Please tell me (criminalizing the antiwar movement) [Archive]

OutThere

Aug 2, 2007, 02:32 AM

The executive order itself (whitehouse.gov link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)) is clearly worded to only apply to people who have, or are connected with, people who do something violent to destabilize Iraq.

As long as you're not blowing stuff up or beating people up, or paying people to do that, you needn't worry.

The only sketchy part would be:

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.

Which could be interpreted to be that, if I was purported to have acted indirectly on behalf of someone who did something violent, they could cut me off. That's a pretty big margin of error.

skunk

Aug 2, 2007, 02:41 AM

Exactly what kind of democracy is it that George Bush is trying to force on the people of Iraq - or America, for that matter?

wonga1127

Aug 2, 2007, 02:44 AM

Thank a deity that we have him for only another year or so. I wonder how much damage he can incur before he leaves or resigns like his ass should.

solvs

Aug 2, 2007, 03:55 AM

Under most others, this wouldn't have bothered me as much. Under this administration, I don't know, for some reason it does. The first time they try anything it'll probably go straight to court though. Of course, then Bush can just claim Executive Privilege again. Unless this is one of those secret things. Which it probably is.

-::ubermann::-

Aug 2, 2007, 06:01 PM

yep, is true

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

hulugu

Aug 3, 2007, 12:46 AM

Hmm...it doesn't seem necessary, weren't there already procedures in place to do this?

With the Bush administration even the most benign things seem suspect, I can't put my finger on it, but there's a 'gotcha' in there somewhere.

Of course, I may be suffering prolonged exposure to PTS-Shrub. ;)

solvs

Aug 3, 2007, 04:02 AM

Hmm...it doesn't seem necessary, weren't there already procedures in place to do this?

There were, but apparently they didn't go far enough for this administration's liking.

Desertrat

Aug 3, 2007, 08:16 PM

SMM

Aug 3, 2007, 10:14 PM

Hey, don't blow stuff up. Don't conspire to blow stuff up.

""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.""

Why would a war protestor want to threaten peace or stability? Or undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction? War protestors don't like schools or hospitals or water treatment plants? Is political reform in Iraq good or bad? What's wrong with providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people?

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

In a word, Bat Guano. (Okay, two words.)

Shiny side out.

'Rat

Read carefully:

"......or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people..". This is a two-part charge. The first deals with violence, but the second (my snippet) just says you are guilty if you 'undermine the effort'.

Rat, when you are reading Federal statutes (or any for that matter), you really have to pay attention. GW has already formally stated that anti-war blogs, media coverage, demonstrations are hurting his Iraq strategy. Based on his recent executive orders, the ATF, DEA, IRS have been turned loose on the anti-war movement. If you cannot see that, I do not think the moniker Desert-Ostrich has been used.

Macky-Mac

Aug 4, 2007, 12:50 AM

Read carefully:

"......or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people..". This is a two-part charge. The first deals with violence, but the second (my snippet) just says you are guilty if you 'undermine the effort'.

Rat, when you are reading Federal statutes (or any for that matter), you really have to pay attention. GW has already formally stated that anti-war blogs, media coverage, demonstrations are hurting his Iraq strategy. Based on his recent executive orders, the ATF, DEA, IRS have been turned loose on the anti-war movement. If you cannot see that, I do not think the moniker Desert-Ostrich has been used.

I think you've misread and misunderstood what you quoted....the text that you quote is clearly written as being the motivation or the purpose of an act of violence, not as an independent "offense" as you've suggested.

Here's the text you quoted and the rest of the related text that you left out:

....

(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;
...

(obviously, I've made the text bold for emphasis)

the linkage is quite clearly stated.....(A) or (B) are identified as alternative purposes for doing the acts of violences identified in (i).....they aren't independent of (i)

Maui

Aug 4, 2007, 01:49 AM

I'm not worried. One role of the Attorney General is to be a buffer on things like this. I'm sure he would intervene and put a stop to any inappropriate use of this order.

mrkramer

Aug 4, 2007, 02:01 AM

I'm not worried. One role of the Attorney General is to be a buffer on things like this. I'm sure he would intervene and put a stop to any inappropriate use of this order.
Of course since we have such a great and non partisan Attorney General right now.:rolleyes:

solvs

Aug 4, 2007, 04:06 AM

Hey, don't blow stuff up. Don't conspire to blow stuff up.
If that was all it was, we wouldn't be worried. It isn't that simple. The same people trying to make it sound that simple are the ones who've given us no reason to think it is. And every reason to think it isn't.

Of course since we have such a great and non partisan Attorney General right now.:rolleyes:
I think that was his point. ;)

Desertrat

Aug 4, 2007, 12:48 PM

SMM

Aug 4, 2007, 05:34 PM

I think you've misread and misunderstood what you quoted....the text that you quote is clearly written as being the motivation or the purpose of an act of violence, not as an independent "offense" as you've suggested.

Here's the text you quoted and the rest of the related text that you left out:

(obviously, I've made the text bold for emphasis)

the linkage is quite clearly stated.....(A) or (B) are identified as alternative purposes for doing the acts of violences identified in (i).....they aren't independent of (i)

I did not misread it Macky-Mac. I had questions trying to interpret the original text. So, I sent the link to a friend. He is the assistant Attorney General for WA. After reading it, he called and we discussed the document at some length. he told me that "OR" is a sneaky little devil. He says that it can be dropped in at the end of of a long description of conditions and has the net effect of excluding the previous conditions, and only its condition(s) need be met. This is the same way programming logic works.

His view was there is enough teeth in this proclamation, coupled with the previous one (in which George gave the executive branch exclusive authority to determine whether an act was counter-productive to the war effort) to force a civil suit for any anti-war activity. That is the key, 'civil suit'. That is what the Asset Forfeiture Laws are based on.

The AFLs are the most unfair, un-American, debilitation, thing ever designed. How these were ever allowed to get past the Supreme Court is beyond me. Most Americans are completely clueless about them, how they are used, and the thousands who have been victimized by them. At their worst, our government (ATF, IRS, JD, DEA, DOT...) can leave you, and your family, standing naked in the street. They will have taken EVERYTHING you own (even your pension). Here is the kicker - they do not even have to charge you with a crime, or ever give you your day in court!

Do you find that hard to believe? Do the research - it is not hard to find.

SMM

Aug 4, 2007, 05:42 PM

I read the deal as Macky-Mac called it.

I don't have a lot of use for the NeoCon crowd, but there are limits to my paranoia. They're not talking about mouth-music, but about acts.

'Rat

PS: "...I do not think the moniker Desert-Ostrich has been used." is just too, too cutesy-poo. It's not even a subtle personal insult.

I do apologize for the "Desert-Ostrich" comment. I see how it can be taken as an insult, which was not the intent. I think turning a blind-eye to things we do not want to see is the point I was making and still stand by that. However, I recognize you do have a right to have and express your opinions, without being insulted. Once again, my apologies. :o

.

Macky-Mac

Aug 4, 2007, 08:28 PM

I did not misread it Macky-Mac. I had questions trying to interpret the original text. So, I sent the link to a friend. He is the assistant Attorney General for WA. After reading it, he called and we discussed the document at some length. he told me that "OR" is a sneaky little devil. He says that it can be dropped in at the end of of a long description of conditions and has the net effect of excluding the previous conditions, and only its condition(s) need be met. This is the same way programming logic works....

what you're missing is that whichever is true, either (A) OR (B), it's still tied to the "act or acts of violence" described earlier in the section.

you either have;

"an act or acts of violence for the purpose of (A)"
OR
"an act or acts of violence for the purpose of (B)"

Section (i) includes the two subsections, (A) and (B). It describes an act done for either of two possible purposes which are identified in the two subsections. As your friend said, the "or" at the end of subsection (A) does mean that (A) could be completely excluded as the purpose of the act in favor of the purpose given in subsection (B)......but that's your only choice. Whether for purpose (A) or (B), there still has to be an act of violence done before there could be any legal action under this section.

As for your comments about Asset Forfiture Laws, I generally agree that they're unfair.

Desertrat

Aug 4, 2007, 09:50 PM

SMM: Hokay, no sweat.

Don't even bring up such weasel wording and twisting of intent as asset forfeture. Travesty is the kindest word of which I can think.

enuf...

'Rat

Swarmlord

Aug 4, 2007, 11:41 PM

As for your comments about Asset Forfiture Laws, I generally agree that they're unfair.

Don't EVEN get me started on asset fortfeiture laws. :mad:

SMM

Aug 5, 2007, 01:42 AM

Don't EVEN get me started on asset fortfeiture laws. :mad:

I would love to hear what you have to say. This is my thread. I give you free reign to bring this forward. So few people have a clue.

solvs

Aug 5, 2007, 04:37 AM

I don't think anyone like it, do they? It's pretty much a given bad idea. I'm not saying it's going to happen the extreme way some may think it will, but it would be better if it wasn't even a possibility.

I don't know, I just wouldn't trust any administration with that kind of even implied possibility.

Swarmlord

Aug 6, 2007, 12:22 AM

I would love to hear what you have to say. This is my thread. I give you free reign to bring this forward. So few people have a clue.

You mean how stupid a concept it is to charge "stuff" with a crime and then seize it?

Or the randomness at which it's applied?

Or my favorite one where even if you are proven INNOCENT of a crime, your stuff remains the property of law enforcement and you have no recourse to get it back or even the cash value of it.

I could go on and on and on about this one. It is the most ill conceived travesty of justice ever perpetrated on American citizens in the name primarily of the War on Drugs although lately it's being expanded to include cars of guys soliciting prostitutes also and other vices.

solvs

Aug 6, 2007, 02:20 AM

I could go on and on and on about this one.
Then stop supporting the people who want to do this.

mactastic

Aug 8, 2007, 04:15 PM

Then stop supporting the people who want to do this.I know, it seems so simple, doesn't it?

solvs

Aug 9, 2007, 04:49 AM

I know, it seems so simple, doesn't it?

You'd think, but no.

I hear Clinton did it too though (even though he didn't).

Sobe

Aug 22, 2007, 07:40 PM

this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377) is NOT true.

And somehow that webpage is still up and running and accessible in the USA.

If you want real burning of the Constitution, go look up what FDR, the darlings of liberals everywhere, did with his execution of german spies, curfews on Japanese-Americans, removal and internment of those same people.

If President Bush wanted to shut up the anti-war movement, the section of the Constitution dealing with treason would be all he needs.

Ugg

Aug 22, 2007, 08:13 PM

And somehow that webpage is still up and running and accessible in the USA.

If you want real burning of the Constitution, go look up what FDR, the darlings of liberals everywhere, did with his execution of german spies, curfews on Japanese-Americans, removal and internment of those same people.

If President Bush wanted to shut up the anti-war movement, the section of the Constitution dealing with treason would be all he needs.

Somehow I doubt that that section has been overlooked. I'm sure it's bookmarked and they're waiting for the opportune moment.

Sobe

Aug 22, 2007, 08:16 PM

Somehow I doubt that that section has been overlooked. I'm sure it's bookmarked and they're waiting for the opportune moment.

heh ok and I'm sure we'll get followups from you on all the anti war sites that are not brought down.

solvs

Aug 23, 2007, 03:18 AM

If you want real burning of the Constitution, go look up what FDR, the darlings of liberals everywhere, did with his execution of german spies, curfews on Japanese-Americans, removal and internment of those same people.

The only person who excuses the internment camps that I know of is right winger Michelle Malkin. Maybe Ann Coulter. No one here will defend that.

And just because we aren't that bad off yet, doesn't mean we can't complain about what we have lost, and what more they want to do.

mactastic

Aug 23, 2007, 08:52 AM

Hey, don't blow stuff up. Don't conspire to blow stuff up.
Hey, don't shoot people. Don't conspire to shoot people. Then you'll have no problem trusting the government to register your guns, right?

Funny how corporatists flip flop on privacy issues...

Sobe

Aug 23, 2007, 10:02 AM

The only person who excuses the internment camps that I know of is right winger Michelle Malkin. Maybe Ann Coulter. No one here will defend that.

And just because we aren't that bad off yet, doesn't mean we can't complain about what we have lost, and what more they want to do.

Defend no, you won't see that.

But you certainly don't see the same vitriol by any means, for far worse transgressions. Similarly, it's generally Nixon who gets any voiced blame for Viet Nam for not getting us out quickly enough, or cambodia, etc rather than blaming Johnson and Kennedy.

solvs

Aug 24, 2007, 01:27 AM

Similarly, it's generally Nixon who gets any voiced blame for Viet Nam for not getting us out quickly enough, or cambodia, etc rather than blaming Johnson and Kennedy.
Kennedy was shot and Johnson didn't seek reelection, while Nixon continued the war longer than he should have, then got caught doing something unconscionable when he was forced to resign over unless he wanted to be impeached. I wouldn't say people blame him, but they see what part he played. The rest doesn't help. Same with FDR, who was otherwise popular. But looking back, that was a low point most of us remember not so fondly. Except people like Malkin who want to relive the mistakes of history. Truman was unpopular in his time for obvious reasons, and even though he did a lot right, that really big thing he did is the dark cloud ruining his name.

Some of us can see the big picture, the bad with the good, and unfortunately for Bush, unlike FDR, he doesn't have much in the good column.

Sobe

Aug 24, 2007, 01:33 AM

Kennedy was shot and Johnson didn't seek reelection, while Nixon continued the war longer than he should have, then got caught doing something unconscionable when he was forced to resign over unless he wanted to be impeached. I wouldn't say people blame him, but they see what part he played. The rest doesn't help. Same with FDR, who was otherwise popular. But looking back, that was a low point most of us remember not so fondly. Except people like Malkin who want to relive the mistakes of history. Truman was unpopular in his time for obvious reasons, and even though he did a lot right, that really big thing he did is the dark cloud ruining his name.

Some of us can see the big picture, the bad with the good, and unfortunately for Bush, unlike FDR, he doesn't have much in the good column.

Of course it is impossible, but it would be quite interesting to know what a president like FDR or LBJ or even Nixon would have done post 9-11, including dealing with the anti-war movement.

I have a strong suspicion that FDR would have no problem taking a sledge hammer to it, but that could also be a function of the times.

We're much more enlightened now =D

hulugu

Aug 24, 2007, 01:41 AM

Defend no, you won't see that.

But you certainly don't see the same vitriol by any means, for far worse transgressions. Similarly, it's generally Nixon who gets any voiced blame for Viet Nam for not getting us out quickly enough, or cambodia, etc rather than blaming Johnson and Kennedy.

For one, the discussions that typically discuss FDR—at least around here—have to do with social security and the WPA programs (and TVA) so bringing up Japanese Internment Camps and the execution of German spies might be a bit off-topic.

As for Nixon, he soured a decent presidency, in my opinion, by being paranoid and crooked. On the other hand, the Bush presidency has just been paranoid and crooked.

It's important to use the precidents of past administrations as a mirror to understand the actions of current presidents, but many are far too eager to cherry-pick actions and deeds to defend actions that are objectionable in the present.

So, if we believe the Japanese Internment Camps to be an unconstitutional and immoral act, what does that say about Guantanamo Bay? If we believe the Alien and Sedition Act was also unconstitutional, should we cheer for wider usages of wiretapping?

Now, if you think the Internment Camps were a great idea, then there's absolutely no hypocracy in thinking Gitmo is nothing more than a nice 'tropical vacation' otherwise...

Sobe

Aug 24, 2007, 01:46 AM

For one, the discussions that typically discuss FDR—at least around here—have to do with social security and the WPA programs (and TVA) so bringing up Japanese Internment Camps and the execution of German spies might be a bit off-topic.

As for Nixon, he soured a decent presidency, in my opinion, by being paranoid and crooked. On the other hand, the Bush presidency has just been paranoid and crooked.

It's important to use the precidents of past administrations as a mirror to understand the actions of current presidents, but many are far too eager to cherry-pick actions and deeds to defend actions that are objectionable in the present.

So, if we believe the Japanese Internment Camps to be an unconstitutional and immoral act, what does that say about Guantanamo Bay? If we believe the Alien and Sedition Act was also unconstitutional, should we cheer for wider usages of wiretapping?

Now, if you think the Internment Camps were a great idea, then there's absolutely no hypocracy in thinking Gitmo is nothing more than a nice 'tropical vacation' otherwise...

I'm sure it will be dismissed as naive, but I view Bush's reactions as more of a "damnit this is not gonna happen again on my watch" sort of a thing.

If I tend to be less cynical of the Bush administration, much of it has to do with the fact that I view 9-11 as a major watershed and we're figuring this out on the fly.

If it's me? yeah I might prefer infringing on the rights of people like Padilla and other guys stuck in Gitmo if I felt it would avert another 9-11.

Other people just don't see it that way, and that's fine. They have the luxury of not having to actually make those decisions.

hulugu

Aug 24, 2007, 02:01 AM

I'm sure it will be dismissed as naive, but I view Bush's reactions as more of a "damnit this is not gonna happen again on my watch" sort of a thing.

If I tend to be less cynical of the Bush administration, much of it has to do with the fact that I view 9-11 as a major watershed and we're figuring this out on the fly.

If it's me? yeah I might prefer infringing on the rights of people like Padilla and other guys stuck in Gitmo if I felt it would avert another 9-11.

Other people just don't see it that way, and that's fine. They have the luxury of not having to actually make those decisions.

This is a false dichotomy.

The Bush administration has done nearly everything it can to create a sense that either we violate the Constitutional and numerous articles of International Law or we suffer another attack. And, numerous experts in the fields of military law, constitutional law, and intelligence have stated that this is simply not true and ironically the actions of the Bush administration may actually have hampered the effort to protect the United States in a number of ways:
First, by creating a unwieldy system that runs in parallel to former practices there are a huge number of problems and few solutions, many of the Gitmo detainees have been released, and Padilla, Reid, and Lindh were held for extensive periods before being tried for lower crimes. By grabbing everyone they could, often with flimsy evidence, the adminisration created a huge pool of detainees without the resources to interrogate them, while using methods that are largely inconclusive in their ability to get 'actionable' information. That these methods also infuriate our allies and create another avenue for serious anti-US propaganda is just yet another problem.
Furthermore, these actions have helped to centralize power in the Executive Branch, broken down the balance of power between Congress, the Courts, and the Presidency, and created a petri dish for abuses that may affect American citizens in the next decades.

I gave the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt after September 11 and they responded to this with rampant cronism and incompetence. I really want to be proud of my president, I really want to feel like we're going to be safe, but I just can't escape the feeling that the administration's inability to see beyond the next year means we'll feel the echoes of poor choices for years to come.

solvs

Aug 24, 2007, 03:38 AM

I'm sure it will be dismissed as naive, but I view Bush's reactions as more of a "damnit this is not gonna happen again on my watch" sort of a thing.
But what he's doing isn't exactly helping any. For example, all getting rid of FISA warrants does is remove oversight. And things like the war in Iraq have proven to be creating more problems. And he hasn't implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. And as we've seen from things like Katrina, we're still completely unprepared in the event of another catastrophe.

Plus, whatever happened to that Bin Laden guy?

If I tend to be less cynical of the Bush administration, much of it has to do with the fact that I view 9-11 as a major watershed and we're figuring this out on the fly.
They had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 even happened for one, and as said we aren't making things better, but worse. We actually pulled resources from where the real terrorists were in the 'stans, basically ignored Bin Laden, to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. To create more terrorists, piss of our allies, alienating half of our own population (more around 70% now) and using scare tactics to get support from the other half (now actually less than 30%). Not that we would be prepared in another attack anyway.

They've had how many years to figure this out, and I don't think they've done a very good job of it.

If it's me? yeah I might prefer infringing on the rights of people like Padilla and other guys stuck in Gitmo if I felt it would avert another 9-11.
Well, that's not how our country works. It's great if they're protecting us, but it shouldn't be at the cost of our rights. We expect our troops to give their lives for "freedom", but we're willing to give up our freedoms for the perception of safety. And it is perception. Don't believe the lie, we shouldn't trade fearing the terrorists for fearing our own government, which if you were paying attention, you would be. Way too easy to abuse, which is what's happening. Everybody gets rights, everybody, or no one does. Even the worst of us deserves rights. Doesn't mean we let them go, but we prove why we prosecute them before giving them a fair punishment.

We wanted to be better than King George, and we don't want to wind up the way Martin Niemoeller warned about.

They have the luxury of not having to actually make those decisions.
But we do, because the gov works for us not the other way around.