another bush law

[solidground]

Tweetthis gives him even more dictatoral powers..put all the acts and bills hes passed in the last 7 years and if another terror attack or nationally emergencey happens, he will be our first king

Since the order seeks to circumvent both judicial and Congressional oversight, it renders unto the executive branch, and ultimately Mr. Bush, absolute power of law.
Editor's Note: Posted below is the recently dispatched Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, and notice to Congress of its issuance. It is a remarkably broad assumption of power taken unto the executive branch by George W. Bush.

While there are references to making persons that "... pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence ..." specific targets of this action, the order also names a far broader spectrum of individuals and actions that may be subject to punitive measures as well. Mr. Bush's order names persons that "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."

Further, while this order empowers/instructs "... officers and agencies of the United States Government ..." to assist in its enforcement, ultimately judgment is rendered to members of the executive branch, each of whom serves at the pleasure of Mr. Bush. Since the order seeks to circumvent both judicial and Congressional oversight, it renders unto the executive branch, and ultimately Mr. Bush, absolute power of law.

Congress has moved in recent weeks to confront Mr. Bush, his cabinet and staff. At the center of each Congressional action against the White House is what Congressional leaders view as misuse of executive privilege. - ma/TO
Go to Original

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
Office of the Press Secretary
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Fact sheet: Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
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, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(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
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(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.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(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.
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.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072207A.shtml

[solidground]

Tweetexplanation

President Bush's newest executive order states that any American citizen who threatens the peace and stability of Iraq and undermines efforts to promote reconstruction and reform there may have all their property and interests seized by the Treasury department without warning. The hypocrisy on display here is astounding given that the only persons in America who are doing these things are the ones who invaded Iraq in the first place and continue to sow chaos and destruction in the face of all time high public opposition.

The Executive Order titled 'Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq' was signed last week on the 17th of July and acts as an amendment to the National Emergencies Act.

While many have decried it as the latest in a string of legislation that constitutes a crack down on protest and free speech, few have pointed out the ultimate irony that under this order high ranking members of the Bush administration are the only ones that should be punishable.

The order focuses on

...acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq
stating that since such acts pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" of the United States, "all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States" should be "blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in".

The order states that those who are subject to it include:

...any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(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
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Which "persons" in America were the ones who, according to the National Intelligence director, manipulated and altered the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities because they "didn't like the answers" they were provided, thus providing a pretext to undermine the stability of the government of Iraq in the first place?

Which "persons" in America are responsible for initiating a war which has seen somewhere in the region of 655, 000 innocent Iraqis lose their lives?

Which "persons" in the U.S. are responsible for the orchestration of Death squads in Iraq?

Which "persons" in America, according to high ranking army officials and investigators are responsible for operating coordinated torture programs throughout Iraq?

Who are the "persons" in the U.S. calling for the balkanization of Iraq and its dissolution into three territories, and which "persons" have formulated plans such as the Salvador Option and P2OG, the objective of which is to provoke violence and separation amongst Iraqi tribal groups?

Which "persons" in the US are responsible for constructing highly unpopular separating walls around Baghdad neighborhoods despite the continued protests of the Iraqi government?

Which "persons" in America are arming, training and funding Sunni insurgents, the very same people they are supposedly in pitched battle with?

Which "persons" in the U.S.are now reportedly planning to topple the democratically elected government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because they are opposed to his strong criticism of widespread and unwarranted interference by Washington in Iraqi domestic affairs?

Which "persons" are responsible for sending a further fifty thousand troops into the country saying they wish to quell the violence but instead end up increasing it to all time highs?

So given all these facts, whose actions towards Iraq are responsible for endangering the national security of the U.S.and whose properties and interests should be at risk?

One thing is for sure, it's not peaceful anti-war protestors.

[Powerpress]

TweetWe need an easier way to get rid of peace of s.h.i.t. presidents.

[Rolsroyce]

Tweetwell the whole terrorism bullshet and homeland security crap basically screws everyone in our country because all they have to do is say you are a terror suspect and they can come into your house and do what they want. Its all bullshet. Fing Bush and crew....

[GBAGH]

TweetThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[solidground]

Tweet^ its comming bro..just to name a few, the patriot act, military tribunal, NSPD51, HSPD20, military commisions act 2006 all give him and our Departments of "__" rediculous dictating powers..People dont realize that these powers can come from something like a flu outbreak and that we are in true danger of losing our republic..I wish our Media covered these stories instead of Paris Hilton because people would be outraged if they knew it was going on and the threat the laws impose.

[T-Man007]

TweetWell, not that I disagree with you but I know why he is doing all this. Imagine someone is in fact envoloved with a Terror cell and LE goes in and gets them. Then, the case gets thrown out of court because of a violation of someones's rights or something like that. The fuker walks. I know it sucks for the rest of us and I don't like it, but I much more dislike the thought of a terrorist person that can't be caught. Nothing would bother me more than for there to be a person associated with terror groups and our LE not be able to do anything about it becasue their hands are tied. What this is, is an attempt to untie the hands of LE when it comes to terror. The flaw, however, is that it's written so vaguely that it makes it too easy for LE to just come through your door. But, on the flip side, it makes it harder for people who are envoled in this to get off on a technicality. So, for me, it's a love/hate thing. I love the fact these fukers won't walk free but I hate the fact it takes my privacy away. With that said, I know if I have nothing to worry about then it won't effect me at all. LE isn't just going to start kicking doors in unless you are seen hanging out with suspected terrorists. So, no body hang out with Mikey and we should all be ok. If we see Mikey in public, walk the other way. LOL

[solidground]

Tweet^ Well thats what everyone thinks these laws are for because thats what they lead you to believe, and if they were i would agree with them..But as you said, If the laws are for terrorists then they should be more specified, The patriot act and a few others made anyone who breaks a law a terrorist, in other words anyone on this board using aas can be a terrorist, and have no right of habeus corpus..It all comes down to whether you trust your govt will do the right thing or abuse their powers. Tman, you just trust them to do the right thing more then me, this admin and previous ones have lost my trust..I rather have them do things the old fashion way, in other words if theres an illegal (doesnt have a citizens rights anyway), that is threatening Americas safety, the govt should take care of it, but nothing should be on paper making it legal, its just shady.

im tellin ya...everyone needs to watch this movie to till the end to see what their agenda is:

https://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

will watch it tonite, im assuming its about masons/illuminati/Nwo, if so i agree.

[solidground]

Tweetthe executive order includes control of science???..Totalitarianism?

Through an Executive Order that gives political appointees final say regarding science-based federal agency regulations and the appointment of an anti-educationist to head the Office of Management and Budget, US President George W. Bush is attempting to insulate his administration from congressional accountability while effectively turning federal scientists into White House puppets, a group of scientists warned today.

Union if Concerned Scientists and OMB Watch urged Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to question the President's nominee US Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) on his opinion of Bush administration Executive Order 13422, which goes into effect today.

The executive order bans any regulation from moving forward without the approval of an agency's regulatory policy officer, who would be a political appointee.

[Klash]

Tweet

I love the fact these fukers won't walk free but I hate the fact it takes my privacy away. With that said, I know if I have nothing to worry about then it won't effect me at all. LE isn't just going to start kicking doors in unless you are seen hanging out with suspected terrorists.

OK, T-Mann someones using your screen name. I know you better than that.

Yeah, the intention is not for LE to start kicking down the doors of innocent citizens but in this day and age with all the laws - who's innocent when the standard is government law. All it takes is an over zealous prosecutor, someone who has authority who just doesn't like you and your flagged. Five years from now the same legislation is given more authority with less probable cause. Now, your flagged and someone who doesn't like you has the authority just to phuck with you because they can and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, because the law is on their side. I'll take my risk with "terrorist" .

[PL456]

Tweetwell, dont screw with our efforts in iraq and this new "dictatorial law" wont apply to you. these cut and run liberals would love for us to lose in iraq. is that what you want? do you want us to walk out and for all the fallen heroes efforts to be in vain? are you willing to try and force the US military to leave iraq for your political gains. thats what is really going on...these liberals are trying like heck to make it impossible for us to win so they can blame President Bush for the loss.
The British and Russians plus our own CIA said there were weapons there. what was President Bush to do? Saddam violated the UN cease fire treaty hundreds of times. Saddam repeatedly kicked out UN investigators. Saddam repeatedly violated cease-fire treaty by constantly firing on our planes patrolling the north and south no-fly zones. Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds in the 80's--proving at that at least at that time he HAD WMD. Saddam was a bad guy. He needed to go. We also needed a strategic military presence there. You cant allow these animals to have control over the world's oil supplies when their avowed desire is to destroy us---the only way of doing so for them is economically. All you liberals need to get a grip and pray for our troops and our president. I have supported everything Bush has done..the only slip he's made in my mind has been on border control.

[Klash]

Tweet

well, dont screw with our efforts in iraq and this new "dictatorial law" wont apply to you. these cut and run liberals would love for us to lose in iraq. is that what you want? do you want us to walk out and for all the fallen heroes efforts to be in vain? are you willing to try and force the US military to leave iraq for your political gains. thats what is really going on...these liberals are trying like heck to make it impossible for us to win so they can blame President Bush for the loss.
The British and Russians plus our own CIA said there were weapons there. what was President Bush to do? Saddam violated the UN cease fire treaty hundreds of times. Saddam repeatedly kicked out UN investigators. Saddam repeatedly violated cease-fire treaty by constantly firing on our planes patrolling the north and south no-fly zones. Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds in the 80's--proving at that at least at that time he HAD WMD. Saddam was a bad guy. He needed to go. We also needed a strategic military presence there. You cant allow these animals to have control over the world's oil supplies when their avowed desire is to destroy us---the only way of doing so for them is economically. All you liberals need to get a grip and pray for our troops and our president. I have supported everything Bush has done..the only slip he's made in my mind has been on border control.

I'm all for reigning hell on Islamic extremists, most particularly the insurgence in Iraq and the Iranians. If need be, lets take out the "Palestinians" and the "Palestinian" sympathizers - they're going to have to be dealt with eventually anyway. I cringe when I hear people actually believing pacifism and retreat are plausible strategies against an enemy **cough**cough**liberals**. But because a president has no intentions of misusing law, does not mean years down the road or in extraordinary circumstances those with the authority to use these laws on U.S. citizens won't.
What do you do when the government is holding a relative indefinitely because he is a "terrorist" or is a "risk to the stability in Iraq" and they won't confirm or deny that he is even being held? At that point it is too late.

[PL456]

Tweetlaws can always be repealed later---REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT---cough cough liberals--. we need tough laws NOW. dont mess up, you wont get in trouble.

[Klash]

TweetYeah, people said the same thing about the income tax, over 50 years ago but we needed funding for WWII.

[Rolsroyce]

Tweetwho cares what everyone thinks the reason for this crap is......Its unconstitutional and is there fore illegal in our country.