Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
The Whitehouse ^ | today | W

Posted on 07/19/2007 1:17:36 PM PDT by Rodney King

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last
To: HOTTIEBOY

” I do know that it was done by people a hellofa lot smarter than me.”

You don’t actually know anyone in government, do you?


101 posted on 07/20/2007 9:06:40 AM PDT by VRing (Happiness is a perfect sling bruise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

However, as I read the order, it is not freezing bank accounts. It is prohibiting banks from allowing the transfer of funds to specific organizations.


102 posted on 07/20/2007 10:26:46 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
"all property and interests in property of the following persons...are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in"

It is an asset freeze (not just bank accounts) without due process.

I also find this part interesting:

"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."

There are no words about scienter anywhere in that entire section. It therefore appears that you can be one of these "Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization in Iraq" just for having received a contribution of funds, even if you accept funds without knowing their source is one of these persons in section (a)(i).

It may be poor drafting, but I doubt it was accidental. By wording it without "knowingly" or "intentionally", or even "should have known", it gives "the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense" complete discretion in determining who to go after.

103 posted on 07/20/2007 11:47:21 AM PDT by hieroglyph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: hieroglyph
even if you accept funds without knowing their source is one of these persons in section (a)(i).

Well, then...I guess certain "persons" will be more careful about the donations they receive. Claiming, "gosh, I didn't know that 700K in my bank account came from Hamas supporters just isn't going to cut it anymore.

104 posted on 07/20/2007 12:13:25 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; LonePalm; Rodney King; BlackbirdSST; mnehrling; SE Mom; taxcontrol; Eva; SubGeniusX; ...

Boiled down to its simplest, this EO permits taking “[A]ll property and interests in property...,” which “may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in...” This applies to, “[A]any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense..” to have committed enumerated offenses, all of which are narrowly taylored to fall within the war effort, i.e., “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,” etc., etc.

This is in tension with the 5th Amendment guarantee of “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

The process provided for by judicial branch is not the only means to satisfy substantive due process. If it were, we would never have anything like Article 3 Courts like the bankruptcy court, which exist solely withing the executive branch.

When dealing with the question in a substantive due process claim, the primary question is what process is due? The power of the President to wage war is decidedly broad - if it weren’t we would end up losing whenever we fought. We are entitled to have a powerful executive wield power based upon secure information. So here, the determination, i.e. the legal process, is a decision made by 3 Cabinet level departments of the executive. This is a substantial showing of some sort of legal process must be employed, before private property can be taken.

If you don’t like it, defund the war, and the power goes away. Or elect an executive who will chose not to wield power in this manner. Or how about this - grind the enemey into dust through every means you have at your disposal - that means “Win the War” - and the power goes away.

This is totally constitutional IMHO and I unreservedly support this Executive Order. There is no doubt this is working in concert with the surge. We have information about who is funding the destabilizing elements where our soldiers are fighting and dying. This EO makes it clear that the money flow will stop. So the risk premium on in an investment to sieze political power in Iraq just went up a couple of points. I am pretty sure Ahmadinejad has had to recount the contents of his war chest. And that’s a good thing.


105 posted on 07/21/2007 12:35:10 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: hieroglyph

see previous post.


106 posted on 07/21/2007 12:36:29 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: hieroglyph
There are no words about scienter anywhere in that entire section.

Courts in Equity have long had the power to impress an equitable trust upon a res where the holder has no knowledge of wrongdoing.

107 posted on 07/21/2007 12:39:42 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: frithguild

You are impressive! But I knew that. Thank you so much!


108 posted on 07/21/2007 12:40:38 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Perfect explanation.
109 posted on 07/21/2007 2:08:29 PM PDT by mnehring (Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Ellison and Obama and others must be shaking in their boots. Cynthia McKinney too if she had the sense God gave a goose.


110 posted on 07/21/2007 2:26:25 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we write in marble. JHuett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: frithguild; Calpernia
Got it, thanks.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

111 posted on 07/21/2007 3:25:17 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm

We have had recent occasion to consider a claim that the use of classified information disclosed only to the court ex parte and in camera in the designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the AEDPA was violative of due process. In rejecting that claim, we recalled that “[t]he due process clause requires only that process which is due under the circumstances of the case.” People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 327 F.3d 1238, 1242 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). We further held that the standard set forth in NCOR applies not only to the notice provisions governing classification but to the full process of classification and that therefore “due process required the disclosure of only the unclassified portions of the administrative record.” Id. at 1242 (emphasis in original). Again, we emphasized the primacy of the Executive in controlling and exercising responsibility over access to classified information, and the Executive’s “ ‘compelling interest’ in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business.” Id. at 1242 (citations omitted).

Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft 333 F.3d 156, *164, 357 U.S.App.D.C. 35, **43 (C.A.D.C.,2003)


112 posted on 07/21/2007 7:30:38 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
Gee, I actually understood that. Good cite. Thanks

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

113 posted on 07/21/2007 8:53:07 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; All

I just now saw this myself. I’m by no means a legal person. Basically, what in the hell does all of this mean?

On its face it appears to be some type of power grab.


114 posted on 07/25/2007 7:00:55 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

I’m all for seizing the assets of people who aid terrorists....

But to me, this appears to be a blatant transgression of the protections provided by the fifth amendment.

This, IMO, borders on impeachable offense.


115 posted on 07/25/2007 7:02:49 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

I just saw it myself...

I am still trying to figure out how the he** anyone can consider this constitutional.


116 posted on 07/25/2007 7:05:40 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
"I am still trying to figure out how the he** anyone can consider this constitutional."

Do executive orders even need to be constitutional? Not that the constitution means anything to George W Bush, but aren't Executive Orders free from Congressional over site and Judicial review?

117 posted on 07/25/2007 7:12:20 PM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Rulers prefer more power to less, but in a liberal democracy the rulers are constrained by institutions that sustain private rights.1 Specifically, private property rights place the power of resource allocation in the hands of private citizens, thereby limiting the capacity of governmental officials to shape the economy. Governmental officials have interests of their own, which are not necessarily representative of or even in harmony with the interests of people outside government. Therefore, the rulers and the ruled normally struggle in various ways to determine who will control the use of resources. The greater the scope of private property rights, the more limited is the capacity of the rulers to achieve the ends they prefer at the expense of those preferred by the citizenry.


118 posted on 07/25/2007 8:09:22 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

For several reasons, rights taken over by governmental officials during an emergency are unlikely to revert fully to their previous holders when normal times return.

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=124


119 posted on 07/25/2007 8:11:57 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

One more excerpt:

After vacillating during 1934–36, sometimes sustaining and sometimes striking down the government’s unprecedented derogations from private property rights, the Court caved in completely in 1937. Since then it has maintained that virtually any state or federal governmental interference with private property rights is constitutional. Only a law that is manifestly arbitrary and lacking any imaginable relation to a public purpose will be disallowed. In a bloodless revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections of private property rights that had existed for 150 years.3


120 posted on 07/25/2007 8:14:45 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
The argument here should not be would you trust "this" Administration with this power (I do not but thats beside the point)... But would you trust the "next" administration...

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.

121 posted on 07/27/2007 11:00:51 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Eva; Rodney King
So, you think that individuals who wage asymmetrical war against US interests should be protected by the constitution that they seek to destroy? In other words you are a terrorist supporter, yourself?

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?

122 posted on 07/27/2007 11:07:27 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

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.


123 posted on 07/27/2007 11:17:57 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ellery

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.


124 posted on 07/28/2007 2:06:56 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
I unreservedly support this Executive Order

I don't think you've thought that through all the way... what about the next executive? What if hillary is the next president, will you trust her not to abuse this new power?
125 posted on 08/22/2007 11:28:27 AM PDT by pangenesis (Legalize freedom - vote libertarian!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: pangenesis
I think I have thought this through quite well. This is hardly a new power and is one Congress has expressly authorized. 50 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1) (1976 ed., Supp. III), is the authorization for this Executive Order. Section 1702(a)(1) provides in part:

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?

126 posted on 08/22/2007 2:25:08 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson