Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Akanae
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 290
Joined: September 20, 2002, 12:40 am

Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Akanae »

Executive Order: Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 717-3.html

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, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

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, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States 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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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;

(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.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. 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 Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.
WOW - Eewy priest of Cenarius
EQ- Akanae Tendo officer of OTB ~retired~
COH - Akanae Empathy Defender on Pinnacle ~retired~
User avatar
Jice Virago
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1644
Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
Gender: Male
PSN ID: quyrean
Location: Orange County

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Jice Virago »

I believe that sound you are hearing is the clicking of goose stepping boots.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .

Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Fash »

Care to elaborate what specifically bothers you about this executive order? I just read it and I'm not sure where you're coming from... It's painfully wordy and vague but seems to have a positive purpose against people who would aid/abet the enemy, or am I missing the big picture?
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Sueven »

I don't know anything about this other than what I read here. So I'm not aware of the context of the order, the contents of the other orders referenced therein, the legal authority upon which this is predicated, etc.

But just from looking at this, there are some things to be bothered by. First is the vagueness.
(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;
What the fuck does this mean? There's an awful lot of things that can fit under this definition. Remember Xyun's argument in the Scooter Libby thread about treason? That is why we want legal language to be as specific as possible. Libby won't be charged with treason because we have centuries of precedent establishing what the ambiguous definition of 'treason' means. We don't have centuries of precedent determining what it means to "threaten the stability of Iraq" or to "undermine efforts to promote political reform in Iraq." Someone is going to get to decide what these terms mean. Who gets to do that, you ask?
the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense
Why, it's the lackeys of the very person who promulgated the order in the first place! So much for checks and balances...

The problem is that the President has issued an executive order authorizing his underlings to freeze all assets of people who have, in their opinion, committed some act which is so poorly defined that it could encompass far more situations than I'm comfortable with.

Now admittedly, there are some safeguards. In order for that ambiguous language to kick in, the individual must:
have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
That's less ambiguous. An individual protesting the Iraq War could be said to be "threatening the stability of the Iraqi government." However, their assets can't be frozen unless the Bush administration decides that they have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence. That is a real protection. Of course, what happens if the protestor pushes a police officer during a scuffle? Furthermore, the 'act of violence' requirement can be superceded if the person has
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
Which is ambiguous again.

The bottom line is that the "determinations" made by the various secretaries need to be subject to judicial oversight if this is to be anything other than a blatant consolidation of power by the executive branch. If the safeguards are taken seriously, and judicial oversight is established, then this sort of thing is fine.
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Fash »

i hope this comparison doesn't derail things... my employer just changed a policy... before, all job vacancies had to be posted first... now, if it's in "the companys best interests" not to post it, they don't have to. As above, who decides this, and how do we trust they share the best interests of the company?...
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Knarlz
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 331
Joined: July 9, 2002, 7:40 am
Location: My own private Idaho

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Knarlz »

"who decides this"

In a large company this is usually the non-caucasion, multi-degree'd, crippled, orphaned, lesbian, x-alki, overachieving, fridgid, diversity spouting, sensitivity frothing, head of human resources.
Pride of nationality depends not on ignorance of other nations, but on ignorance of one's own.
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by masteen »

This executive order provides absolutely no provisions for oversight of any kind. That, combined with the vague wording, is the problem.

The executive branch has overstepped it's bounds more during this administration than at any time since the New Deal. Sadly, because of the bullshit partisan games that rule D.C., nothing will be done about this. The GOP is still busy trying to simultaneously kiss fundy ass while distancing themselves from Dubya, and the Dems are still too busy tripping over their own dicks to do anything.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Sueven »

Masteen said it more succinctly than I.
Fash wrote:i hope this comparison doesn't derail things... my employer just changed a policy... before, all job vacancies had to be posted first... now, if it's in "the companys best interests" not to post it, they don't have to. As above, who decides this, and how do we trust they share the best interests of the company?...
Who the fuck knows? If your employer is privately held, then the owners likely decide who decides, and it doesn't matter whether they share the best interests of the company, because that is the business of the owner and not you. If your employer is publicly held, then the shareholders have a variety of legal mechanisms available in order to ensure that the action being taken is in the best interests of the company (investor class actions and the like). A business answers to either the owners or the shareholders, while a government answers to the citizenry. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Knarlz wrote:In a large company this is usually the non-caucasion, multi-degree'd, crippled, orphaned, lesbian, x-alki, overachieving, fridgid, diversity spouting, sensitivity frothing, head of human resources.
Possibly, but I'd guess the opposite. I'd guess that the policy was likely put into place so that, when management has a golden boy who they want to promote, they can go ahead and do it without having to worry about the non-caucasians, the multi-degreed, the crippled, the orphaned, the lesbians or the ex-alcoholics raising a fuss about being passed up. Typically, when companies are making efforts to promote members of disadvantaged groups, they want to publicize the fact, not cover it up. Doing things in private is a good-old-boy move, not the reverse.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Zaelath »

Sueven wrote:
have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
That's less ambiguous. An individual protesting the Iraq War could be said to be "threatening the stability of the Iraqi government." However, their assets can't be frozen unless the Bush administration decides that they have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence. That is a real protection.
Is the bolded part sarcasm? As far as I'm concerned the "pose a significant risk of committing" is the thought police in full flight. Now it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty because we're "satisified" that you'd do it eventually if left to your own devices.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Xyun
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2566
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:03 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Xyun »

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, impeaching Bush would cause more problems than it would solve. Although he is a down right criminal, he has a staff that are talented in finding legal loopholes to cover up his crimes. In addition, who would you have be president? Cheney? Pelosi? No thanks. Better just to wait it out. It sucks that more and more people will die because of this dipshit's ignorance... but that's just life. He is not the first "leader" in history to commit crimes, morally or legally, and he won't be the last.
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Sueven »

Zaelath wrote:Is the bolded part sarcasm? As far as I'm concerned the "pose a significant risk of committing" is the thought police in full flight. Now it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty because we're "satisified" that you'd do it eventually if left to your own devices.
No. If this standard was backed by proper judicial oversight, I think it would be a real protection. Courts routinely make determinations based on standards far more vague than "significant risk of committing an act of violence," and, while they're not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, they do an OK job. If the administration were forced to present facts justifying their determination of 'significant risk,' as would be the case with any proper oversight scheme, this requirement would offer protection. Of course, there doesn't seem to be any oversight, which renders this entire discussion academic. Plus, the administration can get around the 'act of violence' requirement because they can get you for "assisting, sponsoring or providing material, logistical, or technical support" for an act of violence, a standard which is significantly more ambiguous.
User avatar
Jice Virago
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1644
Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
Gender: Male
PSN ID: quyrean
Location: Orange County

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Jice Virago »

The prime problems with this, as noted, are lack of anything resembling due process or judicial oversight. The present administration has already demonstrated a boundless capacity to politicise everything, with no reguard to anything. This is Orwelian in its implications, especially when you consider they used warrentless wiretaps to spy on war protesters, already.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .

Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
Nick
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5711
Joined: July 4, 2002, 3:45 pm

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Nick »

Sorry but there's absolutely no hint that due process would in any way be affected by this ruling. Frankly this is a complete non event and something that you would have imagined any government would have implemented long ago if they were involved in an illegal war that has decimated and killed hundreds of thousands of lives. (Unless I'm missing some subtle inkling wherein Due process is kicked out the door).

As you all know, I'd prefer an impeachment and imprisonment for war crimes of Bush, something everyone outside the US feels necessary (this also includes Tony Blair and his ilk), but I really think there are more important things than this generic fairly reasonable law that we could be discussing.

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, I'm drunk and haven't given this a good thorough read. (generic stereotype etc etc) :painting: :drinking:
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

It is really not worded any more vague than 90% of the laws already in books in the US. It appears to be targeted at the sponsors and corporations that some of these insurgent groups would be using to fund activity. Granted Bush and some of his posse are running amok and scaring some people, but this is a non-issue in a little over a year.

My guess is they found several shell companies holding lots and lots of cash that was funding these groups and want to freeze, then claim their assets. If that is the case, then it is a win-win. If they use this to start pulling shady crap, even the GOP congress is going to smack him down as they already have begun scrambling for their political lives.
User avatar
Jice Virago
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1644
Joined: July 4, 2002, 5:47 pm
Gender: Male
PSN ID: quyrean
Location: Orange County

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Jice Virago »

If they use this for shady things (and we know they will), how will anyone know without oversight? I mean, the Bush Administration makes the Nixon Admin look absolutely restrained in comparison, and they had student protesters getting shot. The Patriot Act already lets them go after people funding terrorists, with congressional oversight. This thing, as written, can concievably be used to haul off a person, sans due process, for protesting the Iraqi War, if you take it at literal face value. Its extremely dangerous.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .

Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
Bubba Grizz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 6121
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:52 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Bubba Grizz »

So if someone speaks out against the war or tries to pass bills that are counter to the current policy on Iraq, are they threatening the stability of Iraq?
User avatar
Braxter
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 466
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: State of Confusion

Re: Why haven't we impeached this asshole yet?

Post by Braxter »

Bubba Grizz wrote:So if someone speaks out against the war or tries to pass bills that are counter to the current policy on Iraq, are they threatening the stability of Iraq?
I think you're missing the point. Any law that grants unchecked power is a bad law. It's not that they will haul you off for speaking out, it's that they *can.*

I don't believe that power corrupts...rather, I think that those who seek power are already corrupt. The real worry here is that they *want* this power.
Post Reply