You are not going to believe it. Go to the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html# and read the July 17, 2007 Executive Order in which Bush announces that he plans to give the Secretary of the Treasury power to, among other things, seize all assets of anyone in this country even suspected of posing a "significant risk" that they might disagree with any Iraq goals or policies of Bush. It supposedly will be confined to those suspected of undefined "acts of violence," but considering it extends to future suspected acts as well and considering Bush already has the Secret Service arrest even spectators at campaign event for merely wearing a contradictory t-shirt, not to mention he often conflates all dissenters and opposition as traitors, there is good reason to fear how he will interpret the possibility those he does not happen to like or trust might commit supposedly violent acts.
Executive Orders have the force of law and this one is scary as hell in its implications. Remember, it is mere suspicion by an Executive branch official, not a judge or jury, that triggers this really drastic result. Combine that with destruction of habeus corpus and searches without warrant already in practice by this Administration and together they effectively nullify most of the Bill of Rights not to mention the powers granted to the two other formerly equal branchs of government. Unfortunately, except through the Ron Paul website, no one in Congress or running for office seems to have even mentioned it.
Frankly, I would not want any President to hold such power, no matter how much I might agree with him or her on other things. And, my by now well justified lack of trust in the Bush Administration is infinite. I cannot immagine they would not immediately and capriciously exercise such total power to silence opponents.
My guess is not even the most rabid right winger on the Republican Supreme Court would uphold it when and if tested, but in the years it would take someone to fight it through the courts, they could be without access to a dime of your assets the entire time. It gives the power to seize your home, your paychecks, your car simply because of suspicion, not proof or conviction.
If this particular Executive Order is not a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" against the Constitution as well as a violation of the President's Oath of Office, what the hell is? This is exactly what the impeachment remedy was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect against. What does it take to get our elected representatives and senators off their rear ends and convene for the process? If they won't impeach Bush, then we need to start recall campaigns to remove our present representatives and senators and replace them with others who will do what is increasingly necessary.
The only saving grace in this whole frightening effort by Bush and Cheney to apparently grant themselves essentially unrestricted control is that they have so broken our military, our domestic law enforcement agencies and our obviously ironically named "justice" department, they might not be able to accomplish their hoped for effective abolishment of the Constitution's ideals.
It's probably obvious I'm a CYNICAL PESSIMIST. Why a cynical pessimist? Possibly it's the result of expending a full lifetime defending, first with rifle in hand and then with a legal pad, "truth, justice and the American Way." Observing the less than perfect result and the fact that it must be unending tends to incubate pessimistic cynicism.
There is actually a better answer though. As a pessimistic cynic, I know I'll always be either right or delighted.
I'm probably also affected by the fact I live at the very edge of the earth, about as far as someone can get from our nation's centers of power and still have dry feet. (Minor quibble to establish my unfailing honesty: I don't actually live at the edge. Nevertheless, I really can at least see the edge from here.)
The commentaries submitted to this website are some of the views from that edge, for the most part political and social observations and questions tinged (or perhaps more accurately, tainted) with humor to make the point.
The name "lawless one"? It was my call sign in Nam and ironic in other ways.
This means that if you speak out against the war in Iraq, the government can take all of your belongings on a whim. You are not supporting the Iraqi government.
Don't think they will abuse this power? What have the Republicans always done.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 608 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 2:27:38 PM
This a a threat to all of our free-speech. Anything anti-war can be labeled by Bush as aiding iraq insurgency and all of our assets can be seized by the gov.
GO RON PAUL! Save Freedom!
by
J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 66 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 11:42:33 PM
What War? You mean the one that was over years ago?
Remember "Mission Accomplished"? That is the official date that "the war" ended. What we have here now is an occupation and that is what I speak out against - so this new law - even vaguely interpreted - it does not apply to me. ;-)
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 11:47:34 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
