Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

topic posted Sat, July 21, 2007 - 4:59 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 20, 2007
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php


The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of 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."

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..


Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack).

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007)

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government...."

Were NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy figurehead.

NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under Martial Law:

"This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.)

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNEX

TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

July 17, 2007

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is the text of the Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act


[There has been no response by the US congress or commentary by individual Senators or Representatives.]

Office of the Press Secretary July 17, 2007

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

White House News

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

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of 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.

I issued this order 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.

In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of 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.

The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined 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 designated pursuant to this order, or 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.

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority 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 my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

GEORGE W. BUSH

The White House,

July 17, 2007.
posted by:
Unsubscribed
  • Pretty goddamned scary.

    So, Righties ... what do *you* think of this?
    • Hooey, Dupey, and Loonie mode on.

      Oh this is nothing to worry about. For heaven's sake, it's against the constitution and the legislative branch will never allow it.

      did you people forget to put on your tinfoil hats today? LOL LMAO I hear moonbats don't you? Maybe we should all go to area 51 and demand to see the alien bodies. LOL

      mode off.

      Seems our little apologists are sleeping in this morning, so I thought I'd help get their pitch started.
      • > Seems our little apologists are sleeping in this morning, so I thought I'd help get their pitch started.

        Good job! Sounds just like 'em.

        There's also always, "Oh, this won't be used much. Just in egregious cases!"

        Like asset forfeiture. Remember? It was just supposed to be for major druglords, back in the 80's when the Reader's Digest was scaring us all to death with stories of the imminent collapse of civilization due to the cocaine trade.

        Tell that to the guy I met down at City Council, who had his bank account cleaned out, without anything *resembling* due process, for growing six cannabis plants.

        And then there's that always-handy Terrorist link. Today, cannabis farmers and eco-activists are Terrorists, according to the government. Who else will be considered a terrorist tomorrow?
        • The big fish get around actual forfeiture by paying off key people and business as always. Laws are chains for the underclass and swords in the hands of the overlord class.
          • There is a fine old German quote:

            "Kleine Diebe hängt man, große Diebe läßt man laufen."

            "The little thief, we hang. The great thief, we let escape/run."

            I want to do whatever I can to interfere with this state of affairs.

            At the very least, the Great Thieves probably shouldn't openly run the country. That was the idea behind our ditching the Monarchy. Too bad so many have let it reestablish itself.

            Sigh ... sometimes I try to figure out how it got this bad. My theory is that Cheap Entertainment (i.e. TV) served as a powerful enough distraction, and an awesome brainwashing tool. It keeps the dupes and slaves from realizing that they are dupes and slaves.

            I agree with d'zoner that these crapholes will figure out some way to shut down the Internet, or at least convert it from a collective tool to a hierarchical tool, controlled by authority, like TV and radio.

            (Weren't TV and radio originally supposed to belong to the people and be controlled by the people?)
      • <Oh this is nothing to worry about. For heaven's sake, it's against the constitution and the legislative branch will never allow it.>

        He's right. An executive order can not go against the constitution, but has to be within the framework of our laws as such. Bush and his administration are anti-constitution to the point of being anti-American, but this executive order is unlawful.
        • <...An executive order can not go against the constitution, but has to be within the framework of our laws as such. Bush and his administration are anti-constitution to the point of being anti-American, but this executive order is unlawful....>

          Do you really think that the current Supreme Court would _not_ rubber-stamp any egregious affront to the Constitution that $hrubco proposed? If you do, you're whistling past the graveyard.

          We've seen their utter contempt for legal precedent when they ruled that a health exception is not required in abortion laws, overturning 30 years of precedent. We can safely assume that they will not hesitate to rewrite the Constitution.
          • "Do you really think that the current Supreme Court would _not_ rubber-stamp any egregious affront to the Constitution that $hrubco proposed? If you do, you're whistling past the graveyard. "

            Then you're not paying attention since they've already overturned Bush administration actions
  • If they try it here they better come with an entire platoon.
    • Unsu...
       
      I don't support the war nor this administration but this article is sort of embarrasing. The writer is an hack who subjectively reads what he wants to into this executive order. He makes no mention of the fact that "committing acts or planning acts of violence" is a rather key statement in the order, it's not the anti free SPEECH item he wants to imply it is.

      I have little doubt this administration has and will abuse power to suit neo con ends but such misinformation and overstatement that this gentleman engages in suits no purpose.

      Well it may have given him a woody to vent so.
      • <He makes no mention of the fact that "committing acts or planning acts of violence" is a rather key statement in the order, it's not the anti free SPEECH item he wants to imply it is. >

        First I think it is important to keep in mind that "on the face of it " the order appears to repeat portions of homeland security measures already enacted by Congress. The distinction to be made is that Congress has more oversite on those laws so "errors in administration" which might constitute abuse are more easily seen and recinded/repaired an order from the President will not be so quickly scrutinized and remedied as we alreay see happening with this "Administration".

        Thos is no alarmist fantasy, John.
  • How many times do I have to tell you what an executive order is ~??

    The president can issue any god dammed exec order he wants saying any damn fool thing he pleases and it is never any more than instructions to his staff.

    That's it.

    All an Executive Orderr is instructions to the President's executive staff.

    The President does not have law making power.

    The President can not repeal your Constitutional rights.


    In this instance it's merely the president instructing the AG's office and staff to take a hard line position on certain violations of already existing law.

    • You guys know why we fail time and time again?

      Because you guys are so frigg'n knejerked that you are unable to see the reality from the hate-fed conspiracy. YOU are what causes us to fail so often, and this is a perfect example.

      'There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3.'

      You know what this means? This means that his orders are to be followed UNTIL SOMEONE OBJECTS.

      Here, there's more: "Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers."

      And......more: "To date, US courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the US government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll."

      Why? Because those executive orders WERE ILLEGAL!!!

      Shit, go and read this by yourself.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exec..._States%29

    • <...The President can not repeal your Constitutional rights...>

      But the Supreme Court CAN. And THIS Supreme Court would, in half a heartbeat.
      • <<...The President can not repeal your Constitutional rights...>>

        <But the Supreme Court CAN. And THIS Supreme Court would, in half a heartbeat.>

        Well, I'll wait until I see it happen. I don't doubt it, but I won't say for sure that this is the case.
        • Unsu...
           
          Great, because once the Supreme Court rules, we're shit out of luck.

          Losing our civil liberties is dangerous in itself; but the greater danger lies in the fact that once they're gone, it takes a Herculean struggle to get 'em back.

          Some would argue that that's been the POINT--that having the excuse of 9/11 provided Bushco with an opportunity to chip away at freedoms one tiny bit at a time, because Americans were paralyzed with fear. At the time losing a bit of freedom here and there seemed acceptable and reasonable. And, again, once they're gone, it's damn near impossible for them to be regained. Especially once the citizenry has grown accustomed to living without them.

          Problem is, we've been so complacent for so long, that Bushco threw all pretense and subtlety to the wind.
  • BASTID

    Sun, July 22, 2007 - 12:01 AM
    I hate this BoooooSH more every day
    • Re: BASTID

      Sun, July 22, 2007 - 6:40 AM
      That was a superb job of blowing smoke up people's asses and convincing them that they're on fire. Kudos for the administration apologists.

      There are two ways that authority gets it's decrees obeyed, citizen acquiescence and the muzzle of a gun.

      You forgot to define ''staff''.

      Joint Chiefs of STAFF, ain't that the top of the heap of the uniforms and gun crowd?

      I'll bet they sit around and debate constitutional law all the time and whether these prezzydential decrees honor the bill of rights or the safetyl and integrity of the American Way.
      • Re: BASTID

        Sun, July 22, 2007 - 8:02 AM
        "I'll bet they sit around and debate constitutional law all the time and whether these prezzydential decrees honor the bill of rights or the safetyl and integrity of the American Way."

        Well, we bot know that really they all have itchy trigger fingers or they wouldn't be in the line of work they are in. You're talking about the kind of people who enjoy killing, they made jobs of it.
  • "an act or acts of violence"

    Apparently some people didn't read the above words.

    Is the anti-war movement characterized by acts of violence?
    • <Is the anti-war movement characterized by acts of violence?>

      Um.......look at some of these people in THIS thread itself........do you doubt that some of these crazies would not commit violence?
      • Wow... looks like Ron and Cliff have sucked you into their ever-so-benign "best case scenario" interpretive thinking.

        >>an act or acts of violence"

        >>Apparently some people didn't read the above words.

        And apparently Ron didn't read the following words:
        "or to pose a significant risk of committing,"

        Ah, the wonderful and ever-subjective realm of "future-crime." Gotta love it.

        We've also got:

        "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"

        eg: Anyone who gave money, a sandwich, a carpool ride to someone subjectively determined to pose, at minimum, that "significant risk."

        And:

        "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."

        Purported: reputed or claimed; alleged

        And none of the individuals involved ever have to be convicted of any actual crime, they simply need to have been subjected to the "blockage" as outlined in this order, to say nothing of the "purported" aspect.

        Shall we keep going?

        "The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to... (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."

        So, if an individual determined to have given a sandwich to a character of "significant risk" also gave you a sandwich (or even to have been "purported" to have acted on behalf of such), you're now subject to the order.

        Yet for all this, I doubt we'll be "blocking" the assets of Blair or the Queen next time they step on US soil, despite the fact that SAS soldiers were caught shooting at Iraqi police, just as I doubt we'll be going after Blackwater or any other US-based merc group that's been involved in drive-by "joyrides" in Iraq.

        Of course, I don't know what's contained in "203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4))," so maybe we're all in the clear. :-P
    • Unsu...
       
      <<Apparently some people didn't read the above words.

      Is the anti-war movement characterized by acts of violence?>>

      "Violence" can mean a lot of things. It can mean poking someone in the shoulder. And you only need to be declared "violent" once. "An act" of violence. Of course the police would never declare someone to have been violent at any time unless they truly were violent, right?
  • <<Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

    How come this article is framed in this context when the executive order is in regards to violent acts, not the antiwar movement?
    • It is not only in regards to those who commit violent acts, but also those who, at the sole determination of "the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense," are determined to pose a "significant risk of committing" violent acts.

      Aside from that, it may even be possible for an insidious and overzealous interpreter to differentiate between "act" and "acts of violence," eg, "pose a significant risk of committing an act ... that has the purpose or effect of... undermining..."

      While I am not a lawyer, and some of the more archaic minutae of legal punctuation likely escape me, the directive does state "an act OR acts of violence." While some may read that as singular vs plural, what would be the functional use of including both? If it simply stated "an act of violence," would that not encompass "acts of violence?" As an example, one can look to Section 1, subsection b, wherein one only needs to assist a "person" who has been blocked as subject to the directive. It does not state "person or persons."

      Regardless of the issue of a general act vs a violent act, the subjective determination of who constitutes a "risk" of violence, regardless of whether such a crime has actually been committed, is enough to cause concern. Also note the lack of any judicial proceedings prior to seizure.
      • <<Regardless of the issue of a general act vs a violent act, the subjective determination of who constitutes a "risk" of violence, regardless of whether such a crime has actually been committed, is enough to cause concern. Also note the lack of any judicial proceedings prior to seizure.


        I do see that as an interesting point, although I don't see the corrolation with the Anti-War movement since they are a peaceful movement.

        Ron, can you fill us in on your interpretation of some of this legal speak that Abraxas is speaking of?
        • Regardless of whether or not it is "generally" a peaceful movement, according to the directive, it is up to the Secs of Treas, State, and Def, to decide whom they consider a "significant risk." (a direct violation of the fifth amendment's "due process" clause)

          Take a look at how many of the "generally peaceful" folks in Seattle got whalloped after a few idiots and provocateurs stirred the shit in '99, due to what the police considered a "significant risk."

          In a similar situation, with an idiot/provocateur "stirring shit" at an anti-war demonstration, under the directive, you're subject to the penalties of the directive if you gave the idiot/provocateur a bottle of water while marching down the street prior to them ever giving any indication of violent tendencies.

          P.S. I haven't used any "legal speak." You don't always need to be a lawyer to interpret law, you often just need a grasp of grammatical logic (or would that be logical grammar?) It's often basic (though just as often convoluted) "if / then" stuff... "if" you do this, "then" you're subject to this. From what I can see, the only tricky, legally technical part is the "act or acts of violence" part. I'm sure even Ron can admit that two lawyers can read two different meanings from the same law, and the final say can come down purely to the opinion of the presiding judge(s) (precedence notwithstanding).

          P.P.S. When will people ever get over the idea that anti-war = liberal?
          • *************according to the directive, it is up to the Secs of Treas, State, and Def, to decide whom they consider a "significant risk." (a direct violation of the fifth amendment's "due process" clause)-***************

            Not at all a violation. Any officer of the government ( or little old lady on the street -or derelict boozehound) can make a decision about whether you are a significant risk, a cock sucker, a total asshole, a major felon, a wonderful human being, a sexy hottie, a bad driver, a peroxide blond, - etc., etc.. Anyone cam make such decisions. What they can't do is deprive you of life liberty etc., without affording you due process - which translates to "whatever process that is due."





            • Wow... is your desire to whitewash so deep that you insist on engaging in the most obtuse interpretation of people's posts? Being that we're discussing asset seizure, it would stand to reason that I was referring to the criteria for seizure, in relation to the seizure, not just people making assessments for their own amusement.


              • ***********Wow... is your desire to whitewash so deep that you insist on engaging in the most obtuse interpretation of people's posts?************

                No desire to whitewash. I just responded to what the you posted, and you were in error.

                ***************Being that we're discussing asset seizure, it would stand to reason that I was referring to the criteria for seizure, in relation to the seizure, not just people making assessments for their own amusement. *****************

                You still have to get "due process." There is a grand jury and an indictment and then a motion for asset forfeiture - and you get to attend that motion hearing and be represented.

                • I like you Cliff, you make me laugh. But Bush is a fuckin' cocksucker. He's acting like a crook that fixed elections, and is doing everyting he can to screw non-rich Americans and anyone else that doesn't agree with him and his corporate cronies' agendas.. I'm saying that objectively..
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    On the winding road to finding my current place of bliss, I spent several years involved in the ultra right wing sect of the Republican party in the conservative suburbs of Houston, Texas. I actually became a leader of sorts in Houston and was on the board of directors of an organization called "Life Advocates" a group run and funded basically by the ultra conservative Hotze family.

                    I can speak with first hand knowledge of the cult like brainwashing and expectations of blind faith and the perceived absolute need to effect the goals of the Party. I know them and their fears and their drive due to my temporal programming that I experienced for a time while I was involved with them.

                    One critical aspect of their world view and the mindset of the foot soldiers, the mid level operatives, and the visible leaders of their movement is that they believe they are in the grips of a struggle for the spiritual and economic future of the World. Many of them feel they are fighting for God himself and against evil (Satan). Many of them feel their current plan will in effect bring back Jesus, but not until all the good folks have been raptured away prior to a few years of hell on earth. (Rapture idea contrived in 1800's by Brethren Movement and James Darby)

                    They also have an attitude of "the rules don't apply to us, cause we are the good guys" This is similar to the attitude police take in charging a suspect with something fabricated. They think, "well he/she surely has broke the law, just not the law we are charging them with, but they are scum anyway, so no bother".

                    The dualistic, antagonistic, and zealous mindset that "it is us against them and we must win at all cost", even at the cost of truth, the rule of law, and intellectual honesty, is exactly why people should be scared about this and other presidential directives and signing statements. They truly feel they are above the laws that they claim they are fighting to protect.

                    Rule of law only applies when it is convenient, and if not, then they issue a signing statement or presidential order or just don't tell anybody they are breaking the rules. The FBI handling or private data requests on private citizens and other law enforcement agencies activities these past couple years are cases in point.

                    I have not been the least bit surprised at the mode of operation of this administration. It is 100% in line with what I saw when in their ranks in the 90's.

                    I do not feel I have found the right words to convey the profound sense of horror I feel over these fearful, controlling, and contriving deviants who drape themselves in the flag while carrying the cross. They are full of fear and hate and only know that they must win, and they will do whatever they must to insure so.

                    Wake up America. As has been said before,

                    If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention

                    Regard
                    Vince

                    PS This week tribe censored my event postings for a peace rally here in Austin. The rally was to protest the war and to protest those who would commit hate crimes against those of us who peacefully protest the war. I was the victim of a violent hate crime attack last Friday, the day a major front page story ran in the Austin American Statesman dealing with my controversial anti war art. www.statesman.com/news/cont...ldier.html

                    I was sissy sucker punched full force in the back of the head and more by somebody who's hate became violence. I am OK.

                    The tribe postings never made it to my friends or any of the groups I posted the event to. It only showed up on my profile page and has since been bumped down with my subsequent postings in varied groups on varied topics.

                    Tribe is now part of the problem. Did somebody lean on them or are they predisposed to censorship? Any thoughts?

                    Regards
                    • Dealing specifically with the original message of this thread.

                      >> Tribe is now part of the problem. Did somebody lean on them or are they predisposed to censorship? Any thoughts?

                      Is it possible that they are worried about getting on the wrong side of the law and having assets seized?

                      Possibly this is also why, after initially telling me that this particular newspaper story in the Statesman was the beginning of their ongoing coverage of this critically important Free Speech and Constitutional issue and story, the Statesman has now reversed course and said they have no interest in any further coverage until maybe possibly after the Texas law goes into effect. This is even after they were made aware of the attack against the peace activist, me. Is it not odd that any media would balk at such a vivid example of hate crimes against a peace activist? Possibly because the cowardly attack was done by right wing fanatics (the offenders had a "W 04" bumper sticker on their vehicle) is why it was not covered, although if the media is so liberal this does not make much sense.

                      Regards
                      Vince
                    • Vince, I was a near-charter member of Focus on the Family (joined in, I think, 1978 or 1979), and I concur about the mindset, motives, and methods of these smug "Spiritual Warriors".

                      I also remember swaying and singing during a church service sometime in the early 80s, my eyes closed, hands in the air, as we prepared to hear a "special guest".

                      I opened my eyes to see a projected image of Ronald Reagan in front of a rippling American flag, while the speaker intoned about how God's Will for His Church in This Day was to, basically, Claim Our Country for Christ.

                      I, inconveniently for my continued happy sheephood, remembered at that moment that: (a) state churches had always done little good and much evil, and Christ himself had said, "my kingdom is not of this Earth", (b) the *real* heroes of the Bible weren't the people who raised their hands in the air or prostrated themselves before kingly/governmental authority, but rather, the people who *refused* to do so, and (c) no matter what the speaker was telling us, the US was *NOT* "founded as a Christian country" despite occasional vague religious language in some early documents (none of them, BTW, the Constitution.)

                      That was when my first serious Case of the Creeps developed in that church.

                      It is also amusing, at this point, to remember how paranoid these folks were, back in the early 1980s, that a Democratic Administration would start *spying* on everyone via our TVs and hidden cameras, and tapping our phones, and advocating a national ID system (to culminate in our being forced to accept the Mark of the Beast) and abrogating civil rights, especially rights of property, assembly, and free speech. This Democratic Administration was *also* going to bring about the Evil One World Government by commingling the finances and economies of all countries, and by dissolving borders between nations, and first marginalizing, then defaming, then locking up, all the heroic dissenters.

                      Hmmm.
                      That crowd now thinks that stuff's *great* when it comes from the Republicans. Sigh ...

                      You all have no idea how absolute their authority was over their followers.

                      Anyway -- such terrible hypocrites do damage, serious damage, to others, and pat themselves on the back for being such great little Soldiers of Christ.

                      Christ would have chased them with a whip.

                      Matthew 23, everybody.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    *************like you Cliff, you make me laugh.*****************
                    I love you too.


                    ************But Bush is a fuckin' cocksucker.*************
                    Ohh dude that sounds so hostile.

                    ***************He's acting like a crook that fixed elections,**************
                    "like a crook that fixed elections" You aren't suggesting that he fixed an election are you? Cause if you are I'll suggest you read the online supreme court holding on the florida recount. The court was protecting civil rights and the state of florida was tramping all over them - FL has a long history if ignoring civil rights.


                    ****************and is doing everyting he can to screw non-rich Americans and anyone else that doesn't agree with him**********


                    I don't think he's thinking about those non-rich people in such a nasty context. Rather he's just out of touch. He seems to have a real soft spot for impoverished mexicans.



                    ******************* and his corporate cronies' agendas.. *************************

                    He listens to people whom he knows and trusts (exactly like any president does) and those people happen to be corporate people. It's not a big shocker that the people who know how to accomplish very large mission goals also happen to have done it before and succeeded and gotten wealthy doing it.
                    It's hard to argue with success.


                    *************I'm saying that objectively..******************

                    You are huh?
                    • >>Ohh dude that sounds so hostile.
                      Gonna turn me in, get me deported? Oh wait, I'm an American, and I can say what I want (short of threatening to kill the cocksucker - which I'm not, to you lurker toadies).

                      >> supreme court holding on the florida recount. The court was protecting civil rights and the state of florida was tramping all over them - FL has a long history if ignoring civil rights.

                      The same Supreme Court that selected the President? Sorry, no credibility there, especially with a few more of Bush's wingnut appointees. Harriet Miers? RU Kidding me?

                      And why won't Diebold machines make a printout of what people voted for verification yet? WHY??? Because a cocksucker Republican who guaranteed Bush a victory in 2004 owns the company.

                      >>I don't think he's thinking about those non-rich people in such a nasty context. Rather he's just out of touch. He seems to have a real soft spot for impoverished mexicans.
                      -Funny. Or maybe all of his rich Friends save a bundle hiring impoverished Mexicans.

                      >>He listens to people whom he knows and trusts (exactly like any president does) and those people happen to be corporate people.
                      -Yeah, but when they steer you into a 24% approval rating, maybe it's time to say "Maybe these are the wrong people to go to - they don't represent what Americans approve of" But let's face it, he doesn't care about non-rich Americans.

                      Yes, this is an objective rant, dammit..

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"