Oppose the Iraq war: have your property confiscated
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, January 4, 2026 15:05
VIEWED: 2809
PAGE 1 of 4
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar MovementQuote:
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky , Globalresearch.ca
July 20, 2007
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.
In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to 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."
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.
The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.
Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.
The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops. Forgot the link.
www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=10902&letter_id=131466
7456
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not that I'm one to defend anything Bush does, but there is that stipulation in there about committing a "violent act". It doesn't really come off as a way to rob anyone who protests, just those that protest with violence, and I can't say I disagree.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...and here's a link to the actual executive order.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem I have with this is the flexible intepretation that police etc seem to apply to the term "violence" and "threat".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29739
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem I have with this is the flexible intepretation that police etc seem to apply to the term "violence" and "threat".
It's a good thing that the police aren't involved in determining who falls under this this Executive Order, then.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, and the President Himself. (Mistaken renditions, people cleared from motorcade areas, invading Iraq because it posed an "imminet threat". Sheesh!)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar MovementQuote:
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky , Globalresearch.ca
July 20, 2007
In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
---------------------------------
This could be a real boon for deficit reduction in the US. I wonder how much the government will get when it auctions off the Booty. I'm really not sure what 27 tie dyed tee shirts and three VW buses go for now days. And don't forget the those uncashed checks from mommy and daddy.
"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's an article written by a former CIA officer which sums up the various laws, executive orders etc. that have significantly eroded our Consitutional protections under GW Bush. Bush, however, is not the sole author of these intrusions as many bills were passed by Congress with the approval of a significant number of Democrats.
www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_7409
1.html
Part of the reason for bringing this up is in refutation of Auraptor's vision of the so-called "liberal press". During the aftermath of 9-11, the buildup to war with Iraq, and subsequent passage of bills which undermine our Constitutional protections, there was hardly a peep of protest in the mainstream media. A TRULY "liberal" press would have questioned whether these actions were truly necessary.
FWIW I don't think the press is "liberal", it's very status-quo and very lazy, presenting neither the arguments from the left nor from the right.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME