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.

 

Bush Declares National Emergecy: Syria & Lebanon

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Executive Order August 2, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions



I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon's legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions, to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation, to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.


So, if I understand this correctly, Syria is threatening Lebanon and as a result national emergency is declared in the U.S.A.? So the administration is going to start freezing the assets of those it deems involved in undermining Lebanon's democracy.

Kucinich: Executive Order on Lebanon Undermines The Middle-East Peace Process



“The French are working in Lebanon to try to construct a national unity government. Syria is on record as supporting the French initiative. The Bush Administration is trying to block National Unity and continue with its strategy to destabilize the region by targeting Syria and Iran, instead of seeking diplomatic resolution.


Al Jezeera: US freeze on Lebanon's 'enemies'


"Certainly Iran and Syria are the principle sponsors, I would say, of both efforts to undermine the government in Lebanon and efforts to promote militia violence ... and the other things we've talked about in Iraq," he said.


Certainly something to pay attention to, but is this really something that we need to declare national emergency over? Ever since that Presidential Directive NSPD 51 the talk of national emegency makes me shudder a little.

ETA: that last quote on the Al Jezeera site is from Tom Casey, state department spokesman.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by AmethystSD]




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
What new powers does he get under the national emergency?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well, NSPD 51 says that in a catastrophic emergency Bush will be in charge of coordinating the entire government. And it will fall to him to make sure that the Constitution is preserved.




(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;


BUT, this national emergency that has currently been declared was not the result of a catastrophic event. So it's not happened yet. I was just making the point that the language he used is a little scary.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
You can lose your property and assets in the US and possibly your rights to be in the United States if you are shown to be supporting Syrian controlled violence against the Lebanese government, or if you have assets that have been frozen outside the United States for supporting violence against the Lebanese government. Other than that Bush gains no powers, won't stay in office any longer, or anything else.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You can lose your property and assets in the US and possibly your rights to be in the United States if you are shown to be supporting Syrian controlled violence against the Lebanese government, or if you have assets that have been frozen outside the United States for supporting violence against the Lebanese government. Other than that Bush gains no powers, won't stay in office any longer, or anything else.


If I read it right, that's not the directive he's talking about. He's talking about the one that gives Bush sole power in the event of a national emergency. All that needs to happen is another 9/11 or some other event which Bush determines to be a national emergency, and Bush becomes the one who decides everything; Congress and Senate would have no input and would basically cease to exist.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Under THIS directive, which I took to be the one that ubercarnist was asking about, those are the only things that will be applied. This ONLY applies to people involved in violence against the Lebanese government, and does nothing to help Bush stay in power.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
He has no right to do this, none whatsoever. In effect he is guaranteeing Lebanese sovereignty which the last I heard the Lebanese government had not invited him to do, which without their approval is in essence a violation of their sovereignty.


With our military stretched as thin as it is it is a hollow gesture to begin with and should he try to start yet another front in this endless war, he will be doing nothing more than playing into l Qaeda's hands and becoming their number one recruiter.

Way to go moron.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
So, we are currently under the conditions of a national emergency and no-one bother to mention it?!

What the hell?!!!!



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Sounds to me like he's just letting the public get used to the term "National Emergency", in hopes that when he does implement Order 51, maybe it won't be such a big deal.

Hell, in today's America, it may well go unnoticed by Average Joe. Joe's going to be too busy waxing his car and making sure all is well with the really important things in his life.

*sigh*



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
can someone explain to me just what is so important in lebanon that anything that could happen there would cause a national emergency in the states?? I'm confused....what do they import to us that if the source was lost, would cause havoc in our economy? just what does syria, lebanon, or most of the middle east have that would really pose a threat to the mainland...outside of the crazy religously brainwashed that seem to abound throughout the area now, but also cross our border without much problems.
cry wolf one too many times, and well, no one will take your seriously when the wolf rampages.....they are crying national emergency when one doesn't exist, at least not in lebanon...now if one was to look at the economic picture, well, there might be something there to declare an emergency over...

our government is being run by the fruitiest of the fruitcakes I think.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I found a wikipedia article that explains it.

IEEPA International Emergency Economic Powers Act




The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.


Apparently it happens all the time and is not as big a deal as it sounds.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Nice slant at trying to make it look like it is all bushes fault when there are actually several instances of the use of the IEEPA by other presidents :shk:



Iran (since 1979 for the Iran hostage crisis and subsequent sponsorship of terrorism)

Myanmar (since 1997 for repressing democratic opposition)

Russia (since 2000 to prevent export of weapons-grade uranium)

Sudan (since 1997 for human rights violations and sponsoring terrorism)

Source



Also keep in mind this is the international version. You still have the version for the US alone which gives congress provisions to override the president.



Source

It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
This is nothing new. Presidents before have done the same thing. Its just that with Bush, so many people dislike him they think he is the first to do some of the things he is doing LOL.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
It is somewhat unnerving that the president can sign an executive order and possible set himself up as "President for life," but I don't believe that is what Bush has in mind. (Cheney may be a different story.) When our country is attacked again, chaos may reign, and martial law may be called for. (I hope not.) Order 51 is necessary.
As for seizing assets of those who support our enemies, as was mentioned earlier, it's been done beforE We froze Iran's assests when they held American citizens hostage for 444 days.
What is troublesome to me is the EO that allows the government to sieze the assests of American citizens who publicly desent against the war. What happened to freedom of speech?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Well Shots, it's Wikipedia. You should amend it.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD
Well Shots, it's Wikipedia. You should amend it.


So let me get this right? You want me to alter Wiki with knowingly false information and then post it on ATS? I do not think so that is against ATS Terms and Conditons you should read them

[edit on 8/11/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Hello folks. I'd like to point you to a discussion thread on this topic that you may find useful. the Bush administration hs done more to advance Executive power than most of us realize. Order #51 deserves a lot of close study.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I would call it getting your ducks in a row.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
can someone explain to me just what is so important in lebanon that anything that could happen there would cause a national emergency in the states??


Just because we don't have trading ties with them doesn't mean that Lebanon's security isn't important to the US.

For one thing, we are essentially fighting a proxy war against Iran and Syria in Lebanon. If Hezbollah is allowed to rise up the stability of the entire Middle East could be threatened, and that ultimately means oil prices will rise dramatically. We are living in a global economy where the failure of one nation could mean the collapse of the dollar.

Lebanon has very important secular groups all fighting for power. A large scale civil war would have reverberations across the Middle East. Also we can not forget of its strategic location essentially in the Middle of the entire world. If the US could establish a democratic ally in Lebanon it would go along way towards securing oil dominance.

Besides, good intentioned or bad, would Bush really do something without some sort of operational intelligence?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
He has no right to do this, none whatsoever. In effect he is guaranteeing Lebanese sovereignty which the last I heard the Lebanese government had not invited him to do, which without their approval is in essence a violation of their sovereignty.


If you remember correctly from his speech, he doesn't even know what the word "sovereign" means. Bush certainly didn't write this executive order or even think it up. Someone else in his administration is benefiting from this.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join