Posted on 07/19/2007 1:17:36 PM PDT by Rodney King
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withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.
” I do know that it was done by people a hellofa lot smarter than me.”
You don’t actually know anyone in government, do you?
However, as I read the order, it is not freezing bank accounts. It is prohibiting banks from allowing the transfer of funds to specific organizations.
It is an asset freeze (not just bank accounts) without due process.
I also find this part interesting:
"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."
There are no words about scienter anywhere in that entire section. It therefore appears that you can be one of these "Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization in Iraq" just for having received a contribution of funds, even if you accept funds without knowing their source is one of these persons in section (a)(i).
It may be poor drafting, but I doubt it was accidental. By wording it without "knowingly" or "intentionally", or even "should have known", it gives "the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense" complete discretion in determining who to go after.
Well, then...I guess certain "persons" will be more careful about the donations they receive. Claiming, "gosh, I didn't know that 700K in my bank account came from Hamas supporters just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Boiled down to its simplest, this EO permits taking “[A]ll property and interests in property...,” which “may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in...” This applies to, “[A]any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense..” to have committed enumerated offenses, all of which are narrowly taylored to fall within the war effort, i.e., “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,” etc., etc.
This is in tension with the 5th Amendment guarantee of “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
The process provided for by judicial branch is not the only means to satisfy substantive due process. If it were, we would never have anything like Article 3 Courts like the bankruptcy court, which exist solely withing the executive branch.
When dealing with the question in a substantive due process claim, the primary question is what process is due? The power of the President to wage war is decidedly broad - if it weren’t we would end up losing whenever we fought. We are entitled to have a powerful executive wield power based upon secure information. So here, the determination, i.e. the legal process, is a decision made by 3 Cabinet level departments of the executive. This is a substantial showing of some sort of legal process must be employed, before private property can be taken.
If you don’t like it, defund the war, and the power goes away. Or elect an executive who will chose not to wield power in this manner. Or how about this - grind the enemey into dust through every means you have at your disposal - that means “Win the War” - and the power goes away.
This is totally constitutional IMHO and I unreservedly support this Executive Order. There is no doubt this is working in concert with the surge. We have information about who is funding the destabilizing elements where our soldiers are fighting and dying. This EO makes it clear that the money flow will stop. So the risk premium on in an investment to sieze political power in Iraq just went up a couple of points. I am pretty sure Ahmadinejad has had to recount the contents of his war chest. And that’s a good thing.
see previous post.
Courts in Equity have long had the power to impress an equitable trust upon a res where the holder has no knowledge of wrongdoing.
You are impressive! But I knew that. Thank you so much!
Ellison and Obama and others must be shaking in their boots. Cynthia McKinney too if she had the sense God gave a goose.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
We have had recent occasion to consider a claim that the use of classified information disclosed only to the court ex parte and in camera in the designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the AEDPA was violative of due process. In rejecting that claim, we recalled that “[t]he due process clause requires only that process which is due under the circumstances of the case.” People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 327 F.3d 1238, 1242 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). We further held that the standard set forth in NCOR applies not only to the notice provisions governing classification but to the full process of classification and that therefore “due process required the disclosure of only the unclassified portions of the administrative record.” Id. at 1242 (emphasis in original). Again, we emphasized the primacy of the Executive in controlling and exercising responsibility over access to classified information, and the Executive’s “ ‘compelling interest’ in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business.” Id. at 1242 (citations omitted).
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft 333 F.3d 156, *164, 357 U.S.App.D.C. 35, **43 (C.A.D.C.,2003)
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I just now saw this myself. I’m by no means a legal person. Basically, what in the hell does all of this mean?
On its face it appears to be some type of power grab.
I’m all for seizing the assets of people who aid terrorists....
But to me, this appears to be a blatant transgression of the protections provided by the fifth amendment.
This, IMO, borders on impeachable offense.
I just saw it myself...
I am still trying to figure out how the he** anyone can consider this constitutional.
Do executive orders even need to be constitutional? Not that the constitution means anything to George W Bush, but aren't Executive Orders free from Congressional over site and Judicial review?
Rulers prefer more power to less, but in a liberal democracy the rulers are constrained by institutions that sustain private rights.1 Specifically, private property rights place the power of resource allocation in the hands of private citizens, thereby limiting the capacity of governmental officials to shape the economy. Governmental officials have interests of their own, which are not necessarily representative of or even in harmony with the interests of people outside government. Therefore, the rulers and the ruled normally struggle in various ways to determine who will control the use of resources. The greater the scope of private property rights, the more limited is the capacity of the rulers to achieve the ends they prefer at the expense of those preferred by the citizenry.
For several reasons, rights taken over by governmental officials during an emergency are unlikely to revert fully to their previous holders when normal times return.
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=124
One more excerpt:
After vacillating during 1934–36, sometimes sustaining and sometimes striking down the government’s unprecedented derogations from private property rights, the Court caved in completely in 1937. Since then it has maintained that virtually any state or federal governmental interference with private property rights is constitutional. Only a law that is manifestly arbitrary and lacking any imaginable relation to a public purpose will be disallowed. In a bloodless revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections of private property rights that had existed for 150 years.3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.