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 Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

New Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement?


www.globalresearch.ca

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 21/7/08 by xstealth]




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
This seems like a pretty broad description of what they are trying to do. Detaining those who violently interfere with the war, I can understand that, but it seems like it can go deeper. Its just how you interpret this new executive order.

www.globalresearch.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
You mean by supporting our enemies you should be considered an enemy? High five! I'm with that. I'd like to see tons of American Professors and most high school teachers in this catagory...



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I thought he did this a while ago. Maybe I am wrong. It is hard to keep track of the abuse of powers.


Not really surprising at all given the current state of affairs though.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   


persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq


Uh, by definition isn't the anti-war movement supposed to be kinda against violence? If so, then you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't say "an act or acts of sedition, trash talking the government, inventing stories intended to smear the government, or fear mongering" so I think it's safe to say even the most vocal in the anti-war movement have little to fear from this.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   


...or to pose a significant risk of committing...


There's that guilty until proven innocent garbage again.

We keep hearing it, and no-one has yet to gag him.
He won't be happy until he's destroyed all remnants of freedom.
God bless fascism.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Uh, by definition isn't the anti-war movement supposed to be kinda against violence? If so, then you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't say "an act or acts of sedition, trash talking the government, inventing stories intended to smear the government, or fear mongering" so I think it's safe to say even the most vocal in the anti-war movement have little to fear from this.


Does this include the anti-war protestors that get arrested practically every day around here (DC)? Are they all violent? As far as I've seen not at all. 50-60 year old ladies getting arrested and shackled. SAD.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
You mean by supporting our enemies you should be considered an enemy? High five! I'm with that. I'd like to see tons of American Professors and most high school teachers in this catagory...


I would never support anyone who supports the enemy.
Some have read the executive order with the opinion it doesn't stop at an act of violence.

I am not against this, but I do think people should know what is being signed and not reported in the media. I think we are learning now more then ever to read the small print.

I posted this so people could read what he is signing, and anyone who commits violent acts should be prosecuted.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
While I really hate to impugn the professionalism and reasonable nature of any website, I have to say that it's hard to take someone seriously when they reference a site with pictures like this:





and this




However, at least they were kind enough to provide the complete actual text of the Order so I didn't have to look it up.


As to the Order itself, to me it looks like nothing more than a financial catch-all. I could be wrong, but it does seem like a move to put a clamp on institutions or persons financing opposition to the US in Iraq.

Any thoughts on this?

[edit on 21-7-2008 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
and anyone who commits violent acts should be prosecuted.


I agree. But, only until they actually do commit a crime. Not just a thought crime. My opinion of course, but I'd really not like to live in a 1984, big brother, minority report scenario. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I could be wrong, but it does seem like a move to put a clamp on institutions or persons financing opposition to the US in Iraq.

Any thoughts on this?


You mean anyone against the non-bid contracts of Haliburton? Could a company be described as "financing the enemy" if they finance a company other than Haliburton? These are questions we need to be asking IMO.

Edit: Hey Jethro...Nice to see ya back.


[edit on 7/21/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

You mean anyone against the non-bid contracts of Haliburton? Could a company be described as "financing the enemy" if they finance a company other than Haliburton? These are questions we need to be asking IMO.

Edit: Hey Jethro...Nice to see ya back.


[edit on 7/21/2008 by Griff]


lol, nice to be back. I had to take a break for a few reasons.

- Re-Center
- Catch up on my huge "To Read" book stack.

As for the Order, I really think it was to give authority to cease assets of groups that are exporting money to our enemies (I've heard something similar to this about CAIR).

IF this is the case then I don't see much problem. I'm no expert in legalese but it doesn't read as sinister as some are making it.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Oh, the article at global research is a year old thats why you heard about it before.

July 20, 2007

What is hard to understand is why there are all these threatening bills going through and congress thinks its fine.

Who are they working for anymore?


sarc



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I oppose the war in Iraq...and I have no property.

Bush can bite me.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
what's really stupid and transparent is that violent acts are illegal already.
the sole reason for such a waste of taxpayers money is to TERRORIZE the peace-loving, constitution-respecting people of america.

when they squeeze too hard, some of them trigger happy americans are gonna get a posse together and stand up for the law of the land.

america is orwell's 'oceana' now.


George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1948 as a chilling indictment of post war/cold war society. Since its publication in 1949, the book has been hailed as one of the 100 most influential in the modern Western literary tradition. The question must be put: Influential how: as a warning against totalitarianism; or, as a handbook for those in power today?

orwell's 1984 is here and now



[edit on 22-7-2008 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


C'mon, stop beating around the bush. (pun intended)


Tell us how you really feel!



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
This is an old article, but it’s hard to imagine an EO more broadly worded and open to interpretation. There seems little they could fail to justify under such an order.

----------------------------------------------------

This is not a doctored photo.


So what’s your point Jethro? There are plenty of similar photos showing W in strikingly Hitlerian repose. All just products of sneaky communist photographers I suppose.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
All kidding aside, this is some scary stuff. I dare say most Americans deep down don't want to know about this. They really buy into the unless-you-support-the-war-you're-not-a-good-American bit, and that in and of itself is disturbing enough.

I think that if the masses would wake up and really see what's going on, they would be scared stiff.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
All kidding aside, this is some scary stuff. I dare say most Americans deep down don't want to know about this. They really buy into the unless-you-support-the-war-you're-not-a-good-American bit, and that in and of itself is disturbing enough.

I think that if the masses would wake up and really see what's going on, they would be scared stiff.


Agreed. And that is how I really feel.

It's a shame, really, but the status quo is what seems to be important in the eyes of our leaders.

Trouble is, they can change the definition of that whenever they want without the majority populace being any the wiser...seemingly...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

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.



(b) Exceptions to grant of authority
The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—
(2) donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title

Source

Nice






top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join