« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Broad New Exec. Order Targets Iraq-Related Finances
In a little-noticed executive order issued on Tuesday, President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
The order empowers Treasury, in consultation with the State and Defense Departments, to target those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:
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.
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
Representatives from the ACLU are still studying the executive order. But preliminarily, says spokeswoman Liz Rose, the order appears to expand the assets-seizure provisions of the Patriot Act, known as Section 806, to organizations linked to Iraqi insurgent groups. Much like the order, Section 806 allows the government to seize assets of banned organizations without prior notice and without a conviction of involvement in banned activity. "It is by far the most significant change (in the law) of which political organizations need to be aware," the ACLU wrote in 2002, contending that the vagueness of Section 806 potentially implicates legitimate political protest as well as material support for terrorism.
Mayer isn't as certain. "I don't think this is the kind of authority that poses any kind of broad risk, because they're freezing assets, they're not confiscating them. They're making it impossible to move them around," he says. "Look at the other examples after 9/11. There are comparable (executive) orders freezing the assets of groups like the Holy Land Foundation. This looks a little bit different: they're not formally designating groups as terrorist, but they want the authority to block their money from going around."
That leaves unanswered a basic question: why was the order issued? Tony Snow briefly addressed that question on Tuesday -- a day when the news was dominated by the morning release of the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism and the Senate's marathon debate on Iraq. Snow led his press briefing with a description of the executive order and described it as "a gap left in other executive orders to make sure that we have the means to go financially after anybody who is trying to go after the efforts to secure freedom and democracy in Iraq." When asked who the act was aimed at, Snow replied, "Well, what this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border," meaning the Syrian and Iranian borders.
The order itself makes no mention of either country, and focuses exclusively on financial assets within the United States deemed to assist the Iraqi insurgency. It's possible that the order means to target charitable or business organizations inside the U.S. that have ties to Syrian or Iranian entities considered by the Bush administration to be in league with the insurgents.
Contacted last night, a White House official declined to elaborate beyond Snow's description and referred questions to the Treasury Department. A message left with a Treasury counterterrorism spokesperson today was not immediately returned.
UPDATE: Treasury's side of the story is available here.
Comments (65)
BOBH wrote on July 19, 2007 4:22 PM:REICHSTAG FIRE!
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 4:22 PM:Why would anyone want to protect businesses or even charities if they are, in fact, assisting the Iraqi insurgency?!
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 4:22 PM:In my view, they did this in retaliation against the senate pulling the whole nigher, and knowing that the American people are voicing the anger at them, so he slipped it in in the heat of the night!
the administration is not afraid of congress, it is afraid of the American People!
bobh wrote on July 19, 2007 4:25 PM:jake you keep asking questions - as if any of us think your smart enough to comprehend the answers.
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 4:31 PM:At least I'm "smart enough" to know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE.
Security Code: face
Mike Conwell wrote on July 19, 2007 4:36 PM:For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.
Wil Burns wrote on July 19, 2007 4:43 PM:At least I'm "smart enough" to know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE.>>
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 4:43 PM:At least, but not much more!
"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"
Would this be the same national emergency he referred to in the recent executive order saying he could take over all branches of government?
Martial Law... coming to a neighborhood near you.
RandyBastard wrote on July 19, 2007 4:44 PM:"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"
Would this be the same national emergency he referred to in the recent executive order saying he could take over all branches of government?
Martial Law... coming to a neighborhood near you.
bobh wrote on July 19, 2007 4:44 PM:Oh an arrow through mu spelling cogitator.
Please grade my performance from now on jake i'll take it with the same grain of salt I take your posts with )one about ten feet tall).
idiot troll.
Like how i didint use capitals when i shoulda?
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 19, 2007 4:45 PM:No citizen can trust this administration with its constitutionally granted powers, let alone the ones given it in the grotesquely named USA PATRIOT Act.
RandyBastard wrote on July 19, 2007 4:46 PM:sorry for the duplicate post
Ken wrote on July 19, 2007 4:49 PM:Excerpts from the Executive Order:
"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 ...undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq...it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency...."
"...all property and interests in property of the following persons [undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq] 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... "
"The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions..."
ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS BLOCKED. ALL BANK ACCOUNTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU HAVE NOTHING. NO COURT ACTION NEEDED. NO CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NEEDED. NO RIGHT TO APPEAL. NO RIGHTS PERIOD. SIEG HEIL.
pirx wrote on July 19, 2007 4:51 PM:Can we apply this order retroactive to 2003? It would bankrupt the neocons.
gcs wrote on July 19, 2007 4:59 PM:And exactly at what point do the Bushies claim that a troop withdrawal is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq"?
I mean, isn't it natural to conclude that withdrawing troops who are supposedly there to stabilize Iraq would automatically be a violation of this executive order?
In that case, isn't it then plausible that this EO is directed at Democratic Senators?
The enemy within, my friends. The enemy within.
psyopswatcher wrote on July 19, 2007 5:11 PM:"It's possible that the order means to target charitable or business organizations inside the U.S. that have ties to Syrian or Iranian entities considered by the Bush administration to be in league with the insurgents."
Was this Ali Riza's (Wolfie's gf) job at State? To track down bank accounts deemed 'in league with the insurgents'?
Redshift wrote on July 19, 2007 5:39 PM:Since it obviously applies, I'm sure the Bush administration will lose no time in applying this to the corrupt reconstruction contractors, right?
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 5:43 PM:@gcs-
I had the same thought. What possible reason does anyone have to expect Bush would not decide that a troop withdrawal measure threatens "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq"?
Oh Noes! wrote on July 19, 2007 5:54 PM:So our government is going to freeze its own accounts? Certainly our invasion qualifies.
Security word: Face, as in, /facepalm
Roberta wrote on July 19, 2007 6:09 PM:I got tipped to this yesterday by 1oldlady through a Spencer Ackerman piece.
Yikes!
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:
... 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 ...
The rest of the document is pretty specific about what defines an offense, but this is scarily vague. So a protester at a peace rally gets into a scuffle with a pro-war demonstrator (maybe a plant, á la Vietnam?) and gets hauled off to jail. Could this action then be interpreted as threatening the peace or stability of Iraq (I won't even get into the oxymoronic nature of "peace or stability" and "Iraq"), since peace and stability in Iraq can result only from US intervention and a protest undermines this? Bye bye property--and possibly freedom.
Even three years ago, a thought like this would have seemed to be paranoid and impossible. But this was before we all found out just how far our civil rights have already been eroded.
Am I being paranoid now? I think I'll call myself vigilant.
MattyRich wrote on July 19, 2007 6:20 PM:""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"
Would this be the same national emergency he referred to in the recent executive order saying he could take over all branches of government?
Martial Law... coming to a neighborhood near you."
tbhull wrote on July 19, 2007 6:26 PM:Which order is this? I wanna read it as I eat so my fat ass will lose a few pounds. I think I threw up in my mouth a little already...
Is this a taking of property as discussed in the 5th amendment? Does anyone see due process guarantees in the order?
"No person shall ..... 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.
dixiegrl wrote on July 19, 2007 6:46 PM:has anyone put together a file or summary of all of Bush's Ececutive orders..
There is a pattern here..his masters are building up to something..
I can feel in in my gut.....
I am very very very "vigilant" now...these guys just keep jack booting to their goals as if in a vacuum.
jawbone wrote on July 19, 2007 6:57 PM:If I contribute to Dennis Kucinich's campaign, and the president decides that Rep. Kucinich's statements that Bush should be impeached and that the US should withdraw troops from Iraq, both or either of which might change the US support for the Maliki Iraqi government and thus lead to destabilizing said government, could my assets be seized. Along with, presumably, Rep. Kucinich's, thus effectively ending his political campaign?
This is a serious question.
jzap wrote on July 19, 2007 6:57 PM:The order is worse than you think. Try reading
it, if you can get past the legalese.
First, this order allows the Treasury Secretary
to freeze someone's assets, all on his own
determination. The order says,
". . . any person determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Defense . . ."
Note that the Treasury Secretary is required to
*consult* with the Departments of Defense and
State, but NOT required to get their agreement
or approval.
It gets worse. Please forgive my semi-quoting
of this legalese:
"The prohibitions . . . include . . . the making
of any contribution . . . to . . . any person
whose . . . interests in property are blocked
pursuant to this order . . ."
So, if someone is secretly blocked, you cannot
give them the time of day. And you can't give
the time of day to anyone or any organization
that might give them the time of day.
". . . and the receipt of any contribution or
provision of funds, goods, or services from any
such person."
Nor can you receive anything from anyone who
might have given or received anything to or from
anyone else who might have given something to
the secretly blocked person.
Sure hope none of TPM's conrtibutors fall into
nwmuse wrote on July 19, 2007 7:14 PM:this category! --jzap
I know the news reports said that pipe in Manhattan just burst on its own, but has anyone else at least wondered about the timing?
The NIE stating al Qaeda is strengthening and comes out (in full) the morning of the vote in Congress to end the war. Following the blocked attempt to vote you have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid then pull the entire Defense Authorization bill from consideration on the Senate floor. Following that what you have happen is a VERY visual reminder of 9/11 on the streets of Manhattan when that pipe exploded and spewed all that steam and debris into the sky. I was watching the news when they showed the video. People were running up the streets of Manhattan screaming. The news played it over and over again.
Follow that up with this announcement of the capture of a top al-Qaeda in Iraq guy (who had actually been caught 2 weeks previous). Lots of jolts to people's "be very afraid" buttons. Then follow that up with Harriet Miers totally ignoring a subpoena deadline for the second time..
I watched CNN this morning and the newscaster happened to mention at the end of the exploded pipe story that someone had just inspected that pipe a few hours before it exploded..
prostratedragon wrote on July 19, 2007 7:18 PM:Are the people in this country being manipulated BIGTIME!?
I am now at a point where I question EVERYTHING!
There's this one, if you don't mind going to the WH website:
http://tinyurl.com/p4f6a
I think the National Archives site or Library of Congress has all the Presidents'.
prostratedragon wrote on July 19, 2007 7:19 PM:(To get all of Bush's Exec Orders)
There's this one, if you don't mind going to the WH website:
http://tinyurl.com/p4f6a
I think the National Archives site or Library of Congress has all the Presidents'.
prostratedragon wrote on July 19, 2007 7:22 PM:(Whoops. Thought my connection was hanging, as is its wont.)
Fozzetti wrote on July 19, 2007 7:28 PM:HOW is he able to do this without permission from Congress? The pres can't make laws.
nwmuse wrote on July 19, 2007 7:36 PM:I just realized I forgot to add a part to my last post with my observations of all the events of yesterday..
On the heels of all the things I already mentioned, including the pipe bursting in Manhattan, then this new Executive Order comes out (as everyone is getting reminded of 9/11 and getting "be afraid' hits to their system all over again).
It just boggles the mind how things seem to happen to instill fear and distract the public while they (the Administration) keep slipping things through..
pirx wrote on July 19, 2007 7:42 PM:Let's make the enforcement retroactive to 2002. Then seize the assets of Bush, Cheney, etc. etc.
Code: soap, as in this just won't wash
Dave Bowman wrote on July 19, 2007 7:48 PM:Given the Republican Party line is that 'liberal media' coverage of the war emboldens the terraists, my guess is that Bush will use this to go after Keith Olberman.
firedrake wrote on July 19, 2007 7:56 PM:Hillary should be worried. With the Pentagon claiming that her comments with regard to preparing for Iraqi withdrawl could be seen as aiding and abetting the enemy, how long before her campaign chest is attaindered?
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 7:56 PM:Speaking of Olberman..
foggylady wrote on July 19, 2007 8:10 PM:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/04/olbermann-the-nexus-of-politics-and-terror-2/
>>>>>>Says nwmuse
Date: July 19, 2007 7:14 PM
Are the people in this country being manipulated BIGTIME!?
I am now at a point where I question EVERYTHING!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Answer...Ohhh Yes....yes yes and yes...
and Questioning everything is a good start.
But you must be prepared for the answers when you do start looking behind the smoke and mirrors. It's a big step to a horrific reality.
I am losing my optimism, sorry to say.
beep52 wrote on July 19, 2007 8:16 PM:"Hillary should be worried..." -- firedrake
Along with anyone who contributes to her campaign.
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 8:19 PM:Again speaking of Olbermann, I just finished watching his "Sepcial Coment" at the beginning of today's broadcast addressing the Pentagon's attack of Hilary Clinton. It was absolutely SCATHING! Wow.. He is my hero.
Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 8:20 PM:Again speaking of Olbermann, I just finished watching his "Special Comment" at the beginning of today's broadcast addressing the Pentagon's attack of Hilary Clinton. It was absolutely SCATHING! Wow.. He is my hero.
jawbone wrote on July 19, 2007 8:45 PM:Well, Bush will just have the assets of any one opposed to his programs in Iraq designated by the Secty of the Treasury and seized. Then, any one feeding them will have their assets seized.
Voila, no more opposition.
And the security code if "fear."
The Raven wrote on July 19, 2007 8:47 PM:I think we need to start quoting Poe:
NEVERMORE!
NEVERMORE!
NEVERMORE!
mbbsdphil wrote on July 19, 2007 9:17 PM:The order's breadth is staggering; it seems to out-Yoo John Yoo. Hypothetically, it would presumably allow the seizure of McClathy Newspaper's assets should its detailed, hard-hitting coverage of facts on the ground lead to a rational assessment that the regime lacks any prospect of survivability.
Expect next to see an EO providing the same financial penalties for those threatening the survivability of the Bush regime itself.
beep52 wrote on July 19, 2007 9:27 PM:Could this be Bush's preemptive response to threats of cutting off funds for the war?
fuck the president wrote on July 19, 2007 11:00 PM:A violent overthrow with small amounts of grey matter spray may, or even perhaps should, follow.
dogman wrote on July 20, 2007 12:18 AM:The Pres thinks he is above the law and has said so.
He has said that the Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, is nothing but a piece of paper.
Welcome to dictatorship. We had better wake up, my fellow Americans, and wake up soon.
Biff Spaceman wrote on July 20, 2007 12:38 AM:What is interesting is that conceivably Halliburton, which under Dick Cheney's rule in the 90s routines circumvented efforts by Clinton and the UN to prevent companies from aiding then-blockaded Iraq and Iran. But Cheneyburton used cut outs in the Caymans to get around it, directly aiding Saddam Hussein. So go grab your Dick, George, and get your Halliburton seized. Likewise Enron, Unocal, and numerous other companies poised to profit from oil and gas and burdened with no respect for the law or human decency.
malcolm wrote on July 20, 2007 12:56 AM:That's why, Jake D.! There is no more equal protection under the law, only dictatorship by the military-industrial-financial elites who run the whole shebangabang.
Welcome to dictatorship indeed. There doesn't seem to be anything our Democratic majority can do in Congress; we might as well not have one. Maybe it's just time to go. We put off leaving until after the next election, but that may have been undue optimism. W probably stole two elections, and with the current Supremes and Diebold, his successor can steal the next one. Perhaps all of us need to establish a colony somewhere. Only two countries have majorities that believe torture is wrong under all circumstances, Spain and South Korea.
Unmitigated Audacity wrote on July 20, 2007 1:26 AM:It's about over folks. I resist in any meager way I can. I read the web voraciously about the war, foreign policy, the whole gamut of the Cheney-Bush thugishness on all the issues that we in the TPM community follow and care about. But let's face it. Most people don't follow this stuff, don't know about it, just don't care about it. The constitution is now just a piece of paper in a museum. It is no longer in force. The Dems refuse to impeach these traitors because they are cowards. Impeachment is the ONLY remedy at this point. It is the constitutional imperative. But like the German middle and left folding in the face the Nazi's raw power grab, the Dems cower in the corner, snipping impotently with procedural games. Cheney, et. al. are admitedly more smooth and less brutish than the nazi's (so far), but they are amassing the same kind of executive power and emasculating the legislative branch in the same kind of way. I don't think they are doing all this just so they can hand off this power to the Democratic Party in 2008 - do you?
Code: blood
RandyBastard wrote on July 20, 2007 1:32 AM:MattyRich:
That was executive order #51.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I was out drinking. ;-)
daCascadian wrote on July 20, 2007 1:40 AM:This is targeted at groups like Moveon.org etc that dare act to question the authority of these fascists
Seriously
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken
rjj wrote on July 20, 2007 6:57 AM:These EOs are Dicktats.
Jon wrote on July 20, 2007 8:59 AM:This is Putinesqe to the nth degree. Impeach these 2 now!
Jay wrote on July 20, 2007 11:30 AM:"Hillary should be worried. With the Pentagon claiming that her comments with regard to preparing for Iraqi withdrawl could be seen as aiding and abetting the enemy, how long before her campaign chest is attaindered?" Posted by: firedrake
I think this is absolutely dead-on. Watch Bush's minions accuse Democrats and media figures of casting an Iraq withdrawal as "aiding and abetting the enemy," as well as treason. Look at the Pentagon's response to Senator Clinton's request for information about a withdrawal: "Premature and public discussion of the withdraal of U.S. forces from iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia."
Then Bush swoops down on Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and other Democratic politicians, executive order in hand, at just the moment when Karl Rove says it's the best timing:
He'll take their campaign contributions. Have you noticed that despite the daunting odds, Rove still seems to be one step ahead of the Deomcrats? I think part of the illegal wiretapping scandal is that they're monitoring Democratic politicians, particularly presidential candidates--an institutionalized Watergate burglary with the full force and effect of the government behind it. It explains why they need to pack the government with loyalists. I think this may explain why most of the MSM has been so reluctant to criticize Bush's Iraq policy despite the fact that 60% of the public wants us out of Iraq immediately or sometime soon, and more than half want Cheney impeached--GE, Viacom, TimeWarner, et. al. don't want their assets seized under this EO.
This administration is backed into a corner like a dangerous animal. Don't think they won't do anything, anything in their power to put another Republican in the oval office, then give him the briefing. You watch--they're playing with fire. The first step is to control the message, and they've been able to do this. The journalists are scared or in their pocket.
Jay wrote on July 20, 2007 11:34 AM:"Hillary should be worried. With the Pentagon claiming that her comments with regard to preparing for Iraqi withdrawl could be seen as aiding and abetting the enemy, how long before her campaign chest is attaindered?" Posted by: firedrake
I think this is absolutely dead-on. Watch Bush's minions accuse Democrats and media figures of casting an Iraq withdrawal as "aiding and abetting the enemy," as well as treason. Look at the Pentagon's response to Senator Clinton's request for information about a withdrawal: "Premature and public discussion of the withdraal of U.S. forces from iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia."
Then Bush swoops down on Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and other Democratic politicians, executive order in hand, at just the moment when Karl Rove says it's the best timing:
He'll take their campaign contributions. Have you noticed that despite the daunting odds, Rove still seems to be one step ahead of the Deomcrats? I think part of the illegal wiretapping scandal is that they're monitoring Democratic politicians, particularly presidential candidates--an institutionalized Watergate burglary with the full force and effect of the government behind it. It explains why they need to pack the government with loyalists. I think this may explain why most of the MSM has been so reluctant to criticize Bush's Iraq policy despite the fact that 60% of the public wants us out of Iraq immediately or sometime soon, and more than half want Cheney impeached--GE, Viacom, TimeWarner, et. al. don't want their assets seized under this EO.
This administration is backed into a corner like a dangerous animal. Don't think they won't do anything, anything in their power to put another Republican in the oval office, then give him the briefing. You watch--they're playing with fire. The first step is to control the message, and they've been able to do this. The journalists are scared or in their pocket.
Twitchings wrote on July 20, 2007 11:58 AM:Just a few serious questions:
Once Iraq is secure and reconstructed and in the sovereign hands of a government elected by the Iraqi people will this order be rescinded or removed?
Once we officially leave Iraq and let the Iraqi people take full responsibility for their country, regardless of who is in charge, will the order be rescinded then?
Could or more aptly, will this order be expanded to include terrorism in general?
Could president Bush and his administration's current strategy of 'Surge' and the possible extension of this 'Surge' be considered as "hav(ing) committed, or ... pos(ing) a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts”?
What elements of the 5th are still relevant?
utopiate wrote on July 20, 2007 2:36 PM:The irony here is amazing.
Imran wrote on July 20, 2007 9:53 PM:Prescott Bush was involved with aiding and abetting Nazi Germany through Union Bank in WWll.
If this law was in effect during that time, there would be no Bush family dynast now.
One of these days we'll freeze or block financial dealings with each and every nation or make it impossible for American businesses to do business without violating such stupid rules.
Jared P wrote on July 22, 2007 2:05 AM:This goes against civil liberties like I've never seen before in my entire life. The whole idea that he has the power to take your property if he believes "broadly" that your actions can harm the peace and prosperity of the Iraqi people. What about political candidates like Hillary Clinton who want to end the war. Would that undermine the Iraq? Alot of the neoconservatives would have you believe if you voice your opinion that you are undermining them. Infact bush just told Hillary that she was aiding the terrorists. Am I the only one here that can see the truth? God Help us all!
tom wrote on July 22, 2007 9:33 AM:You know, one of these mornings I'm going to wake up, let the dog out, make my coffee and sit down to the computer ready to boil, the standard by now, only this time, instead of being outraged and angry enough for the drive to work, I'll read "Bush, Cheney Impeached".
colormrblocked wrote on July 23, 2007 12:19 PM:Gee, I might even let that jerk coming off the ramp into traffic if that happens.
Its meant to be viral. Like the old shampoo commerical. Bush feels that if he pulls one liberal thread...
willyloman wrote on July 23, 2007 10:26 PM:Please read an article I did at site on this very topic today. Title New Executive Order
Roman wrote on July 25, 2007 7:59 PM:This is an administration that takes an "act first;ask questions later" policy. So while on the surface, this Executive Order doesn't seem inappropriate, we all know it will most likely be abused. They'll accomplish whatever their underlying agenda happens to be and by the time it makes its way into the courts, it'll be too late. Score another win for Bush.
Joshie wrote on August 5, 2007 12:23 AM:The executive can't make laws. However, he can issue orders, and if that order is not knocked down in the Senate, it takes on full force of law.
So......you need to contact your Senators to explain to them that they better not fiddle while Rome burns. Get active and call your Senate offices! There is one near you. You can find them on the .gov site. Its the least you can do.
totallynext wrote on November 29, 2007 9:23 PM:The obvious for thie EO is so they can freeze Iran's assets. Duh! sorry guys you are not the fish they are after.
They are going to claim that Iran is intervening in the reconstruction efforts. They are trying to circumvent Congress ability to make and / or not make military action and war.
wasahtoha wrote on November 30, 2007 1:24 AM:If any of you have any military experience, I would advise that you prepare yourselves and others around you. Yes, they will probably scan and read this, but that's the point, if no one is willing to stand against them they will continue. Frozen assets don't stop the mind or the will. The will? It is just the opposite of won't. Think about this 'clearwater' is all we can see through, all else is black.
Taking comments from anyone concerned.