As detailed in a bright post by Sara at Orcinus, the order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", mentions
acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraqand it says that that since such acts pose an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security [...] of the United Statestherefore
all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States [...] are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.And the "following persons" include
any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,That's
(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.
any person determined ... to have committed ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ... threatening the peace or stability of IraqThe US invasion of Iraq, "justified" by the bogus claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction, has been an enormous act of violence, spawning countless other acts of violence that individually and collectively have clearly had the effect of threatening -- that is to say "eliminating" -- the peace or stability of Iraq.
This executive order therefore covers any president who ordered that invasion, any Senator or Representative who voted to allow it, any person who lied to "justify" it (including those who bought and sold the pro-war advertising campaign), and any person who took part in the invasion itself.
That includes the President, the vice president, the former secretary of state, the current secretary of state, the US military leadership, and many others, including Judith Miller and every other widely published supporter of the invasion, as well as -- of course -- the invaders themselves ...
... any person determined ... to have committed ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ... undermining efforts to promote ... political reform in Iraq ...The president himself has said many times that the United States is bringing democracy to Iraq; therefore all efforts which impede the Iraqi democratic process must be included under this clause. Since living under foreign occupation is incompatible with operating a democracy, this clause therefore includes all those who insist American troops must remain in Iraq. It makes no difference whether they say the troops must stay indefinitely or until certain deadlines pass or until certain benchmarks are met -- every day foreign troops remain in Iraq undermines political reform there.
Furthermore, there is nothing democratic or reformed about the leaders of the occupying force constantly pressuring the puppet lawmakers to pass a law that would turn seven eighths of the national treasure over to foreigners.
So this clause includes all the politicians who keep pushing for Iraq to pass the so-called "Oil Law", plus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and more talking heads than anyone could possibly list, as well as bloodthirsty political "pundits" with names like Kagan and Kristol and fill in the blank with your own personal favorite: ____________ .
... any person determined ... to have materially assisted ... or provided financial ... support for ... any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order...This clause catches everybody who ever contributed to either Bush campaign, as well as anybody who ever contributed to any of the campaigns of the Senators and Representatives who voted for the invasion or for continuing the occupation, and anyone who ever voted for any of the above, as well as anyone who ever bought anything online from the websites of any of the "personalities" we've listed or failed to list.
... any person determined ... to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of [...] any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.And this one grabs anyone who has ever done anything for any of the people we've already mentioned.
Some simple acts -- such as telling a lie -- may not appear to be acts of violence. But when they support an unjustified -- unjustifiable! -- war, how can such acts ever be considered non-violent?
So that's the question of the day, and I believe it has only one answer. And that means we're talking about a lot of people here, and they are in serious trouble! Finally! Fine! Uh!! Lee!!!
So here we go: Seize their possessions! Freeze their bank accounts! Cancel their credit cards and don't even let them write a check! Don't let them buy or sell a single stock, or bond, or barrel of oil, or bucket of blood. Hold on to all their other assets too, and see how well they like it!
They've jeopardized the national security of the United States of America -- the very thing many of them swore to uphold and defend -- and it's about time they faced some hardship because of what they have done.
This is not justice by any means, but it is a good first step, and I would congratulate the president for ordering it, except ...
... except ...
... except that you and I both know it will never be used to do what its words so clearly say.
It is in fact a grave danger to those who oppose the monstrosity that has taken over in Washington and wants Baghdad too. When they say "national security" they mean themselves, not the whole country. They have such massive egos, they imagine the country could never survive without them in their position -- elected or appointed office, or wealth or status or power or any combination of these. And therefore they believe that anything that threatens them personally is a threat to national security.
Maybe they don't all believe it. Maybe some of them only say it because they want you to believe it. But they say it all the time and it's sunk into the national consciousness even though most people have no idea what it really means, and all sorts of horrible things are done -- crimes excused, lives ruined, democracies overthrown, harmless nations invaded and occupied -- in its name.
And therefore the executive order probably comes with a top-secret eyes-only signing statement to the effect that the order will be interpreted to mean whatever the president decides it means and definitely not what the words say.
And in that respect...
Susan at Orcinus wants to know "Are We There Yet?" and the answer is "What do you mean, yet? We were there a long time ago and we kept on going."
There is nothing whatsoever to stop the Congress from passing a law saying, for example, that the president has three months to get all American troops home from Iraq.
And there's nothing to stop the president from signing it along with a statement saying the "three months" will be deemed to start twenty-five years from now and in the meantime anyone who opposes him or his foreign or domestic policy can go straight to prison for the rest of their lives with no trial, no hearing, no charge, no lawyer, no contact with their family or anyone else -- nothing but lemon chicken and a choice of deserts. And that's if he decides not to have them killed.
This state of affairs has existed for nearly six years.
Are We There Yet?
Oh yes, we most certainly are.
[ keep reading ]
Sara @ Orcinus: Are We There Yet?
Sean O'Neil: PCR's perspective on Bush's New Executive Order, and the start of dictatorship
Chris Floyd: Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent