directly or indirectly aids someone who has committed or "poses a significant risk of committing" violent acts "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq," or who undermines "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform" there.

....
Casting a wide net

However, the text of the order, if interpreted broadly, could cast a far bigger net to include not just those who commit violent acts or pose the risk of doing so in Iraq, but also third parties -- such as U.S. citizens in this country -- who knowingly or unknowingly aid or encourage such people.

Under the order, the Treasury secretary -- in consultation with the secretaries of defense and state -- creates the list of those whose assets are to be frozen. However, the targeting of not just those who support perpetrators of violence but also those who support individuals who "pose a significant risk" of committing violence goes far beyond normal legal language related to intent and could be applied in a highly arbitrary manner, said Bruce Fein, a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan administration.

11,000 names already listed

Fein also questioned the executive order's inclusion of third parties, such as U.S. citizens who assist, sponsor or make "any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services" to assist people on the Treasury list. "What about a lawyer hired to get someone off the list?" Fein asked.
.....
http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/182604.html




"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

    
pandoraFri Jul-27-07 08:55 AM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"I was a bit confused"
In response to Reply #7


          


between NPSD 51
Subject: National Continuity Policy

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html


and the July 17 Executive Order
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons
Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq


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

Two different things, I now realize.
So, any media covering the July 17th Executive Order?





"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

pandoraThu Aug-02-07 08:59 AM
Member since Feb 04th 2004
7643 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"ACLU issues warning on "Material Support" Executive Order"
In response to Reply #0


          

Corporate media noticed yet???

....
ACLU Says Executive Order "Material Support" Provision Sweeps Too Broadly and Will Restrict Humanitarian Efforts in Iraq
(7/27/2007)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today issued a warning about a little noticed presidential Executive Order recently issued by the White House. Although the order is ostensibly aimed at supporters of the insurgency in Iraq, the civil liberties group warned that its sweeping provisions posed risks for residents of the United States and for humanitarian work in Iraq.

The "Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" authorizes the Treasury Department to freeze and confiscate the assets of anyone determined "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of hindering the Iraqi government or reconstruction efforts. But it also authorizes the freezing of assets of anyone who provides "material support" to such a person or group, whether or not the person's support was knowing or intentional. Further, many of the Executive Order's terms are left undefined, creating ambiguity about what kinds of donations and services could be considered to constitute material support.

"This Executive Order reaches far beyond criminal activity to activity that may be entirely innocent," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "A person may find herself inadvertently in violation of this order and there is no provision for judicial review. It is a strangely undemocratic way to go about bringing democracy to the rest of the world."

The ACLU has raised objections to "material support" provisions in the past. In May of 2006, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of humanitarian organizations that are concerned with the government's sweeping interpretation of a law barring "material support" to blacklisted groups. The humanitarian organizations are concerned that the law, as interpreted by the government, will inhibit humanitarian aid to desperate civilian populations living in conflict zones. Organizations that signed onto the brief include Oxfam, Operation USA and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. The Executive Order recently issued by President Bush raises many of the same concerns as the criminal laws relating to material support.

Another serious problem with the Executive Order is that it expressly prohibits even donations of "food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering." The International Economic and Emergency Powers Act prevents the President from banning such donations unless he determines that the donations would seriously impair his ability to deal with a declared national emergency. The President declared four years ago that the threat to reconstruction in Iraq constituted such an emergency, and the Executive Order specifically invokes this exception.

"This order could have a serious chilling effect on charitable contributions intended to ease the suffering in Iraq," said Michael German, ACLU national security counsel. "There is no requirement that you even have to know that your assistance is going to a banned person or group before your assets could be blocked. The order makes no exception for humanitarian aid, even if it is necessary to save the lives of people living in the war zone; it is going to tie the hands of legitimate charities that are on the ground trying to do good work in Iraq."

The Executive Order is available online at:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

ACLU testimony before Congress on the crippling effects of "material support" laws on humanitarian efforts is online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17536leg20050510.html

The ACLU's amicus brief on behalf of humanitarian organizations regarding the impact of "material support" laws is online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/25628lgl20060522.html
....
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/31113prs20070727.html
















"People aren't looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war occupation,
they want the Democrats to end the war occupation and to bring our troops home."
- Dennis Kucinich

~Write hard, die free.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Top

Top Bartcop Forum Bartcop Forum Topic #416349First topic | Last topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1
Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com