http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/under-the-radar-ten-warning-signs-for-today/

On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to “block” the property of people in the US found to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence which might undermine “political reform in Iraq.”

The terms “significant threat” and “act of violence” are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush’s definition of “political reform in Iraq” would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?

The vague language also includes outlawing “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.” What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be “blocked”?

civil rights no more

Its about time we got some serious legislation to use against those proterrorist America haters.

We must remember that this is the administration whose Department of Education once included teachers in its purview of terrorists. Remember, this executive order actually strengthens our civil rights.

(Don't get me wrong; I don't know how that would work. But, apparently, making every effort to recruit terrorists into enemy organizations is helping to guarantee our safety and security. Next thing we know, the quickest route to Portland will be the plunging of testes into liquid nitrogen and running a book on how many toothpicks shot like arrows from rubber-band bows it takes to shatter the damn things.)

The vague language also includes outlawing “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.” What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be “blocked”?
The order revolves around the phrase 'act of violence'...but doesnt spell out what this means specifically, and against whom specifically.

Vague wording is wide open to abuse.

I read the release at the white house on this last week or so, and the "blocking property of those who threaten stabilization of Iraq" is preceded by the condition of doing, or planning to do it, violently.

This is utterly wrongful. When's the election again?

November, 2008. The Tuesday after the first Monday.

Let me know when Bush actually starts seizing private property for protesting the war. 'Cause, all of you are so sure it's about to happen, I'm sure there'll be oodles and oodles of stories of how Bush is taking private property.

OH... it's from the Dissident Voice a wholly impartial and unbiased news source.

~String

Read the order. The bar is set pretty high in there if you muddle through the legalese. It's not protest the war and you lose your house, either. That's ridiculous...

oh well go to war or don't we don't have a choice in the matter anyway

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/under-the-radar-ten-warning-signs-for-today/

On July 17th, The White House quietly announced an Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)Among other developments, it gives Bush the power to “block” the property of people in the US found to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence which might undermine “political reform in Iraq.”

The terms “significant threat” and “act of violence” are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush’s definition of “political reform in Iraq” would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?

The vague language also includes outlawing “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.” What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be “blocked”?

Just stirring up the waters again, eh, SAM? Playing on the fears of the pussy-foot alarmists in our midst. You know full well the lemmings will ALWAYS bite on something like this. :D

If you had actually READ that Executive Order, you'd have found that has some VERY high requirements in order to be triggered. Pretty much on the exact same level as traitorous acts - which have very stringent parameters.

You do realize that you're in the wrong vocation, don't you? You could do an excellent job as Minister of Propaganda in some third-world country. You'd have a place in the news every single day.

Let me know when Bush actually starts seizing private property for protesting the war. 'Cause, all of you are so sure it's about to happen, I'm sure there'll be oodles and oodles of stories of how Bush is taking private property.

OH... it's from the Dissident Voice a wholly impartial and unbiased news source.

~String

She also linked to the original document at whitehouse.gov.

I personally do not see the significance of this, assuming the law will be applied the way it appears to me, but I find your sarcasm ironic. You find the concept of a property seizure unlikely when for years they can just seize American citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial, if they call them enemy combatants. Given that that has already actually happened I personally find the idea of property seizure a sadly realistic possibility.

Given that we had to wrench civil asset forfeiture in drug cases out of the hands of law enforcement's greedy clutch, it seems reasonable to think this is going to go just as badly.

With civil asset forfeiture, one of the things the law enforcement community could not understand was why they had to prove someone guilty before seizing the property. Another was why they should give it back after the person is acquitted.

The WoD is a pretty good guide to what will happen with the WoT.

You find the concept of a property seizure unlikely when for years they can just seize American citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial, if they call them enemy combatants. Given that that has already actually happened I personally find the idea of property seizure a sadly realistic possibility.

Actually, they can't. They can seize NON American citizens and hold them for years without a trial, but I the US Supreme Court has heald that all US citizens must be given a trial. I'd like to see some evidence that the US has been seizing US citizens off the streets and holding them (I mean, besides the nightmarish tantrums thrown out by people "claiming" that it's true: some hard facts would be nice).

~String

It's sad that some Americans don't even know.

What tantrums do you refer to? Anyway, if being an American citizen or not is a worthwhile distinction in how we should treat prisoners, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)#Habeas_corpu s
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the protection of United States law. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.

...
In the criminal case, legal brief filed on behalf of Padilla alleges that during his imprisonment he has been subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and enforced stress positions.[26]

George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, reports that Padilla's mental faculties have been so impaired by the conditions of incarceration and interrogation that:[27]

...he appears to have lost his mind. I don't mean this metaphorically. I mean that his mind is no longer there.

The forensic psychiatrist who examined him says that he "does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, ie, post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation".

The Padilla case doesn't prove the massive civil rights violations previous posters in this thread have suggested.

It's worse.

I agree.

It's worse.

Hardly. It's one VERY extreme example and not even close to being typical.

So?

So Infinity

So?

So it proves exactly what countzero said: "The Padilla case doesn't prove the massive civil rights violations previous posters in this thread have suggested."

In other words, you and others are grossly overreacting.

Where is the overreaction?

I do not see how anything you said proves that it is not a massive civil rights violation. Is that measured by the quantity of people it happens to, rather than how far it deviates from our civil rights? Is it possible, in your view, that there is a large civil rights violation that only happens to a small quantity of people?

Where is the overreaction?

I do not see how anything you said proves that it is not a massive civil rights violation. Is that measured by the quantity of people it happens to, rather than how far it deviates from our civil rights? Is it possible, in your view, that there is a large civil rights violation that only happens to a small quantity of people?

Sure! There's always a tiny minority that truly gets mistreated in ANY legal system. Just look around the world and you'll find plenty of isolated examples. One does not (unless one is just a reactionary) go wild because of an abberation that has NOT become common in a system.

Hardly. It's one VERY extreme example and not even close to being typical.

That example was quoted in direct response to:

Actually, they can't. They can seize NON American citizens and hold them for years without a trial, but I the US Supreme Court has heald that all US citizens must be given a trial. I'd like to see some evidence that the US has been seizing US citizens off the streets and holding them (I mean, besides the nightmarish tantrums thrown out by people "claiming" that it's true: some hard facts would be nice).

Showing that what String said was obvioulsy false.

Sure! There's always a tiny minority that truly gets mistreated in ANY legal system. Just look around the world and you'll find plenty of isolated examples. One does not (unless one is just a reactionary) go wild because of an abberation that has NOT become common in a system.

Yet... For now, they've demonstrated they have the power to act on their dubious enemy combatant law, or whatever you would call that. It has become accepted by the public. It is not a precedent I like to see set. Precedent matters.

Also it reveals the people in charge have a mindset to disregard for the rules, even when it comes to their own citizens (although to me that seems irrelevant since I value non-Americans equally). Which is why the idea of a ridiculous law to seize property for war protesters would not surprise me, except for the timing. Thankfully the current administration doesn't have the support it once did, so it would not get away with it at a time like this.

The law does not advocate seizing the property of war protesters. Read it again.