What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.199 Comments
- h4ckler, on 02/15/2008, -7/+49Dugg for awareness.
- mjking86, on 02/15/2008, -11/+50Not a Bush fan, nor do I approve of this, but it came out in July 2007 - so it's not exactly new, FYI.
- muckemuck, on 02/15/2008, -9/+36"anyone who has committed or POSES A RISK to commit violence in opposition to the economic stability"
(waving a "no Iraq war" sign at multiple protests indicates you pose a risk.) go watch this.. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids. ...
and realize that this law CAN be used against US citizens. Everything Hitler did leading up to WWII was legal according to German law at the time and the laws in the US are slowly being stretched to allow more and more control by the federal government. - gilliganscorner, on 02/15/2008, -31/+57Oh my God. Thanks Bush, for ensuring that you incubate anger, foster more hatred against the troops, putting them in harms way, and encouraging insurgency en listings.
Just like your protoge, John "We'll be in Iraq for 100 years" McCain, you continue to provoke Iraqis to the point of lunacy. I would go nuts too, if it happened here.
In 2003, Paul Bremer ordered the disbandment of the Iraqi army. That threw 400,000 soliders out of work, many of them primary breadwinners for their families, who could have helped stabilize the country as they were aware of the culture and idiosyncrasies. Think that pissed them off? Enough to form, I don't know, say ... "an insurgency"? And they knew where all the ammo was!
Thanks for ensuring the "War on Terror" continues.. - thoughtbombing, on 02/15/2008, -17/+42***** FAIL.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -9/+27Way to bury your head in the sand.
You just keep pretending you are safe. - Truzseeker, on 02/15/2008, -7/+24Dugg for honesty that digg in general has a problem with :)
- Terr01, on 02/15/2008, -14/+29WTF?
THIS IS OLD NEWS, PEOPLE.
It's something worth drawing attention to, but why the hell is it being pitched like it is news?
What's with the spurious exclamation marks? Look, I'm with you, it's bad, but this is a lame submission. Resubmit with some REAL ADDED VALUE and a sensible summary and I might digg it. - minorthreat, on 02/15/2008, -2/+16Who is this enemy you and the white house keep talking about? No, Seriously.....
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -9/+22Actually if you read it and the law it refers to. (Google it...the law repeatedly referred to pertains to the Treasury Department!!!) Any thing you do with transactions outside of the US can be dictated by the President!!! Think of King George and the mercantilism!
- nblsavage, on 02/15/2008, -0/+11I only see one statement about violence in there. The rest are extremely vague.
- avasol, on 02/15/2008, -1/+12FTA (RTFA)
(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. - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -9/+19OK Not the latest......but a recent dumb and fascistic executive order!
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 02/15/2008, -6/+16So there haven't been any other Executive Orders since July 2007?
- RetardoCrisp, on 02/15/2008, -1/+10Bush & Co. are complete totalitarian dictatorial warlords.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -5/+14umm... This was signed July 17th 2007.
How is this new? - damonic, on 02/15/2008, -3/+11But the U.S. invaded a sovereign nation and committed acts of violence. If we support them, we will lose our stuff!!!
- tsos2, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9The way the the executive branch has gone about doing things is most worrying. What is to stop them from coming to your house in the dead of night, snatching you out of bed and extraditing you to Cuba? All under the guise of the secretive "National Security" laws. You can be branded an enemy combatant and they won't have to say why because it will have been classified "TOP SECRET". Now if you are fine with that, good for you, but me? Well I'm not that comfortable with it. Too much has been hidden under the guise of "National Security" and it is time for the American people to shine the light of day on those dark areas of the executive branch God willing.
- Xel565, on 02/15/2008, -0/+7(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;
Whoops didn't we threaten the government of Iraq... - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -5/+12Okay! You don't have to google it! Here is what is referred to repeatedly in the executive order!
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/le ... - stillanovice, on 02/15/2008, -9/+16I hope that we can survive one more year with him at the helm. My next question is can we survive 4 or eight years with 100 year McCain or our two Democrat choices. Whatever happened to following the Constitution and the rule of law......or common sense for that matter.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 02/15/2008, -16/+23(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.
People who commit acts of violence and people who support them deserve to lose their stuff. - Dumbledorito, on 02/15/2008, -4/+11Given the way BushCo has been interpreting several key ammendments to the Constitution, it's not a stretch to think they could apply this law all the way down to taking away your kid's ice cream cone.
- dunderballer, on 02/15/2008, -1/+8More importantly, how was this not news in July 2007? If it wasn't in the news spotlight then it should be today.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/15/2008, -1/+7Will Bush and his buddies ever be put on trial?
- Thing2, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6This is funny to me:
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.
So - basically we can make laws affecting *YOU* anytime we want - if you're not a US Citizen our law still applies to you - but don't you dare try to use this law in relation to us....that's not gonna happen.
And no I would *NOT* rather have anyone else able to do this to the US, but I if anyone ever told me I was under arrest for chewing gum on the sidewalk because that act is illegal in their country -= I'd laugh my ass off. - JayG25, on 02/15/2008, -4/+10Its Not News... Its News From July 2007!
- Gemfinder, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Did you read it?
It's aimed at AMERICAN CITIZENS, not Iraqis. It specifically says "anyone within the United States." - MortalynFlux, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6I'm weary of any executive order with the word "emergency" in it. Especially when it is clear that this so-called emergency has no time limit. How do you:
1. Declare a war against a noun, i.e., terror
2. Determine when the war against this noun is officially over - orangetiki, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Hopefully you can move by then
- samuraipizzacat, on 02/15/2008, -2/+8July 17/07?
- jasmin888, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Point being????
"The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable"
The references to Hitler and Nazism here seems to be absolutely appropriate.
I'd say commenting on Bush and cronies the probability would be higher than otherwise. - JimSwarthow, on 02/15/2008, -2/+7b/c it's a whole lot easier to live in a world were everything is compartmentalized for you.. you don't hate Bush? you must be a rabid Bush supporter! get a rope! - you don't wanna pull out of Iraq immediately? you must be pro-war! get a rope! - you don't think Obama is the second coming of JFK? you must hate Black people! get a rope!
so tired is this simpleton excuse for logic the majority around here seem so dedicated to. - AnarchyReigns, on 02/15/2008, -4/+9This is significant not only because of what the order says, but also because it is a prime example of the government exerting even more control over its people. Using fear as a tactic is, sadly, an effective way of taming the population into complacency.
- tsos2, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6True enough, but the way the the executive branch has gone about doing things is most worrying. What is to stop them from coming to your house in the dead of night, snatching you out of bed and extraditing you to Cuba? All under the guise of the secretive "National Security" laws. You can be branded an enemy combatant and they won't have to say why because it will have been classified "TOP SECRET". Now if you are fine with that, good for you, but me? Well I'm not that comfortable with it. Too much has been hidden under the guise of "National Security" and it is time for the American people to shine the light of day on those dark areas of the executive branch.
- jasmin888, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5I agree. Austria 'agreed' to the 'Anschluss' suggested by Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss). Canada is no protection against a fascist USA. South America is probably a better option, and a region in progress.
As sad as it sounds I think USA is headed for really bad times. It will not be easy to escape just like Nazi Germany was not easily escapeable. Germany developed to be the superpower of Europe at the time. All countries around feared it and conceded to its demands beyond the ridiculous to avoid trouble. Or look to Russia - same thing.
Has anyone wondered why the big shot democrats are so complacent? Does it smell of some Hover like blackmail? - gothgeek, on 02/15/2008, -0/+5Yeah, i made comments about this after i had heard months ago... i agree that it's aimed at insurgents and domestic terror.. but the language does make it seem more broad...
"By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact." - trebuchet03, on 02/15/2008, -1/+6Yep... Lemme just cross that off the list of my liberties... And that leaves... Well, at least RFIDs aren't being implanted...
By the way... GAS PRICES GAS PRICE GAS PRICES. And someone burning the American flag. Why are people so easily distracted? - jcastillo81, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5all i hear anymore is "blah blah blah you must give up civil liberties blah blah blah terrorists blah blah blah we must sacrifice bla bla blabbidy blah"
- Zlorp, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4or same vision of anything for that matter
- LetsGoHawks, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence
That part is rather important. - Angaino, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Um, while it's unlikely that the government would take much interest in the "average" person (whatever precisely that means), this, in combination with other executive orders gives them the power to put a lockdown on people who threaten the stability of Iraq. The problem here is how broadly this can be interpreted. There are laws about treason, murder, and funding of terrorists already on the books. The best I can tell, this does two main things: it lets them lock you down for having dealings with anyone who has dealings with terrorists, and it allows them to do it without telling you ahead of time who you aren't allowed to deal with. If I donate to an Arab organization that at some later time if found to have accidentally assisted a group linked to terrorism to ANY extent, the organization gets locked out or assets and so can I, even though there is no direct connection. It would be difficult to find anyone who has not in ANY way INDIRECTLY assisted in some way some terrorist connected organization. We all buy gas after all and they could probably find links for OPEC or some member country to terrorism. All of a sudden everyone can get their assets frozen for attending an anti-war rally (which according to some of these orders could already be providing "assistance," btw). It's not that they can freeze assets, it's that they can freeze anyone's assets.
- Starlach, on 02/15/2008, -3/+7Will it ever end?
- jasmin888, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4"This does not affect you unless you commit acts of violence"
How horribly naive.
Not acts of violence but acts that threatens the war in Iraq as perceived by the government - anachronaut, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Who determines what a "significant risk of committing an act" is? That has basically moved into the territory of a thought crime. I'm not comfortable with King George (or Hillary, McCain, Obama or anyone else) having that kind of power. The powers-that-be in this country already have enough big sticks to wave at the populace, and there are laws covering violent acts that don't rely on "thought crimes". They really don't need any more weapons like this, especially one that's purposefully worded in such a vague manner.
Sneaky little laws like this with wormy, imprecise wording usually end up being abused sooner or later (surprise surprise). Will it ever actually be put into practice in this manner? Maybe not, but sometimes the THREAT is all that matters when you're trying to squash the opposition. - mandalorian, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5No more 5th amendment. The order is so open ended and vague, that anyone with a anti-war bumper sticker technically meets the criteria for breaking one of these "laws".
If we as a nation can't pull ourselves away from American Idol long enough to realize that our country is turning to a police state then we deserve to be enslaved. - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5imagine a country realizing what a douche bush is and decides to invade the US, depose its government and execute its president with a help of a minority of their supporters.
once chaos commences between pro-usas and pro-new_regime, the invader says "we'll stay as long as we have to to bring stability". - RetardoCrisp, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Who decides which people are "those promoting violence and instability in Iraq" though? The US military? Have you not seen the decisions they have made in the past within Iraq? Would you agree with and trust their judgment? Do you agree with the judgment Bush has made within the US via the Patriot Act etc? Were those proper decisions?
- luchid, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5Totally true.
- Haapi, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4The real problem with this order is that it makes it impossible for one accused of this behavior to defend oneself.
Assets are frozen without notice. Donation of even pro bono time by an attorney would also violate the order.
Yes, I read the order. Read it in July, too. Have you? -
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is