 |
|
Topic started on 19-7-2007 @ 08:39 AM by pai mei
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 08:39 AM by pai mei
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 09:06 AM by jsobecky
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 09:28 AM by Crakeur
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 09:31 AM by Togetic
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 09:51 AM by St Udio
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 10:00 AM by CaptainJailew
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 10:03 AM by Crakeur
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 10:09 AM by ADVISOR
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 10:25 AM by tyranny22
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 10:33 AM by ThichHeaded
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 11:54 AM by CaptainJailew
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 12:12 PM by grimreaper797
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 12:20 PM by djohnsto77
|
I posted this two days ago, only without the alarmist spin:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-7-2007 @ 12:24 PM by Mirthful Me
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
