It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Executive Order Freezes Assets of Iraq Destabilizers

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

New Executive Order Freezes Assets of Iraq Destabilizers


www.usatoday.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration announced a new tool Tuesday to freeze financial assets of those who want to destabilize Iraq.

President Bush unveiled a new executive order that allows the administration to block bank accounts and any other financial assets that might be found in this country belonging to people, companies or groups that the United States deems are working to threaten stability in Iraq.

Bush cited the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security...
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 7/17/2007 by djohnsto77]




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
It's surprising that federal authorities don't already have this power. I don't think it'll do much though... I doubt many terror groups have any bank accounts within U.S. reach any more.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I see everyone has passed over this thread. I was hoping to see
some discussion on this, so I'll give this a nudge..

Why didn't they have these powers before?
They already have similar powers, according to the article:

The administration already has tools to clamp down financially on people, companies and groups that seek to bankroll terrorist activities or help funds specific terror groups, such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The United States also has financial sanctions against countries accused of fostering terrorism, such as Iran.


So what took 'em so long?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The Devil may be hiding in the Details.


As I read this, the phrase "that the United States Deems a threat to the 'stability' of Iraq".

Gee, since when has anybody considered Iraq to be "Stable"?



But back to the point.

The use of the term "Deems" gives the US a very large leeway to make what MAY be little more than a subjective, or possibly, a merely politically expedient, judgement vis-a-vis the intentions of "unauthorized" persons, companies and/or governments.

Typical of the "torture first, establish guilt later...maybe" attitude of the current Administration.

Notice how quickly everyone just Assumed that the intended target of this action was "Terrorists".

Is it possible that this "New Tool" is merely a sublte threat to foreign agencies (Russia, China perchance) to keep their noses out of Iraq as the US attempts to corral it as a "puppet-state"?



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I have to laugh at this one, in other words Bush is getting scare that countries like China will offer sweeter deals for the oil contracts in Iraq and given the choice of free interest loans from China that makes the world national bank a shameful business.

All in the name of bankrolling terrorist organizations.

What a crock.!!!!!!!!!!!!


It seems that Iraq can only accept aid from the US and nobody else.

Bush executive powers are reaching the middle east and hell even the entire world.


Because if I am not mistaken the US has been monitored the transactions of shady business all around the world.

So why this now when this has been part of the fight on terror all this years.


He is getting scare and is trying to keep Iraq alienated from any other nation around that will want to help.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Marg what do you mean? Im pretty sure this only applies to US CITIZENS who are actively trying to destabilize iraq or its govenrment from the US. People in the US, who use a bank account or something of that sort, and provide help to those trying to further destabilize the region.

I dont know anyone in the middle east, so I won't be sending any money over there. Not to mention if you see anyone tranfer hundreds of thousands of dollars to some guy in the middle east, and that guy is a farmer or something, it would be suspicious anyway. What I wonder is why didn't they already have this power? I was pretty sure this was in the Partiot Act somewhere.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
What I wonder is why didn't they already have this power? I was pretty sure this was in the Partiot Act somewhere.


Exactly!!!!!!!

After 9/11 the bush administration made sure that any other nation will comply with the war on terror efforts at least most nations got involved.

That included any shady transactions to known terrorist organizations or suspicious transactions from the US to the middle east.

It makes not sense to me, like djohnsto77 how many Americans are sending thousands or hundred of thousand of dollars to destabilize Iraq? that is not already been monitored.

This all about the Bush administration scare the Iraqi government will decide to take offers from China, Russia or any other nation for the purpose of oil contracts.

Or just to help Iraq get from the grip of US corporate barons.

So any money change or coming into Iraq will be deemed as suspicious and with ill intentions to hurt US interest in that nation.

The bill may sound like just US banks but it probably span more than that. See China at one point was trying to get aid to Iraq through Syria but US stop that from happening, because Syria is also in the Axis of evil list of the US.

China can offer free or low interest loan to any nation something that the world bank can not because they are all for keeping countries in their grip and indebted.

This from the source and see how it applies also to foreign nations.



The administration already has tools to clamp down financially on people, companies and groups that seek to bankroll terrorist activities or help funds specific terror groups, such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The United States also has financial sanctions against countries accused of fostering terrorism, such as Iran.


This means that China in order to offer help will use a country like Syria to be the middle man in the middle east, but Syria is also in the fostering terrorism country along with Iran, so that will made sure that it will not happen.


Tricky Bush.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
But it doesn't apply to other countries. It applies to US citizens. The US isnt going to freeze assets from Russians because they don't have the authority to do so. They can freeze assests of american citizens, which is what this is talking about.

This EO has nothing to do with china, russia, or any country to my understanding. It applies to US citizens aiding people who look to destabilize the region.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
But it doesn't apply to other countries. It applies to US citizens. The US isnt going to freeze assets from Russians because they don't have the authority to do so. They can freeze assests of american citizens, which is what this is talking about.

This EO has nothing to do with china, russia, or any country to my understanding. It applies to US citizens aiding people who look to destabilize the region.


What is defined as 'destabilizing the region?'

Is it protesting against war?

Is it a Democratic Congress trying to stop the war?



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Yes but US already had financial sanctions against Iran and any other country that is deemed axis of evil.

So the financial monitoring is no only on US citizens so it does spam widely as you see to include other nations.

What I find stupid is that its now made into a law when this administration has been doing this since 9/11.

Unless is to stop any type of financing entering Iraq and that means anyone that will jeopardize US interest in the nation of Iraq.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   


(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.


That mean if you are being violent, have the intention to be violent, or aid those who are being violent, you will have your assests frozen. Protesting the war is not aiding the enemies. Legally, under this, you have to provide some sort of material support or plans. If you provided al qaeda with a nuclear power plant layout, you would get hit with this. Rightfully so.

Bush may say "protesting the war helps our enemies" but that is not what this document talks of. If some one were protesting the war and got arrested on this EO, they would have to be released. One because its not violent or aiding the violent, and two because its not destabilizing the iraqi government.

Its really quite clear surprisingly. I was surprised at just how clear this EO was compared to some other bills and EO. This one is very direct and simple. It says if you are violent, or aid the violent, with the intent to destabilize iraq or its government, we can freeze your assests.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797


Its really quite clear surprisingly. I was surprised at just how clear this EO was compared to some other bills and EO. This one is very direct and simple. It says if you are violent, or aid the violent, with the intent to destabilize iraq or its government, we can freeze your assests.


Is not clear at all, like another poster said, it can include assests of protestors, or just any of the pesky people in congress that wants to stop this war.

This bill can also be a warning to members of congress that are fighting against the administration to stop this war.

Because it could be as aiding terrorist or jeopardizing national interest.

This bill is not very clear at all and like I said it can span anyway the administration wants if it wants too.

Because to tell you the truth this bill make no sence when it comes to american citizes financing anything in Iraq, many Americans are just complaining about the war to make congress do something about it.

Could an american donation to a congress member that happens to be fighting in congress for the end of this war be deemed as undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction?.

Very tricky



[edit on 19-7-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Well then they would have to start arresting congressmen as enemy combatants. When that happens, this EO will be the least of my worries.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

That mean if you are being violent, have the intention to be violent, or aid those who are being violent, you will have your assests frozen. Protesting the war is not aiding the enemies. Legally, under this, you have to provide some sort of material support or plans. If you provided al qaeda with a nuclear power plant layout, you would get hit with this. Rightfully so.


I agree with you completely - more than half this country is against the war and it would just a bit of a logistical nightmare to toss them all in the pokey.


My thoughts are this is directed at one thing - the "radical" mosques and "aid" groups who are funneling money overseas. I think this EO will be similar to the federal law that allowed for your car, home, and cash to be confiscated if you are busted with drugs. You may not be guilty but you'll be hard pressed to get them back without serious long drawn out process.

b



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Well then they would have to start arresting congressmen as enemy combatants. When that happens, this EO will be the least of my worries.


I agree


Have you read about the new article running the INTERNET about US preparing domestic Clampdown.

I believe is a hoax but with the way things are going around it will be good to research on it.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
so, this new Execuitive Order....just increased the orgs. deemed as 'terrorists'
We all knew that AQ & others were having their assets frozen...

but now the Bush regime is widening the frozen-asset class to include
any org. or group that is (subjectively) 'destabilizing' U.S.
efforts to bring law-&-order to Iraq (peace is Not the issue here)

'de-stabilizing' is such a ambigious state...
it's in the eyes of the beholder

this is an effort to broaden the Definition of the 'enemy'
and hopefully (for the 20% approval rated President) to Boost his standing,
as the 'enemies' are more broadly defined....

its nothing more than a social engineering scam


[[if any neocons want to talk my employment, give me a U-2-U,
i can uncork my brain- - - for some serious $$$]]



[edit on 19-7-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Its not saying "If you try to destabilize iraq we will freeze your assests" it says "If you are violent, or support the people who are violent, with the intent to destabilize the iraqi government/iraq itself, then your assests will be frozen"

There is a difference.
It says "(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"

BUT what it is stated just before that is:
"(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: "

so A and B apply when some one has commited or poses a serious risk of commiting acts of violence. If you go to a protest, you are not commiting acts of violence(usually) and therefore A and B are moot.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
So according to this, any congressman or senator trying to vote to get out of Iraq would have his assets frozen? Why? Because he's entraving the stabilization of Iraq! I know it seems extreme but in theory, it could be done.

Some wise congressman could use this against the White House because they are the ones who supplied arms to sunnis rebels, destabilizing Iraq. So they could use this against Bush&Cheney... It would be great.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So according to this, any congressman or senator trying to vote to get out of Iraq would have his assets frozen?


No only that but any US and UK companies using mercenaries for hire should also be targeted for increasing instability and financing that instability in Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join