Executive order blocking protest?

[Chairboy]

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

It seems to be an executive order authorizing confiscation of goods/funds for anyone, among other things, who is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;" will have "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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in"

This appears to assert that the price for political protest could be having your estate/assets confiscated.

Any other reads on it?  BTW, it applies to US citizens, that's the first thing I checked, so the old saw about 'damn furriners' doesn't apply.

[john9001]

read what you wrote, it doesnt say political protest, it say "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;"

are you against 'economic reconstruction ','political reform ','humanitarian assistance ' in Iraq?

[trax1]

"due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"

This seems reasonable to me.  Doesn't sound like it's against protesters, sounds like it's aimed at people committing violent acts.

[Maverick]

I'm not sure why you make those claims as I don't read it in that manner. There is no confiscation, only blocking of transfers first of all. It also deals with situations that deal in acts of violence, not protest. I think you are reading more into it than really exists. I could be wrong but I don't see the situation you are talking about.

Here is the pertinent portion of the order itself.

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.

(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.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

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.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

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.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. 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.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

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.

[storch]

I quit reading chairboy's post a long time ago but this one piqued my curiosity alas it is another the sky is falling thread.

[Chairboy]

Political protect could very reasonably be seen as "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people", hence my concern.

Perhaps this is a worst-case reading of the order, I hope so.  Thanks for the sanity check, either way.  I find that more and more, if I assume the worst, I'm pleasantly surprised when things turn out slightly less terribly.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Political protect could very reasonably be seen as "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people", hence my concern.

Perhaps this is a worst-case reading of the order, I hope so.  Thanks for the sanity check, either way.  I find that more and more, if I assume the worst, I'm pleasantly surprised when things turn out slightly less terribly.

Actually, protest (or "protect" in your case ") in this country would be quite a stretch from transferring funds out of country to a terrorist organization. You really need to read what is there and not what you want to see. I'm not dinging you, it just doesn't fit what you are saying.

[tedrbr]

I don't see a problem with most of it, but I have to agree that the: "undermining efforts to promote" is rather on the vague side for language and open to a lot of interpretation.   In theory, anyone in Congress that lobbies or votes against funding bills for the efforts in Iraq are "undermining efforts to promote", not to mention political activists, news commentators, people who write commentaries against the war, and so forth.  In theory, they all can be described as "undermining efforts to promote".

It's the kind of vague language that has become common during this Administration (I say Administration because I recognize that the President does not operate in a vacuum on his own.... the Administration is made up of thousands of federal employees, political appointees, legal staff, interns, staffers, and lobbyists) and I do find the ongoing and growing practice a bit disturbing.  

Right up there with Cheney being a member of the Administration or Legislative Branch.... whichever works best for a particular situation.