Thanks Dubya! One more reason to invest in gold bullion

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by demosfen, Jul 20, 2007.

  1. #1
    US just implemented 4th plank to Communist manifesto -
    keeping money in the bank is no longer safe for anyone but anti-peace protesters. Bush gives Secretary of Treasury power to determine who is potential anti-war protester and take away their property.


    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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.
     
    demosfen, Jul 20, 2007 IP
  2. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #2
    I am horrible when it comes to reading and comprehending legal mumbo jumbo, but I think the main point is in this sentence:

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

    I don't think an average war protestor would need to be concerned, but probably a war protestor that uses or causes violence would.
     
    Rebecca, Jul 20, 2007 IP
  3. demosfen

    demosfen Peon

    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    24
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Anyone who poses risk of committing violence in the future, at discretion of Secretary of Treasure. No court order or anything, to hell with habeas corpus. And of course Secretary of Treasure is expert. He knows everything about anti-war protesters and is famous for predicting the future. Spent all his life investigating crime.
    It's a nice way of filling holes in the budget
     
    demosfen, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  4. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #4
    It's George's NWO where the rights of the individual and the spirit of the constitution are nothing more than memories.
     
    guerilla, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  5. samantha pia

    samantha pia Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,639
    Likes Received:
    482
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #5
    it basically says that anyone that makes a donation to a terror group or such, will have their assets taken
     
    samantha pia, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  6. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Exactly, i can see why some will not be happy with this though;)
     
    Toopac, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  7. WebdevHowto

    WebdevHowto Peon

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Wow, I just cannot believe how far this Administration is going. The fact that they say "pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence" is such broad language that it leaves the door wide open for serious abuse of Amercian Citizen's rights.

    I hope the citizens of the US wake up before it is too late.
     
    WebdevHowto, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  8. Toopac

    Toopac Peon

    Messages:
    4,451
    Likes Received:
    166
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Do you believe it's a front to seize assets at will? just like the government detains innocents at gitmo at will?:rolleyes:
     
    Toopac, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  9. WebdevHowto

    WebdevHowto Peon

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    I believe it is a front to create fear in those that would strongly speak out against the War in Iraq and actively encourage others to do the same. I also think it allows the Administration to seize the assets of US citizens who are fully within their constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech.
     
    WebdevHowto, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  10. demosfen

    demosfen Peon

    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    24
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Keep in mind that it's all at discretion of Secretary of Treasure... No investigation, no trial, no appeals court, nothing
    Of course anti-peace protesters are relatively safe, it only applies to anti-war protesters. To hell with equal rights for everyone
     
    demosfen, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #11
    It can make an interesting scenario.

    1) declare an American citizen enemy combatant without any proof or conviction in court and imprison the person for indefinite time without any legal presentation.

    2) Based on declaring the person, enemy combatant, seize all their assets and destroy any chance that even their family can survive.

    Not even during McCarty era or in soviet they went so far to destroy the citizens right. The future generations of American need to be really really really brave to use their right to free speech and speak against the government actions while facing such a medieval government.
     
    gworld, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  12. WebdevHowto

    WebdevHowto Peon

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    I’m just stunned. I never thought anything like what has occurred during the Bush administration could happen to my country so easily. I had expected to see and expansion of Freedoms and Liberties in the US during my lifetime, not the opposite.
     
    WebdevHowto, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  13. samantha pia

    samantha pia Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,639
    Likes Received:
    482
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #13
    does the USA not seize the assets of drug traffickers and drug barons without having a conviction? yes they do, there is really no difference, they will need to have some reason that would show your affiliation to terror groups or banned groups to take your assets, just like drug barons.
     
    samantha pia, Jul 21, 2007 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #14
    No, they don't need to show anything. What you are trying to refer to is RICO act which is already been misused and destroyed people life with documented cases. This one is even worse than RICO.
     
    gworld, Jul 22, 2007 IP
  15. aletheides

    aletheides Banned

    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Samantha you need to open your eyes and realize whats going on here.. Habeas corpus, a constitutional right has already been done away with... And now this - this is totally nuts.

    ACLU SAVE US !!! www.aclu.org

    The USA is slowly but surely becoming a prison state.
     
    aletheides, Jul 22, 2007 IP