Bulldrek v3.0

Copy of the Executive Order. Article (from an admittedly extreme-left website) describing the situation.

My knowledge of legalese lends me to agree with windymedia's assertion. I'd be interested on Marius' and Brasky's take.

Congratulations, fucker. You've just become what they always claimed you were. Get your ass out of office with a quickness.

*reads the order*
I'm just not seeing it. It looks more like an attempt to stop the movement of cash from private persons/entities to organizations trying to arm/support the opposing forces in Iraq.

I could see how it might be used to seize property owned by someone waving an anti-war poster, but it'd be a stretch.

I don't support the war, and I think this guy is a jackass on a power-trip. But I don't think this is a direct attack on free-speech.
I'm half expecting him to try and stay in office if his favorite doesn't win the election next year "because we're in the middle of a war". Then we'll probably see some real infringements of free speech, if the USAmerican people don't just roll over and ask for a reach-around like they usually do lately.


___________________
[align=center]User was politically detained for this post.[/align]
Please send all replies to cell 32482, Beautiful Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and don't expect a reply.

His wife looks kinda creepy in that one.

Because it's Nancy Pelosi. And that is what actually makes the card kind of funny.

Yeah, I haven't gone back to read the underlying law, because I don't have that kind of time, but windymedia's wrong. And kind of dumb.

And funny: "According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. " That one had me almost on the floor in tears. Apparently, having given up on Russia as a lost cause for this sort of thing, some Russian legal experts are off to defeat fascism in some country, somewhere.

But come on, the executive order covers: 1) acts of violence (or "significant risk" of acts of violence, which I find a little vague and creepy), or 2) material support. The Russian legal experts have interpreted "services," used in the context "goods and services" to include "supporting the enemy" by protesting. That's just plain silly, if only for the reason that it assumes that these protests have some kind of economic value, but really for lots of other reasons, too.

The clause says "services by, to, or for the benefit of." And the violence clause must be "determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense," not a court system.

Would you really argue that protests intended to weaken our presence in Iraq do not act to the benefit of those who are shooting at us, and that there are many at such protests who could reasonably be defined as "pos[ing] a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"?

It is exceptionally loosely defined.

Salvation122 wrote:The clause says "services by, to, or for the benefit of."

Although it's, "for the benefit of..." people who "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."

Salvation122 wrote:Would you really argue that protests intended to weaken our presence in Iraq do not act to the benefit of those who are shooting at us, and that there are many at such protests who could reasonably be defined as "pos[ing] a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"?

I think you'd have a very hard time showing that a peaceful protest can pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence. It could, indeed, be used that way, but so could [and have] existing laws.

I don't like the "significant risk of committing," because, as you point out, it's exceptionally broad, and if you end up with the wrong judge, you're screwed. If you end up with the right judge, you're still screwed because you end up frozen through a long process of appeal. Gay.

The clause says "services by, to, or for the benefit of." . . . Would you really argue that protests intended to weaken our presence in Iraq do not act to the benefit of those who are shooting at us . . . ?"

Well, yes, I would, probably, if it got to that. But I'd start out, as I already have, by arguing that the protests, whatever their effects, aren't "services."

3278 wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:The clause says "services by, to, or for the benefit of."

Although it's, "for the benefit of..." people who "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."

Right. And one could (relatively easily) make the case that protests indirectly act to the benefit of those who desire to undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction yadda yadda yadda.

Salvation122 wrote:Would you really argue that protests intended to weaken our presence in Iraq do not act to the benefit of those who are shooting at us, and that there are many at such protests who could reasonably be defined as "pos[ing] a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"?

I think you'd have a very hard time showing that a peaceful protest can pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.[/quote]
I was speaking to the protestors, not the protest itself. I don't know if you've seen any footage of the World Can't Wait marches, but it would not be a stretch at all to state that many of the people involved pose a risk of violence that has the effect of undermining efforts in Iraq, even though that violence was (hypothetically) carried out against US citizens, on US soil. Everything is one step removed, but Bush doesn't really have problems taking an extra step.

I don't like the "significant risk of committing," because, as you point out, it's exceptionally broad, and if you end up with the wrong judge, you're screwed. If you end up with the right judge, you're still screwed because you end up frozen through a long process of appeal. Gay.

Assuming you can find someone to take the case pro bono (though, in all honesty, I imagine that wouldn't be difficult) since you can't pay a lawyer because all your assets are frozen.

The thing that twigs me most is that he already has the power to freeze funds going to terrorist organizations, through Patriot. This is unnecessary unless he needed specific legal wording for some reason.