Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Executive Order

Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

hmmm...Democrat property?


(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.

Maybe, maybe not


Powered by ScribeFire.

8 comments:

Burn Beyond Recognition said...

Yo Marvin,

So wouldn't Republic-rat(ic) and Demo-can property be forfeit there too Mr. Deft Political Analysis? Come on. Cut it with the tribal two-party system slapstick. Like there's any real difference between them at this late stage in our has-been democracy. Take the red pill bub... For your groupthink schadenfreude is like an inside joke for passengers on a sinking ship. Kinda rifuckulous...

The ruse of a bicameral scheme of governance is propped-up by K Street lobbyists who use this illusion to make it seem plausible, if not patriotic, to attack your fellow citizens as an expression of your "freedom." All this while duping you with the oldest imperial strategy in the book: divide-and-conquer. "We care about you, but not them..." So who has blue eyes and who as brown? And what's the frickin' difference since we're all mortal anyway, huh?

So for all the vaunted and seemingly jingoistic sentiment of the grandiloquent Declaration of Arbroath epigraph at the top of your blog, I don't know if you have a real appreciation for what the people you malign are capable of should the neocons have the chutzpah to forcibly exact from them their fourth amendment protections with such a vague piece of skullduggery. You're loading a spring that they can't build enough FEMA camps to contain...

Along with the "National Security Professional Development" executive order that was released in May of this year, don't you have an inkling that such plenary power wrested in a "Unitary Executive" might have an effect on the lives of bully-boy, matchstick men too? And don't you know, whether a person poses in military drag to mask their blatant insecurity or not, when the jig is up, the jig is up... Yamean?

So if you had been able to critically think beyond cheer-leading and pee-the-bed glee for your awkwardly petulant and partisan interpretation of this executive order, you might have been able to glean some the nuisance of what such a dictatorial gesture on the part of the resident in OUR Whitehouse might do to this experiment of self governance.

And no, splitting hairs and a battle of wits do not a democracy make. It takes reason (feat. Gore, Jefferson, Locke, and Rousseau et. al.).

For just because a person assumes they're "winning" some amorphous game from the comfort of their Barcalounger doesn't mean that they get to ride on the team bus just because they wear their colors and shake their pompoms in front of a wide screen TeeVee.

It takes an expansive intelligence to be compassionate, because you have to have the character to develop an ear for the "angels of your better nature" above and beyond the petty, caveman concerns for self. For which, without this ability you remain porous, un-inquisitive, and easily swayed by any snake-oil peddler that comes down the pike.

But stupid me.... What in the hell am I doing? I keep forgetting the pearls and swine maxim. For evolution is not on a continuum. And the pursuit of human perfectibility has been supplanted by the ubiquitous electronic appeal to our more base nature, which comes packaged as entertainment... And god-forbid someone reaches for the off switch! They're likely to pull back a nub...

namasté

S M said...

namaste

Lots of big words that say nothing.

Democrats are blocking progress in Iraq.
Democrats are looking forward to the bloodbath after the Democrats force our surrender in Iraq.
Except the surrender will not happen, Why not

Democrats are spineless and the Democrats are terrified of being blamed for the bloodbath.

Crawl back under our rock, namaste

j d said...

Oh, I get it. Your strategy is: Blame the Democrats, call them a bunch of names, and then call it a win. Never mind that King George IV's traitorous Republican party had control of Congress from 2002-January 2007. I think the war was on then too. (I refer to the War On Terror as well as the completely unrelated invasion of Iraq.) Yep, the Democrats have been blocking progress. Maybe that's why the recent NIE has noted that all those wonderful "security" measures enacted by King George, not to mention the invasion of a Muslim country that neither attacked nor threatened us, have not weakened the Islamic fanatics at all, and that we are basically in the same security situation as we were in Summer 2001, when King George ignored the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Within United States" memo. Good going, your majesty!

Probably it was the Librul Media, then, that were blocking progress during those years.

And your solution? Democrats are traitors, so seize their property, declare them enemy combatants, and send them to camps and gulags. Hmm, I remember a couple of times in the last century that was tried. A guy named Joseph something... oh wait, it'll come to me... some Russian guy I think. And, um, Adolf something too. But I don't think he was Russian. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

The big words in the post above said plenty. You just chose not to read them, or couldn't understand them. Here's a few more. You might recognize the names.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." -- James Madison, The Federalist No. 47

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” -- James Madison (unsourced)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Convention, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison

"The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." -- James Madison, debates in the Constitutional Convention, 29 June 1787, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/629.htm

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. ... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...[V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Goering, in Gustave Gilbert, _Nuremberg Diary_ (1947), cited at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring

(You might also call this "Hitler's Lesson, Learned by Bush")

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Bejnamin Franklin

Back under your bridge with you. Or better yet, put on a uniform and go put your body where your mouth is. Oh, and take Chickenhawk Draft Dodgers Bush, "I had other priorities" Cheney and Lieberman with you.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/chickenhawks.html

S M said...

Namaste and J D

The major problem with liberals
is that liberals do not have a sense of humor.

Re-read my original post.

As to calling me, a Navy veteran, a chickenhawk.
I served for 7 years on sea duty.

j d said...

"The major problem with liberals
is that liberals do not have a sense of humor."

Typical. Confronted with information, history, the words of our Founding Fathers, you resort to evasion and more name-calling. There are some things about which a sense of humor is not appropriate. I don't find Holocaust jokes funny, and it's not because Jews don't have a sense of humor. The deaths of thousands of American servicemen and women (and counting), the waste of half a trillion dollars of our national treasure (and counting), and the deaths of in all probability hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and counting), are things I have trouble finding funny. Similarly, the descent of our constitutional republic into dictatorship I don't find funny. This is serious.


"Re-read my original post."


Unless you and Marvin are the same, you have no OP in this thread. Only your response to burn beyond recognition's comment. If you are one and the same, your OP says nothing. It's a quote of King George IV's recent decree that apparently allows him to seize the property of anyone he or his ministers (in their sole discretion) deem to be hampering, or aiding those who hamper, his "reconstruction and stabilization" (LOL) activities in Iraq.

Bruce Fein, a conservative Constitutional scholar, adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan, and author of the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, said of this order: "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice. This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population.... And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."

In either case, your response to burn beyond recognition says it all.

***

"As to calling me, a Navy veteran, a chickenhawk.
I served for 7 years on sea duty."

1) I assume you are planning, then, to return and help fight in this misbegotten adventure our servicemen and women are fighting on behalf of ExxonMobil, Halliburton et al.

2) I notice you say nothing about the other chickenhawks I mentioned, none of whom served their country when called (don't even think of bringing up Bush's cushy Texas ANG "service" set up by his daddy and Daddy's friends so he wouldn't have to 'Nam.)

3) So you served in the military, huh? Then upon entering service, you swore the following oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

Now, with that in mind, and with your evident praise of King George's Royal Decree also in mind, I ask you:

Was there some part of "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" that you didn't understand?

Do you even know where it comes from? If not, maybe try Googling it.

If you do, you obviously don't care. In fact, you seem to approve. Whole-heartedly.

Which makes you... a traitor to your oath, as well as a domestic enemy of the Constitution. The very person you swore to defend against. You have met the enemy, and he is you.

j d said...

A clarification to my previous post:

I wrote:

"this misbegotten adventure our servicemen and women are fighting on behalf of ExxonMobil, Halliburton et al."

Lest I be misunderstood, or intentionally misquoted, allow me to clarify:

Our servicemen and women are fighting bravely on behalf of their country, and on behalf of their fellow servicemen and women. They are doing their duty as best they understand it.

This government, particularly the President and Vice President, are fighting a war on behalf of ExxonMobil, Halliburton, et al., and they are using the lives, limbs and minds of our brave servicemen and women to do so.

That is a crime, and a disgrace.

j d said...

s m, I'm gonna concede one of your points:

You wrote:

Democrats are spineless ...

Yep, they are.

Half a year after their election, the still have refused to do anything significant to rein in this lawless, imperial, reckless, destructive administration.

A recent post by Glenn Greenwald makes the point well. The whole post is worth reading. URL:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/20/executive_privilege/index.html?source=newsletter

The post concerns one of the more recent outrages of this regime: its announcement that it will block any US Attorney from prosecuting a contempt citation referred to his/her office from congress, despite a clear Federal statutory mandate to do so.

His point (4) though, I will quote in full. It's a bit long but necessary.

(4) I confess some difficulty here in becoming particularly outraged over this latest theory. There is nothing new here. As has long been known, this administration believes themselves to reside above and beyond the reach of the law. What else would they need to do in order to make that as clear as can be? They got caught red-handed committing multiple felonies -- by eavesdropping on Americans in precisely the way the law we enacted 30 years ago prohibited -- and they not only admitted it, but vowed to continue to break our laws, and asserted the right to do so. And nothing happened.

This latest assertion of power -- to literally block U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting executive branch employees -- is but another reflection of the lawlessness prevailing in our country, not a new revelation. We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

Yes, it is true that, as various Democratic statements are claiming, this theory poses a constitutional crisis since, yet again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester.

There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lighting at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.

At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.

It has been six months since the Democrats took over Congress. Yes, they have commenced some investigations and highlighted some wrongdoing. But that is but the first step, not the ultimate step, which we desperately need. Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice.

S M said...

President Bush has pushed the limits of his authority...Something which wartime Presidents do.
FDR imprisoned thousand of US citizens without trial (Japanese-Americans)
FDR searched all international mail without warrants.

Clinton, a peacetime President, tried to read every email sent.

Bush has imprisoned 'enemy combatants'- people who by strict reading of the Geneva Conventions should have been executed after their capture on the field of battle.
Bush has listened to international phone calls involving suspected terrorists - a program which has been modified several times to ensure that only international calls to/from suspected terrorists are tapped.
Bush fired 8 US Attorneys - people who work 'at the leisure of the President of the US' - Clinton fired ALL 93 US Attorneys.

Bush has not trampled rights.
Bush has not committed an impeachable offense
- Unlike Clinton who committed lied to a Grand Jury while in office. (High Crimes and ....)

Bush scares you because he has the guts to push the limits of his authority.
Bush scares me because he doesn't push those limits far enough.