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.

 

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq


www.whitehouse.gov

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 19/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The first time I found the story here :


www.whatdoesitmean.com...
"(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

(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.

(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.



But I gave the link to the white house page, it says right there :
"Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" so it must be true.


www.whitehouse.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-7-2007 by pai mei]

[edit on 19/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

Perhaps you can show where the source article outlaws all war protest in the US? I read it and didn't see that at all.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
the title on the executive order is:
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq



Nothing about outlawing protests. Freedom of speech and The right to assembly are the foundations of any democracy. He's not outlawing either.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
In freezing the assets of any protester, the government would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (because we're talking about deprivation of property, Amendment XIV), that there was a nexus between the protest and "destabilization." Unless the protest was taking place in Iraq, on the grounds where soldiers were trying to build a house, then I don't see how you could score a conviction with this, Free Speech issues aside.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
outlawing protests will not be directly enacted...
the acting in anti-war demonstrations, is already a hazard to one's health & freedom...

how you ask?

Well causing any disruption of anything a state or Fed government runs,
is termed a Terrorist Act.
a protest might cause the public transportation to be impeded,
or the mail to be late, both causing a destabilization of the services
for the public-good...
ergo a anti-war protest could very well be legally termed a terrorist-act

& with the Patriot Acts, the tossing of Habius Corpus, the MilitaryCommissions,
one might find themselves imprisoned sans trial.
Without there ever being an actual Law against war protests


watch out that you, (meaning anyone reading this), don't become
the 'Precedent' or the first legal case where the label of terrorist can be applied to you.



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



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Misleading title, nowhere does the EO ever even imply that War Protests would be the same as material or logistical support for Iraqi destabilization efforts. I also doubt this law will ever be extended to fulfill the vision of the police state that many of you have. I remember hearing about the potential for this executive order a while back, its mainly about asset forfeiture and freezing for business connections and money laundering shelters which the USFG has control over.

Calm down.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
St Udio,

Here in NYC, when you want to organize a protest or any other mass gathering, you need to get approval from the city so they can prepare for the potential issues - safety, counter protests, traffic jams etc.

You can't get a few thousand people jammed into one place that easily here to begin with but, in order to do so and minimize arrests, you need to get a permit of some sort. Not sure how hard that is to obtain but we have protests and "gatherings" going on all the time.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Things are getting crazy back home you say, maybe this is a 1st step forward for the Omega Agency;

The Omega Agency are the people truly running America (and the world for that matter). They command the newest front in the world, the New World Order.


Small steps always first, then the biggers ones of course, until it is a full tilt run. Considering all that has been going on, the world round. Putting it together, and seeing even the fragments of the bgger picture, bring it into a perspective one doesn't need to stretch far to find.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I read the order. It seemed to me that if the protest is of a peaceful nature, the government has no legs to stand on when trying to stop you.

This, of course, ends all hopes of having a rebellion, or revolution against the government. Unless you swayed the military to the cause of preserving REAL freedom at home in America, rather than instilling another capitalist society elsewhere in the world. In this effect the government would be powerless because they would have no hand to extend. Their enforcers would be the ones trying to re-establish a proper and honest government.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
They already Beta-tested this..

How soon do we all forget all the BS that happened during the RNC in NYC in 04???

When they were arresting anyone who was on the streets, even a judge found it to be illegal and fined the city 1000 bucks per head if they were not released immediately.


Think before you type. This is a very real situation.

and no I didnt read that article but thought the title to be of interest.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
How soon do we all forget all the BS that happened during the RNC in NYC in 04???
[.snip..]
Think before you type. This is a very real situation.

and no I didnt read that article but thought the title to be of interest.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by ThichHeaded]



Come on. Read the freaking EO if you're going to criticize it. Nothing in it a) mentions domestic protest b) mentions prison/treason charges (its asset forfeiture and freezing of bank accounts) c) talks about banning or stopping of any action which isn't already illegal d) it doesn't even assert a domestic level of enforcement other than defining that citizens are not exempt from the law. Get a grip.

THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IT IS LINKED TO AND SHOULD BE CHANGED BY A MODERATOR FOR THE SAKE OF ACCURACY.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I read the act just now, somewhat breifly I may add, which is all you really need to to in order to realize THE TITLE IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE. How you could come to the conclusions that by blocking an american citizen who is trying to destabilze the government of iraq or iraq itself through material means is taking away the right to protest the iraq war is beyond me.

No where, and I mean NO WHERE, does it even have the POSSIBLITY that it could mean taking away protest rights. There is nothing there to even jump to such a conclusion, and I cannot even figure out what made some one think such.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I posted this two days ago, only without the alarmist spin:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
And so it does already exist...

Perhaps this would be a good lesson on submission guidelines... Title, character count on snippet, less than 48 hours old, and doesn't already exist as a news submission.

More of that covered here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join