Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Aug 1, 2007.
this is NOT true.
Hmmm...I haven't found a coroborating article yet, but if this is true....
"...way to kick the Constitution's a** George! Give that first amendment another punch in the face, I think it's still conscious."
The executive order itself (whitehouse.gov link) 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:
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.
Exactly what kind of democracy is it that George Bush is trying to force on the people of Iraq - or America, for that matter?
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.
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.
yep, is true
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.
There were, but apparently they didn't go far enough for this administration's liking.
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.
"......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:
(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'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.
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.
I think that was his point.
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.
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 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.
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.
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)"
"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.
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.
Don't EVEN get me started on asset fortfeiture laws.
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.
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.
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.
Then stop supporting the people who want to do this.