Bush Executive Order Targets

[Bob26003]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072207A.shtml

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((1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702((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

( 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.

( 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.

( 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;

( the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

© 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((2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702((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.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Bob26003

[KingTomis]

Really not all that different from the drug dealer forfeiture laws we currently have on the books. They freeze the assets of dealers before they arrest them, or as they arrest them, to prevent them from being moved to a different location. Now the guys collecting funds for the insurgents in Iraq get the same treatment.

But then again, you only care that they might hinder terrorist operations worldwide since your are such a staunch supporter of anything anti-united states.

to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

How dare the government stop terrorists from killing people.

[Sgt._Love]

Really not all that different from the drug dealer forfeiture laws we currently have on the books. They freeze the assets of dealers before they arrest them, or as they arrest them, to prevent them from being moved to a different location. Now the guys collecting funds for the insurgents in Iraq get the same treatment.

But then again, you only care that they might hinder terrorist operations worldwide since your are such a staunch supporter of anything anti-united states.

How dare the government stop terrorists from killing people.

lol liked ur last part of the comment funny

[Bob26003]

Really not all that different from the drug dealer forfeiture laws we currently have on the books. They freeze the assets of dealers before they arrest them, or as they arrest them, to prevent them from being moved to a different location. Now the guys collecting funds for the insurgents in Iraq get the same treatment.

But then again, you only care that they might hinder terrorist operations worldwide since your are such a staunch supporter of anything anti-united states.

How dare the government stop terrorists from killing people.

It says deemed by the secretary of treasury along with sec. of Defense.

That doesn't sound like a fair trial to me.

[KingTomis]

He is stating that he will freeze assets to prevent transfer to destabilizing parties abroad and will use "IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order." so the powers are already granted, this just extends it to prevent organizations such as CAIR from funding terrorism

[Bob26003]

He is stating that he will freeze assets to prevent transfer to destabilizing parties abroad and will use "IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order." so the powers are already granted, this just extends it to prevent organizations such as CAIR from funding terrorism

A little too broad for my liking............

So basically if the Sec. of Treasury says you are a threat or "pose a significant risk of committing" they can take yer property and assets.

With no Courts involved? WIthout a hearing, without any type of trial.

I dunno, call me crazy but I can see this being used against the anti War movement. The Fed Gov. has a long history of meddling in the Anti War movement and popular movements.

They just can't be trusted with that type of authority IMHO. Nor should they be. We have Courts for a reason.

Hell they crushed the Socialist movement in America (often violently), they crushed many labor Unions (often violently), They crushed the Black Panthers (violently), and they attempted to crush the Anti War movement (often violently) and they attempted to crush the civil rights movement (violently)

Edited July 25, 2007 by Bob26003

[__Kratos__]

A little too broad for my liking............

So basically if the Sec. of Treasury says you are a threat or "pose a significant risk of committing" they can take yer property and assets.

With no Courts involved? WIthout a hearing, without any type of trial.

That's just awesome... *goes to report Bob as a home grown terrorist*

I dunno, call me crazy but I can see this being used against the anti War movement. The Fed Gov. has a long history of meddling in the Anti War movement and popular movements.

They just can't be trusted with that type of authority IMHO. Nor should they be. We have Courts for a reason.

Hell they crushed the Socialist movement in America (often violently), they crushed many labor Unions (often violently), They crushed the Black Panthers (violently), and they attempted to crush the Anti War movement (often violently) and they attempted to crush the civil rights movement (violently)

You're crazy.

Amusing that you listed all groups that have used violence in the past to try to further their goals. Craziness... The government protecting citizens... HOW DARE THEY!

[+joc]

Can you folks even imagine what we will get from Boob Bob if Hillary is elected......................

[Bob26003]

Oh how quickly you people are willing to throw your rights away. Its sad.

[AROCES]

Can you folks even imagine what we will get from Boob Bob if Hillary is elected......................

Oh, Hillary supporters will be cursing more than anyone else for she is the master of saying what needs to be said to certain groups and demographics.

[BrucePrime]

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.

Bob, I'm going to assume that because you are a drug addict, that you are a bit confused about law enforcement in the United States.

When any crime is committed in the United States, law enforcement (which serves under the Executive Branch on every level on the government, be it local, state, or federal) can make an arrest without first consulting the Judicial or Legislative Branch. Nor is a trial necessary to arrest someone. Judgement, on whether to arrest someone for committing a crime, often comes exclusively from the Executive Branch and it's officers and agents. Under the US form of government, the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcement of the law. It is their Constitutional power, and always has been -- enforcing a law is not a rendering of absolute power.

But, since you are a drug addict, we'll give you a pass, an assume you didn't know this. After all, you wouldn't be lying to us, and trying to twist the truth, would you? Although...that would be fitting for a drug addict, such as yourself.

[BrucePrime]

A little too broad for my liking...

So basically if the Sec. of Treasury says you are a threat or "pose a significant risk of committing" they can take yer property and assets.

With no Courts involved? WIthout a hearing, without any type of trial.

The Secretary of the Treasury can already do this, since it is the branch under which the Secret Service and IRS operate. The Treasury Department has the power to arrest and sieze assests under the laws it is charged with enforcing. Of course, you're a drug addict, so you may not have known this, or were a little confused.

And no, they don't have to have a trial just to arrest someone. This is not how law is enforced in the United States. You know this, drug addict, but you're trying to twist things. Stop it, you crazy drug-addict, you!

[ships-cat]

Hmmm... if someone is arrested, they can be held on remand without bail... losing both direct access to their assets, and more importantly, their liberty. So in this regard, the asset-freezing power is not really about losing rights under the constitution. However, a judge will only instruct a defendent to be held without bail after hearing from both the prosecution and defence, with various rights of appeal.

Is this also the case with the asset-freezing order ? Can it be overturned by the Judiciary ? If not, then this is simply state-sponsored theft, and must breach the constitution in a couple of places, to say the least ?

Meow Purr.

[BrucePrime]

Hmmm... if someone is arrested, they can be held on remand without bail... losing both direct access to their assets, and more importantly, their liberty. So in this regard, the asset-freezing power is not really about losing rights under the constitution. However, a judge will only instruct a defendent to be held without bail after hearing from both the prosecution and defence, with various rights of appeal.

Is this also the case with the asset-freezing order ? Can it be overturned by the Judiciary ? If not, then this is simply state-sponsored theft, and must breach the constitution in a couple of places, to say the least ?

Meow Purr.

Yes, the courts can un-freeze assests.

[ships-cat]

Yes, the courts can un-freeze assests.

Ahhh... sooooo.... whats the chronology ? I assume the Executive has to get a court order for the freezing of the assets (a Bank is hardly likely to just accept a fax from the white house), but at this stage the 'suspect' is not alerted ?

Then - once frozen - the suspect can apply for a judicial review ?

I'd be interested to know how long this latter process takes. If assets are frozen, are you not effectively preventing the accused from - for example - hiring a lawyer ?

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

Ahhh... sooooo.... whats the chronology ? I assume the Executive has to get a court order for the freezing of the assets (a Bank is hardly likely to just accept a fax from the white house), but at this stage the 'suspect' is not alerted ?

Then - once frozen - the suspect can apply for a judicial review ?

I'd be interested to know how long this latter process takes. If assets are frozen, are you not effectively preventing the accused from - for example - hiring a lawyer ?

Meow Purr.

Easy, first you go to Salvation Army handouts, then you beg until you get enough money for the lawyer's retainer and then the war is over and you get your assets unfrozen.

[BrucePrime]

Ahhh... sooooo.... whats the chronology ? I assume the Executive has to get a court order for the freezing of the assets (a Bank is hardly likely to just accept a fax from the white house), but at this stage the 'suspect' is not alerted ?

It depends on the crime. In many cases the assests can be frozen without prior judiacial review.