Question for the legal eagles: Is this upcoming executive order as nasty as I think it is

[Az]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

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


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within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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

[msongs]

1. so, what is the democratic party congressional doing about this, if anything? nt

[dkofos]

3. Nothing, as usual.

[Az]

2. Does this enable the President to confuscate the property of anyone that opposes the war?

That seems to be within its reach.

[grasswire]

4. looks like dissent is now criminalized

the rubicon is crossed.

[walldude]

5. The damn thing is so loosely worded that it seems

they can claim that anyone speaking out against the war could be in violation of all these "provisions":

(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.

I'm getting worried. When I get off the road next month I'm ordering passports for the rest of my family. Just as a precaution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence"

is the basis of the order. Somewhere, there has to be a connection to a potential, or actual, act of violence (acts of violence by the US government and its allies are presumably ignored). But once there is a potential act of violence, it seems to say any finance remotely connected with it can be taken. So, for instance, if someone goes to Iraq, and the US government claims they want to join the insurgency, they can take all their money, the money of people with whom they lived in any country, and so on. And the standard of proof is 'determination by the Treasury', not in a court.

If anyone's really at risk for this, it'll be people like Al Jazeera. Sooner or later, the US will accuse a journalist of being a potential terrorist, or terrorist supporter, and they'll seize Al Jazeera (or whoever) assets.

[warren pease]

9. How about anti-war protests that typically turn a little nasty when the cops incite a riot?

Would any protesters they could get their hands on be subject to this outrageous scam to steal whatever BushCo managed to miss through the tax code, deficit spending (which is a truly sneaky upward money transfer scheme since the taxpayer, at least those without competent tax attorneys and accountants, pay into the treasury's debt service fund even as the investor classes redirect that same money into their slimy pockets), and the rest of the rigged shell game that poses as monetary policy in this twisted kleptocracy.

Just curious, since I occasionally attend these events and, here in Portland, they tend to be a lot nastier than footage I've seen from other, calmer protests.


wp

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Hmm, I suppose they might try to interpret it that way

If it were a law, and the decision would be made in a court, I'd have said people in a protest, or riot, in the USA would be OK, because judges wouldn't go for so wide an interpretation. But with the US government doing it ... they'll try to get away with anything.

[flying rabbit]

6. The bottom line is

that this is not really necessary to continue the current regimes' actions. * could keep keepin' on with his machinations without it. So: A: somethings up or B: He just likes to remind us who the king is.

[JacquesMolay]

7. No one knows what this really is about ....

... certainly (A) is worded in a scary way. People are wondering if it could be construed to take action against war protestors.

[radfringe]

11. if the Dems won't stand up to bush/cheney

how can we believe they will stand up against other threats to our country?

[WritersBlock]

14. You know, that's a damn good question indeed.

I'd love to hear the Democratic leadership's answer to it.

[entanglement]

12. IANAL but this sounds like they're pi**ing on the 5th amendment?

[Heidi]

13. Kick. (nt)