Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   17 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

30 days to absolute tyranny

By Alex Wallenwein  Posted by Elaine (about the submitter)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

- Advertisement -

(Now 23 Days!)
Latest Bush Executive Order Outlaws Iraq War Dissent on Penalty of Full Asset Seizure
In an as yet un-numbered Executive Order (at least the number isn't published), president bush has decreed that your property - all of it - can be taken away at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury at the mere suspicion that you may commit a crime in the future. You can view and read this latest executive atrocity at the White House website.

An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn’t overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

If you own a business, this concerns you. Whether you own it as a sole proprietorship, as a sole shareholder, or even as a partial shareholder of a corporation, you stand to lose all of it if the Secretary thinks you may commit an "act of violence" that may disrupt the war (or peace) effort in Iraq. Naturally, "act of violence" is not defined anywhere in this order.

Once this becomes law, he has all the tools Hitler and Stalin had to keep their respective populations in utter subjection to their will.

The executive order states in Section 1(a) that “all property and interests in property” of “any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of - blah, blah, blah (followed by a laundry list of “purposes or effects”).

This means that the triggering factor underlying any such blocking order is a mere “determination” by the Secretary of the Treasury that you pose a “significant risk” of committing an act of violence in the future that has any of the listed purposes or effects. All the Secretary then has to do is to “consult” with the secretaries of state and defense. There is not even a requirement that these two agree with the Treasury Secretary’s “determination”(!)

In other words, if the Secretary of the Treasury says that you “pose a significant risk” of committing an act of violence with the purpose or effect of “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people”, then the 'bushprez' can block you from accessing your bank account, retirement account, credit cards, or “any property or interest in property” that you may own.
- Advertisement -

That technically includes your house, whether owned or rented, your car or other means of transportation, whether owned or rented, your business, all the way down to your cell phone, toothpaste and underwear, as well as the twenty bucks you loaned your buddy that he hasn’t paid you back yet.

What is there to keep the Secretary of the Treasury from “determining” that you, because you oppose the war in Iraq, are probably one of those extremist hooligans who protested the WTO in Seattle a few years back, or that you are likely to act like one of them even though you haven’t even participated in those riots? War protesters do these things, don’t they? They are all the same, aren’t they?

If the Secretary “determines” that you probably are one of them and that you “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence intended to frustrate the war (or even the peace effort) in Iraq, all of your stuff can be taken away from you - or you can be “blocked” from accessing it, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

You have no legal recourse under this order. No remedy at law. The order does not provide for compensation to you for the taking of your property. There is no due process requirement that will guarantee you a fair hearing in a court of law.

Unconstitutional? You bet!
- Advertisement -

But you can’t complain about it.

Why is that?

The president has declared a state of emergency back in 2003 (as he recites in this executive order at the end of the paragraph that starts with “I, GEORGE W. BUSH”). That state of emergency has not been rescinded, to this date.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Oppose executive order outlawing war dissent

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

anti war demonstration


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
15 people are discussing this page, with 17 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Somewhere in the Constitution it states that Congr... by rabblerowzer on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:00:54 AM
From libertarian email buddy ... and let me point ... by ladybroadoak on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 6:05:08 AM
the federal register disposition tables, which giv... by k kelly on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:12:43 AM
Even though the Congress can (and should and MUST)... by Charlie L on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:07:19 PM
The President has a problem called Iraq. There ha... by Bernard on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 3:27:39 PM
The whole premise of your argument assumes that th... by RCG on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 9:46:25 PM
This goes a lot deeper than what meets the eye: Bu... by Co6aka on Thursday, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:50:37 PM
Conceivably there is nothing preventing Bush from ... by ksl on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 1:22:36 AM
Oh, well, personally I'm not planning to under... by Tim Budds on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 5:58:52 AM
 the whole secret is that no one wants to und... by Mark Sashine on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 9:24:43 AM
This is Empire and the Americans allowed it to eme... by syed mahdi on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:54:21 PM
that come in here and spew that right wing nonsens... by RCG on Friday, Jul 27, 2007 at 7:01:08 PM
The Timeline for the Congress to rescind this ORDE... by Swami Bogananda on Saturday, Jul 28, 2007 at 2:40:10 PM
Although the order is limited to those who undermi... by James at IRB on Sunday, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:08:12 PM
This new executive order gives the President ... by Ellen Theisen on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 9:06:00 AM
Ah, the studied ambiguity of the English language.... by Marcus B on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 8:51:13 PM
My previous post is not intended, in any way, to i... by Marcus B on Monday, Jul 30, 2007 at 9:04:23 PM