Thinking of protesting the war? Think again...

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq



White House News


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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.

Somewhere in Hell, Hitler is smiling broadly....
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
He could not have thought of or said any of this. He's not that smart. God help us.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Effo

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Effo

Maybe Bush can be tried under his own order. By having American troops on Iraqi soil the people can not get around to govern themselves because of all the attacks against American forces.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Strange how he followed the Dem's to So Carolina to cover there answers with saying. Iraq and 9/11 over and over trying to make it seem it's just so. He and Cheney still think 9/11 somehow ties in.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
Let me translate some of the "big words" for you hippies. This order does NOT state that you can not peacefully assemble and protest the fight on terrorism. This order says that you can not do it violently. Nor can you support those extremists that do it violently.

You know, like the dopey crazy anti-war person that shot a member of the Air Force in the street one day because he "wanted to make a statement"



(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:

(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.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
You know, like the dopey crazy anti-war person that shot a member of the Air Force in the street one day because he "wanted to make a statement"
Really. Well, I'm glad Bush finally spelled out what we can and can't do. I was under the impression it was perfectly legal to shoot people.:rolleyes:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Marine I agree with you. But with this group we have in W H now it's scary. And with attorney general who has no clue what he said today or his job meaning. Double Scary.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
Really. Well, I'm glad Bush finally spelled out what we can and can't do. I was under the impression it was perfectly legal to shoot people.:rolleyes:

yes smurph, this one: (the NYT didn't cover it so you might not have seen it)
A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and ?wanted to make a statement? on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force Base loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.
Local media outlets have gathered a few news tidbits about the shooter, Matthew Marren, who killed himself after attacking Schrieken outside his Willingboro home. Schrieken roomed with a few other servicemen in the rented house. Schrieken did not know Marren. PhillyBurbs.com reported that a relative said Marren was ?angry at the government and wanted to make a statement? on Independence Day. Authorities found two suicide notes that ?were indicative of an individual suffering from mental-health problems.?

My son?s best friend, Jon, who?s in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base, was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22-year-old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said ?not any more? and shot him point-blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Let me translate some of the "big words" for you hippies. This order does NOT state that you can not peacefully assemble and protest the fight on terrorism. This order says that you can not do it violently. Nor can you support those extremists that do it violently.

You know, like the dopey crazy anti-war person that shot a member of the Air Force in the street one day because he "wanted to make a statement"



(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:

(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.




In this day of "do not question the course of this administration..." and we can warp the truth" and we have the attorney general in our pocket, to back up anything we say or do"

Does any body seriously think that these words could not be used against the participants of an anti-war demo that got "out of hand" and perhaps destroyed a military vehicle or injured a policeman?

Not that that would happen in this generally dumbed down, out of shape nation of sheeple..
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
yes smurph, this one: (the NYT didn't cover it so you might not have seen it)
A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and ?wanted to make a statement? on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force Base loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.
Local media outlets have gathered a few news tidbits about the shooter, Matthew Marren, who killed himself after attacking Schrieken outside his Willingboro home. Schrieken roomed with a few other servicemen in the rented house. Schrieken did not know Marren. PhillyBurbs.com reported that a relative said Marren was ?angry at the government and wanted to make a statement? on Independence Day. Authorities found two suicide notes that ?were indicative of an individual suffering from mental-health problems.?

My son?s best friend, Jon, who?s in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base, was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22-year-old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said ?not any more? and shot him point-blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself.

I guess you missed my point. Shooting people is already against the law, so what's the purpose of issuing some executive order that merely restates the obvious?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
In this day of "do not question the course of this administration..." and we can warp the truth" and we have the attorney general in our pocket, to back up anything we say or do"

Does any body seriously think that these words could not be used against the participants of an anti-war demo that got "out of hand" and perhaps destroyed a military vehicle or injured a policeman?

Not that that would happen in this generally dumbed down, out of shape nation of sheeple..

Sure Marine does. For some strange reason a lot of the military is brainwashed by these Republicans like they have their backs at all times. Why? One of the great mysteries of our time.
 

flapjack

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,244
7
0
In this day of "do not question the course of this administration..." and we can warp the truth" and we have the attorney general in our pocket, to back up anything we say or do"

Does any body seriously think that these words could not be used against the participants of an anti-war demo that got "out of hand" and perhaps destroyed a military vehicle or injured a policeman?

Not that that would happen in this generally dumbed down, out of shape nation of sheeple..


Annnnd, injuring a police officers or destroying military vehicles shouldn't be a crime? Not that that is what this law states or addresses.

I'm no lawyer, but reading and rereading this law, I cant for the life of me see what would be wrong with passing a law against people raising money or providing support to terrorists. But, maybe I just a sheep who doesnt like to see people helping other people kill US citizens.
 

flapjack

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,244
7
0
Yes, illegal, but I think this law is about seizing their property and assets as well. Dont think thats too bad an idea.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
50
Fort Worth, TX
In this day of "do not question the course of this administration..." and we can warp the truth" and we have the attorney general in our pocket, to back up anything we say or do"

Does any body seriously think that these words could not be used against the participants of an anti-war demo that got "out of hand" and perhaps destroyed a military vehicle or injured a policeman?
Not that that would happen in this generally dumbed down, out of shape nation of sheeple..

I thought that was the point of this Order. To punish people that DO get out of hand and destroy a military vehicle, injure a policeman, throw bricks through windows of recruiting offices....
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
78
So Cal
Last time I checked the Consititution gave us the right to peaceful assembly so I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over that issue.

However, there is some stuff there that is probably unecessary and a scare tactic.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top