Recent executive Order

[Jonnyclueless]

I bring it up because it seems to be a common cult topic that I haven't seen addressed on here.

Is it a violation of civil liberties?
Is it a violation of the Constitution?
Is it too vague and able to be abused?
What is the definition of "blocking property"?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

[KoihimeNakamura]

This should be in the Politics forum. However, IMHO, yes, yes, yes and I don't know.

[Jonnyclueless]

I didn't think about that but I guess you're right. The reason I bring it up here is because the basis for me asking is that all the CTers keep claiming it as a pretext for arresting anyone who protests the war and part of a pretext for taking over the world and putting everyone in jail, etc.

[Thunder]

I dont even understand what the executive order is about. what is it saying in laymen's terms?

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, to my understanding it says that if anyone causes any violence or contributes to violence (I guess such as funding insurgents etc) , or disrupts the stability of the Iraq government, then the government can seize their property.

My interpretation is that someone can get around the combatant laws and what not by simply being a US citizen. So one can get a US citizen ship then start fundings insurgents or terrorists (or whatever term you want to use), or incite violence between religious sects from within the US. This would allow them to seize that base of operations or stop any companies from doing so.

What the interpretation has been form others that makes me ask about this issue is that it can be used to stop people from protesting the war.

[The Doc]

Conspiracy Theorists are claiming that this executive order takes away their right to protest. It does not.

[fezzic]

I dont even understand what the executive order is about. what is it saying in laymen's terms?

The best I can figure (since I am not going to research the various references and am not a lawyer) is:

It looks like promulgation of authority to freeze assets for the purposes in the order -- to try and forstall acts of violence that are intended to forstall the stated goals, plus to extend that freeze (well, maybe) to anyone who works to circumvent the purpose of the freeze (of a person's or entity's assets).

Nothing about detention or imprisonment. The assets are not seized as such, though the fact that one loses control over them is probably some kind of "seizure".

Also the order says that no prior warning need be made to the person, persons, or entity that is going have its asset frozen because prior warning would possibly allow immediate transfer of those assets (presumably cash or equivalent) beyond the US.

(In my personal opinion and interpretation)

[Thunder]

Well, LUCUS over at LC seems to think that this law makes it criminal to protest the iraq was and that martial law has now been installed.

what a loony.

[ktesibios]

CTers have a thing about executive orders; they think they're a means for a President to rule by decree, like a ukase from the Tsar.

In fact, under the National Emergencies Act, which in combination with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is cited as the legal basis for this E.O., Congress has the power to terminate any national emergency declared by the President irrespective of his wishes, which terminates any powers delegated to the President under that act.

If the administration were to try to twist the language of this E.O. into a justification for imposing an assets freeze on Americans who protest their policies, they would be forced into admitting openly that they intend to use Executive powers to impose extrajudicial punishment for purely political purposes. Nowadays even republican congresscritters are trying to draw a distinction between themselves and the Bush administration; what's the likelihood that Bush's national emergency would last more than a day or so in the event that the administration really tried to pull such a Soviet-style trick? What's the likelihood that they would be that dumb?

It's a good idea to scrutinize any aggrandizement of Executive power in terms of what its worst-case potential for abuse is likely to be. CTers can even serve a useful purpose in flagging new items for reasonable people to examine. In fact, that's about the only useful purpose I can see the paranoid conspiracy theory industry serving. They sure aren't much at drawing supportable conclusions.