Obama Executive Order: Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts

reply to post by Valhall


Hmm, ok, digging in a bit further. Conclusion = I hate these people. Fire them all. Good Lordy.

So, yes that sections inclusion of 'indirectly' is sketchy so kept reading and on down the page it talkes about other changes. One particular stood out to me. Section 15 c subsection 1(d).... well i want to read the whole thing so I pull up the deal-e-o and here it is
www.gpo.gov...

I would rather poke needles in my eye than attempt to read this darn thing anymore.

I can not find, in this darn thing, where all this applies. There are changes spoken of in places on this EO that dont exist that I can find.

I feel illiterate and my eyes are crossed. Im done. The screws are being put to us in so many different ways. Cant choose which makes me the most mad.

reply to post by mrsdudara


Well, if it's any consolation...which it shouldn't be...the screws started clamping down under Bush. They made our nails bleed on this one.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by mrsdudara

 

Well, if it's any consolation...which it shouldn't be...the screws started clamping down under Bush. They made our nails bleed on this one.

edit on 10-18-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Which Obama could have easily changed yet failed to do..

This is not Bush's fault... Its the American people's for voting Obama into office and expecting him to acually do something and then blaming everyone and everything under the sun when he doesn't.

If people are this concerned over the EO then maybe they should get involved and contact their reps in Congress.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by mrsdudara

 

Well, if it's any consolation...which it shouldn't be...the screws started clamping down under Bush. They made our nails bleed on this one.

edit on 10-18-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Which Obama could have easily changed yet failed to do..

This is not Bush's fault... Its the American people's for voting Obama into office and expecting him to acually do something and then blaming everyone and everything under the sun when he doesn't.

If people are this concerned over the EO then maybe they should get involved and contact their reps in Congress.

The LAST thing I would want to do is see a repeal of any sort of order or law that has the intent of allowing the government to seize and/or freeze assets of those dealing with nations or entities that they are forbidden from dealing with. People can sit here and toss around conspiracy theories all they want, thats fine and dandy. But honestly, I WANT the government to be able to seize or freeze the assets of the bad guys.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I totally agree with you X...which may be the first time. I think we're usually at odds, if I recall. Pleasant change. Bush quarterbacked bad things happening...Obama was wide-receiver and ran the ball way down the field. I voted Bush in the first time, tried to vote him out the second term, and I voted Obama in. All I can do now is write emails to my congressional members (which I do), point things out here, and VOTE (which is all I ever could do all along). Obama's not getting a second term out of me...but he might out of the majority of my fellow citizens. Unfortunately, if that happens, I believe they will be making a GRAVE mistake.

But to get back to this EO. There was no reason to even include the broadly and ambiguously written "Section 2" of this EO. There are already laws in effect (such as RICO) that can be employed if someone truly is found to be a second-level "conspirer or racketeer" in a scheme to funnel funds to what has been declared an off-limit/sanctioned/illegal operation. So...why? Why is that section even there?

Some people want to say "talking about it" is talking about "conspiracy theories". No, that's not the point of "talking about it". Just as with some of the EO's written by Bush and just like with the powers of the PATRIOT Act, you thinking they will NEVER misuse the power doesn't mean it isn't there to be misused. And it doesn't have to be Obama, Clinton or Geithner who misuses it. The moment a power is issued that anyone UNDER them can misuse for their own self-centered, nefarious, grudge-driven, or otherwise just not right reasons...it's a threat to all of us.

But back to a point I made in my first post, that I may have been a bit too obtuse in trying to make. The leader of our country just touted in a public debate that he...which would be WE...have just imposed the strictest sanctions on government of Iran that have ever been imposed. First, I'd like to state, having lived through the period of sanctions after the Iran hostage situation, I don't think that statement is true. I don't see the level of sanctions right now that I recall from the 70's on. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

BUT, economic sanctions have a TREMENDOUS lag-time in causing an adverse economic "hurt" to the GOVERNMENT of a country. If you don't believe me, look over there at North Korea. We're....60 years??? into the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a country and guess what??? we still haven't hurt the North Korean government! Guess who we've hurt for 60 years? The North Korean PEOPLE.

So why is this EO written in the form of sanctions against those accused of HARMING the Iranian people? Huh? First, shouldn't we be centered on sanctioning anyone who is assisting the Iranian government in their attempts to harm OTHERS...like US, Syrian freedom-fighters, Israel and any of the other mideast countries Iran keeps trying to bully??? And aren't WE the people who are currently harming the Iranian people because, according to our leader, we just sanctioned the piss out of them...right?

The whole thing is like a tremendous barf bag of unnecessary and mindless blather with a signature at the end...and really scary powers in the middle.

Originally posted by Valhall

The whole thing is like a tremendous barf bag of unnecessary and mindless blather with a signature at the end...and really scary powers in the middle.

edit on 10-19-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

HAHAHAHAHA LOVE THIS!!! It describes our government as a whole doesnt it?!

Anyone else left puzzled by the agreement he just made with Iran a week after putting this into play?

Originally posted by flyswatter
The LAST thing I would want to do is see a repeal of any sort of order or law that has the intent of allowing the government to seize and/or freeze assets of those dealing with nations or entities that they are forbidden from dealing with.

At this level, nation to nation or nation to foreign sub entity (banks etc) I am in complete support of. I would not want to see anything that would hinder / prohibit this ability as I thinks its vital to the Presidents ability to conduct foreign affairs.

Originally posted by flyswatter
People can sit here and toss around conspiracy theories all they want, thats fine and dandy. But honestly, I WANT the government to be able to seize or freeze the assets of the bad guys.

My concern comes into play when it deals with US citizens.. To me its not the job of the President to determine if a US citizen violates a law (an EO is not law). We have a system in place that requires law enforcement investigate and requires the judicial to determine if charges are supported by the evidence and if so prosecute.

I do not and will not support an end run around of our legal system using terrorism as the excuse. There are exceptions in place that allow law enforcement to act even without warrants / miranda / etc. The exceptions are rare, as they should be, and its up to the individual to completely justify their actions to the court in order for those actions to be considered lawful.

When we ignore our own legal system, principles and laws, then we become no better than those we accuse of violating the rights of others through the use of terrorism.

Does everyone who has called this disgusting, Obama is scary, etc...... have plans to support Assad or Iran through their own personal funding, or are you all just not into reading?

Come one, guys. Read the dam thing. Evil Kenya Obama is not going to steal anyone's bank account.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Valhall
I totally agree with you X...which may be the first time. I think we're usually at odds, if I recall. Pleasant change.

We most likely agree on more than what we think. I never want to see a day where there is only one opinon or one viewpoint on anything.

Originally posted by Valhall
Bush quarterbacked bad things happening...Obama was wide-receiver and ran the ball way down the field. I voted Bush in the first time, tried to vote him out the second term, and I voted Obama in. All I can do now is write emails to my congressional members (which I do), point things out here, and VOTE (which is all I ever could do all along). Obama's not getting a second term out of me...but he might out of the majority of my fellow citizens. Unfortunately, if that happens, I believe they will be making a GRAVE mistake.

One of the deawbacks of living in a Representative Republic... Often times the other person wins. As for using your rep awesome job.. Its more than what most people are willing to do.. I do the same thing with my reps, and have actually received personal phone calls from them letting me know they got my letter / email. I try to include solutions with my complaints...

I voted for Bush both times and McCain over Obama. However in the begining I really did wish to see Obama succeed. The big turnoff for me was the lck of transparency coupled with the blame game (all sides do it I know, but for some reason Obama comes across as doing it more and on more serious issues).

Originally posted by Valhall
But to get back to this EO. There was no reason to even include the broadly and ambiguously written "Section 2" of this EO. There are already laws in effect (such as RICO) that can be employed if someone truly is found to be a second-level "conspirer or racketeer" in a scheme to funnel funds to what has been declared an off-limit/sanctioned/illegal operation. So...why? Why is that section even there?

One of the pushes I have seen under both Bush and Obama was to find a way to fight "terrorism" while not getting bogged down in US domestic law. While I certainly understand the argument I dont agree with the manner in which the bypass is being attempted. It makes it way to easy for a person to be falsely accused and then be denied due process because of the terrorist classification.

Keep in mind my concern resides in the US domestic setting with US citizens.

Originally posted by Valhall
Some people want to say "talking about it" is talking about "conspiracy theories". No, that's not the point of "talking about it". Just as with some of the EO's written by Bush and just like with the powers of the PATRIOT Act, you thinking they will NEVER misuse the power doesn't mean it isn't there to be misused. And it doesn't have to be Obama, Clinton or Geithner who misuses it. The moment a power is issued that anyone UNDER them can misuse for their own self-centered, nefarious, grudge-driven, or otherwise just not right reasons...it's a threat to all of us.

edit on 10-19-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

Once again we completely agree on this last point you made and its my concern as well. While I am all for granting the right tools for law enforcement to do their jobs, I am not in favor of a law or newly granted power that is so vague or so broad that anyone under the sun could meet the criteria...

and thats saying a lot coming from a person who does law enfordcement for a living... I make that comment with the concern that it could be used against state or local law enforcement. That scenario, while unlikely, is not impossible and it should force people to think things thru all the way to the end. We get so amped about the starting line at times that we dont bother to look at the track, let alone see where the finish line is.

Originally posted by Valhall
But back to a point I made in my first post, that I may have been a bit too obtuse in trying to make. The leader of our country just touted in a public debate that he...which would be WE...have just imposed the strictest sanctions on government of Iran that have ever been imposed. First, I'd like to state, having lived through the period of sanctions after the Iran hostage situation, I don't think that statement is true. I don't see the level of sanctions right now that I recall from the 70's on. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Comparing sanctions from 2 very different time periods with differing economic conditions is about impossible. We would need to take into account not only inflationary / deflationary issues, we would need to look at GDP, currency values etc etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Valhall
BUT, economic sanctions have a TREMENDOUS lag-time in causing an adverse economic "hurt" to the GOVERNMENT of a country. If you don't believe me, look over there at North Korea. We're....60 years??? into the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a country and guess what??? we still haven't hurt the North Korean government! Guess who we've hurt for 60 years? The North Korean PEOPLE.

I would argue the North Korean government and its policies are hurting the North Korean people, not nations who refuse to do business with North Korea.

Is Iran hurting the Israeli people by refusing to recognize the Israeli government or allow trade with them?

Originally posted by Valhall
So why is this EO written in the form of sanctions against those accused of HARMING the Iranian people? Huh? First, shouldn't we be centered on sanctioning anyone who is assisting the Iranian government in their attempts to harm OTHERS...like US, Syrian freedom-fighters, Israel and any of the other mideast countries Iran keeps trying to bully??? And aren't WE the people who are currently harming the Iranian people because, according to our leader, we just sanctioned the piss out of them...right?

The sanctions are voluntary, not required and are not through the UN. Does a nation not have a choice on who they do business with? Iran just recently complained because PressTV and several other Iranian state media outlets got booted from European lineups. While they complain about it and make their accusations, people seem to ignore the fact Iran does not allow foreign media outlets, namely western, access to their nation.

So why is it Iran is not hurting / suppressing western media yet western nations are hurting / supressing Iranian media?

Why is Iran not hurting Israel by refusing to recognize their government or allow trade yet Israel is hurtiung Iran by returning the same treatment in kind?

I get your argument however I just think people are to quick to ignore the half of the story they dont like.

Originally posted by Valhall
The whole thing is like a tremendous barf bag of unnecessary and mindless blather with a signature at the end...and really scary powers in the middle.

edit on 10-19-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

On all sides and all countries...

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by alienreality

 

What is even scarier, is if he loses the election,

Can I top your 'scarier' with one eve scarier yet?

President Obama has the RIGHT via his Executive order to dissolve congress and SUSPEND THE ELECTION all together.

I'll have to go search for what EO that is - but it's there. And wait a moment! Wouldn't the problems in Iran be a perfect reason to suspend elections. Orrrrrr maybe another false flag? Orrrrrrrrr he's got a gnarly pimple on his behind?

peace

This will never happen. if he tries it, the American people Will take action and take his head. Congress and all their corporate friends and corrupt money ties will be the leaders of this revolution so right after Obama's head is delivered you'd better watch out for the propaganda of the Next leader.

As for the banks. That's why I don't use banks. I keep a small amount of walking around money on a Wal-mart money card and the rest, goes into a hidden safe or other investments the Gov doesn't have access to.

Originally posted by sonnny1


This guy is Dangerous.


He had no problem resigning the Patriot Act, and enacting NDAA.

It Goes beyond Fascism.

Just think. There are those that want another 4 years, of this........

Shut up racist.

Your a terrorist for wanting freedom.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Thanks John.

pre election fear mongering

there are laws on the books going back to the 40's that would scare the crap outta ya