New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests
Bill Minneman, Chicagoans Against War and Injustice
A little-noted Executive Order signed Tuesday, July 17, has the effect of criminalizing any activities opposing the U.S. occupation of Iraq or U.S. plans for that country’s economic and political restructuring. The order (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) calls for the federal government to block the financial assets of:
“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.” “Blocking” of assets under this order means a prohibition on their being “transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.”
Note the following points in the language of this Executive Order:
1. The determination of whose assets are to be blocked is made strictly within the executive branch. No courts are involved.
2. The order authorizes actions not only against those determined to have committed the proscribed acts, but also against those determined — again, by the executive branch — to pose a risk of committing them. It thus authorizes preemptive actions against targeted persons.
3. The order also applies to anyone who has assisted or supported a person who has been declared subject to this order. Elsewhere, the order defines “person” to refer to an individual or an “entity,” which in turn is defined to mean any “partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.”
Let us understand what this means. Let us say that Chicagoans Against War and Injustice (CAWI) sponsors or endorses an anti-occupation rally, and that in the course of that rally the Chicago police change their recent relatively permissive approach and decide to crack a couple heads. Well, we have “violence” in connection with that event, so the U. S. Treasury Department can freeze CAWI’s meager assets. But in fact there need not be any actual violence at that rally; the event itself might be determined to pose a risk of violence, so CAWI is subject to the order. In fact, there need not actually be a rally; just the planning of a protest — or indeed just talking about one, let alone such overt acts as maintaining a web site containing anti-occupation content, or managing a listserve that facilitates anti-occupation discussion — might be determined to present such a risk, and make CAWI subject to the order. And once that determination is made and CAWI’s assets are frozen, then any organization that has supported or participated in any CAWI activities is subject to having its own assets frozen for having “materially assisted, sponsored or provided...support for” an organization deemed subject to the order. And, oh yeah, any of us individuals who have contributed to CAWI directly or to a local United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) affiliate or other group that has ever cooperated with CAWI in any way might then have all of their assets frozen as well.
It is not only the explicitly anti-war groups that could be subject to this order. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demands by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or Human Rights Watch for access to documents related to U.S. policy on Iraq could be determined to inflame passions that would pose the risk of violence that would interfere with the Iraqi occupation. That determination would put the assets of those organizations and subsequently of their members in jeopardy. Similar FOIA demands by news media could likewise jeopardize the assets of the parent corporation of a newspaper or broadcaster.
In fact, suppose there are anti-occupation protests outside the 2008 Democratic Convention, and the Treasury Department determines that those protests (a) pose a risk of violence, and (b) are prompted at least in part by speeches on the convention floor opposing administration policy on Iraq. In that situation, the language of this Executive Order could be construed to permit the freezing of the assets of the Democratic Party. Given an administration in which the Under Secretary of Defense, Eric Adelman, last week replied to an information request regarding Iraq from a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senator Hillary Clinton, New York) with a letter claiming that mere discussion of the topic “reinforces enemy propaganda,” these scenarios may not be as much of a stretch as they might at first seem.
For anyone who thought that the series of post-9/11 U. S. government actions to freeze the assets of Muslim charities such as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation were unfortunate but essentially a matter of concern only to the Muslim American community, this should be a wake-up call. The first application of this order will create a classic illustration of the Niemoeller lament about the Nazis, that, “First they came for..., and I did nothing.” In this case, the government has given themselves the ammunition to come for all of us.
A little-noted Executive Order signed Tuesday, July 17, has the effect of criminalizing any activities opposing the U.S. occupation of Iraq or U.S. plans for that country’s economic and political restructuring. The order (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) calls for the federal government to block the financial assets of:
“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.” “Blocking” of assets under this order means a prohibition on their being “transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.”
Note the following points in the language of this Executive Order:
1. The determination of whose assets are to be blocked is made strictly within the executive branch. No courts are involved.
2. The order authorizes actions not only against those determined to have committed the proscribed acts, but also against those determined — again, by the executive branch — to pose a risk of committing them. It thus authorizes preemptive actions against targeted persons.
3. The order also applies to anyone who has assisted or supported a person who has been declared subject to this order. Elsewhere, the order defines “person” to refer to an individual or an “entity,” which in turn is defined to mean any “partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.”
Let us understand what this means. Let us say that Chicagoans Against War and Injustice (CAWI) sponsors or endorses an anti-occupation rally, and that in the course of that rally the Chicago police change their recent relatively permissive approach and decide to crack a couple heads. Well, we have “violence” in connection with that event, so the U. S. Treasury Department can freeze CAWI’s meager assets. But in fact there need not be any actual violence at that rally; the event itself might be determined to pose a risk of violence, so CAWI is subject to the order. In fact, there need not actually be a rally; just the planning of a protest — or indeed just talking about one, let alone such overt acts as maintaining a web site containing anti-occupation content, or managing a listserve that facilitates anti-occupation discussion — might be determined to present such a risk, and make CAWI subject to the order. And once that determination is made and CAWI’s assets are frozen, then any organization that has supported or participated in any CAWI activities is subject to having its own assets frozen for having “materially assisted, sponsored or provided...support for” an organization deemed subject to the order. And, oh yeah, any of us individuals who have contributed to CAWI directly or to a local United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) affiliate or other group that has ever cooperated with CAWI in any way might then have all of their assets frozen as well.
It is not only the explicitly anti-war groups that could be subject to this order. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demands by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or Human Rights Watch for access to documents related to U.S. policy on Iraq could be determined to inflame passions that would pose the risk of violence that would interfere with the Iraqi occupation. That determination would put the assets of those organizations and subsequently of their members in jeopardy. Similar FOIA demands by news media could likewise jeopardize the assets of the parent corporation of a newspaper or broadcaster.
In fact, suppose there are anti-occupation protests outside the 2008 Democratic Convention, and the Treasury Department determines that those protests (a) pose a risk of violence, and (b) are prompted at least in part by speeches on the convention floor opposing administration policy on Iraq. In that situation, the language of this Executive Order could be construed to permit the freezing of the assets of the Democratic Party. Given an administration in which the Under Secretary of Defense, Eric Adelman, last week replied to an information request regarding Iraq from a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senator Hillary Clinton, New York) with a letter claiming that mere discussion of the topic “reinforces enemy propaganda,” these scenarios may not be as much of a stretch as they might at first seem.
For anyone who thought that the series of post-9/11 U. S. government actions to freeze the assets of Muslim charities such as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation were unfortunate but essentially a matter of concern only to the Muslim American community, this should be a wake-up call. The first application of this order will create a classic illustration of the Niemoeller lament about the Nazis, that, “First they came for..., and I did nothing.” In this case, the government has given themselves the ammunition to come for all of us.
