The ramifications of this order are mind-boggling.  If looked at with just a bit of a tweak, this order means that Congress cannot end the Iraq War because doing so might threaten the national security and stability of Iraq; if such legislation is enacted, all Congress-persons and Senators who vote for such action are subject to the confiscation of their personal wealth and property; the Executive Branch may ignore said legislation because it threatens national security and will cause instability in Iraq; the impeachment (or threat thereof) of the President and/or Vice President would also threaten our national security and the stability of Iraq; and if you protest the war, the President can take your “stuff.”

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.

(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.



July 17, 2007.

# # #


  1. jeff s

    Why no a word of media coverage on this???

  2. Good question, Jeff. We really don’t want to go so far as to seriously think our “free press” is somehow complicit in the demise of our liberties – but, given your observation, what else are we to believe?

    We have to rely on each other to get the word out. This is the highest read article on this blog. Yours is the only comment posted, but we’ve received a number of e-mails at asking the same thing. Unfortunately – we still don’t think the number is high enough. Perhaps your fellow citizens prefer to keep their heads in the sand – and think “My government wouldn’t do that – this is the United States!” To which we reply – “He just did.”

  3. Tim

    I just read this order for the first time tonight and am still trying to get my head around it. Doesn’t it indicate that the order only applies to people who are planning acts of violence? I’m certainly very concerned about any executive order Bush writes these days, especially if they’re ignored by the mainstream media and seem to curtail our liberites, but I just can’t find the clear red flags in this order. Maybe I’m just dense. I’d like to understand the danger this really poses to us. Could someone help me out a bit? Thanks.

  4. Hello Tim –

    Thanks for your comment on this post. Let me do my best to explain our “take” on this order.

    The problem stems from the interpretation of the writing of this document. If you – as a protester of the war or this administration – is deemed to “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence (the nature of which is to be determined by this administration), you are subject to the penalties in this order. It also includes any “contributions of goods or services” that could threaten national security or threaten the stability of Iraq.

    When you re-read this, it begins to look a bit like the Tom Cruise film “Minority Report” – we can arrest you on your potential to commit a crime. And, because warning you would “render these measures ineffectual,” we can move against you at any time.

    Given the interpretation of previous laws, orders, and pieces of legislation as well as Bush and Cheney’s insistence that they are not bound by the Constitution and need not follow the laws of the land, you can bet this order was designed to close any loopholes left by The Patriot Act.

    We – and many like us – feel you are right in feeling concern. We also feel that the wording of these orders is purposefully vague and convoluted so that you really have no idea what it all means until it’s put into play.

    To read a more scholarly take on this, please look at this piece at Global Research –

    You also may want to read the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive of May 9, 2007 to see the lengths to which this Administration has gone to take over the country.

  5. Here’s a great point –

    While many have decried it as the latest in a string of legislation that constitutes a crack down on protest and free speech, few have pointed out the ultimate irony that under this order high ranking members of the Bush administration are the only ones that should be punishable.

    Read the whole article at

  6. sue lyon

    i’m calling my senators, lautenberg and mendndez and my rep scott garrett. this is scary.

  7. One more thing to remember – unless an Executive Order is rescinded, it is still in effect for the succeeding Presidents. And, the nature of politicians being what it is, it’s unlikely any of the candidates currently running would give back any of the power taken by their predecessor.

    Another reason to get the damned thing canceled now – do you trust any of the people IN EITHER PARTY to do the right thing once they are in office?

  8. saywhat


  9. Cory GAINES

    At first i thought this was bs but low and behold it seems as though it is not and to start off may i say “I AM AGAINST THE WAR AND I FEEL THAT IT NEEDS TO END IMEDIATLY” this looks to me as a part of BUSH’s master plan to stay in office i am not the most educated person so if what ive said is way off base i apoligize though i am still aganist the war and BUSH there is my 2 cents even if its not worth a penny

  10. I e-mailed NPR about the lack of media attention and got back a blurb that it was difficult to select and eliminate material but they did their best. This was a Presidential ORDER!!!

    I am an Iraq war protestor in conservative Greeley, Colorado. (Musgrave and Allard territory)

    I’ll be protesting on Saturday morning.

  11. Paul

    When I first heard about this early this week, my 1st reaction was “this is some sort of joke”. But it is not-I have read on the internet a lot about Bush and his plans to take over this country. Even about the “concentration camps” that are being built. The idea is so ridiculous that who would ever belive it? Well, the media did not pick up on this last Executive Order-one would think they would-I like to read foreign news because I believe they are more credible in most cases. I emailed NPR thinking that they could set me straight about this lates E.O. They emailed me and said that they have a difficult time to narrow down stories to run on NPR-(I asked them what they think of the new E.O.)-I never even got a response to that from them. NOW, I believe that the media in the U.S. is controled by the administration. Citizens of this country, WAKE UP before it is too late. The take-over is starting to build steam and we need to stop it (you don’t see Clinton or Obama running out to stop it). Remember the attempted coup in 1933 that was to remove FDR from office and replace the US gov’t with a Nazi-type dictatorship (see BBC news on that one). I protest every Sat. against this war-now will the next time I go out, I have to wonder will I end up in one of those concentrations camps?

  12. Jack

    There was a brief mention of this Order on Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC. It comes toward the very end of the segment.

  1. 1 Imperial Assumptions Are Reaching Critical Mass « It’s time to say “When.”

    […] (and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: