July 23, 2007
9:46 PM   Subscribe

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq This order applies to those "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... (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." The order here (quick read). WaPo reports: "Destabilizing Iraq, Broadly Defined."
posted by McLir (27 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: there are existing thread currently talking about this very thing. Every "look at these assholes" press release doesn't need its own MeFi post. -- jessamyn



 
Follow-the-money is a much better strategy than follow-the-weapons or follow-the-terrorist because money ALWAYS leaves a trail.

I've been tempted to donate money to humanitarian causes in Iraq but have always decided against it for fear the money would be diverted to "other" uses.
posted by b_thinky at 10:03 PM on July 23, 2007


I've been tempted to donate money to humanitarian causes in Iraq but have always decided against it for fear the money would be diverted to "other" uses.

That's great, seriously, but there are people out there who weren't so cynical and gave to what they thought were humanitarian efforts in a war-torn region. They gave money with hope in their heart that it would do someone else good. Those people are now potentially in danger of having their assets frozen by the United States government.
posted by carsonb at 10:08 PM on July 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't paying American taxes fall into the category of paying for 'destabilizing Iraq'?
posted by sien at 10:19 PM on July 23, 2007 [26 favorites]


I hope that if my country's government ever starts abandoning the tenants of justice and democracy in the recent wholesale manner of the U.S., I'll have the courage to do something about it.

When confronted with an antagonistic goverment, do American citizens have any protections or freedoms left?
posted by chudmonkey at 11:10 PM on July 23, 2007


I did a little analysis of this the first time I read it.

The order is viral: "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".

Note the recursion right at the end.

So if A might be a threat to stabilization, he can have his property taken. If B is A's webmaster, *her* property can be taken. If C is B's business partner, *his* property can be taken.

The phrase in question is so general, it'd apply to almost any relationship you had with a person. If D is C's landlord, it does seem to me that D has "provided goods and services in support of" C and therefore can have his property blocked (i.e. stolen by the government.)

Of course, no court would upheld this -- but the trouble is that this was an executive order -- they just press a button and all your stuff is taken -- then you have to sue them to get it back, or some of it back.

Pretty astonishing. I would not have believed that this was possible 7 years ago.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:11 PM on July 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


I'm still waiting for it to turn out that opposing the war is classified as providing a service to the terrorists, just as the right-wingers like to claim. Suddenly ~70% of the country is subject to forfeiture.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:19 PM on July 23, 2007


Not to be hyperbolic, but it reminds me of the faux legal language that Stalin and other despots have used to initiate and justify reigns of terror. Could not a congressman sponsoring an impeachment resolution against the 'commander-in-chief' during wartime be in violation of this order?

What I want to know is who carries out these orders? What is the mechanism of Cheney & Co.'s power? What parts of the government are reliably loyal to them? I assume the Depts. of Justice and Defense, and the IRS does what's asked of it. If the Bush administration feels immune to prosecution and has nothing to lose politically, what is to stop them from using the broadest interpretation of this order to quell dissent?
posted by bukharin at 11:37 PM on July 23, 2007


SurelyThisFilter.

Really though, when did Bush suddenly get to rule by decree? How is a democratic majority in congress and a republican party living in terror of the next election letting this man behave as if he's a king?
posted by mullingitover at 11:45 PM on July 23, 2007


Are We There Yet?
posted by homunculus at 11:47 PM on July 23, 2007


I don't see how this passes the standard embodied in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The president can only execute something as serious as a taking of property with a demonstration of congressional intent. The President relies almost exclusively on 50 USC ยง 1701 et. seq. for this authority, but: 1) that section specifically states that the power to seize is limited to property owned by foreign nationals; 2) coerced support, or support given with a genuine intent to provide relief from human suffering is exempted; 3) looks pretty Constitutionally shaky to begin with.
posted by 1adam12 at 11:52 PM on July 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


When confronted with an antagonistic goverment, do American citizens have any protections or freedoms left?

We have some strong words from our founding fathers that basically encourages the populace to rise up with arms in such a situation. Unfortunately the people who ostensibly believe in this the most (and who have acquired the most firearms) were hoping to rise up against some sissy liberals. They are pretty happy with the current administration. After all, if Jesus were here today, surely he'd rather shoot a liberal.
posted by braksandwich at 12:12 AM on July 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


I'm still waiting for it to turn out that opposing the war is classified as providing a service to the terrorists, just as the right-wingers like to claim. Suddenly ~70% of the country is subject to forfeiture.

If push really came to shove, I would assume that 70% of the country's population could defeat the other 30%... you know... hypothetically... if it went that far.
posted by braksandwich at 12:15 AM on July 24, 2007


Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer [wiki]: Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court [FindLaw], "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand."
posted by McLir at 12:24 AM on July 24, 2007


It's okay if you're a Saudi prince though.
posted by bardic at 2:08 AM on July 24, 2007


lupus_yonderboy: Of course, no court would upheld this ...

Look no further, my friend!

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision coming to a court near you!

Also, this EO is one of the things that makes the (small) libertarian part of me want to load up on guns and take to the hills. The libertarian in me says: "If they can take your property, they'll eventually be able to take your life. Its only a matter of time."

I never thought that I would see an EO that, somehow, manages to broadly violate no less than five amendments to the Bill of Rights (IV-VIII). Think about it this way: If the Executive Branch can seize your property without due process, whats to keep them from having you arrested without due process? Well, shoot, we've already effectively suspended habeas corpus in this country, so why not?

Aw hell, ya'll a bunch of liberal crybabies. What do you got to fear if you're white 'n christian like Our President? These laws are just fo' the muzzies 'n the darkies, anyway.
posted by Avenger at 2:16 AM on July 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


You guys are all threatening the stabilization of Iraq by reading this decree or participating in this thread. Cut it out.

Regards,
Your government
posted by psmealey at 3:07 AM on July 24, 2007


Technical it's no longer your government, or my government, or even a government. It's now The Government.
posted by oxford blue at 3:26 AM on July 24, 2007


Of course, no court would upheld this -- but the trouble is that this was an executive order -- they just press a button and all your stuff is taken -- then you have to sue them to get it back, or some of it back.

And, of course, you need a lawyer willing to have his assets frozen to represent you.
posted by kafziel at 3:52 AM on July 24, 2007


That $300 tax break was awesome, wasn't it?
posted by maxwelton at 4:00 AM on July 24, 2007 [8 favorites]


Doesn't this violate the 5th Amendment? I thought you had rules against the government grabbing your shit since America is all about property rights.
posted by chunking express at 4:49 AM on July 24, 2007


IT'S JUST A GODDAMN PIECE OF PAPER!
- George W. Bush
posted by davelog at 4:54 AM on July 24, 2007


Doesn't this violate the 5th Amendment? I thought you had rules against the government grabbing your shit since America is all about property rights.

Well, yes, we did, but then we had this little War on Drugs, and well, things just haven't been the same since.
posted by Avenger at 5:14 AM on July 24, 2007


ironic that confiscation of property for the Good of the People -- a previously Marxist idea -- should be championed by Republicans.
posted by Avenger at 5:18 AM on July 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


ironic that confiscation of property for the Good of the People -- a previously Marxist idea -- should be championed by Republicans.

Yes, but it's really for your own good. Sometimes a good idea is just a good idea. Why can't you people understand that?
posted by psmealey at 6:21 AM on July 24, 2007


Thank goodness this will never be misused.

(Muuuuhahahahaha!)
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:53 AM on July 24, 2007


I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone. They've been taking the property of citizens in the War on Drugs for years. Without due process, and with very little legal recourse. Without a doubt, this was abused because small-town governments have been financing their law enforcement institutions with the proceeds from these seizures. But that's always been okay with god-fearing Americans because that primarily happens to brown and black people.

This EO is also primarily directed against brown and black people, hence no story.

Nothing to see here. Next outrage please.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:10 AM on July 24, 2007


They're going to have to write a whole new set of Schoolhouse Rock songs with this Administration is finally over.
posted by psmealey at 7:10 AM on July 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older The Man of the Hole   |   Hey Mom And Dad, Leave Those Kids Alone! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments