TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
Below is section 1 of the order.
| quote: |
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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, (i)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. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20070717-3.html |
Welcome to Nazi America.
Oh boy, the thread I posted recently on upcoming events in USA is becoming more and more evident ... huge terrorist attacks are surely coming I think.
Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 This has gone completely unnoticed by the mainstream media. Except for the UK Guardian that published an fluffy article saying the order is nothing to worry about and will only be used on terrorists. I think thats pretty broad fucking language for who it can be used on. This administration definitely doesn't have the track record with honesty and integrity for me to trust them to use it responsibly. |
I think most people who don't have their heads in the the sand know that we're kinda fucked, and I don't include any of the rationalist idiots (read as most) on this forum in that category.
I think it's time to buy a few weapons no?
Romanian AK-47's for $500, and Yugoslavian rifles for less than $200. Ex-Soviet Eastern bloc countries have cheap weapons for sale. Protect yourselves!
Re: Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo you lack a track record for unbiased and rational thought. i mean, you exist soley in a world of imminent police state paranoia. for God's sake, you're insinuating that even the UK Gaurdian dismissing this as "fluff" has something to hide here that the entire MSM won't give a second thought to. of course, once Josh4 has convinced himself in his own little world, the entire MSM is no longer relevant. unless it caters to his paranoid worldview did it ever occur to you that maybe the MSM is dismissing this as alarmist because it's nothing to be alarmed about? i'm sure you think everyone that doesn't have your social "clarity" are sheep. i beg to differ. |
| quote: |
| JON CARROLL Jon Carroll Monday, July 9, 2007 I really, really want to be a member of the Bush administration. I wish I'd realized what a cool job it was earlier, but there's still time. Let's look at the perks. For one thing, I could get a nickname. I've never had a nickname. It could be Jon-Boy or Mr. Toasty or Smallfoot -- the president does not have a flair for nicknames, only a penchant -- but quality is not really the issue. I mean, Scooter is a dopey nickname, and yet Scooter Libby still got to be the assistant to the Eater of Worlds. He would still hold that job had he not been caught lying. That's another thing I could do as a member of the Bush administration: I could lie. I could lie to Congress and the FBI and pretty much everybody, knowing the president had my back. If I ever got caught (not likely), brought to trial (less likely) and convicted (heh!), I'd just have to wait until after the sentencing and get a pardon or a commutation or a surgical extraction from a minimum-security prison. And, if all that fails, I'd still have the Supreme Court on my side. Scalia could write an opinion explaining that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution for me to go to jail. Heck, they didn't even know me. If I were a lawyer, I might worry that a felony conviction would hamper my ability to practice law. But then I would remember: I haven't practiced law in 30 years. I could become a lobbyist and hang out with my friends, or I could just retire with my ill-gotten gains. Another advantage of being a member of the Bush administration: ill-gotten gains. And suppose I were to invite a pig to a meeting of my top aides. If some disaffected ex-employee mentioned my habit of bringing pigs into the room, I could say that I have no recollection of any pig in the room. When faced with evidence to the contrary, I could say that, although I have no memory of a pig being in the room, I now accept that there was a pig in the room. All I remember about the meeting was the cookies in the center of the table. Apparently, the pig also remembered the cookies. Eventually, I might have to resign to spend more time with my family. But I like spending time with my family. It's pretty much a win-win for me. The best part of being a member of the Bush administration is that I could do anything I wanted. Suppose I want to dig a gold mine in Colorado. (I like gold.) Congress might pass the No Digging for Gold in Colorado Act, but then the president would issue a secret signing statement saying that the administration reserved the right to dig for gold in Colorado if it were an issue of national security. Then I would subcontract the actual digging part to a private enterprise, which would charge twice what it actually cost, but I would not care because the government would be paying for it. This is an important part of being part of the Bush administration: remembering that I hate the government, even though I am part of the government. The thing I really hate is taxes. I want taxes to be so low that they cover only the costs of whatever war my administration wants to fight, plus pay my mining people. The rest of it: Hey, isn't that why we have faith-based private organizations? They take up the slack. They fill the need. The government doesn't fill the need; it just digs the holes. If things got really hot for me, I just could declare that I was a separate branch of government. The Department of Gold and Wars, which I head, is not really part of the executive branch because my duties include "laying down the law" to insubordinate underlings, which clearly falls within the purview of the legislative branch. So, actually, no laws at all apply to me at any time, ever, and I am free to kill any celebrities who annoy me. Finally, I would get to appoint my friends to stuff. Are you my friend? Would you like to be a federal prosecutor? How about an inspector of mines? Plenty of positions open at the Park Service. Want to wear a cute hat and point at squirrels? We could get a special secret appropriation for your salary (whaddya think? $300K? Sound about right?), and you could live in a brown building surrounded by lonely young men and women. Maybe I'll just appoint myself to that job. The gold mine does not seem to be yielding, you know, gold. Also, and this would be optional, I could wear one of those cool earpieces with the curly wires going down into my coat. And I could talk into my wrist. No microphone necessary; just my wrist. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...DDG6QQ5D4J1.DTL |
LOL @ Department of Gold and Wars
Re: Re: Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo what the hell is this crap? (that was rhetorical btw) you've got the SFChronicle thinking for you know. thats great. you should be scared. |
blah, blah, blah...we're still waiting for an original thought from you.
sheep.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 better than your warlords. exactly how many sacrifices does your Cheney demigod require each night? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo blah, blah, blah... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sheep. |
Re: Re: Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo did it ever occur to you that maybe the MSM is dismissing this as alarmist because it's nothing to be alarmed about? i'm sure you think everyone that doesn't have your social "clarity" are sheep. i beg to differ. |
| quote: |
| Destabilizing Iraq, Broadly Defined By Walter Pincus Monday, July 23, 2007; A15 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" in the war-torn country. The executive order, released Tuesday, was designed to target "perpetrators of violence in Iraq including Shiite militia groups linked to Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria, and other indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups," said Molly Millerwise, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which will determine who is in violation of the order. The move follows similar Bush orders to freeze assets of members or associates of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and former Iraqi government officials, Millerwise said. "It fills in the cracks," she added. White House press secretary Tony Snow offered further clarification at a briefing on Tuesday: "What this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border . . . or anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the border." 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 and a frequent Bush administration critic. 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. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control keeps a "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons" roll that includes those covered by several such executive orders. It most recently ran to 276 pages; of the roughly 11,000 entries, more than 700 are Iraq-related. Millerwise said the list is primarily for use by banks and other financial institutions that regularly check it to freeze assets and prevent financial transfers. What happens then to the Shiite Iraqi American who sends money or speaks out in support of humanitarian efforts by Moqtada al-Sadr's political party? We'll have to wait and see. Though Millerwise said the Treasury Department already has some names in mind for the list, they will be disclosed only after their assets under U.S. control are frozen. Meanwhile, the department must develop rules and regulations to carry out the order, a process that Fein said he hopes will protect civil liberties that could be at risk. National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them [email protected]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7072201141.html |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.