PDA

View Full Version : New executive order: anti-war activists may have assets seized/frozen




mdh
07-18-2007, 11:09 AM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

This is big, it also states that we are currently in a state of national emergency which is a big deal based on other executive orders and directives regarding powers granted the EOP during times of national emergency.

torchbearer
07-18-2007, 11:16 AM
the fall of our republic. we are declared enemy of the state.

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 11:22 AM
INSANE!!! I can't believe this but it's true!!!

Patriot
07-18-2007, 11:27 AM
Sorry mdh, I think you are being a bit alarmist. I did not see anything in the order about protesting. It dealt with, violence, monetary aid and other types of tangible aid to "terrorists".

I don't like all these EO's or the war/emergency powers act, but I don't really think this will affect anyone other than a few non-citizen muslims who send money to "enemy combatants"

torchbearer
07-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Anti-war activist could fit the definition under that order as someone who is trying to prevent the reconstruction of Iraq.

DAZ
07-18-2007, 11:34 AM
I read the EO. What does this mean in plain English? Is it, as you say, that the assets of anyone who opposes the war can be frozen? Can making donations to politicians who want to leave Iraq constitute
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;?

Ok y'all are a bit faster than me apparently.

torchbearer
07-18-2007, 11:37 AM
regardless of our interpretation, its what ever the deptartment of treasury deems a threat under that order.

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 11:38 AM
Sorry mdh, I think you are being a bit alarmist. I did not see anything in the order about protesting. It dealt with, violence, monetary aid and other types of tangible aid to "terrorists".

I don't like all these EO's or the war/emergency powers act, but I don't really think this will affect anyone other than a few non-citizen muslims who send money to "enemy combatants"

Remember, the definition of "terrorist" is very wide now since the Patriot Act. In a rush, don't have time to provide new definition.

mdh
07-18-2007, 11:39 AM
Sorry mdh, I think you are being a bit alarmist. I did not see anything in the order about protesting. It dealt with, violence, monetary aid and other types of tangible aid to "terrorists".

I don't like all these EO's or the war/emergency powers act, but I don't really think this will affect anyone other than a few non-citizen muslims who send money to "enemy combatants"

I think you're being a bit too forgiving of government. Government always wants people to take what it says and does as benevolent, as you have here. We should let government have the powers it wants so that it can use them to fight The Bad Guys, right? ;)

jjschless
07-18-2007, 11:47 AM
I'd like to hear how Dr. Paul interprets this new EO.

freelance
07-18-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm afraid it doesn't really matter how Dr. Paul or any other lawmaker would interpret it. It means whatever the Executive Branch wants it to mean on any given day. It's then up to the individual to go through the system!

I hadn't expected this to come to a head at the end of summer. I am particularly disturbed by the repeated use of the phrase, "national emergency."

mdh
07-18-2007, 12:06 PM
It's interesting, because if you look at this executive order from back in May...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

You note that being in a state of national emergency grants dictator powers to the EOP. Then this one from yesterday states clearly that we are in a state of national emergency. Hmmm!

beermotor
07-18-2007, 12:32 PM
I'll just note that it specifically says "act of violence." If you believe that the government will adhere to its own laws (har har), then it'd have to be an act of violence that undermines the efforts, yadda yadda.

So, God help you if you stage a big peaceful rally and someone throws a brick at a cop car.

mdh
07-18-2007, 12:40 PM
I'll just note that it specifically says "act of violence." If you believe that the government will adhere to its own laws (har har), then it'd have to be an act of violence that undermines the efforts, yadda yadda.

So, God help you if you stage a big peaceful rally and someone throws a brick at a cop car.

The wording 'acts of violence' is used for one stipulation, not the others.

mdh
07-18-2007, 12:41 PM
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:


And now you don't even have to *actually* commit an act of violence. They just have to think you migh, at some point, or something, do so. Re-read it. It *is* as concerning as you first thought.

freelance
07-18-2007, 01:06 PM
an act of violence that undermines the efforts

Anything that "undermines the effort," or would that be shows a lack of support for the troops, would be a priori an act of violence in the Executive branch's realm.

AZ Libertarian
07-18-2007, 01:12 PM
A yahoo search for 'was Executive Order 13303 ever rescinded?' generated the article HERE: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/11/29/the-end-of-hyperpower/
in the comments about halfway down a 'Katz' posted the following on November 30th, 2004 at 2:49 pm:

"*On the subject of US economic interests in Iraq it is noteworthy that Bush amended within the last 24 hours his notorious Executive Order 13303, ending the proclaimed state of national emergency, but maintaining the immunity of private oil interests from prosecution. On the other hand, the immunity of the Iraqi government from prosecution is rescinded, backdated to the end of June 2004."

This:
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGknF4Zp5GNG0B_vxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhc240dGl xBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTMEY29sbwNzazEEdnRpZANGNjY2XzEwM gRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12rtsuu8i/EXP=1184872440/**http%3a//rebellenation.blogspot.com/2005_05_26_rebellenation_archive.html
led me here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050519-8.html
so I guess it sunsetted in 2006 and this is an extension of 13303 (with a twist) without a national emergency status to back it up.

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 01:52 PM
And now you don't even have to *actually* commit an act of violence. They just have to think you might, at some point.

I guess they don't even have to think you might, just say you might.

All their stuff is so vague. And this comes after NSPD-51. Why are they doing all this stuff? NSPD-51 is not normal! I remember RP saying on the AJ show that although we are not in a totalitarian state, the groundwork is being laid. I'd like to hear both of their interpretations of this.

torchbearer
07-18-2007, 01:59 PM
I guess they don't even have to think you might, just say you might.

All their stuff is so vague. And this comes after NSPD-51. Why are they doing all this stuff? NSPD-51 is not normal! I remember RP saying on the AJ show that although we are not in a totalitarian state, the groundwork is being laid. I'd like to hear both of their interpretations of this.

Have you sent a copy of this to the attention of alex jones?

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 02:07 PM
No, I didn't but I bet he's got it.

Roxi
07-18-2007, 02:20 PM
I'll just note that it specifically says "act of violence." If you believe that the government will adhere to its own laws (har har), then it'd have to be an act of violence that undermines the efforts, yadda yadda.

So, God help you if you stage a big peaceful rally and someone throws a brick at a cop car.


its been proposed that in some cases of peaceful rallies that have turned into "riots" that the person actually throwing a brick or rock at a cop or otherwise have been "plants" or "plainclothes officers" doing it to start the "riot" in the first place

mdh
07-18-2007, 02:23 PM
its been proposed that in some cases of peaceful rallies that have turned into "riots" that the person actually throwing a brick or rock at a cop or otherwise have been "plants" or "plainclothes officers" doing it to start the "riot" in the first place

I know for a fact that this regularly occurs in Sweden.

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 02:28 PM
its been proposed that in some cases of peaceful rallies that have turned into "riots" that the person actually throwing a brick or rock at a cop or otherwise have been "plants" or "plainclothes officers" doing it to start the "riot" in the first place

yeah, like the Seattle WTO protest. Here's a video on that:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-117068635177579895

briatx
07-18-2007, 02:38 PM
What, why worry about interpretation?

Especially coming from the administration who interprets the VP's office as not part of the executive branch. Who interprets Article 2 as giving the President boundless powers in foreign policy and war. Who interprets the Bill of Rights as allowing warrantless wiretaps, and who interprets no bid contracts to Halliburton and corporate subsidies as "free market".

If you're not doin anythin wrong[1] you've got nothin to worry about.




[1] definition of wrong is subject to change without notice according to the whims of the executive branch's interpretation of wrong

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 02:49 PM
What, why worry about interpretation?

Especially coming from the administration who interprets the VP's office as not part of the executive branch. Who interprets Article 2 as giving the President boundless powers in foreign policy and war. Who interprets the Bill of Rights as allowing warrantless wiretaps, and who interprets no bid contracts to Halliburton and corporate subsidies as "free market".

yeah, I should have used the word "commentary"

Roxi
07-18-2007, 03:37 PM
yeah, like the Seattle WTO protest. Here's a video on that:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-117068635177579895

WOW...sure gives us anarchists a bad name huh?

and why did they black that guys face out if they were going to put his name under it?

Birdlady
07-18-2007, 03:57 PM
This goes hand in hand with the article yesterday that stated. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top12jul17,0,968433.story?coll=la-ap-topnews-headlines)

"Beyond al-Qaida, the report also laid out three other potential terror threats to the country:

* Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.

* The number of homegrown extremists in the U.S. and its Western allies is growing, fueled by Internet web sites and anti-American rhetoric.

* So-called "single issue" terrorist groups probably will attack here on a smaller scale. They include white supremacists, anarchists and animal rights groups, such as Animal Liberation Front."

This is all making sense to me now.

angelatc
07-18-2007, 04:27 PM
Anti-war activist could fit the definition under that order as someone who is trying to prevent the reconstruction of Iraq.

Absolutely, and Bush depends heavily on loose interpretations.

angelatc
07-18-2007, 04:30 PM
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

Efforts to promote = propoganda.

(Is that a knock at my door? )

WannaBfree
07-18-2007, 04:30 PM
WOW...sure gives us anarchists a bad name huh?

and why did they black that guys face out if they were going to put his name under it?

Don't miss the other two parts - it's info we should all be aware of. Here are the links to all three parts:

Seattle WTO Protest

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAWslHmiok

part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0POPVIX6sf0

part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgxR9hQ2cb0

angelatc
07-18-2007, 04:32 PM
I know for a fact that this regularly occurs in Sweden.

It happened in Seattle at the WTO demonstration. Look up the Chicago 7, back in the 60's. They ended up with high ranking members of their "organization" that were actually CIA plants, designed to encourage violence and lawlessness.