Bush outlaws war protests

[snopes]

Comment: Read this, and TELL EVERYBODY YOU KNOW.

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

The full text of the order can be found at:
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=2839

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:49:00

White House asserts sweeping power to defy the law

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with
the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the
stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's
military agenda in Iraq.

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with
the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose
the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons
determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of
committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect
of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of
Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the
Iraqi people."

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an
illegal act.

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended
to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively
involved in the peace movement. It targets those "Certain Persons" in
America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability"
program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal
occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are
"undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who,
again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and
privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American
oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of
"political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the
legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who
provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not
approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi
puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets
confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of
the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US
democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The
order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar,
it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a
formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the
executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there
has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision
which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and
Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders,
presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals"
when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must
be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist"
legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security
directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing
constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a
"national emergency".

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms
of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist
legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and
civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar
groups in America as well as block the property and activities of
non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq,
seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the
truth regarding the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security
Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional
government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in
the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist
attack).

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence
Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a
second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would
immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government
and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the
president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel
Chossudovsky, June 2007)

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the
Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of
Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare
a "national emergency" without Congressional approval The adoption of
NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and
the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace
activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered
even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under
NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in
"criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war
and "Homeland Security" agenda.

The full text of the order can be found at:
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=2839

[Towknie]

It actually is on whitehouse.gov, but my legalese is to rusty to understand what it says. I don't see anything about peaceful demonstration on it, but rather active attempts at undermining the actual military operation of Iraq.

I dunno. Hard to make heads or tails of it.

[keokuk]

The Washington Post had a piece about this yesterday.

Destabilizing Iraq, Broadly Defined

Be careful what you say and whom you help -- especially when it comes to the Iraq war and the Iraqi government.

President Bush issued an executive order last week titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." In the extreme, it could be interpreted as targeting the financial assets of any American who directly or indirectly aids someone who has committed or "poses a significant risk of committing" violent acts "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq" or who undermines "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform" in the war-torn country.

The executive order, released Tuesday, was designed to target "perpetrators of violence in Iraq including Shiite militia groups linked to Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria, and other indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups," said Molly Millerwise, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which will determine who is in violation of the order. The move follows similar Bush orders to freeze assets of members or associates of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and former Iraqi government officials, Millerwise said. "It fills in the cracks," she added.

White House press secretary Tony Snow offered further clarification at a briefing on Tuesday: "What this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border . . . or anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the border."

However, the text of the order, if interpreted broadly, could cast a far bigger net to include not just those who commit violent acts or pose the risk of doing so in Iraq, but also third parties -- such as U.S. citizens in this country -- who knowingly or unknowingly aid or encourage such people.

[Delta-V]

:yawn:

Oh, wait...are they admitting that the anti-war movement is aiding the insurgency?

[Wild Redhead]

The executive order, released Tuesday, was designed to target "perpetrators of violence in Iraq including Shiite militia groups linked to Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria, and other indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups," said Molly Millerwise, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, which will determine who is in violation of the order. The move follows similar Bush orders to freeze assets of members or associates of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and former Iraqi government officials, Millerwise said. "It fills in the cracks," she added.

His last order has given the government to invade the privacy of the US citizens under the guise of targeting terrorists. Having a government office 'monitor' these things is like having the fox guard the hen house.

White House press secretary Tony Snow offered further clarification at a briefing on Tuesday: "What this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border . . . or anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the border."

But that's not what it says. If that is all it is for then it should be more pointed than so all-encompassing.

However, the text of the order, if interpreted broadly, could cast a far bigger net to include not just those who commit violent acts or pose the risk of doing so in Iraq, but also third parties -- such as U.S. citizens in this country -- who knowingly or unknowingly aid or encourage such people.

This may be a stupid question, but would this apply all American citizens, like Democrats or Repulicans that are trying to make a dead line for getting out of Iraq?

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Delta-V

:yawn:

Oh, wait...are they admitting that the anti-war movement is aiding the insurgency?

Hasn't that been the Bush administration's position all along?

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Lainie

Hasn't that been the Bush administration's position all along?

I'm guessing he means the other way around, that the war opponents who wrote this mail are supposedly admitting by writing this that they are supporting the insurgency. Sort of like MacCarthy accuses American communists of supporting the Soviet Union and promises to prosecute anyone who does so. Then when communists and non-communists alike complain about the blacklisting and persecution of innocent people, he says, "Aha! So you admit that you support the Soviet Union!"

[PatYoung]

I looked at the executive order and did not find the language quoted in the OP. I'm guessing that the OP quotes a press statement from Bush announcing the Executive Order. While the quote in the OP would seem to imply that non-violent dissent in the US could be covered, the Executive Order itself is clearly only aimed at support for violent activities in Iraq.

I'm guessing that the poster is reacting to a very poorly drafted press statment from the president and then not bothering to read the actual Executive Order. But I could be wrong here, or maybe I've missed something.

At any rate, an Executive Order would not trump the Ist Ammendment.

Congress can reverse it and/or the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional.

The more I think about it, I don't really think it is a power grab, but just sloppy law writing by the Bush administration. I mean, look at their AT.