Global Battlespace… continued
Just had a friend forward me the Executive Order pasted in (entirely) below. This is a clear continuation of the whole Global Battlespace scam I wrote about two years ago. Any further thoughts, especially from those who speak Legalese, are welcome… to make more sense of this latest Bush stunt (and the continuing Congressional Democratic cowardice that lets this shit pass).
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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,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.

Adam:
This is so vague it reads like an Inmate Handbook(tm) from prison : “…a threat to the safety, security and orderly operation of the facility.”
26 July 2007, 3:47 amTinoire:
Dear Stan,
We’re discussing it here: http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=71159 in a thread called “Regarding the Executive Order Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement”. Come around if you can, we’re nearing 1300 members and not playing ball.
This is frightening. If people don’t get out in the streets now, this nation is doomed.
Peace,
Tinoire
27 July 2007, 1:08 pmrandall:
Hey Stan,
Unrelated…. on the Tillman thing. Can’t you take an M4 and a set of targets and do some experiments firing the weapon on “burst” and determine what type of shot-groups the 3-round burst would produce over varying distances? Fire it at 10 meters, 30, 50, 100 etc? It would seem to make sense that the greater the distance, the greater the size of the shot group, given variables such as drop / wind etcetera. If you can reproduce a 3-round shot group from one burst over 50 meters, the Rangers’ story holds up. But if you consistently produce shot groups of 5-10 inches or more… well… then the army doctors have an interesting point don’t they?
Keep up the great work Stan!
STAN: The army doctors woulld have a point IF (1) the M-4 3-round shot group corresponds to your hypothesis, and (2) there weren’t multiple witnesses to the contrary. In fact, the reason the SAW can fire these groups on full auto and the M-4 cannot is related to the size, stability, and method of fire. An M-4 is a souped up CAR-15, which is a cut-down AR-15/M-16. Very short, very light. The M-249 SAW is a bipod or pintle mounted machinegun — heavier and longer, with a better buffer system. When “free-gunning,” the shooter generally fires low and “walks” the impact signature into the target. The large stone in front of Pat was shot up, then Pat took bullet hits to his body armor (his legs were partly covered by the rock), then the head. As the gunner “walks the fire in,” he also begins to “feel” the gun, that is, stabilize and concentrate the fires by tightening up on the gun. These fires come in ever-more-concentrated bursts of 6, 9, 12, et al rounds. The M-4, on the other hand, has a 3-round-burst, which ends arbitrarily at three rounds, and which cannot be controlled like the heavier, longer gun. No one who was in the Platoon, including Pat’s brother, has ever suggested that Pat was intentionally targeted because he was Pat. This attention to minutiae is very unfortunate; because it is a huge red herring. Read O’Neal’s statement to Congress. Pat died within a foot of O’Neal… who was crazy about Pat, and is still very close to the family. People watch waaay too many movies.
28 July 2007, 3:05 pmrandall:
That’s why I put the question to you Stan. You cut through the bull with well reasoned, concise, clear arguments. Thx for the prompt response and for walking it through. One more thing on this. I never served in a line Ranger unit. I can’t understand why no one felt it important to tell Kevin there were suspicions of a blue-on-blue incident. If something like this had happened to a close buddy of mine in a unit I was in, let alone my brother, I’d never forgive the people who didn’t tell me. I just don’t understand it. Thx again for your time and keep fighting the good fight!
30 July 2007, 1:08 amrandall:
ps - by people watching movies, you do mean army surgeons I believe? I didn’t file any reports to any generals suggesting the physical evidence was incompatible with witness statements. Just a question. Not a hypothesis. Thx again!
STAN: Nothing personal. Sorry if I’ve been piqued lately. Many personal issues leaking into the blog-mood.
30 July 2007, 1:21 amMichael Anderson:
This may be a little off-topic, but after reading your pieces on Pat Tillman in FTW, what’s your take on the present media fracas about his now supposed murder? Global Battlespace, limited hangout, damage control?
30 July 2007, 1:31 pmProfessor Zero:
Do you think it can stick? As in, would it stand up in court (today’s courts)? Are unconstitutional executive orders legal?
STAN: They are in effect so long as they remain unchallenged. This is the key. Congress has never challenged the “national emergency,” even though the law requires it be revisited and reauthorized every six months. Call your chickenshit Congresspeople.
30 July 2007, 7:32 pmThe Buffalo In Da' Midst:
I’m looking for information or feedback in regard to the ‘190,000 missing AK-47s’ story. I’ve given it a slightly different spin:
Are The U.S. Government & The Pentagon Protecting A Bosnian Air Carrier Responsible For The Disappearance Of 200,000 AK-47s?
I don’t have the answer, but I’m eager to find out… especially ‘why’… because my basic sentiment is reflected by this excerpt:
[In Full]
6 August 2007, 7:08 pm