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
click here to read article
The Holy Land Foundation in Richardson, Texas and other related "charities".
Oh, well, the hysterical Bush haters are always ready to jump to the wrong conclusions.
I bet none of them respond to my post.
What you are saying, in essence, is that the govenrment only violates the constitution when there is a good reason to, so don't worry about it.
You're right. Bush has to get a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court to suspend the Fifth Amendment.
Does this mean that the funds of the Democratic National Committee are frozen? Or do we have to wait until the Sec of Treasury names them.
I believe this has been used before to freeze bank accounts of known terrorists or rogue governments. We froze Iraq’s bank accounts during the first gulf war. This is targeted at Iran and will, in effect, make it very risky for companies who have US assets to do business with Iran and Syria. The screaming will come from multinational corporations who are presently doing business with Iran and Syria.
We should find out soon about constitutionality. It is sure to be challenged. Can’t wait until Reid or Pelosi starts screaming that Bush is trying to freeze their assets.
The courts will get to hear about this. I wonder how many of the posters here would be screaming if the order said that assets would be frozen for those who hire illegal aliens?
No, the Syrian is waging an asymmetrical war against the US. So, Bush is responding in kind.
Right, as I said. You think this is ok, because you trust that the government will only use these powers against our true enemies, implying that you trust the government not to abuse these powers.
The important paragraph is 1701, which grants to the President extraordinary powers in the event of a "National Emergency". Every President in my living memory has issued one or more decrees declaring this or that "National Emergency"
Read the chapter, and the prior chapter. Congress essentially handed the president a blank check, if he chooses to cash it
This is no different than the executive order that Clinton wrote, freezing the bank accounts of terror supporters. What was that guy’s name that is in jail, still, the one that Joe Wilson was associated with? Abdurham Alamoudi, or something like that?
There's a ringing endorsement!
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...
actyually this expands and broadens the Clinton EO ... which was bad in the first place
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?
No. I just have a different opinion that you do about who decideds which citizens are guilty of such.
In other words you are a terrorist supporter, yourself?
You are classic. If you believe in the constituion, you must be a terrorist supporter.
You are going to destroy a good Bush bash.....
Yes, I agree.
That is a fair and understandable question and a knee jerk reaction would be that I wouldn't trust anything to the next administration as the future is unknown as to their Constitutional attitudes.
However, that attitude has a flaw in that when you are the Commander in Chief and you have a threat in front of you, you must deal with that threat. We can play semantic games all day long, but there are times you a threat means the life or death of those you are entrusted to lead or the survival of the nation. This is why I brought up Unitary Executive Theory earlier.
I think this argument is being fought backwards.. we should fight to have people in power who we trust with Unitary Executive Powers versus stripping Executive Constitutional powers based on 'what if' scenarios.
You don’t even know what you are talking about. You are just being purposefully obtuse because you don’t want to admit that you jumped to conclusions because you are a Bush hater.
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
I'm the one who posted the text of the EO, and I know what it says, and in my mind it infringes the constitution.
You are just being purposefully obtuse because you dont want to admit that you jumped to conclusions because you are a Bush hater.
I didn't jump to conclusions. I don't think that Bush signed the EO to crack down on dissenters. I think he signed it to crack down on people like the Syrians you posted about. But, I happen to believe in the Constituion, and I know that govenrment tends to abuse its powers.
You, on the other hand, think that we can trust the government only to violate the rights of people who deserve it, so its ok. That is your position. Why don't you admit it?
Your remarks regarding the EO indicate otherwise. You just automatically assume the worst about anything that Bush does.
This is exactly what needs to be done to deter the Syrian involvement in Iraq and Lebanon, for that matter.
No, I don’t think that you can trust the government in all cases, but in regard to the war on terror, I believe that we need to give the government “war powers”. Something that the Democrats abhor, because they don’t want us to win the war, at least not while Bush is president.
I know the Constitutional argument, and I respect it immensely. I just also know this kind of thing seems to have been done in the past: Lincoln in the Civil War suspended Habeas Corpus, and FDR in WW2 engaged in a lot of, well, nefarious activities.
The loss of liberties has always been temporary...and I see no reason to think it won't be the same this time around.
If anyone can show me a reason to disbelieve my trust in the system this time, I will listen and consider their point of view.
I really think this war with Islamofacism is going to determine how (or if) my kid grows up in a world without daily beheadings in the local soccer fields...and we need to be going "all out" against these murderous bastards as best we can.
One might even argue Bush can say he is defending the United States against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" with this EO.
No, I have watched him for 7 years muck up a lot of things. You, on the other hand, assume the best about anything he does.
Thanks for the explanatory post. RD
Does this mean Pelosi and Reid’s property will get confiscated?
You said it, sister. I agree 100%.
Careful Rodney...you might have your assets frozen. ;-)
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)
“I am setting in a cubicle diagnosing a mans computer fault codes in his car from 600 miles away and typing in a forum. Thats why I dont judge things like this. Cawz I dont know what or why it was done. I do know that it was done by people a hellofa lot smarter than me.”
And that amnesty thing! Those guys are so much smarter than us. And busting the federal budget. Because they are such freaking geniuses.
The Iraq War resolutions, the WOT Acts and the financial acts passed against Muslim terrorism are very broadly written.
To actually seize the assets etc, the Departments need procedures. Those procedures are always outline in Executive Orders for these types of broad acts where the Executive is OBLIGATED to carry out the intent of the Legislative Branch, on-the-fly against changing circumstances.
The President with the EO is merely broadening other orders to hit (IMHO) those undermining the new government, where before it was only set up against the Muslim terror groups.
This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot. These EOs in the Clinton era were just as scary in the raw wording.
Did you really type that? OK, let me know when Jesus Christ is on the ballot, otherwise, you're nutz! Blackbird.
No, what I've never heard of is the kind of trust one would have to muster to believe in it. Blackbird.
If you’ve never heard of it, then how do you know “what kind of trust’ it gives?
"NO" meant your assumption was wrong, but you knew that. Blackbird.
This guy is WAY out of line on this.
Bush said once "if you're not for us, you're against us". Eagerly waiting for this to play out.
Hey, it works for the EPA. They don’t “take” your property, they just block you from using it. And we’re all for that, eh?
Ping me too when you get here Frith!
(is this because of Harry Reid pulling the defense funding???)
At first- I thought this was a joke.
I’m no lawyer- but this seems an extreme furtherance of...something that I don’t “get”. What is he REALLY doing here? And is it constitutional?
What does this mean, actually?
it sure seems that Präsident Busch has just given himself the power to freeze the assets of anyone whom he feels is a “threat” to his foreign policy, which could include any individual, company or organization that dares to speak out against his policies.
pretty scary, just ask yourself, do you want hillary to have this power?
Scary. A lot of Saudi money could be impounded. Buy a horse before the rush, and take good care of. It may be a while before we get the cajones to seize their oil fields...
“The question is, who decides who is helping terrorists?”
“Alex, I’ll take Bananna Republics for $500, please”
The connection to the Fifth Amendment can be summarized in two words and three letters: “tax returns” and “IRS”...