Skip to comments.Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
Posted on 07/19/2007 1:17:36 PM PDT by Rodney King
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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.
Yep. The issue here isn't Dubya's intent -- it's the dangerous unintended consequences posed by this "tool." The parallel with the Civil War does not apply, since that was a four-year-long "hot" war. This war on Islamofascists is more like the 45-year-long Cold war (albeit with hot fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Constitutional protections that are suspended for 45 years or more are not likely to be restored.
Eva, you just demonstrated how an executive order such as this one can easily be used against someone guilty of nothing more than having an anti-administration opinion and posting it on an Internet board. Do you remember the 'toon administration using support of the Constitution to accuse people of being terrorists? Do we really need to add bi-partisan legitimacy to that dangerous precedent?
My view is that there are two equally dangerous threats in this war against Islamofascists: the threat posed by the Islamofascists themselves, and the threat posed to our Constitution in our attempts to fight the Islamofascists. I respect Dr. Paul, but can’t support him for president because I think he’s unrealistic about the first threat. However, I likewise can’t support people like Giuliani for president because I think they’re unrealistic about the second threat.
The president must prosecute this war ferociously, while simultaneously preserving Constitutional protections. He could do that by drastically loosening our warfighters’ rules of engagement, allowing cross-border strikes in Iran, and in general getting the state department the heck out of Iraq and putting the DOD back in exclusive control. Here, he could shut down the borders and crack down on illegal immigrants who are already here. As it is, though, he’s taking a politically gentle approach to both these issues, and instead chipping away at Constitutional protections.
No, Rodney King may be a verbal terrorist supporter, but I doubt that he has supported terrorists in any concrete way. This executive order is directed at concrete support of terrorists, not against the administration, but against the USA.
At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit-
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, and
(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest;
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Congress has long authorized the President in time of War. The Confiscation Act of 1861 allowed any property used by the Confederates to be confiscated. In later wars Congress expressly permitted the wartime exercise of executive power to put control of foreign assets in the hands of the President. See Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 493, 69 S.Ct. 1333, 1345, 93 L.Ed. 1480 (1949). Such orders permit the President to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in negotiating the resolution of a declared national emergency. The frozen assets serve as a bargaining chip to be used by the President when dealing with a hostile country.
Congerss passed IEEPA in 1976, partially in response to the Iran Hostage Crisis. IEEPA permits the President to exercise powers Constitutionally vested in the executive branch in time of war through the use of Executive Orders. Therefore, where executive branch undertakes the transfer of assets pursuant to specific congressional authorization, such action is supported by the strongest of presumption and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952), Justice Jackson concurring.
The President relied on his IEEPA powers in November 1979, when he blocked all Iranian assets in this country, and again in January 1981, when he nullified interests acquired in blocked property, and ordered that property's transfer.
The language of IEEPA is sweeping and unqualified. It provides broadly that the President may void or nullify the exercising by any person of any right, power or privilege with respect to ... any property in which any foreign country has any interest.... 50 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(B). 651 F.2d, at 806-807 (emphasis in original). Dames & Moore v. Regan 453 U.S. 654, 671, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 2982 (U.S.,1981).
If you would like, I can email you a copy if the introductory section of IEEPA, so that you can review all of the Executive Orders issued under it. This newest on is really no big deal.
So tell me, why is it a good thing to curtail wartime executive power to deny the Commander in Chief the power to control foreign assets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.