Muscatine

E.O to see

#13303 Effects of EO 13303
The primary effect of EO 13303 is the legal protection of US oil companies. EO 13303 is part of a broader endeavor by the Bush administration to exert control over Iraqi oil revenues. The plan centers on the Development Fund for Iraq, created by the United Nations and nominally controlled by the United States, with advice from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second part of the plan is EO 13303, providing absolute legal protection for US interests in Iraqi oil.
Executive Order 13315
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
Executive Order 13315, January 21, 2003: Wherein U.S. President George W. Bush declares his determination that ''the United States is engaged in armed hostilities and that it is in the interest of the United States to confiscate certain additional property of the former Iraqi regime, certain senior officials of the former regime, immediate family members of those officials, and controlled entities. I intend that such property, after all right, title, and interest in it has vested in the Department of the Treasury, shall be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. Such property shall be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the Iraqi people. I determine that such use would be in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.''

Official source of the EO available in .PDF format from the Federal Register (68 FR 3371, January 24, 2003). Also available in HTML/text version. See EO 12333, December 4, 1981.

Retrieved from ''http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Executive_Order_13315''
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on ?“Regulatory Planning and Review,?” issued in
September 1993, describes the principles and procedures by which the Office of
Management and Budget?’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
reviews hundreds of significant proposed and final agency regulations on behalf of
the President before they are published in the Federal Register. On January 18,
2007, President George W. Bush issued E.O. 13422, making the most significant
amendments to E.O. 12866 since it was published. The changes made by this new
executive order are controversial, characterized by some as a ?“power grab?” by the
White House that undermines public protections and lessens congressional authority,
and by others as ?“a paragon of common sense and good government.?”

more

E.O. #13364
In an extremely broad executive order issued on July 17, President Bush authorized the Treasury Department to freeze the property of anyone determined to be hindering US actions in Iraq and the stability of the US-backed regime in Baghdad. The wording is vague enough to encompass not only those resisting the occupation directly, but also US citizens involved in antiwar activity.

The executive order, issued under the headline, ?“Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,?” cites powers granted to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). That act was originally intended to regulate the power of the US president to declare trade embargos on other countries. Beginning with the Clinton administration, powers under IEEPA have been expanded to include blocking financial assets of individuals targeted by the US, including ?“designated terrorists?” and ?“designated terrorist organizations.?”

EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ASSET SEIZURE CASTS A WIDE NET

Last July, President Bush issued a broadly-worded executive order authorizing the government to seize the assets of ''any person'' who threatens the stability of Iraq and, more controversially, any person who provides assistance to such a person.

The scope, objectives and precedents of the order -- Executive Order 13,438, ''Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq'' -- were examined in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

''The broad language of this executive order has been the subject of a degree of criticism as potentially reaching beyond insurgents in Iraq to third parties, such as U.S. citizens, who may unknowingly be providing support for the insurgency,'' the CRS report noted, citing prior reports in the Washington Post, TPM Muckraker, and elsewhere.

In fact, the potential application of the order appears to be technically unlimited since it includes a recursive clause that has no defined endpoint.

Thus, section 1(b) of the Order states that any person who provides goods or services to a person whose actions are proscribed under section 1(a) is himself subject to section 1(a). But then, anyone who provides similar support to that person could likewise be swept up in the expansive terms of the order. And so on, without end.

In practice, the application of the order will be defined by implementing regulations to be issued by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which will also prepare an initial list of blocked individuals and organizations. Those have still not been published.

how about nspd 51

Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?
The reality of NSPD-51 is almost as bad as the paranoia.
By Ron Rosenbaum
Posted Friday, Oct. 19, 2007, at 2:23 PM ET
Oh, god. I'm reluctant to write this particular column. I've been scarred by this kind of story before. I've learned that it's difficult to write about the sources of paranoia without spreading paranoia.

But the subject, NSPD-51?—that's National Security Presidential Directive 51?—and the attendant explosion of blogospheric paranoia about it deserve attention. Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that NSPD-51 is a blueprint for a coup in the guise of plans for ''continuity of government'' in the event of a national emergency (such as a terrorist attack during an election campaign). Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that it will be used as a pretext for canceling the upcoming presidential election and preserving ''continuity'' of this administration in office.

Nonetheless, the specifics of the directive are a matter of legitimate concern that has not been given the urgent and sustained attention it deserves by Congress or the mainstream media.

Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a ''terrorist attack,'' or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of ''national security,'' and take the control of the government via the ''National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51'' and ''Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20,'' released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting nightmare?
here is the whole story!http://www.slate.com/id/2176185/
what say you!!!!!!!!!!!

I say

someone needs to put down the kool-aid and adjust their tinfoil hat. It seems to be on a little tight.