Something that really scares me

Tsaku

Tsaku

Sub Job Unlocked
Adventurer
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
45
Location
Tacoma, WA
Hey all,

I was listening to the radio a couple days ago, when they mentioned an Executive Order that President Bush implemented on Monday the 23rd, after doing a little digging around, and emailing the radio show, I found the information and thought I should share it with you all. Here’s the link below.

http://infowars.net/articles/july2007/230707ExecOrder.htm

The short of it is that the Government now can say that an “American person” is against the operations in Iraq, and thereby can seize all of that persons assets. Just thought I should share this with my fellow Americans.
 
Sorry to hear this and everything but I just have to say thank fuck im not over there with you guys.
 
.....
 
And that's why I don't relegate people who use the word "impeachment" to the tinfoil hat brigade. The sooner this war criminal fuck is out of office and no longer using the Constitution as a drink coaster, the happier I'll be. Habeas corpus, what a quaint concept!
 
Jojojo said:
What do we do?
Click to expand...

What any decent patriotic american would do!!

nothing!

I hate when people dont vote, but complain about the pres they end up with, or better yet the ones that vote blindly. GG
 
Jojojo said:
What do we do?
Click to expand...

Firstly I’d suggest writing to your state representative, informing them that you are not happy as a citizen about this Executive Order from the President. The second would be informing your state representative that you want them to put forward a vote of no confidence.
 
Flymop said:
Sorry to hear this and everything but I just have to say thank fuck im not over there with you guys.
Click to expand...

I'm jealous... and subsequently moving into your hall closet.
 
Morwenny said:
I'm jealous... and subsequently moving into your hall closet.
Click to expand...

get your own closet i was here first. :mad:

on topic: i voted in the last election and crossed everything possible (even my eyes) hopping he would lose. i experienced his inadequacy first hand as myself and many others in NOLA twiddleds our thumbs wondering when help was gonna arrive when Katrina hit. this man mobilized an attack on a forgin country in the blink of an eye. but when his home turf was beaten into the darkages my momma nature he was no where to be found. i am so glad he cant run again.
 
Last edited:
This is what you get when you read an article that has an obvious spin to it. First off, the punishments are exactly the same as if you were involved in illegal narcotic distribution. Those laws have been around for a long time, and there's nothing new to them. Get involved in the drug trade and the government can seize your shit.

Now, let's look at the actual executive order without the "OMG its Big Brother lulz" viewpoint:


(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;
Click to expand...

Translation: Overtly help the enemy.

The US government (including my pink butt that is now over here) has been working hard to finally get the Sunnis and Shiias to stop kiling each other so that we can get a stable state set up and finally GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. If you're a team-killing fucktard that tries to undermine this by, let's say, helping other nations get terrorists/weapons/money or whatever across the border, then yes, I think you deserve to lose all your stuff.

If you otherwise inhibit the work that we're trying to do, you essentially keep us here longer. The longer we stay, the more troops die. What's more important, troops lives or your property? I'll vote for our lives every time.

(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.
Click to expand...

In other words, if you help Al-Quada in Iraq (which, by the way, has been shown in public information to be run by foreigners, not Iraqis themselves), or any of the insurgent groups attempting to de-stabilize the country, you get your stuff taken.

I think this is fair.
(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.
Click to expand...

Legalese reinforcing the previous statement.

What this is NOT, ladies and gentlemen, is the government saying that they'll steal your stuff if you speak out against the war. Read the statements from the Executive Order above - being a dove and being anti-war is not material aid and comfort to enemy forces. This order basically establishes a legal basis for the government to go after any US citizens that are found over there actively helping the bastards we are fighting.

Though you may not like him, the President is not Hitler, nor is he Big Brother. He's not perfect, but it could be a *lot* worse. Bitching and moaning in a Starbucks does not compare to what people like this did:

White Rose
 
Last edited:
That is like going:

"Hmm, I like that guys BMW and his house too."

"You are against the operations in Iraq!"

oWned!

Seriuosly now, if a person is doing nothing wrong there is nothing to fear.
 
Last edited:
Celvantes - I would agree with your assessment of the E.O. if there were a genuine conservative administration sitting in the White House. What we actually have is a group of cynical, corrupt, totalitarian criminals who will say and do anything to cover up their crimes.

Look at the circus going on over the DoJ - Bush and Cheney show nothing but contempt and furious obstruction for the Senate's investigation because if they admitted its legitimacy, the truth of their manipulation of the DoJ for partisan purposes (borderline impeachment material) would be exposed.

Thus I fear that such orders will be abused and misused at their whim. Your interpretation depends on a trust in BushCo that many of us simply do not have and cannot comprehend in others.
 
Elohim said:
Celvantes - I would agree with your assessment of the E.O. if there were a genuine conservative administration sitting in the White House. What we actually have is a group of cynical, corrupt, totalitarian criminals who will say and do anything to cover up their crimes.

Look at the circus going on over the DoJ - Bush and Cheney show nothing but contempt and furious obstruction for the Senate's investigation because if they admitted its legitimacy, the truth of their manipulation of the DoJ for partisan purposes (borderline impeachment material) would be exposed.

Thus I fear that such orders will be abused and misused at their whim. Your interpretation depends on a trust in BushCo that many of us simply do not have and cannot comprehend in others.
Click to expand...

The Senate's investigation is overstepping their bounds. If what they're doing now is legal, why didn't they investigate when the Clintons fired EVERY U.S. Attorney during their administration? It's a witch hunt to find something on the administration, anything, to make them look bad, and if I were in the President's shoes, I would have shown up to the hearing myself to tell them to fuck off. The legislature has checks against the executive branch, but they do *not* have oversight in matters like this. :rtfm: That being the Constitution.

Federal Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If the boss feels that one of his subordinates isn't executing one of his established polices, guess what, he can fire him! The same should apply to the President. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that jobs appointed by the President are supposed to be impartial - they're SUPPOSED to reflect the will of the current Executive Branch, because they are PART of it. The President is tasked by the Constitution with enforcement of the laws created by the legislature, among other things. If he's not allowed to restructure the Executive Branch as he sees fit to do this, how can he be expected to carry out his appointed job?

I would like to see exactly where you define doing your job as "criminal."

And if you say "Scooter Libby" I'm going to explode and leave brain matter on the walls. Put *anyone* on the stand and repeatedly pepper them with questions about crap that happened years ago, and they're going to mess something up. I'm not even a lawyer, and I bet I could get someone to perjur themselves on the stand just by playing word games.
 
Celvantes said:
This is what you get when you read an article that has an obvious spin to it. First off, the punishments are exactly the same as if you were involved in illegal narcotic distribution. Those laws have been around for a long time, and there's nothing new to them. Get involved in the drug trade and the government can seize your shit.

Now, let's look at the actual executive order without the "OMG its Big Brother lulz" viewpoint:




Translation: Overtly help the enemy.

The US government (including my pink butt that is now over here) has been working hard to finally get the Sunnis and Shiias to stop kiling each other so that we can get a stable state set up and finally GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. If you're a team-killing fucktard that tries to undermine this by, let's say, helping other nations get terrorists/weapons/money or whatever across the border, then yes, I think you deserve to lose all your stuff.

If you otherwise inhibit the work that we're trying to do, you essentially keep us here longer. The longer we stay, the more troops die. What's more important, troops lives or your property? I'll vote for our lives every time.



In other words, if you help Al-Quada in Iraq (which, by the way, has been shown in public information to be run by foreigners, not Iraqis themselves), or any of the insurgent groups attempting to de-stabilize the country, you get your stuff taken.

I think this is fair.


Legalese reinforcing the previous statement.

What this is NOT, ladies and gentlemen, is the government saying that they'll steal your stuff if you speak out against the war. Read the statements from the Executive Order above - being a dove and being anti-war is not material aid and comfort to enemy forces. This order basically establishes a legal basis for the government to go after any US citizens that are found over there actively helping the bastards we are fighting.

Though you may not like him, the President is not Hitler, nor is he Big Brother. He's not perfect, but it could be a *lot* worse. Bitching and moaning in a Starbucks does not compare to what people like this did:

White Rose
Click to expand...

Celvantes,

I have nothing but respect for what our troops are doing over in Iraq, honestly if I could join the military I would, and consequently I would likely be over in Iraq with you right now, however I have a PDQ that prevents me from joining up. That being said there was nothing that pissed me off more then the morons who were protesting at the port of Tacoma trying to block the Striker's from being shipped out to support you guys.

However what I see this Order doing is enabling our government to in essence create a new Salem Witch Trial. I'm going to give an extreme example of something this order could lead to.

A Politian in the government decides that a group of lobbyists are not paying him enough money. He decides to say "Hey major airline manufacturer, we think that you have an involvement in helping the terrorists." As fast as that said airline manufacturer's assets are seized.

Will this happen? I really don't think it will, but this order does open the door for something like that to happen.

This is what scares me about this Executive Order.
 
However what I see this Order doing is enabling our government to in essence create a new Salem Witch Trial. I'm going to give an extreme example of something this order could lead to.

A Politian in the government decides that a group of lobbyists are not paying him enough money. He decides to say "Hey major airline manufacturer, we think that you have an involvement in helping the terrorists." As fast as that said airline manufacturer's assets are seized.

Will this happen? I really don't think it will, but this order does open the door for something like that to happen.

This is what scares me about this Executive Order.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, in order for that to have any backing whatsoever, the person in question would have to be physically involved in or in the actions in iraq and the surrounding areas

there aren't really any terrorist organizations inside of our country actively destroying and getting support
 
Celvantes said:
Federal Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If the boss feels that one of his subordinates isn't executing one of his established polices, guess what, he can fire him! The same should apply to the President. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that jobs appointed by the President are supposed to be impartial - they're SUPPOSED to reflect the will of the current Executive Branch, because they are PART of it. The President is tasked by the Constitution with enforcement of the laws created by the legislature, among other things. If he's not allowed to restructure the Executive Branch as he sees fit to do this, how can he be expected to carry out his appointed job?
Click to expand...

His appointees to the DoJ are supposed to reflect the will of the executive, true. But they _are_ supposed to do so in an impartial manner. If the executive decides he wants the DoJ to focus on prosecuting drug and narcotics cases, that's all well and good. But, they are supposed to then prosecute any and all drug and narcotics cases, not only those which reflect poorly on a particular political party while excusing or ignoring those which would reflect poorly on their boss' party.

A Federal Attorney is supposed to exhibit loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law. The Senate investigation is based on circumstantial evidence that the White House deliberately and consciously subverted that rule for partisan political purposes. It is not a fishing trip, but a very narrowly defined attempt to discover if that circumstantial evidence is coincidental or suggestive of factual wrong doing.

Look, don't get me wrong. I understand that the dems have their own political agenda in pursuing this matter as doggedly as they have. It doesn't change the fact that if the highest authority in the land was trying to rig the system, the American people have a right to know about it and the wrong doers should be punished. A lot of people, myself included, thought that the special investigation into Clinton's blowjob was a waste of time and money; however if the President had subverted the law in asking friends and subordinates to perjure themselves, that investigation would have been totally justified and vindicated. It's not ok to break the law just because the subject matter is your private, embarrassing sex life.

Sometimes political calculation can result in justice. We'll just have to wait and see what the Senate finally discovers to judge the merits of their investigation.
 
Tsaku said:
Celvantes,

However what I see this Order doing is enabling our government to in essence create a new Salem Witch Trial. I'm going to give an extreme example of something this order could lead to.

A Politian in the government decides that a group of lobbyists are not paying him enough money. He decides to say "Hey major airline manufacturer, we think that you have an involvement in helping the terrorists." As fast as that said airline manufacturer's assets are seized.

Will this happen? I really don't think it will, but this order does open the door for something like that to happen.

This is what scares me about this Executive Order.
Click to expand...

Read the actual executive order - for the punitive measures to come into effect, there must be some form of physical aid to an enemy. Your scenario is impossible unless said airline (for instance) *knowlingly* transported a terrorist for the purpose of getting him into Iraq. The burden of proof requires nothing short of catching someone in the act - a politician could not trump up the charges you're talking about because a court would throw it out.

Based on the language of the order, I firmly believe that this is a loophole-closer to allow them to go after US citizens that are actively a part of Al Quada (or other groups) in Iraq. They probably don't want another situation like the one early in the Afghanistan campaign when they caught an American during a sweep of an Al Quada stronghold.

His appointees to the DoJ are supposed to reflect the will of the executive, true. But they _are_ supposed to do so in an impartial manner. If the executive decides he wants the DoJ to focus on prosecuting drug and narcotics cases, that's all well and good. But, they are supposed to then prosecute any and all drug and narcotics cases, not only those which reflect poorly on a particular political party while excusing or ignoring those which would reflect poorly on their boss' party.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, this is something to which *Congress* has no legal justification for oversight. If this were an *impeachment* proceeding, that would be an entirely different story, but it's not. It's a stage show taking another shot at the administration. It doesn't matter what the reason is, the President can legally fire any of his attorneys, and unless he were doing it to cover up an impeachable offense, there's not a damn thing Congress can (or should) ever do about it.

In the case of these attorneys, the administration provided case histories where the fired prosecutors were not taking action on case-types that the President specifically made important in his policy directives. That's reason enough to fire them, and there should be no more questions beyond that. If someone thinks there's foul play, by all means, execute the legal process of investigating them which is impeachment, but not this "Senate investigation." The Senate is a legislative body, not a damned court.

A Federal Attorney is supposed to exhibit loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law. The Senate investigation is based on circumstantial evidence that the White House deliberately and consciously subverted that rule for partisan political purposes. It is not a fishing trip, but a very narrowly defined attempt to discover if that circumstantial evidence is coincidental or suggestive of factual wrong doing.
Click to expand...

But again, unless it invokes articles of impeachment, there's no legal basis for what they are doing. Granted, the Federal Government does a lot of stuff that it's not "supposed" to do (a slow vacuum of power from the State level to the Federal level over the years, but that's another topic), but the administration has all rights to tell the Senate to kiss their collective asses. Just because the administration is defending its right to hire and fire at will does not mean there was intentional wrongdoing. Like I said before, if someone did to me and my job what the Senate is doing to the President, I'd take the same stance.

Look, don't get me wrong. I understand that the dems have their own political agenda in pursuing this matter as doggedly as they have. It doesn't change the fact that if the highest authority in the land was trying to rig the system, the American people have a right to know about it and the wrong doers should be punished. A lot of people, myself included, thought that the special investigation into Clinton's blowjob was a waste of time and money; however if the President had subverted the law in asking friends and subordinates to perjure themselves, that investigation would have been totally justified and vindicated. It's not ok to break the law just because the subject matter is your private, embarrassing sex life.
Click to expand...

What people fail to understand, is that it's their system to rig. Part of the perks of being President is that you get to choose who sits in the jobs that you control. This concept of impartiality is the biggest crock that I've ever heard of. EVERY job that isn't publicly elected gets filled by someone supporting the party who gains control over it. This is true even of the Supreme Court (though with some limitations since the Senate has to approve those nominees). Senate Democrats are bitching over something that has been done since cabinet departments were created, something that their own people would do given the chance. It's hypocracy at its finest.

Sometimes political calculation can result in justice. We'll just have to wait and see what the Senate finally discovers to judge the merits of their investigation.
Click to expand...

When it's all said and done, I predict that there will be nothing there but a lot of smoke and the only thing accomplished was the driving of another wedge between the two major factions in this country - the one thing we don't need right now, and yet the one thing everyone seems determined to do.

Sometimes, I honestly, honestly wish that we could peacefully separate this country into two. Let conservatives live the way they want to live and let liberals live the way they want to live. I'd gladly move if need be.

...and we'd keep most of the military :D
 
You'd keep the military for like, a generation, at which point you wouldn't be able to pay for it.

Also, where do you expect people like me to live? I don't really fit into the current definition of conservative. You'd need to make a kind of Goldwater Island off to the right for me to live on with the classical liberals who think Hillary is a socialist (which she kind of is).
 
Celvantes said:
Even if that were true, this is something to which *Congress* has no legal justification for oversight. If this were an *impeachment* proceeding, that would be an entirely different story, but it's not. It's a stage show taking another shot at the administration. It doesn't matter what the reason is, the President can legally fire any of his attorneys, and unless he were doing it to cover up an impeachable offense, there's not a damn thing Congress can (or should) ever do about it.

In the case of these attorneys, the administration provided case histories where the fired prosecutors were not taking action on case-types that the President specifically made important in his policy directives. That's reason enough to fire them, and there should be no more questions beyond that. If someone thinks there's foul play, by all means, execute the legal process of investigating them which is impeachment, but not this "Senate investigation." The Senate is a legislative body, not a damned court.
Click to expand...

This "stage show" is meant to find out how badly Team Bush fucked up and what rules they broke. Congress has legitimate oversight authority -- I'd like to see them pull Gonzales' funding for the bullshit he's pulled. As much as Bush would like it to be true, he's not the king of America.

The case-types the President made important involved making sure Democrats lost elections, Celvantes. That's overtly political and a perversion of what the attorneys are supposed to be doing. Being a political appointee doesn't mean you're supposed to do everything the President tells you.

After six years of rubber-stamp Congress putting party all else, I'm glad the Dems are going after them. I look forward to seeing Gonzales hauled out of office for perjury, and I look forward to Harriet Miers and what's-his-name slapped with contempt of Congress. Karl Rove can make my year by refusing to honor the subpoena and setting himself up for a similar charge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top