July 19, 2007

Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war.
...

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. These provisions state:

"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."

To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of Iraq’.
...................

I don't know enough about law to know how this will be interpreted ... but if it is used to suppress opposition to the war in Iraq, that is pretty disturbing.

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: saga ]

They're pretty big on the first amendment down there, as well as whatever amendment gives them the right to freely assemble. Just as big on those as they are on the war.

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

If bush was to do this he would have done it long ago

quote:

---

I can't imagine that the people will allow this to stand.

---

I can see why he would want too tho. He's losing the iraq war. More wannabe terrorists have been created.Giving evenb more reasons to attack the US than ever before. He's losing the Afghan war..under the pretext of helping woman and children they have bombed them at night when no ones looking, much to the protest of the Afghan puppet ruler even.

There agenda of preparing to attack Iran is being undermined by the truth and protest so much so they must find a way to muzzle the people else bring in the draft to have the soldiers necessary to conduct another war.

The scary thing here in Canada is Harper is a bush butt licker and what has been shown in the past is when the US snaps there fingers Canada jumps.

Just like the anti terror laws that contrevene our constitution. The US has a functioning constitution that can strike down panic laws. They don't have this not with standing crap. The danger is we don't.. so if harper with support of parliament decides to follow suit a law like that could exist in Canada regardless of the constitution.

Edit: I take that back. Here it is, direct from the horse's mouth:

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: Illuminoid ]

[ 20 July 2007: Message edited by: Illuminoid ]

Bush bans terror suspect torture

quote:

---

US President George W Bush has signed an executive order on how terrorist suspects should be treated.

It bans cruel and inhumane treatment of any suspects detained and interrogated by the US authorities, and describes acts of torture as intolerable. (emphasis added)

---

I figure the actual wording of the executive order is as follows:

quote:

---

Henceforth, all acts of torture practised against detainees must be intolerable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimeguy:
Saga -- This has nothing to do with war protests and says nothing about protests. I'm not saying it's a good order but it refers strictly to acts of violence aimed at preventing humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and the war effort itself. It's an extension of the anti-terrorist laws already in effect. So unless people feel that you have the right to commit acts of violence against the government in the US this doesn't apply to peaceful demonstrations.

---

Define the "war effort" and where is it specifically restricted to "acts of violence"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Define the "war effort" and where is it specifically restricted to "acts of violence"?

Also, as I recall, the US was founded by acts of violence and the right to bear arms is included in the US constitution as a barrier to tyranny which, in my view, would appear to sanction violence against a government seeking to subvert the constitution or the Republic.

---

To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of Iraq’.

..............

No it isn't about violence against the government ... it is about "providing any services" that could mitigate against the government's position that the Iraq war is justified. I agree that it could be used to stifle peaceful protest, which will then escalate into more violent protest, I expect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
If this was a move to ban war protest, isn't it too little too late? Why wouldn't he have done this at the peak of the war's popularity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimeguy:
Saga -- This has nothing to do with war protests and says nothing about protests. I'm not saying it's a good order but it refers strictly to acts of violence aimed at preventing humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and the war effort itself. It's an extension of the anti-terrorist laws already in effect. So unless people feel that you have the right to commit acts of violence against the government in the US this doesn't apply to peaceful demonstrations.

---

providing services ... "support" ... for any person

'deemed to be at significant risk for a violent act'

Well, police have been known to pepper spray babies and taser teenage soccer players ... having apparently deemed them significant risks for violence.

quote:

---

New Executive Order Could Lead to Endless Chain of Repression

July 20, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild

Bush has done it again: issued an Executive Order that gives him unprecedented power.

On May 9, he designated himself, and not Congress or the Supreme Court, as the insurer of the Constitution in the event of a national emergency.

And on July 17, he issued another Executive Order giving the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to freeze the assets of any person opposing Bush’s Iraq policy who may have committed an act of violence, or even posed “a significant risk of committing” such an act, or “assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support” for others committing such acts.

These acts that are now verboten would 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.”

So what could this mean in practice?

The Secretary of the Treasury could put a freeze on your financial assets, including your home:

If you were at an anti-Iraq War and the Treasury Secretary asserted that you might commit an act of violence.

Or if you threw a pie in the face of a legislator—say, Senator Lieberman—as a way of drawing attention to his support for the war.

Or if you set up a speaking engagement for, or bought a lunch for, an Iraqi oil worker who might have damaged a pipeline or burned an American flag to protest the oil bill that Bush wants the Iraqi parliament to pass—a bill that would give away that country’s oil to ExxonMobil and other multinationals.

The language in this Executive Order is so sweeping that it could be used to nab just about anybody in an endless chain of repression. Any person who even is “purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly” someone whose property has been frozen by this order will also have his or her property frozen.

So the Treasury Secretary could freeze your brother's house on the specious grounds that your brother might be violent at an anti-war protest, and if you hired a lawyer to help your brother with his case, both you and the lawyer you hired could have your financial assets, including your homes, frozen.

There seems to be no limit to the Bush powergrabs.

What he can’t get legislatively he’s seizing by Executive Order.

He’s got our democracy by the throat, and he keeps squeezing it.

And still the Democratic leadership in the House won’t wave their hands for impeachment?

We have a renegade in the Oval Office.

He is subverting our Constitution.

And the only remedy is impeachment.

We must apply that remedy before it’s too late.

- Progressive

---

[ 23 July 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]