[Peace-discuss] USG plans for Iraq and Iran -- and protesters?

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:46 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] USG plans for Iraq and Iran -- and protesters?


> What the USG is saying, continued:
>
>
> [3] EXECUTIVE ORDER --
>
> Bush signed an executive order while the Senate Democrats were playing 
> please-don't-throw-me-into-that-filibuster-briar-patch.  It's about United 
> States citizens who act against the war in Iraq:
>
> July 17, 2007
> Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons
> Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
>
> 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...
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
>
> Will we see federal police (FBI, Treasury) going after the property of 
> anti-war groups on the grounds that their activities "pose a significant 
> risk of ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose *or effect* 
> [good intentions don't matter] of ... threatening the ... stability of ... 
> the Government of Iraq [by withdrawing US troops?] or undermining efforts 
> to promote ... political reform in Iraq" [guess whose efforts]?

  Why complain?  You apparently are chomping at the bit for the dems to make 
themselves unelectable and put yet another pro war republican in the white 
house in 2008 by pulling everything out of the whole ME immediately. 
Logically, you should pick a republican candidate to endorse as the least 
odious choice should you get your way, and prepare your compatriots for 
resumption of hostilities at that time, as well as the end of the 
entitlement programs the repubs are determined to destroy, further 
restrictions on personal liberties, and the eventual devaluation of the 
dollar to third world currency status.

  Or do you lack the courage to stand up for the logical results of your 
convictions?