Illegal to protest war? Can someone tell me what this actually means?

Question

Can someone tell me what this actually means: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

That's from the White House's website and other websites/blogs are reading it to mean that it's in a sense 'illegal to protest the war'.

Can someone read through that legalese and tell me exactly or at least what they think it means? Because I read it and still have no idea what it's actually saying.

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

To properly answer I would have to look up and read all of the other executive orders and regulations referenced in the order. I am not going to do that here because frankly that would take too long. Just reading it as it is I don't think the order is intended to rescind the constitutional rights of assembly or free speech. The order is vague but most of these are intentionally written that way to allow prosecutors as much leeway as possible. It looks like the order is intended to allow the government to intercept money donated to anti-American groups in Iraq and elsewhere. We hear fairly often that some individual, church, bussiness or organization is funneling money to terrorist. It looks like this order gives authority to the treasury dept. to prevent electronic transfers of money by groups suspected of financing extremist.
If the order were used against legitimate protesters then they could invoke their constitutional protections and probably win. Even the President of the United States is bound by the Constitution and he lacks the authority to simply right an executive order to change it.
My only fear is that the citizens don't understand the constitution well enough to know that.

Answer 2

It activates a statute -- 50 USC 1701, 1702 [link below] -- that sets forth procedures to freeze assets of people certified by the executive as aiding terrorists.

The provision in the executive order to punish anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people" is what most people are concerned about, because that phrase can be interpreted as you suggest.

However, the statute is specific its requirements, and they do not include that kind of interpretation

Meaning that any attempt to use the executive order in that fashion would be illegal because it exceeds the statutory scope -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if Bush would ever do anything illegal.

Answer 3

Well, it says that actors who cause disturbances in Iraq can have their persons or their property here seized. This was probably intended to be for terrorists and terrorist groups, but there are many peaceful and legal actions that could be construed as "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people," so the fear that this might be used to illegalize protests against war or other issues are justified.

Answer 4

This just says if you support terrorists, such as sending them money or supplies, your property can be seized. It has nothing to do with war protests. Some people are worried that the language is vague and could be abused - and Bush's people are very good at abusing the law - but it isn't aimed at protests. If it did, it would be unconstitutional anyway.

Answer 5

From what I can understand it only pertains to land in Iraq. So it is illegal to protest the war on Iraqi soil. Which goes right along with the tyranny of this whole ludicrous ordeal. Don't worry, we can still stress our vocal chords to no avail.

Answer 6

It means that Bush can detain anybody who he feels is undermining the war effort in Iraq.

If you are looking for specific definitions of "undermining" etc., you won't find them.

Which is why it is such a scary executive order. I wish Congress would get off their a$$es and outlaw executive orders and signing statements.