There’s a disturbing law in effect in the US, and it isn’t the Patriot Act or DMCA this time. The President has ordered that people found to be in his executive’s opinion to be violent opponents to the Iraq War, shall be stripped of any economic power.
This government has now asserted — without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress — its right to take away our houses, cars, savings accounts, the stuff of our lives, on the say-so of the President and his Treasury Secretary. They are not kidding. What we do here, what I am doing right now (unless I choose my words very carefully) is being done in defiance of the Law According to George Bush.
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,
[...]
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,[...]
all property and interests in property of the following 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 are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense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;
“pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence”
= Guilty until proven innocent based on what the paranoid fascists in the US Government consider a significant risk. Keep in mind these are the people that determined that Katrina was not a significant risk to the security of New Orleans, and determined that Maher Arar was a significant risk and needed to be tortured by the Syrians. We know New Orleans was destroyed, and Arar was shown to be innocent through subsequent Canadian government inquiries.
–
Hat tip to The Rev
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
SHADES OF CLARITY | 01-Aug-07 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
“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,”
By all means let the terrorists do their thing but don’t abuse their rights to kill and maim innocents.
Saskboy | 01-Aug-07 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
Shading Clarity, you could have notice that the problem lies here, not with the passage you suggested:
“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,”
So it’s whoever Rummy’s replacement figures is a likely threat. Paranoid people steeped in CIA threat briefings, are able to take away an innocent American’s ability to live free, and even the realistic means of beating a false charge: money to hire a decent lawyer.
Patrick Ross | 01-Aug-07 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
“Paranoid fascists” is probably a wee bit much. That being said, yeah. There is no way this isn’t at risk of being abused.
You’re right: the Arar case does at least to some extent demonstrate that the United States is having a difficult time determining who is really a risk in terms of potentially committing violence.
Given the ordeal inflicted upon Arar following his rendition, I would be comfortable suggesting that, as a whole, the institutions of the US have been demonstrating themselves to be a source of risk to innocent people.
Although it might be unfair to draw this conclusion if one overlooks the RCMP’s role in helping the Arar affair take place.
Saskboy | 01-Aug-07 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
Good point about Arar being the canary in the coal mine. And you used the term “fascists” not me ;-) but good call.