Actually, I find Sec.4 even more chilling, because it effectively prevents anyone from donating funds for the purpose of repealing the act. It also prevents the person charged from being able to transfer funds so as to retain a lawyer for their own defense.
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.
That's not to say that the entire thing is rather chilling, regardless of the fact that it's targeted towards actions relating to Iraq. It essentially defines any attempt to affect politics in Iraq as an act of sedition, thereby eliminating the right of free speech with regard to the Iraq Occupation.
gaaaaaah. >:-(
I would, however, have fun turning this around and biting Bush in the a$$ by proving his actions to be detrimental to the "stability of Iraq"... <VEG>
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-19 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-19 09:46 pm (UTC)Nova's link ends in a double quote -- suppose she meant to link to... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/18/235042/926
--Bill
(and sorry about the previous copy'n'paste error.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-20 12:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-19 11:24 pm (UTC)That's not to say that the entire thing is rather chilling, regardless of the fact that it's targeted towards actions relating to Iraq. It essentially defines any attempt to affect politics in Iraq as an act of sedition, thereby eliminating the right of free speech with regard to the Iraq Occupation.
gaaaaaah. >:-(
I would, however, have fun turning this around and biting Bush in the a$$ by proving his actions to be detrimental to the "stability of Iraq"... <VEG>