![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumBut Executive Orders are different, or something.
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America,... hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(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;
(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
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or 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.
Purported is really good. The standard definition of purported is scary, in this context.
Adj. 1. purported - commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds; "the foundling's putative father"; "the reputed (or purported) author of the book"; "the supposed date of birth"
But the law uses words differently, though looking for a specifc use of it (which usually, as used in the legal cases I've read, means much the same as alleged) I can't find any specific definition.
(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.
It's (B), and (B)(iii) which really worry me.
Because the decision to excercise this Bill of Attainder is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, with the consultation of the Secretaries of State and Defense.
So they get to freeze the property, and assets of anyone they decide is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform" in Iraq.
It's so nice to see there's a solid metric for this. Especially as anyone who contributes funds or services to such a person is also attainted.
So, if a blogger is subject to this act, because of the blogging they do, does that attaint the ISP? Does it reach to the other ISPs which connect to the blog?
And since the act affects anyone who "comes into the United States, does that require ISPs to block anyone the White House (through its Secrataries) condemns by way of this Act, oops, Executive Order?
Maybe not.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(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.
But, because this is so important.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Just in case you thought there might be some means of redress,
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Shall we compare this to what the Constitution says about this sort of thing?
Article 1, Sec.9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article 3, Sec. 3.Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to, a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Want to get into tinfoil hat country... what if the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the SecDef decided the leading candidate of the oppostion was "undermining", and froze all the campaign's assets?
Looking at the Order, I don't see any reason it couldn't happen.
There's more, by Sara Robinson at Orcinus, Barb, of Mahablog has some elaboration on that.
More commentary here from Spencer Ackerman, at TPMuckraker.
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America,... hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(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;
(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
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or 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.
Purported is really good. The standard definition of purported is scary, in this context.
Adj. 1. purported - commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds; "the foundling's putative father"; "the reputed (or purported) author of the book"; "the supposed date of birth"
But the law uses words differently, though looking for a specifc use of it (which usually, as used in the legal cases I've read, means much the same as alleged) I can't find any specific definition.
(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.
It's (B), and (B)(iii) which really worry me.
Because the decision to excercise this Bill of Attainder is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, with the consultation of the Secretaries of State and Defense.
So they get to freeze the property, and assets of anyone they decide is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform" in Iraq.
It's so nice to see there's a solid metric for this. Especially as anyone who contributes funds or services to such a person is also attainted.
So, if a blogger is subject to this act, because of the blogging they do, does that attaint the ISP? Does it reach to the other ISPs which connect to the blog?
And since the act affects anyone who "comes into the United States, does that require ISPs to block anyone the White House (through its Secrataries) condemns by way of this Act, oops, Executive Order?
Maybe not.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(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.
But, because this is so important.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Just in case you thought there might be some means of redress,
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Shall we compare this to what the Constitution says about this sort of thing?
Article 1, Sec.9. No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article 3, Sec. 3.Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to, a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Want to get into tinfoil hat country... what if the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the SecDef decided the leading candidate of the oppostion was "undermining", and froze all the campaign's assets?
Looking at the Order, I don't see any reason it couldn't happen.
There's more, by Sara Robinson at Orcinus, Barb, of Mahablog has some elaboration on that.
More commentary here from Spencer Ackerman, at TPMuckraker.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 08:38 pm (UTC)S.
p.s. May I please link?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 09:01 pm (UTC)If you want to link to me, feel free. I write for public consumption. I do ask that, should you wish to quote me, you link to the post in question, so those who want to comment, may; and context can be kept, for those who wonder at just what I actually meant, instead of what they got from the quotation. It isn't a slam at you, but things change in the telling, no matter how purely we mean them. I've screwed that pooch a few times myelf.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 07:04 am (UTC)Now, I'm neither surprised nor unworried. Especially since I've expressed strong opposition to imposing our form of Democracy upon Iraq if the people there do not want it. Mind you, I've sometimes thought that the Iraqi people -- including some of those who are fighting us -- may have a better idea of the meaning of "democracy" than our Current Administration in DC does.
I do have to wonder, though, how long it might be before Executive Orders and Signing Statements render the Congress superfluous.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 04:36 pm (UTC)Lamentably, this thing *can't* bite him on the ass too hard -- it's pretty much him just swinging his personal authority around, so he can do pretty much what he wants with its results.
That doesn't mean he *has* the authority to do any of this legally, but it means that he can revoke any of it at any time.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:06 pm (UTC)Funny you should say that. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/the-pentagon-issues-warning-to-clinton/)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:17 pm (UTC)Anybody can disappear into custody (until we get habeas corpus back--have you contacted your senators and congresspeople about that?) No anybody can be reduced to penury. No opposition can maintain its funding.
This was not a necessary action. RICO could probably be stretched to cover any individual or business that was funding terrorists. Dick Cheney is demonstrating his trapped rat instincts here.
Impeachment will not happen without the House knowing their constitutents are behind them and support the passage of the Articles of Impeachment. The Senate will not manage a conviction unless they know the same thing.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:35 pm (UTC)So they get to freeze the property, and assets of anyone they decide is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform" in Iraq.
Is that what the EO is saying?
I'm not very familiar with legalese, but it seems like they are targeting persons or entities who are thought "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence", with the intention of that act of violence (or planned act of violence) being to undermine the efforts in Iraq.
The other sections seemed to target people who materially supported those who committed, or posed a significant risk of committing, that act of violence.
It is a vague order, for certain, and the "we'll give you no notice" is chilling, but it does seem to specifically target those who commit or support violence in Iraq. The tin-foil scenario you mentioned seems like it would be a bit of a stretch, even for this administration.
Like I said, I'm not learned in legalese, so I may be misinterpreting the wording of the EO. If so, my apologies.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 05:44 pm (UTC)I'll try to rephrase it, changing the parts which seem arcane, into a more concrete example.
Any person who commits; might commit, or help another to commit, or attempt to commit, robbery, [as defined in Sec (x) generic penal code] can be detained, until such time as the possibility of that crime, or intended crime, no longer being feasible.
No need to inform them of the cause for their detention need be made.
It's a ham-handed example, but this law allows the assets of any person, or entity, which has money, property or control of either, in the US to lose control of them.
At the sole discretion of the Appointees of the President, anyone who is "undermining" democracy in Iraq, is liable.
They say it will only be used against "bad people" but they are allowed to do it to just about anyone.
TK
Check the voice of your verbs carefully!
Date: 2007-07-20 05:57 pm (UTC)In other words, if you claim to be soliciting money to buy guns for someone else to attack Iraq, even though you're really just going to buy porn and lube with it, your assets can be frozen. This is the same logic leading to the raid of the Chicago "terror plot" people who said they wanted to buy weapons and never acted on it.
The really delicious paradox in here is about "any person . . . owned by . . . any person." IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this isn't intended to recognize the property rights of slaveowners in other countries. Rather, the same Constitutional Amendment that made it illegal for one person to own another was later interpreted in corporate law as making a corporation, owned by people, legally a person.
(referred by
Re: Check the voice of your verbs carefully!
Date: 2007-07-20 06:00 pm (UTC)If your assets are frozen, and I help you to pay your rent, this could be stretched to cover me.
It's a declaration of anathema.
TK
Letter Sent to My Senators, Congressman, and Local Paper.
Date: 2007-07-20 06:29 pm (UTC)The will of the people is becoming more focused on this issue, and our Representatives and Senators cannot afford to ignore that will.
In the face of a pathological government, the sane citizen must take action, while there is still time, if indeed there is any time left.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 07:05 pm (UTC)I now have found a bright side to making a gross salary of $20K a year (a number I finally reached this year), renting a house, and having no stocks, bonds, etc.: I have almost no assets to actually seize.
Right, and further,
Date: 2007-07-20 07:24 pm (UTC)I'm just clarifying that the adjective sense of "purported" you cite doesn't apply here--you won't be in trouble just because Schwa says you paid my rent.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 09:42 pm (UTC)To do so would require changing an 80-year old FCC policy and while that isn't impossible, it would be obvious to anyone that it had changed.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 12:29 am (UTC)So, in its most extreme effect, the order claims the power to seize the assets of anyone purported to act indirectly on behalf of anyone previously named under this order, which can include anyone who provides technical support or other services to someone named previously under this order, and which can also include anyone who poses a "significant risk" of committing acts of violence intended to undermine the effort to reconstruct Iraq.
The sweet part is Section 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Your assets can be seized because you did business with someone on a secret list of people whose assets were seized because they did business with someone else on the list.
The good news is that you have nothing to worry about if you're not in league with the terrorists.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 12:57 am (UTC)It's a directed action on the part of the White House, with no oversight, and no recourse.
TK