Oppose the Iraq war: have your property confiscated by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 11:05 AM

STORYMARK

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 12:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

...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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 12:21 PM

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29739

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 12:46 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 12:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:17 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement
Quote:
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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'm really not sure what 27 tie dyed tee shirts and three VW buses go for now days."
Did you time-travel recently ? Have you forgotten to check your decade ? Your century ? Your millenium ?

"And don't forget (the) those uncashed check from mommy and daddy."
A lot of us here are old enough to be your parents, if not your grandparents, work real jobs and probably paid the taxes that got you your education.

***************************************************************
Kids nowadays. Sheesh.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But seriously -

are you runing your mind on stereotypes and biases ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:31 PM

KIRKULES

Sorry if I offended you. I didn't realise you were and American anti-war protester advocating violence.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, 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, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

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.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

***************************************************************
You have to read the fine print. It's where the real order resides.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 1:58 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
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"

I don’t know what tie-die shirts and bugs go for these days, but I doubt such things are the target of this Order. Protesting the war in Iraq, as Hippies might do, and trying to destabilize the government of Iraq or any other government, as terrorists might do, are very different things. It’s sort of like the difference between disliking your neighbor and killing him. We do draw distinction like this in society all the time.

Of course, I get the sarcasm, just point it out for the perspective-challenged.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 2:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

You have to read the fine print. It's where the real order resides.

I'd be interested in your interpretation of 'the fine print'. Please be specific.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 4:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

starting from the top

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, 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

How did the US national interest get tied up with Iraq again ?

... all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States (citizens) ...: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense

What about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? due process, jury of peers ?

(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:

By whose estimation ? What evidence ?

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people

The USPATRIOT Act makes programming an act of terrorism. US citizens are being held liable for any action which may or may not affect US PLANS for that country.

(b) The prohibitions include, but are not limited to
(ii) materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support goods or services
in support of any person whose property is blocked
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf any person whose property is blocked

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a (citizen) that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

The Secretary of the Treasury is judge, jury and executioner not only of people who are supposed to have contributed, but associates, friends, businesses ... and anyone thought to be conspirators, no matter how farfetched it's construed.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(DEFINITIONS)
No definition of violence. but according to the USPATRIOT Act it could be anything that damages business interests, even free software - a la Stallman.

Sec. 4. ... donations ... would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315.

Here's where the entire act becomes decoupled from violence and Iraq.

Sec. 5. ... there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

In other words you are accused, deemed and punished without even knowing - and not a court in sight.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury ... is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations ... 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.

Monitoring money transactions ? Phone calls ?

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 4:55 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
starting from the top

Amendment I

Congress (But what about other lawmaking bodies?) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,(Only establishment? What about modification?) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (So we can stone adulterers?); or abridging the freedom of speech, (Yes! Shout 'fire!' in that crowded theater!) or of the press (Well, since TV and the internet don't use presses, the FF obviously didn't mean to include them.); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, (But who determines peacefully? And exactly who are these 'people' anyway?) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances(No one said the government has to listen.)

Gee. It sure is easy to twist pretty much anything into a tyranny if you really want to (And are paranoid enough).

BTW. I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly how many of the Iraqi war opposition have had their assets frozen since Pres. Bush signed his Executive Order in July. A million? A hundred thousand? Ten? Any?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 5:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

'Cause we all know GW Bush is an honest, fair-minded person who takes a balanced view of things and would never violate Constitutional rights, break the law, or lie.

Tsk tsk.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 5:16 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.

" Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool. " - Paul Begala

Source: The New York Times, July 5, 1998, referring to executive orders.

Ironic, ain't it ?

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 5:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"BTW. I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly how many of the Iraqi war opposition have had their assets frozen since Pres. Bush signed his Executive Order in July."

How about you tell me how many he's tracking and spying on in pusuit of said order. Oh, you can't.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 5:52 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"BTW. I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly how many of the Iraqi war opposition have had their assets frozen since Pres. Bush signed his Executive Order in July."

How about you tell me how many he's tracking and spying on in pusuit of said order. Oh, you can't.

Or, in other words, you got nothing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 30, 2007 6:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In other words, neither do you. Except your usual tactics of course.

The EO gives the TD the right to write whatever rules they want to write, spy wherever they wish to spy, make any judgments they care to make, evade any pretense of a jury or trial, and deprive people of property in a secret process.

AND YOU LIKE IT !!!!!!

***************************************************************
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 4:26 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The EO gives the TD the right to write whatever rules they want to write, spy wherever they wish to spy, make any judgments they care to make, evade any pretense of a jury or trial, and deprive people of property in a secret process.

Proof? Analysis by an actual independent and un-biased authority? Evidence that such things are actually going on?

Here's a clue. Why does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" not allow folks to stone adulterers, if they have 'free exercise' of their beliefs?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 4:41 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"BTW. I'd appreciate if you'd tell me exactly how many of the Iraqi war opposition have had their assets frozen since Pres. Bush signed his Executive Order in July."

How about you tell me how many he's tracking and spying on in pusuit of said order. Oh, you can't.

Seriously rue, you're comparing apples to oranges. First, a claim has been made that neither you nor Sig can back up. For those making the charge, the burden of proof lies upon THEM to show its validity , or stfu. Second, you're presenting a non sequitur to geezer here, posing YOUR claim as his own, and then when he fails to answer YOUR question, that somehow validates your baseless position? Explain how that works again???

Oh, it doesn't. It's not more than childish qwips from an agenda blinded myrmidon.

Oh, and Sig, as per your remark of my vision of a " so called Liberal press ". Spare yourself the humiliation. We've been all over that, and again as noted w/ CNN, that the main stream US press is undeniably Left leaning, and not just be a little bit. It's wholesale biased.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First, a claim has been made that neither you nor Sig can back up. For those making the charge, the burden of proof lies upon THEM to show its validity , or stfu.

The "claim" has been made that Bush just legalized for himself the power to "hold" property based on secret evidence. The claim is true; just read the EO and you'll see for yourself.

Now, since it doesn't involve jail time and they don't actually "take" your property (just keep you from accessing it) it can be done quickly and w/o a judge or jury or even military tribunal being involved. Quite frankly I see no real reason for this EO. Bush et al already have more power than the Constitution grants to declare citizens "illegal enemy combatants" and detain citizens in jail indefinitely w/o charges, to be tried by the military (which so far has handled these trials in a shameless manner by not allowing access to lawyers, keeping evidence secret- even from the defendent, and not allowing witnesses for the defense), he's laready set up equipment to spy on millions of Americans... what does he want to be? Dictator?

And just so you don't miss it, I'm going to repeat myself from earlier:

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 6:51 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
First, a claim has been made that neither you nor Sig can back up. For those making the charge, the burden of proof lies upon THEM to show its validity , or stfu.
The "claim" has been made that Bush just legalized for himself the power to "hold" property based on secret evidence. The claim is true; just read the EO and you'll see for yourself.

Now, since it doesn't involve jail time and they don't actually "take" your property (just keep you from accessing it) it can be done quickly and w/o a judge or jury or even military tribunal being involved. Quite frankly I see no real reason for this EO. Bush et al already have more power than the Constitution grants to declare citizens "illegal enemy combatants" and detain citizens in jail indefinitely w/o charges, to be tried by the military (which so far has handled these trials in a shameless manner by not allowing access to lawyers, keeping evidence secret- even from the defendent, and not allowing witnesses for the defense), he's laready set up equipment to spy on millions of Americans... what does he want to be? Dictator?

Sadly, much of what you claim is false. Oh, sure, the EO is there, as you claim, but to date, has it been used ? Or misused to any amount ? Where's the proof ? The issues over whether international terrorist are due the same rights as US citizens seems fairly moot. Reveal where/ how said evidence was aquired to the Judicial system, and risk alerting terrorist organizations our methods ( SWIFT ) and there by making them harder to catch. Also, the false claime that Bush is 'spying' on millions of Americans. That's the biggest load of B.S. being repeated out in the ether as anything. We're trying to capture TERRORIST plotting another 9/11 type attack, we're not spying Peter and Lois Griffin!

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 7:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
international terrorist are due the same rights as US citizens seems fairly moot.

Can you read? The EO is not specific to "international terrorists", it refers to "certain persons". I'm not gonna waste any more of my time on you either today. Come up with something even remotely factual and I'll reply.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 8:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not gonna waste any more of my time on you either today. Come up with something even remotely factual and I'll reply.

Okay. Here's a list and links to a bunch of Executive Orders blocking property of folk involved in all sorts of conflicts. http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/map/eolinks.shtml
Read a few and note that the language you are concerned about (Sect. 4, 5, and 6 of EO 13438) is pretty much boilerplate, and not specific to only the Iraq-related EO.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 12:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
international terrorist are due the same rights as US citizens seems fairly moot.
Can you read? The EO is not specific to "international terrorists", it refers to "certain persons". I'm not gonna waste any more of my time on you either today. Come up with something even remotely factual and I'll reply.

---------------------------------

I was talking about the false claim that Bush 'wire taps' millions of US citizens, when instead we're only trying to keep tabs on TERRORIST. Your comment about the specific E.O. wasn't what I was talking about in that instance, I'm just showing you how your position is wrong. I'm factually correct here. It makes sense to make such an E.O., because there are clearly to many zealots and crack pots inside the U.S., citizens, who would try anything to subvert the President, even committing treason or helping the terrorist, etc.....

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 1, 2007 8:16 PM