Why no coverage

[Widge 0]

On July 17th George Bush signed an Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" which provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war. why has this not been covered by the main stream media here??????? Added to the executive order he passed recently which allows the President to declare a state of Emergency and seize all executive powers this is becoming a really scary situation with an abilty for legal abuse of power.

According to the article I read this 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."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6377

[JoeMama 0]

I just hope whomever takes office on this next election will listen to it's US Citizens and fix all the ####### that's been done by the current administration and other politicians in Congress. I haven't voted in almost 20 years. I never bitched. But I registered the other day. All I see is politicians are more worried about their wallets. US Citizens are taking a backseat to the rights of illegal immigrants. As well as, fighting a war which we've lost too many US military lives already. It's time to get out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. I'm concerned with the way our country is heading.

Edited July 21, 2007 by JoeMama

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would that really affect the anti-war movement though?

I skimmed over the text of the executive order and it seems to be largely talking about people living in the US who are providing material support to acts of violence in Iraq.

(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.

[Widge 0]

Skim a little more

"This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement."

"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."

It's a case of who decides if protest constitutes inciting whatever? would you trust this administration to make that call?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the real issue then is the executive order to declare suspend normal government and impose martial law under "extreme circumstances". That said - if you're looking for a reason why this hasn't been publicised in the news its probably because its not too dissimilar to similar legislation/executive orders during the cold war designed to preserve government following a nuclear attack.

The writer is politicising this by bringing in the suggestion that this new 'executive order' somehow explicitly targets the anti-war movement. I don't think that's correct.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's the text of the order from that page.

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

© 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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The writer is politicising this by bringing in the suggestion that this new 'executive order' somehow explicitly targets the anti-war movement. I don't think that's correct.

I agree. The writer seems a bit over the top on that interpretation.

Just the picture they chose to put in there sort of made me go .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is still problematic though. One scenario that springs to mind - is what exactly would happen to a person who say... donates money to a charity organisation... an organisation which unbeknownst to you is mismanaging its finances and siphoning money to extremist groups (or indeed a front group that actually does). You could conceivably have your property taken away and not have any way of appealing the decision.

[russ 1]

I think the writer is looking for something that isn't there. Treason is against the law here. Providing material support to enemies of the United States is already punishable. This executive order instructs the executive branch to seize assets in this scenario.

Written or spoken dissent does not mean material support. Writting a letter to Congress is not the same as buying a truckload of explosives, and giving them to insurgents. Disclosing information that the insurgents would not already know would also be material support.

Executive Orders are not law anyway. They are instructions to the executive branch to do things. If they do not agree with law, once the executive branch actually does it, there are of course the courts.

The Patriot Act, which is law, is total BS though.

mismanaging its finances and siphoning money to extremist groups (or indeed a front group that actually does). You could conceivably have your property taken away and not have any way of appealing the decision.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the writer is looking for something that isn't there. Treason is against the law here. Providing material support to enemies of the United States is already punishable. This executive order instructs the executive branch to seize assets in this scenario.

Written or spoken dissent does not mean material support. Writting a letter to Congress is not the same as buying a truckload of explosives, and giving them to insurgents. Disclosing information that the insurgents would not already know would also be material support.

Executive Orders are not law anyway. They are instructions to the executive branch to do things. If they do not agree with law, once the executive branch actually does it, there are of course the courts.

The Patriot Act, which is law, is total BS though.

I agree. Not only is a dumb law, but they chose the most sinister, euphemistic name for it.

[bgreed 0]

Just a note to the OP. It's OK if there is an executive order or a law the does away with democracy. Because the USA is a republic!!! If you doubt me read the U.S. constitution or possibly a later document called the Gettysburg address you will note that there is no mention or even use of the word democracy anywhere. I know, Iknow politians use this term all the time. Just goes to show how ignorant they are of the political system that they are working in.

By the way look up ther terms "republic" and the term "democracy", You will find a republic encompasses the rights and concerns of all the people. A democracy is just like grade school where the largest number of people wanting something win whether it is a good thing or not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no such thing as a pure democracy - but the US is most certainly a democratic republic.

[Anais Nin 0]

There's no such thing as a pure democracy - but the US is most certainly a democratic republic.

It's a totalitarian state enforcing its values across the world, and in this sense resembles Nazi Germany.

It's very selfish of the American people to cry "Bring our troops home". Your country has really messed things up in the Middle East and the situation over the next five years is up in the air. We can't predict what's going to happen. The world is more dangerous. And your soldiers have gone around killing so many children and old people, that when you withdraw your troops, the vengeful are going to chase you all the way to your homeland. What goes around comes around.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no such thing as a pure democracy - but the US is most certainly a democratic republic.

It's a totalitarian state enforcing its values across the world, and in this sense resembles Nazi Germany.

It is...? How?

[Ban Hammer 14,344]

What goes around comes around.

in your case, that's a true statement!