Seizing War Protesters Assets: Bush Criminalized Anti-War Movement

Sources:
Global Research, July 2007
Title: “Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement”
Author: Michel Chossudovsky
The Progressive, August 2007
Title: “Bush’s Executive Order Even Worse Than the One on Iraq”
Author: Matthew Rothschild
Student Researchers: Chris Navarre and Jennifer Routh
Faculty Evaluator: Amy Kittlestrom, PhD

Although slightly dated, I felt it important to remind us of these nice provisions, as a simple reminder of how any law that is as vague as this one concerning such an important subject is terrifying in its existence.

President Bush has signed two executive orders that would allow the US Treasury Department to seize the property of any person perceived to, directly or indirectly, pose a threat to US operations in the Middle East.

The first of these executive orders, titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” signed by Bush on July 17, 2007, authorizes the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to confiscate the assets of US citizens and organizations who “directly or indirectly” pose a risk to US operations in Iraq.

On August 1, Bush issued a similar executive order, titled “Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions.” While the text in this order is, for the most part, identical to the first, the order regarding Lebanon is more severe.

While both orders bypass the Constitutional right to due process of law in giving the Secretary of Treasury authority to seize properties of those persons posing a risk of violence, or in any vague way assisting opposition to US agenda, the August 1 order targets any person determined to have taken, or to pose a significant risk of taking, actions—violent or nonviolent—that undermine operations in Lebanon. The act further authorizes freezing the assets of “a spouse or dependent child” of any person whose property is frozen. The executive order on Lebanon also bans providing food, shelter, medicine, or any humanitarian aid to those whose assets have been seized—including the “dependent children” referred to above.

Vaguely written and dangerously open to broad interpretation, this unconstitutional order allows for the arbitrary targeting of any American for dispossession of all belongings and demands ostracism from society. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration says of the order, “This is so sweeping it’s staggering. I have never seen anything so broad. It expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population.”

I would like honest open debate about the realities of such a provision and how could any worst case scenario be carried out? It's seems particularly vindictive.

In an editorial for the Washington Times, Fein states, “The person subject to an asset freeze is reduced to a leper. The secretary’s financial death sentences are imposed without notice or an opportunity to respond, the core of due process. They hit like a bolt of lightning. Any person whose assets are frozen immediately confronts a comprehensive quarantine. He may not receive and benefactors may not provide funds, goods, or services of any sort. A lawyer cannot provide legal services to challenge the secretary’s blocking order. A doctor cannot provide medical services in response to a cardiac arrest.” Fein adds, “The Justice Department is customarily entrusted with vetting executive orders for consistency with the Constitution. Is the Attorney General sleeping?”

www.projectcensored.org...

This is story #5 on Projectcensored's 25 censored stories for 2008-2009. I made a thread regarding all them previously.

ColoradoJens

[edit on 26-11-2008 by ColoradoJens]

OMG
...
.....
........
..........

stunned...

well what the heck then,,..

I advise all military to quit/walk away
do it now.... I beg you....

WAR IS MANUFACTURED CRAP.
War SUCKS
War comes from the REAL CRIMINALS...
think about it for about 2 seconds...thats all it should take to realize
we are being SCREWED....... BIG TIME..... HUGE TIME...

every day i feel like I am in an INSANE nightmare for which there is no
awakening, No escape...

How can these "People" be so cruel. so ... um.... EVIL

WTF WTF WTF

Would someone please help us?
Anyone?
no huh?

I do not understand...
All I know is Love, Life, Friends, Family, music .....ect

I`m not capable of hurting anyone or deceiving anyone or
screwing anyone for any reason period....

so like.....WTF WTF WTF

Don't worry. They'll have something for you to do.
www.army.mil...

reply to post by Maya432


They're imperialists That's why. They want our country to be a global empire and rule over all the world. They don't want people fighting them.

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.

reply to post by karlkar


Karlkar: Excellent information, thanks. I understand the nature of the war-time provisions but I am unclear as to when a war is indefinate, how does this apply?

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.

In the case of the President overriding the congress and declaring war, is there any case for him to enforce these new (5 months old) provisions?

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?

you then go on to say...

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

It seems fairly far reaching by this definition. As with all laws that are written, I again stress the need for debate as to potential affects.
Thanks again for the info!

ColoradoJens

Once again I will post this link to a thread I made a while ago

A top general exposes the NWO and that war IS a racket

Smedley Butler - Pawn of the NWO
www.abovetopsecret.com...


read it, learn and then share it