Reni Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 executive order Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 no comments? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Artifice Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 executive order I saw that yesterday. There really is nothing left to say. It's just more of the same. The only thing we can do at this point is wait for his term to end. But he's pretty much done irreparable damage to the checks and balances of the system. Whoever is elected will just exploit the doors he opened. There's no going back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 1.20.09 With that said, isn't the order aimed at acts of violence? Seems redundant really. Maybe I'm not quite following the legal-speak, though. Ooo, quick edit. I noticed at the top of the White House page that it has a set of links for W, Mrs. W, Dicky C, and Lynn. I thought Dick wasn't part of the executive branch. They should remove that from the page so as not to confuse any school children looking at the site who might be tricked into thinking there's only 3 branches of gov't and not 4. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SarahC Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 can somebody translate that for me please? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 With that said, isn't the order aimed at acts of violence? Seems redundant really. Maybe I'm not quite following the legal-speak, though. It gives the President the authority to decide, with no oversight, who qualifies under this order. The President having the authority to seize property from anyone that he, unilaterally, declares to be an enemy of the war effort is beyond frightening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 This order could EASILY target groups like Code Pink, Christian Peacemaker Teams, ANSWER, etc....... Basically it give the president authority to seize assets and property of any individual or group that is deemed threatening to "stabilization efforts" in Iraq. Anti-war groups (who the right claim CONSTANTLY are aiding and abetting terrorism) and hell, any group that questions the Bush administration's policies could come under attack by this order...... It is truly frightening......and flies under the radar of most people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 following is a link to 50 U.S.C. 1702((1), (3), and (4) if anyone is interested: link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 boy, it sure does sound a lot like the sort of stuff we thought we moved past when Wilson left the oval office. but this is insult to injury in knowing that at least Wilson could have decoded the order and understand what it meant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 following is a link to 50 U.S.C. 1702((1), (3), and (4) if anyone is interested: link You think the President cares about any of that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 according to the Washington Post, Bush does not believe congress has any authority to do much of anything (besides pay for his war) unless he grants it. i'd call him a dick, but with that new executive order, he might take my house. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhh4321 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 i read this yesterday too no words can describe how absurd it is that somehow this guy and his stupid friends made it into the white house and are now doing whatever the fuck they want with no respect for the american people or the united states constitution. i feel so helpless...there is nothing we can do but wait. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 http://www.shakesville.com/2007/07/hi-im-g...-all-your-shit/ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07...ing-to-clinton/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Milhous Nixon, 1977 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard Milhous Nixon, 1977Nice of you to remember. Although I think the current group goes way beyond the fevered dreams of Nixon. One thing (I think) is certain: when Jan. '09 finally rolls around, anyone of W.'s cabal who may be in legal jeopardy will be pardoned. Does anyone here really think that there will be any justice served? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 i just love how bush and co. have said that listening to the people isn't democracy, but instead is "ruling by the polls", which is of course a bad thing. :head explodes in frustration! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Nice of you to remember. Although I think the current group goes way beyond the fevered dreams of Nixon. One thing (I think) is certain: when Jan. '09 finally rolls around, anyone of W.'s cabal who may be in legal jeopardy will be pardoned. Does anyone here really think that there will be any justice served?No, except maybe the Eternal kind.I really want to see that Frost and Nixon play that's down in the city now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Nice of you to remember. Although I think the current group goes way beyond the fevered dreams of Nixon. One thing (I think) is certain: when Jan. '09 finally rolls around, anyone of W.'s cabal who may be in legal jeopardy will be pardoned. Does anyone here really think that there will be any justice served? One of the Dem candidates should run on a platform of adding a constitutional ammendment that the President can't pardon people within their own administration. Which of course lets Cheney off the hook! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 that's the problem of a two party system -- no one is willing to restrict powers they MIGHT get soon. it's like the idea of a maximum wage - most americans oppose it although the odds that most people will make $10 million INCOME per YEAR (current dollars, adjusted accordingly down the line) are staggeringly opposed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.