The truth about bush's new bill outlawing war protests!?

Question

Don't get me wrong, Bush is a complete moron. I do not support bush for anything. But now we are being plain ridiculous.

For those who do not know, bush made it illegal for anyone to support a protest that interferes with the rebuilding of Iraq.

And what people are saying, including Russian lawyers(WFT?), is that one of the statements is open ended and, potentially, could possibly be interpreted that you cannot protest the war. Frankly, this is not the case. Even in a stretch cannot see this being interpreted by a lawyer and convicting anyone for a simple protest. bumper stickers don't hurt nobody unless you can prove the money went to a terrorist. Screw Russia!

I have read the bill myself, and here is what they are saying
"an act or acts of violence"
First of all!!!!! this means an act, or several acts. This is NOT open ended. Bush is an idiot and this is more of a waste of time than anything.

With everything bush has done, we do not have to make stuff up against him!!!!!!!!!

In short, reading the whole bill (some news iv read has left part of it out) this bill speaks EXPLICITLY against acts of violence that prevent the rebuilding of Iraq.

NOT against free speech!

Answer 1

Okay, part of the problem here seems to be twofold: (1) Mike makes the mistake of calling the document in question a "bill" when in fact it is an Executive Order, which is issued by the President and does not require Congressional approval; and (2) he didn't actually link to the Order itself, so some people assume he is making this up (to review the actual order, see link below). Also, contrary to what jmminnc asserts, the Order to which Mike is referring was just signed, and is not the Order banning protests at military funerals, which was indeed signed about a year ago.

The main objection to the Order in question is that it gives very broad powers to the Executive, even to the extent of effectively circumventing the due process clause of the Constitution (see Section 5, which refers to people whose "property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order" without notice).

Ostensibly, this Order allows action to be taken against anyone using "violent acts" to undermine the reconstruction of Iraq. The issue with this is that it both allows the Executive to determine what constitute "violent acts," a real problem when simple war protests have been considered violent, and even terroristic, and includes broad classes of people, both citizens and not, that in any way might have abetted such acts, even unwittingly.

The real question is, to whom would this Order even apply? Any person committing "violent acts" in this country is already subject to arrest and prosecution. On the other hand, someone outside the US would not be subject to US law. Even in a relatively lawless and chaotic situation like we find in Iraq, anyone who committed violent acts against Coalition forces or the Iraqi government would be subject to arrest and detention, at the very least.

No, the real purpose of the Order seems to be to dissuade anyone from protesting, or even critcizing, the Bush adminstration's policies with regard to Iraq, lest they have access to their assets blocked. If anyone can suggest any other rationale, considering the points I made in my previous paragraph, I would be very interested to hear them.

Answer 2

I agree with you and don't understand why someone in government isn't trying to impeach this bastard (Bush). Or did I speak to late?

If you dig deeper, you'll see that the U.S.A. in Iraq has become nothing more than a terrorist occupation (the very thing that we claim we're trying to help them defend themselves against). To top it off they fight the returning soldiers that have been mamed or psychologically damaged by the war from getting any benefits.

This latest shenanigan of him trying to outlaw war protests is just another example of him further eroding our constitution and the rights of others in the world. What's next? --Don't look at Bush the wrong way, or you'll have your gonads cut off?--

This guy is a raving idiot, and it makes me ashamed to be an American (U.S.A. citizen). If I had the money I would have moved to Spain, Italy, Australia, wherever to get away from his 8 year charade of disgrace and blunders.

And remember, the first time, he wasn't elected president, he was appointed president by the supreme court, because , er, they "lost" votes, threw votes out, miscounted, didn't want votes counted, etc.. God knows what Katharyn Harris and his brother did. And who knows what happened the second time he "won" the election.

Thank god the president can only serve 8 years and no more, however there should be a rule against electing alcoholic morons (which is what bush is)

Answer 3

Even if this might be true, constitutionally, if there is no violence or threat of violence it can NOT be enforced. The Supreme Court would probably throw out any case. Do you remember the "free speech zones"? That didn't hold up in court either.

However, I see very little reason for anyone to protest the REBUILDING of what WE destroyed. Trying to replace what was damaged or destroyed during the war is a GOOD thing - not a bad thing.

Answer 4

I am honestly sick of the Bush bashing, all this bashing is damaging the moral of all American's, if I were you all I would start defending this country by defending our President, this country voted Bush into office for a 8 year term the only one's to blame are ourselves. Impeaching him now is stupid his term is up in one year things could turn worse or better and what makes you think that the next President is going to be any better. Hilary will probably send flowers to Bin Laden and ask for forgiveness and Obama will probably join him. Protesting always turns into violence, who's side are they on anyway, tearing up the streets chanting worthless words this country has went to the dogs long before Bush.

Answer 5

This was PASSED 1 YEAR AGO!!!!!!!!!

So " YOU" think the family's of our fallen troops should be spit on and the lay to rest their son or daughter.

"I'm pleased the President has acted so quickly to sign this bill so that we can ensure families are able to honor their heroic loved ones in peace and with the dignity they deserve," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a statement.



Washington (AFP) May 29, 2006
President George W. Bush on Monday signed a law that bans protests at military funerals, in a bid to counter a group that has staged anti-gay demonstrations at ceremonies for soldiers killed in Iraq.
Bush signed the law, already passed by Congress.

The measure bans protests within 100 metres (300 feet) of the entrance of a national cemetery and 50 metres (150 feet) from a road into the cemetery. The ban applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. The law allows for a fine of 100,000 dollars and up to a year in prison for violators.

The ONLY MORON IS YOU!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Most if, not all organized protests need a permit so the local law enforcement can prepare for those that may be on a different agenda.
Only seeing part of the bill is the medias way of getting attention on something that really isn't news worthy.

Answer 7

A. You are full of Crap!
B. Bush can not "make" a bill. It has to go through both houses of Congress and then and only then can the President sign it into law. That is all the President can do, sign it into law.
C. So back to my original assertion, you are full of CRAP!!!!
D. Oh, yeah, you are a complete moron when it comes to the running of your country, too, try doing a little studying on US government.

Answer 8

But the problem is "interpretation."

Even if it gets thrown out later, the hassle of being accused of "a violent act" (waving my protest sign back and forth) might be enough.

And considering that Dick Cheney feels the vice president is not part of the executive branch of government shows just how fast and loose they are with the rules

Answer 9

One thing that makes me suspicious is that none of the people complaining about this are providing us with any primary source references. As a result we are getting nothing but their opinion about what the document says - but we are not able to verify if this is actually what the document says.

How about giving us a reference to the full text of the document so we can make our own decisions?

Answer 10

You've got to be sh*tting me...a bill to outlaw war protests...and you people think you live in the land of the FREE?