New Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement?

reply to post by xstealth


This is an old story. It still needs to be discussed, but definitely not breaking news.

yipes;so if your naked.hungery,living on the street;AND just happened to disagree w/the war, received donations you now have to give up your park bench,get three meals a day,roof over your head w/a room w/a view at Gitanamo.

In California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494 (1974), The Supreme Court stated that regulation are the law.
"[W]e think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone."
Executive Orders don't trump the Constitution. So let's take a closer look at this particular one. 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq is the first section quoted as authority for the Executive Order, but in reading 50 USC 1701, rather lengthy, the regulations are located in Title 31 CFR 536 Treasury Regulations and, 19 USC ( Customs) are listed concerning the assets that can be seized.

The authority for this executive order is located at 50 USC 1601, this section has been terminated, it was predicated on CONGRESS declaring WAR, not the President.

TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > DISPOSAL > ACT > §§ 1601 to 1603
Section 1603, act Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 416, § 3, 58 Stat. 745, provided for termination of sections 1601 to 1603 of this Appendix on the cessation of hostilities of World War II as determined by Presidential proclamation or congressional resolution. Proc. No. 2714, eff. Dec. 31, 1946, 12 F.R. 1, provided for the cessation of hostilities of World War II and is set out preceding section 1 of this Appendix.

The last section quoted as authority is 3 USC 301, however, in searching for the regulations on Cornell Law Library website, it states there are no regulations for this code section.

.The President instructs the Secretary to promulgate the regulations and the Secretary has failed to do so. This code section cannot be applicable to the general public, but could be on Federal Agencies. So what's left? lets consult the parallel table of authority for the answer. The authority for 3 USC 301 is listed as Title 31.Title 31 addresses the assets that are in question. Those that belong to a Foreigner. The sub-title of 31 CFR gives it away.

OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Parallel Table]
[Revised as of January 1, 2006]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
3 U.S.C.

301...31 Parts 536-542, 550, 560, 575, 585, 586--588, 590--592, 594,
595
32 Part 719
35 Part 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control
31 CFR Parts 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 560, 588, 594, 595.
end.
So who's effected, the definition of the "terms" are listed below
CHAPTER V--OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
§ 535.321 United States; continental United States.
The term United States means the United States and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof including the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The term continental United States means the states of the United States and the District of Columbia.

* comment); how does Congress define United States as the United States] the United States mentioned here is all insular possessions, this is maritime jurisdiction, outside the several states of the union.

§ 535.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any person wheresoever located who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person actually within the United States;
(c) Any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any partnership, association, corporation, or other organization wheresoever organized or doing business which is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This particular Executive Order appears far reaching but according to the regulations is very limited. It concerns assets of foreigners (no Constitutional Rights), and U.S. citizens (residing in insular possessions) subject to the plenary powers of Congress. The War Powers Act, which President Bush seems to be acting under, stipulates that before assets of even a U.S. citizen are seized, the matter must be adjudicated in a United States District Court. In addition, the only time the president has powers in the states is when the governor of any state request help from the president.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

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.

You misunderstand your legalese there buddy. If they meant "one or more acts of violence", that's what they would have said. But notice how it is put. AN ACT or acts of violence... Do you see the subtle difference? No? Let me rewrite it in everyday english for you. A normal person would write your bolded phrase thusly: an act, or acts of violence .... Now, let me put it together, leaving out the violence part. an act, that (has) the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq.

Do you see it? "One or more acts of violence" is what they would use for normal laws.

Let's put it another way, if you disagree with me putting a comma in the phrase. "an act OR acts of violence". Now do you see it?



[edit on 22-7-2008 by sir_chancealot]

Originally posted by resistor

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.

What's my point? Seems rather obvious to me, but I'll explain it a bit since it was a small aside.

The pictures denote serious partisanship. It shows their lack of reason and professionalism.

While the picture may not be doctored, it certainly doesn't show what many think it shows or want it to show. Bush is the big bad boogie man right? Scary.

Ya this ones got me a lil upset. it reminds me of the cuban missle crises and groing up in the 80's scared to death of the USA and the USSR getting into it

Bush is a Globalist looser! Shame on the Congress for allowing this incompetent fool to do as he wishes with no oversight!

Originally posted by xstealth

"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."

I'm glad you posted this, it's scary -- it appears to give Blackwater legal authority to loot those partisans who resist U.S. terrorism in Iraq.

We'd have to guess it's an unofficial amendment to Patriot Acts I&II.
Does it apply to anyone in the world, or just to U.S. Citizens. ...to U.S. citizens at home, or anywhere in the world?

In the 'new Germany' after WWII, it was legally made a crime to 'think' about opposing the government, if you were near a demonstration against the government. How did THEY know if you were thinking about it ... because you were at the demonstration in the first place.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by counterterrorist]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by counterterrorist]

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Sec. 4. I ... I ... prohibit ... donations

(b) ... 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

Well, considering the president is an inbred moron in the first place, his determinations are like frankenstein's and jack the ripper's.

Recently in Tibet, people were beaten and jailed for giving food to starving monks protesting China's imperialism, were they not?

Pretty soon it will become illegal to call Bush a moron or a sh*thead or genocidal murderer, ya think?

[edit on 23-7-2008 by counterterrorist]

Originally posted by karlkar

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494 (1974), ... 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq is ...authority for the Executive Order, but in reading 50 USC 1701, ...Title 31 CFR 536 Treasury Regulations and, 19 USC ( Customs) are listed concerning the assets that can be seized.

authority for executive order located at 50 USC 1601, this section has been terminated, it was predicated on CONGRESS declaring WAR, not the President.

my comment: Was the Shultz above George Shultz?

you also cited:
CHAPTER V--OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
§ 535.321 United States; continental United States.
The term United States means the United States and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof including the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The term continental United States means the states of the United States and the District of Columbia.

my comment: well, Iraq is certainly under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

§ 535.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any person wheresoever located who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person actually within the United States;
******(c) Any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any partnership, association, corporation, or other organization wheresoever organized or doing business which is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section****

******such as Blackwater & Kroll, I would imagine, and any U.S. terrorist &/or mercenary groups incorporated domestically but deploying death-squad terrorist operations and mercenaries overseas ... and, any additional private contractors hired by them? I'd say yes, that's legalizing more theft and murder, typical of the Fed and Bank of England, the U.S. and Britain, the corporation of the U.S. and the corporate City of London known as 'the Crown'.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by counterterrorist]