# New executive order -- Admin can freeze assets of anyone "undermining" Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2007, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410 "2007-07-19T16:42:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/1 "2007-07-19T16:42:24Z")
From the WH [website.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) > [@](#): > > 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come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, 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. It goes on to say that assets can be frozen with no prior notice to the owner. . . . WTF? What is the purpose of this order? Who is it targeting? Who in the U.S. has been sending money to fund terrorism or insurgency in Iraq? How broadly is “undermining” to be interpreted? Does this mean Bush can freeze Harry Reid’s assets? And the last paragraph says: > [@](#): > > 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. Does this mean only that the government does not commit any actionable tort by freezing assets under this order – or does it mean that the owner of such assets **has no recourse to sue to get the assets unfrozen?!** If the latter, it is almost certainly illegal. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/2 "2007-07-19T16:52:21Z")
> [@](#): > > What is the purpose of this order? Who is it targeting? Who in the U.S. has been sending money to fund terrorism or insurgency in Iraq? The purpose of the order seems clear to me…to seize the assets of any group or individual who is found to be sending material support to insurgent groups in Iraq. Who is it targeting? At a guess, individuals and groups who are sending material aid to insurgents in Iraq. A further guess based on the phrasing would be…groups and individuals outside of the US but who have assets that are either in the US or accessible or open to manipulation by the US. I don’t think the main target of this is people IN the US sending funds to terrorists or Iraqi insurgents BG…YMMV. As to the legal question, have to see if Bricker wanders in…I have no idea myself. -XT ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/3 "2007-07-19T16:57:23Z")
What _are_ the limits of an executive order? They’re not laws, but what can you do with one? ---
**Author:** ![Yag\_Rannavach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/858c86/32.png) [@Yag\_Rannavach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yag_Rannavach)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/4 "2007-07-19T17:39:20Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Who is it targeting? At a guess, individuals and groups who are sending material aid to insurgents in Iraq. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > , 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. So, if I’m the parent of someone who has their assets block by the order, then my assets can also be blocked. If I provide someone who has blocked assets with, say, a break in the rent for a month, then I can get my assets blocked. It seems to me like it could target more than just individuals and groups who are sending material aid. Plus, there’s that whole “technical support” thing…If someone uses a name-brand computer in order to coordinate with groups in iraq and calls their computer’s tech support line, wouldn’t the person who answers be providing technical aid? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/5 "2007-07-19T17:47:03Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] What _are_ the limits of an executive order? They’re not laws, but what can you do with one? [/QUOTE] A **lot.** From the [Wikipedia:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29) > [@](#): > > **Basis in U.S. Constitution** > > Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” in Article II, Section 3. > > Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to U.S. executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers. > > Other types of executive orders are: > > national security directives, > homeland security presidential directives, and > presidential decision directives, both of which deal with national security and defense matters. > **History and usage** > > Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. That order became necessary when Union forces captured New Orleans; Lincoln issued the order to establish military courts in Louisiana. Today, only National Security Directives are kept from the public. > > Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. > > Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton’s second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues. > **Criticisms** > > Critics [Please name specific person or group] have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. > > One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II. Thousands of German Americans and Italian Americans were also sent to internment camps under executive order. > > Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to information was more recently criticised by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it “violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207,” and adding that the order “potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation.” > > Critics[Please name specific person or group] fear that the president could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in particular has criticized the generalization since World War I of the use of executive orders or decrees by all Western democracies, declaring that this tends toward the constitution of a “permanent state of exception.” The presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation. > **Legal conflicts** > > To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. [1] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the super majority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism. [2] > > The precedent in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States might be of some relevance. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot give the president power to create laws, so it would follow that an executive order in restraint of a law, not enforcing, would be beyond the president’s power. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/6 "2007-07-19T17:48:11Z")
I doubt it…but then, I’m not a lawyer. Somehow I am a bit skeptical that this is the gloom and doom BG is painting it as though. I, however, shall withhold judgment on this until I understand it a bit more. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sefton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Sefton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sefton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/7 "2007-07-19T17:48:33Z")
But yesterday I bought $30 worth of gas, and the money probably went to Saudi Arabia–the birthplace of 14 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. What if I just funded future conspirators? Will my assets be seized? What can I do? What can I do? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/8 "2007-07-19T18:05:04Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What is the purpose of this order? Who is it targeting? Who in the U.S. has been sending money to fund terrorism or insurgency in Iraq? How broadly is “undermining” to be interpreted? Does this mean Bush can freeze Harry Reid’s assets? [/QUOTE] You seem to be overlooking the fact that the “undermining” clause relates to those who have committed or pose a significant risk of committing acts of violence. I’m no expert in this area, but it doesn’t appear that this EO is something extraordinary, or at least unprecedented. Other EOs restrict transfer of property to [Iran](http://www.iraniantrade.org/13059.htm) for example, and also contain the last provision about not creating a right of action. We can certainly debate whether it is a proper function of government to sanction or block transfers of private assets to people outside the country, but based on my first glance, I don’t see any particular problem with having a policy that says that Americans aren’t allowed to fund insurgents in Iraq. One can always apply for a license from OFAC if one needs to transfer some asset to which there’s a risk of diversion for benefit of insurgents. And I’m not sure of this, but I believe I heard one time about the last clause on creating a right to action really has to do with people not suing the government to force the government to place sanctions on a particular group or person. I’d be interested to hear from an attorney if that is indeed the significance of the last clause. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/9 "2007-07-19T18:07:51Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Who is it targeting? [/QUOTE] I expect it’s targeting individuals or groups that haven’t made it to the [Foreign Terrorist Organizations List](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) yet. There’s probably some fact checking and bureaucratic deliberations involved in getting on the list, and the President doesn’t want to be bothered with that. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/10 "2007-07-19T18:55:03Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Somehow I am a bit skeptical that this is the gloom and doom BG is painting it as though. [/QUOTE] I don’t know one way or the other, but I’m damn glad that someone is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/11 "2007-07-19T19:24:45Z")
I suppose one might be concerned if the President had shown any tendency to expand or aggrandize executive power, but thus far, he has kept his claims _strictly_ within the limits of his imagination. And look how carefully crafted the wording is, how it posits inherent safeguards! “Directly or indirectly” is very taut wording, it could hardly include more than 40-50% of the population! OK, 60%. 70%, tops! I mean, its not like the President can simply declare some citizen to be an enemy of the people, like the commies do! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/12 "2007-07-19T19:35:03Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I mean, its not like the President can simply declare some citizen to be an enemy of the people, like the commies do! [/QUOTE] Exactly…its only in the fevered imaginations of the faithful that the President, even on like Bush, can do this. Er…you were being serious I hope. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/13 "2007-07-19T20:21:01Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] “Directly or indirectly” is very taut wording, it could hardly include more than 40-50% of the population! OK, 60%. 70%, tops! [/QUOTE] Are you seriously saying that two-thirds of the American people are acting as financial agents for Iraqi insurgents whose assets have already been seized? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/14 "2007-07-19T20:22:41Z")
Okay. Let’s cut down the hyperventilating a bit. The authority for the president to do this is to some degree inherent in his executive role, but it was clarified by a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. You will notice if you read the original order that this is explicitly mentioned. This act clarified the president’s role in declaring an unusual threat to the foreign policy, security, or economy of the United States and authorized the president to block transactions, freeze assets, and enact other measures to deal with that threat. When President Carter used various economic measures against the Islamic government of Iran, some still in effect, it was under the authority of this act. The IEEPA falls under the auspices of the National Emergencies Act, also mentioned. That means that the emergency must be renewed annually and can be overridden by Congress at any time. So there really is nothing new in this declaration. It basically was the mechanism behind the sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro, on South Africa, on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait right through to 2004, and many other times. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/15 "2007-07-19T21:31:37Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So there really is nothing new in this declaration. [/QUOTE] So, it’s the very _absence of newness_ that required a _new_ executive order here? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/16 "2007-07-19T21:39:52Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] So, it’s the very absence of newness that required a new executive order here? [/QUOTE] Absolutely! Bush is just reminding us (as if we could, much as we’d like to, forget) that he’s still about… -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/17 "2007-07-19T21:46:16Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Who is it targeting? At a guess, individuals and groups who are sending material aid to insurgents in Iraq. A further guess based on the phrasing would be…groups and individuals outside of the US but who have assets that are either in the US or accessible or open to manipulation by the US. I don’t think the main target of this is people IN the US sending funds to terrorists or Iraqi insurgents BG…YMMV. [/QUOTE] That’s probably it, and I’m actually reassured by that POV. It’s just that the Deciderer’s track record moves me to view any even possibly suspicious action as the thin end of an authoritarian wedge. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/18 "2007-07-19T21:50:10Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] So, it’s the very _absence of newness_ that required a _new_ executive order here? 😉 [/QUOTE] The executive order was neccesary to apply the law to the Iraqi insurgents. Here’s the old executive order from 1999 imposing sanctions on Serbia, for comparison: [http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/eo/13121.pdf](http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/eo/13121.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2007, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/19 "2007-07-20T04:13:20Z")
It’s about time somebody went after Halliburton and all those other contracters for what they’ve done in Iraq. Or am I misunderstanding the intent of this executive order? ---
**Author:** ![I\_m\_Ron\_Burgundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9fc29f/32.png) [@I\_m\_Ron\_Burgundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_m_Ron_Burgundy)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2007, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410/20 "2007-07-20T04:24:54Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Absolutely! Bush is just reminding us (as if we could, much as we’d like to, forget) that he’s still about… -XT [/QUOTE] Bastard! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-executive-order-admin-can-freeze-assets-of-anyone-undermining-iraq/412410.md?page=2)