Bush Outlaws War Protests

[Rabid Monk]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html


I think this is a joke. It's gotta be a joke.
But somebodies gone to a lot of trouble if it is.

This is a joke, right?

(Not that I care, I'm Canadian. But on the miniscule chance this is for real, America is no longer free.)

[Beloit Fencer of Old]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070717-3.html


I think this is a joke. It's gotta be a joke.
But somebodies gone to a lot of trouble if it is.

This is a joke, right?

(Not that I care, I'm Canadian. But on the miniscule chance this is for real, America is no longer free.)

Uh...I read all the double-talk...and I don't see where the executive order says anything about outlawing war protests. But then again maybe my reading comprehension has slipped since I was in the fifth grade...

[AndrewH]

basically, it allows the sec. of treasury, along with the sec. of defense and and sec. of state to seize your property & assets with no prior warning, should they deem you to be either a) aiding terrorists or b) interfering with the efforts in iraq.

the tricky part is, those two conditions are defined vaguely. what constitutes aiding terrorists? if own a hardware store and some nice middle eastern men buy some pipes that later get made into bombs, do i lose all my assets?

better yet, what constitutes interference? if i write in my blog about how stupid the war in iraq is, will i find my bank account frozen?

[AndrewH]

also, i forgot, courts aren't involved in this process at any time. if your property is seized you can't challenge it. not to mention, the sec. of treasury is allowed to delegate this power to any other gov't official, who are encouraged to take action first and report to the sec. later.

[Philistine]

The Order acts only to freeze assets. Any such freezing would be subject to later court review.

Also, by its terms it is limited to those who "have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" or those who materially assist such violence or a person committing such violence.

--Philistine

[AndrewH]

Any such freezing would be subject to later court review.

Can you quote the part about court review? I don't see it anywhere, I might just be missing it.

Also, by its terms it is limited to those who "have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" or those who materially assist such violence or a person committing such violence.

But what defines assist? If i unknowingly sold those bomb parts, not knowing what they'd be put together into, am I assisting?

What defines significant risk of committing? If I say I hate the president, and the secret service checks up on me and finds I have a CCW permit, do I pose a risk?

Realize that the act wouldn't be worded so vaguely if it wasn't meant to be interpreted vaguely.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Couple of thoughts:

You may remember the Oregon attorney who was accused of participating in the Spanish train bombs...then those accusations were later found to be in error. Had this executive order been in place, and, as his neighbor, I had initially taken over a $20 bill and a box of cookies to his wife...we both could easily have fallen afoul of this close-to-fascist 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.

Another extremely disturbing provision:
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.
So, any delegated government official can freeze first, ask the pesky legal/due process questions later? Wow...there's no possibility of abuse there...

Yet another disturbing provision:
B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
So, if a Democratic (or, for the sake of argument, a Republican) presidential candidate makes public statements that the Bush administration is helping foreign oil interests to hijack the Iraqi oil industry, could their campaign fall afoul of this Executive order? What about the Cindy Sheehans and others calling for troop removal? Under the overly broad language, it seems like anyone could be painted as a person "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" for suggesting anything other than what a great job the Bush Administration is doing, and marching lockstep in the "Stay the Course" program.

This document is not a shining example of the principles of democracy.

[Inquartata]

Yet another disturbing provision:
B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
So, if a Democratic (or, for the sake of argument, a Republican) presidential candidate makes public statements that the Bush administration is helping foreign oil interests to hijack the Iraqi oil industry, could their campaign fall afoul of this Executive order? What about the Cindy Sheehans and others calling for troop removal? Under the overly broad language, it seems like anyone could be painted as a person "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" for suggesting anything other than what a great job the Bush Administration is doing, and marching lockstep in the "Stay the Course" program.

Psst! Read the whole thing, not an excerpt:

"(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:

....

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; "

"Public statements" are not "acts of violence", at least not yet.

I think Sheehan is safe for the nonce.

Note also that the acts listed first there in (i) still have to be established.

Legal actions are often taken without "prior notice". The police don't usually call ahead to suspected drug dealers and say "We have this warrant, and we're going to be along tomorrow to search your house. Be good and don't try to dispose of any evidence, thanks very much".

Note "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,"

This order thus falls under the restrictions of existing federal law, which is subject to judicial review. ( BTW, that section of the USC already looks like it permits the action specified in the order. )

People! Read all of the legal citations of authority mentioned before leaping to conclusions...

[Philistine]

Can you quote the part about court review? I don't see it anywhere, I might just be missing it.

This is not a statute, it's an implementation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 50 USC Sec. 1701-1707. Specifically, Sec. 1702.

The ability to freeze assets is specifically given and has been used previously by a number of Presidents. A number of those uses have been reviewed (generally under the APA or as violations of due process).

What defines significant risk of committing? If I say I hate the president, and the secret service checks up on me and finds I have a CCW permit, do I pose a risk?

A risk? Could be. But not under this EO, since it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Realize that the act wouldn't be worded so vaguely if it wasn't meant to be interpreted vaguely.

I'm sure it's meant to be interpreted broadly. I'm in no way, shape or form a fan of the administration [shudder]. I think many things they have done are improper and/or illegal. I just don't think there is any realistic possibility of this EO being used as a target against domestic political dissent on Iraq.

--Philistine

[big daddy]

This is how freedom dies.

[Slim]

People! Read all of the legal citations of authority mentioned before leaping to conclusions...

Nah. It's a lot easier and way more fun to simply start yelling "fascism" and hang wring about the "death of democracy": jester:.

[Inquartata]

Like the post just before yours, apparently...which might well be translated "Lalalalalalalawhat an awful breach of civil liberties anywaylalalalalala!"

[AndrewH]

[keith]

People! Read all of the legal citations of authority mentioned before leaping to conclusions...

Indeed - trust your government.

It's not like the attorney general would forget to tell us anything.....

[Slim]

I'll see your facism, and raise you one jihad....

[AndrewH]

so lemme get this straight, Slim...

islam seeks to deny americans freedom of speech (what??). therefore, we must turn this country into a police state to prevent that.

i'm no logician but something about that doesn't follow.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Psst! Read the whole thing, not an excerpt:

"(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:

But then, what fun would it be to not succumb to knee-jerk reactions?

Still, what and who defines significant risk, or act of violence? The 12th-tier government employee in the Agriculture Department who's been vaguely delegated to "hunting out the rats in the corn crib?" (See, that's a farm-based euphemism for you city folks)

If I burn an Iraqi flag outside the White House and call for troop removal, have I just committed an act of violence that could be spun into a threat to the stability of the Iraqi goverment? What if I burn a Halliburton bumper sticker outside the VP's residence, and paint a giant "Iraqi Oil for the Iraqis!" slogan in the street?

And let's return to Mr. Mayfield's example. If he had been erroneously misidentified as an Iraqi bomber suspect, instead of Spanish, he and all his assets could easily have fallen afoul of this provision. As would I, with my box of cookies and $20 legal defense contribution.

Sure, it's all subject to court review, in theory. Check in with the boys in Guantanamo about how well that's been working out for them. Others that have had property/assets seized under suspected drug involvement statutes have found that getting their assets back is often much more difficult than losing them in the first place.

[Slim]

so lemme get this straight, Slim...

islam seeks to deny americans freedom of speech (what??). therefore, we must turn this country into a police state to prevent that.

i'm no logician but something about that doesn't follow.

1. Islam (the extremist forms of it that seek to establish sharia law) do indeed attempt to deny freedom of speech. But dont take it from me...ask Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

2. Police state, huh? Do I hear bells? Ah, its your hands wringing. Son, you really don't know what a police state is.

[AndrewH]

1. Islam (the extremist forms of it that seek to establish sharia law) do indeed attempt to deny freedom of speech. But dont take it from me...ask Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

Then i find it strange why that cartoon would depict "Islamism" as the enemy of free speech, rather than "extremist islamism".

2. Police state, huh? Do I hear bells? Ah, its your hands wringing. Son, you really don't know what a police state is.

Never having lived in a police state, I can't claim firsthand experience. But what would you call a country that

1) spies on its own citizens
2) searches houses without a warrant
3) imprisons people without charges, ad infinitum
4) sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured

(besides calling it the United States)

[Slim]

Then i find it strange why that cartoon would depict "Islamism" as the enemy of free speech, rather than "extremist islamism".

It does not surprise me you find it strange.

Never having lived in a police state, I can't claim firsthand experience. But what would you call a country that

1) spies on its own citizens
2) searches houses without a warrant
3) imprisons people without charges, ad infinitum
4) sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured

(besides calling it the United States)

Oh, I'm sure every country in the world would be guilty in some degree of the atrocities you've listed. Except maybe for Switzerland. Those Swiss seem kinda soft, dont you think? I agree though, it is a shame we have to outsource torture.

Freedom is relative, not absolute. And pardon the bumper sticker cliche, but it really isn't free. The sooner you come to terms with it, the sooner you can get on with your life as a productive taxpayer.

When they come knocking on my door looking to collect my firearms, then I'll be concerned. But, I suspect you'd think that was actually ok and a "responsible" act of good government. Yes?