"The is a stunning assertion of executive power that creates a Sword of Damocles over anyone opposed to the war or otherwise who might come under the umbrage of the president," Fein told me.
Later in the same piece detailing the order, Corsi writes:
The order allows the president to order the executive branch to seize the private property of violators, abrogating important Fifth Amendment protections that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
The new executive order follows a series of orders Bush has issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, similarly "blocking the property" of people who threaten stability in Darfur, Zimbabwe , Ivory Coast , Syria , Belarus , Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Of these countries, the only one in which the U.S. is directly involved in a war is Iraq.
Under the executive order involving Syria, the Treasury Department on Jan. 18, 2006, designated Syrian Military Intelligence Director Assef Shawkat as a supporter of terrorism, contending he maintained close ties with Lebanese and Palestinian organizations. Making this determination, Treasury froze any assets Shawkat may have had under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibited any American from engaging in transactions with him.
In August, a month after gutting the Fifth Amendment rights of Americans, the Bush Administration put out another executive order that dealt with Lebanon. In it, the Bush Administration took away protections afforded to citizens under the Fourth Amendment, according to RogueGovernment.com:
One of the most disturbing parts of the executive order comes in Section 4 where Bush actually makes a statement regarding people who might have a constitutional presence in the United States. Below is the section.
Sec. 4. 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 this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
What is so horrible about this part of the executive order is that Bush states that the individual’s Constitutional rights are null and void because he claim’s that the ability to transfer funds or assets instantaneously would make the executive order ineffectual. He states there doesn’t need to be prior notice of a listing or determination made by the government to justify why they took somebody’s property. This effectively gives Bush the ability to take property without providing justification and without a warrant. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires a warrant and probable cause before property is seized.
Such executive orders do not include the powers Bush has asserted in national security presidential directives such as NSPD-51, which Prof. Chossudovsky thoroughly details. Bush has also issued homeland security presidential directives too, which are just as threatening to this nation as his collection of national security presidential directives and executive orders.
Much more could be said about Bush’s executive orders issued thus far, but I would rather move on to Obama before I lose your attention. Check out the National Archives and read the titles of all of Bush’s executive orders issued and even the executive orders themselves if you have time. The titles are enough to raise doubts in my mind and if you have followed this administration as closely as I have, you probably won’t disagree.
What Would Be the Result of Such a Review of Bush’s Executive Orders Under an Obama Administration?
To be fair, let’s thank Obama for mentioning that he would review unconstitutional and unnecessary executive orders to House Democrats behind closed doors. Let’s not thank him for saying nothing to the press after the meeting about expunging executive orders that "trample on liberty."
While Obama did issue a joint resolution in November of 2007 to “halt a rush to war with Iran” that cited Executive Order 13382: Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Supporters and Executive Order 13324: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism and stated that these could not be used as a pretext for war, there is no other evidence on his Senate website that he has raised issue with previous abuses of power by Bush or the Executive Branch.
For a person who used to be a constitutional law professor, Obama’s inattention to the trampling of the rule of law should be disturbing to Americans who want Obama to be the next president. Obama, who asserts that he is the agent of change, has offered little indication during this election that he understands the scope of unconstitutional and unnecessary powers that have been claimed by the Executive Branch under the Bush Administration.
While torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, abrogation of citizens’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and further expansions of Executive Power may not be winning issues to pollsters following this election, a man who preaches the so-called politics of change should be putting these issues in front of the American people every single day of this election.
