[anabolicrhino]

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

Well on the bright side, at least after they seize all you property and assets and imprison you , they can't torture you too much !

we are now officially doomed !

[Tiberius]

Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".

****, even in Minority Report they at least had those precog people who could actually see the future.

[bigSMokey]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".

Exactly. If the Order had been worded as follows I still think Bush is once again overstepping his bounds, but the it may at least be debatable or defendable under some strange Tony Snow rationale:


"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed __________________ an act or acts of violence that have 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."


But, when you consider this part I omitted, or to pose a significant risk of, this is worrisome and could be abused very readily.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by bigSMokey

Exactly. If the order had been worded as follows, I still think he is once again overstepping his bounds, but the Order may at least be debatable or defendable under some strange Tony Snow rationale:


"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, __________________ an act or acts of violence that have 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."


But, when you consider this part I omitted, or to pose a significant risk of, this is worrisome and could be abused very readily.

...and in a worse case scenario what if you replace the word IRAQ with the words UNITED STATES

[BodyWizard]

time to break out the jack-boots & armbands, boys!

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Yeah I like that whole "pose a risk of". How exactly can that be determined and how is it even remotely legal to prosecute someone for "future crimes".

****, even in Minority Report they at least had those precog people who could actually see the future.

Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.

[zbtboy]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.

Since when has the right-wing trusted the government? This country is now officially ass-backwards.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Pose a risk of would be Mohammed Bin Al Jaheed making a giant bomb. Isnt attempted murder a crime? Isnt attempting to solicit a prostitute a crime? You are not very insightful if you can see that having the intention of doing many things is illegal. I dont know how you think this is unreasonable. More wing nut conspiracy theories on the internet. Say it isnt so!

If treasonous speech was illegal then John Murtha, Michael Moore, Obama, Edwards, Gore and just about every other democrat besides Leberman would be down vacationing in Gitmo.

Dude, you are one seriously ****ed up ombre if you don't see a problem with using the words "pose a risk of" in a legal document. "Pose a risk of" doesn't mean attempt, buddy boy. It means someone thinks they might do something sometime in the future. No timeline has to be given even according to this document. To top it off, only 1 guy has to make the call and he doesn't have to answer to anyone. So there doesn't have to be a reason at all.

This isn't about right and left. Wake the **** up, kiddo. This is about an executive order that we'd expect to see in the USSR not the USA.

[jomi822]

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have 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."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by jomi822

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have 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."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary

What's really really ****ed up about this is, complaining about Haliburton in any way can make you a target:

"pose a significant risk of... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction"

Since Haliburton has all those contracts, if you do anything to hurt that company they can say you are undermining the efforts to promote economic reconstruction in Iraq.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

What's really really ****ed up about this is, complaining about Haliburton in any way can make you a target:

"pose a significant risk of... undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction"

Since Haliburton has all those contracts, if you do anything to hurt that company they can say you are undermining the efforts to promote economic reconstruction in Iraq.

Complaining about Haliburton (the company Clinton used during the Kosovo conflict) doesnt mean ****. Threatening to blow up their company or conspiring to do so does mean something. I cant believe someone would be paranoid enough actually believe this is an attempt to limit protesting or free speech.

No court of law would side with an attack on free speech, and no president is stupid enough to even attempt to attack free speech. (Some democrats are attempting though with the "fairness" doctrine.)

In today's age of radically anti Bush, anti executive power media if someone was actually abused the media would parade them around for the next 3 years.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Dude, you are one seriously ****ed up ombre if you don't see a problem with using the words "pose a risk of" in a legal document. "Pose a risk of" doesn't mean attempt, buddy boy. It means someone thinks they might do something sometime in the future. No timeline has to be given even according to this document. To top it off, only 1 guy has to make the call and he doesn't have to answer to anyone. So there doesn't have to be a reason at all.

This isn't about right and left. Wake the **** up, kiddo. This is about an executive order that we'd expect to see in the USSR not the USA.

Bush doesnt have to answer to anyone? You mean not even the supreme court? I want what you are smoking please. No timeline has to be given on when someone is going to bang the prostitute they picked up, but that is irrelevant. And if you are even attempting to relate this document to limiting free speech you are completely delusional. Must be all the Alex Jones movies and books.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by jomi822

"I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have 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."

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary

So treasonous violent criminal acts count as protesting now?

[jomi822]

Originally Posted by CNorris

So treasonous violent criminal acts count as protesting now?

well since cheney defined war protesting as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...it doesnt really sound that far fetched. especially when there are no checks and balances on this executive order.

the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by jomi822

well since cheney defined war protesting as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...it doesnt really sound that far fetched. especially when there are no checks and balances on this executive order.

the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.

Setback for Bush on ‘enemy combatants’ - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

true peace is the presence of justice...: u.s. supreme court rejected bush administration arguments re: habeas rights...

Justices overrule Bush on Gitmo - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

[bigSMokey]

Originally Posted by jomi822

the supreme court? id like to ahve some of what YOU are smoking my friend. there are 9 members of the supreme court...with the majority of sitting judges republicans. it doesnt matter what bush does, he is always going to have support from the republicans, including those sitting on the supreme court.

Not only that fact, but Chuck's assertion that Bush or any other president answers to the Supreme Court shows a profound ignorance of our system of government. It is congress that has the greatest ability to put the breaks on a President, in more ways than one.

But jomi, that's the way it is with the radical right, if you shift too far from their system of beliefs, you are either on drugs (preferably smoking something), a nutcase, nutjob (the term "nut" is such a powerful arguement that it may adorned with any number of suffixes). A tinfoil hat wearer, drinking Kool-Aid (whether the implication is the Kool-Aid contains drugs or cyanide, I'm not sure), a pinko, an America-Hater. This list is not exhaustive. Facts are secondary or minor considerations.

[bigSMokey]

Originally Posted by jomi822

and what can we do about this? nothing.

i can absolutely see how protesting the war makes a person a target of this order. this is truly scary

You think that's scary, Google the terms May 9th directive. When and if 9/11 Act 2 commences, the subject of that directive with be all the more grave.