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: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

(c) 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.

Could be "any person in the United States", not just a citizen.

Also the EO states this taking may be done without "prior notice of a listing or determination". The bank account suddenly has no money.

"or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence". This gets a little scarier in light of Cheney's 1%--if there is even a 1% chance of something happening it is just as if it is going to happen, treat the 1% as a certainty.

So, could disobeying, even unintentionally, a policeman's order to stop moving, stay on the curb, etc, in a protest be construed as an act of violence? Or, you subscribe to a publication that runs an article that can be spun to be advocating an act of violence--will your money/assets all disappear suddenly?


(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.

Does this mean that any efforts to help an accused is prohibited, even a meal?

Hmmmm, this EO does appear to be for less drastic purposes, however. Since Bush's War is dragging on, there was a need to update what the Pres can do financially to new players in Iraq, those players who weren't there before. So perhaps it's just because Iraq has been such a fiasco, snafu, that this was needed.


Oh, goody, will more Saudi money be frozen

Or could it be for, as Marg said, China etal?




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Thanks desert for seen some of what I see in a bigger and broader dangerous picture to civil rights.

This like you said will apply to citizens any citizens, entities non citizens etc, etc, etc.


Iraq may change its mind and decided to take money and help from other nations . . . while the US keep holding reconstruction money or financial help to start production of oil until contracts are signed over to US oil Barons.

China, Russia, France and Germany were the main nations US didn't want doing business with Saddam and sanctions against Iran is in the hope that US can hold as long as necessary deals between the parties above.

Now I wonder how much a violent or adding to instability to Iraq could protesting against the war and the president policies may be.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
BUT COULDN'T THEY USE THIS POWER ON SAYSOMEBODY WHO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE WAR say i am donald trump and i went and whipped up aniwar sentimets could they say they deemed me a threat to iraq stability and seize my assets ?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I would like to point out one thing...


"(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: "


(Emphasis added)

The part I highlighted creates a very broad brush for the administration. A protestor could fall under that. ANY person poses a "significant risk" of committing violence.

Furthermore, this order is in direct violation of the 5th Amendment.

And even more so, the President does not have the right to sieze assests of anyone, nor does he have the right to direct the Department of Treasury to do so.

This is a law thinly veiled as an Executive Order, which is a violation as well. Any person affected by this EO could, and probably would, challenge this in court and would probably win as well.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Well Bush is actually acting on executive privilege so I wonder how far can those executive privilege can go.

People needs to understand that he is making this laws on his own congress has not vote on it.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Marg, I always enjoy your contributions. You have a lot to share.

So, Bush issued ANOTHER EO after this one, in re to CIA interrogation. This man won't quit! He is drunk with power--look what I can do!
All these EO's is like the time I tried to fix a leaky pipe, but the minute I plugged one hole, another appeared. The pipe is broken, Mr. President! Quit with the EO's!

I really resented Rep Boehner's "wimp" comment to his fellow Republicans who wanted a change of course in Iraq. Boehner BTW lists service in the Navy for his bio--yes, six weeks before he was discharged, medical I believe!! The real wimps are those people who are fearful, yet pretend not to be, and act as bullies. This administration has proven to be the most fearful of men/women--those who would use physical force unnecessarily, bullies. I have my utmost respect for the men and women in military service, but disdain for those who send them to fight and die unnecessarily.

I am sick of hearing about more war. I want to hear about more diplomacy.
The "surge" is really our last chance at counterinsurgency, maybe too late, but an attempt nonetheless; but unless it has a powerful diplomatic component, as the generals have always said must be so, it is doomed to fail. Unless the bullies are willing to admit they screwed up and need to use diplomacy with as much power as firepower, Bush will continue to issue EO's and ignore Law, the basis for this country.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Desert, thanks for you kind words.

I don't know if you have been following the role of Cheney on the war on terror and the agenda for the middle east.

One of the most powerful men in Washington is Cheney, as the Vice president he has a lot to sai about how politics are to be played in Iraq.

His displeasure against Bush not finishing the job in the middle east is well known.

He influence a lot what Bush does, diplomacy is not part of the policies of the present administration in dealing in the middle east.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
BUT COULDN'T THEY USE THIS POWER ON SAYSOMEBODY WHO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE WAR say i am donald trump and i went and whipped up aniwar sentimets could they say they deemed me a threat to iraq stability and seize my assets ?


No they could not. There seems to be a lot of sensationalism in regards to this Executive Order. You may have heard the term "Spirit of the Law"?


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,


This first part of the order defines the limits of this Order. Like I said a lot of sensationalism about this Order
People can safely continue protesting against the war or against Bush as long as they do so peacefully and take the few short minutes to get a permit. No doubt someone will engage in a violent protest and fail to get a permit just so they can say this was used against them. Protesters are funny that way.

All the hype about Martial Law being around the corner has not changed since protests during the Vietnam War. Oh, and don't forget when Nixon was going to take over via a Coup
Different generation but not much changes. The predictions of doom remain the same. Young people always think horrors are around the corner and there is always a few older people ready and willing to keep them worked up into a frenzy. All of this to the delight of those shysters who are hawking their books and tapes and enriching themselves off others fears. The only difference is our long hair and Bell Bottoms have been replaced with tattoos and body piercings.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Blaine91555

Thanks for the good point, but always remember that the job of the people of this nation is actually to keep our government in line to ensure that it doesn't stray too far way from the job that is entrusted to do.


That is why each generation most come with all kind of ideas and voice as loud as it can their disappointment without the fear of retribution from their elected officials in power.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
not to act as a legal expert, but i do have to interpret legal documents daily.

the problem with this one is it IS VERY VAGUE.

below is an in depth breakdown.

Note : all Quotes are take from the executive order page on whitehouse.gov...

WhiteHouse.Gov Executive Order




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

This seems to give a clear and concise point to the purpose of the order... EXCEPT it is ONLY present in the president signing statement (which has no recourse unless stated in the legal jargon below the signing statement in a similar format)




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


Basically the only thing they can seize is property within the united states, including cash interests (i.e. bank accounts, stocks, monies found on persons)

and now the people who they can seize the assets of:



(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 anyone they deem a substantial threat (Mike Moore comes to mind as a patsy for this particular executive order) they can seize their assets as long as they are a threat to:



(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or


fine... totally understandable... bush already broke this one... Some one PROSECUTE!!!!




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


this is the hairy issue to me. this is where protestors come in.
now don't think because you have an "end this war" sticker on your car, that you are first on the list. But Do keep in mind people who are outspoken about the war; and just happen to have money.
a few examples

Michael Moore
Keith Olbermann
Alex Jones
Everybody in Hollywood
these are their targets with this portion of the law. I may be a bit presumptuous on this but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it ain't a goat.

and onward we go




(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


so do people who provide food to terrorists (last I checked humanitarian groups feed anyone who comes to eat, as long as they don't cause problems) count? I fear it is likely.




(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.


So if you are linked with the company or entity in any way, and they are found guilty of subversive acts; then the government can seize your PERSONAL ASSETS




(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.


this is where it breaks down that even a private donation can cause your assets to be seized



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.


so it decrees lying to government about your donation is illegal as well.




(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.


hey look... I'm breaking the executive order right now... THIS IS ILLEGAL...



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

(c) 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.


so to all U.S. citizens... basically... THIS MEANS YOU... and your business, and your family can lose everything if you are deemed to be subverting (or even publicly saying negative things about the war)

WOW



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.


so...



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.


wow again... its like a friggin no knock warrant, but with seizing everything you own of value (i.e. assets) you will not even know its gone... til they have taken it


continued next



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Continued from above



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.


so basically, the FBI, CIA and NSA are monitoring us now to see who's a subversive. and as the beginning states; "promulgation of rules and regulations"... this is the American Government, not Outback Steakhouse... No Rules just right doesn't cut it.



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.

this is so legalese that it should be on every state BAR exam... interpret this ANY WAY YOU WANT TO... thats what it was written for.



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.


uhmmm surrrreeeee.... but guess that was put in to cover Georgey boy from the prosecution he could have received for the violation of section 1.A. of this executive order.




GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.


only for 548days 16 hours and 15 minutes

i hope




Coven Out



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Excellent point Coven, so above anybody that do not agree with the present policies in the dealings of our government with Iraq and voice them too much will be indeed a A Iraqi Distabilisizer for lacking of support to the Bush administration efforts or lack off.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
This morning a lady from D.C. called into kiss 108 in boston and said she was sent to jail for a day for war protesting. Although she said she got into a verbal argument with a secret service agent so that could have been the reason. I don't remember the full story, since I was switching channels and caught it as she was finishing up.

[edit on 26-7-2007 by curiousbeliever]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
A few questions to all out there. Having been following what is happening in especially the US, it seems apparent that the rights of the individuals are being comprimised more and more daily. There will come a time that acting will cost more than is gained by it.

From this perspective one must ask the question, when does my government no longer serve me, and if it is no longer a government of the people, for the people, then does this mean that this government no longer should be recognised as such?

I am curious to see what other people think about this.

Additionally, with the time window becoming smaller and smaller, why are the only threads I see those that still focus on complaining about what is happening rather than doing something about it...in the 60\'s and 70\'s mass gatherings brought awareness and provided a balance no longer present, yet today any gatherings are too small to make headlines.

Also, the people (lawyers, police, army, govt agencies, teachers, doctors, journalists etc.) that are assisting in this development, whether consciously or not, are going to be just as affected by these freedom restraints as anyone else. Maybe they need a wake-up call from family and friends. Do you know someone like this, and have you talked to them?

Finally, it is no longer about pulling out of Iraq, or whether democrats or republicans should be in power, or if and when there may be an impeachment (is congress really on the side of the people?). The main issue is what can YOU do TODAY to protect the freedom that your family before you worked so hard for, the freedom of your children, your future, and of course yourself. Why rely on others to solve your problems when they don't seem to be as interested as you yourself are?

Are you going to stand up when there is a chip in your arm, are you going to stand up when your children are taken away under martial law, are you going to stand up when you are no longer allowed to buy vitamins and minerals, or when the economy has collapsed, or are you hoping it is all a bad dream. Maybe it's a bad reality, and there is no better time than now.

As I don\'t live in the US, there is little I can do, but I do empathise and wish you all peaceful, legal, intelligent action based decisions.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join