==> The Truth About Political Stuff <==: 07/22/2007

Saturday, July 28, 2007

U.S. plans big arms sale to Saudi Arabia

Reuters
U.S. plans big arms sale to Saudi Arabia: report

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve arms sales totaling $20 billions over the next decade for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, The New York Times reported in Saturday editions.

Coming as some U.S. officials contend that the Saudi government is not helping the situation in Iraq, the proposal for advanced weapons for Saudi Arabia has stoked concern in Israel and among its U.S. backers, the Times said. The package of advanced weaponry includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades for its fighters and new naval vessels.

Senior officials, including State Department and Pentagon officials who outlined the deals' terms, told the Times they thought the Bush administration had resolved those concerns, partly by offering Israel more than $30 billion in military aid over the next 10 years, which would be a significant increase over recent levels.

Administration officials remain concerned, however, that the package could draw opposition from Saudi critics in Congress, which is to be notified formally about the deal this autumn, the newspaper said.

The State Department and the White House had no comment on the Times' article, and a Pentagon spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.

Assurances from the Saudis about being more supportive in Iraq were not sought by the administration as part of the deal, U.S. officials told the newspaper.

The Times said officials described the plan as intended to bolster Gulf countries' militaries in a bid to contain Iran's growing strength in the region, as well as to demonstrate Washington's commitment to its Arab allies.

But they added that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates still plan to use their joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week to press for help with Iraq's government.

"The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you," the newspaper quoted a senior State Department official as saying.

The official added that Washington wants Gulf states to stress to Sunnis that engaging in violence is "killing your future."

Other salves to Israel in light of the proposed deal include asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, the Times said. The Pentagon is also asking for a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, it added.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, the Times said.

U.S. officials may subpoena filmmaker Moore

Reuters
U.S. officials may subpoena filmmaker Moore
By Bob Tourtellotte

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Federal officials may be planning to subpoena filmmaker Michael Moore seeking information about a trip he took to Cuba for his documentary, "Sicko," a source close to the situation said on Friday.

In a late Thursday appearance on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," Moore said he was notified at the TV studio in Burbank, California, that a subpoena had already been issued.

But the source, who declined to be identified, said Moore had not actually been served with the request. Rather, the office of his attorney, David Boies, was contacted by a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce seeking the name of a person who would accept a subpoena on Moore's behalf.

"Sicko" takes a scathing look at the U.S. health-care system through the eyes of people who suffered injuries or had diseases and felt the U.S. system of insurers and drug providers failed them.

The director took several Americans, who became ill after working in the ruins of New York's World Trade Center following the September 11 attacks, for free treatment in Cuba.

In May, the U.S. Treasury Department informed Moore it was investigating his trip to the communist state as a potential violation of Washington's long-standing embargo restricting U.S. citizens' travel to the communist nation.

Moore wrote then to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, "I have broken no laws, and I have nothing to hide."

A representative for Moore referred calls to Boies, who was not immediately available to comment.

"Sicko" has received mostly good reviews from film critics, but some viewers have criticized it for a lack of a substantive comparison of the U.S. health-care system with countries like Cuba that offer universal health care.

The Weinstein Company, the studio behind "Sicko," declined to comment on a possible subpoena.

Weinstein Co. plans to donate 11 percent of the movie's box office on August 11 to a fund to help rescue workers suffering from ailments relating to their work at Ground Zero.

Moore won an Academy Award for 2002's anti-gun documentary "Bowling for Columbine." He took a critical look at President George W. Bush's war against terrorism in his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

(additional reporting by Stephanie Bagley)

Congress approves September 11 legislation

Reuters
Congress approves September 11 legislation
By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Friday approved and sent to President George W. Bush a bill requiring screening of all cargo bound for the United States and other measures aimed at preventing another September 11-type attack.

The House of Representatives voted 371-40 for the bill that would allocate a greater share of federal anti-terrorism grants to high-risk cities, while ensuring that all states get some money for basic preparedness. The House acted a day after the Senate voted 85-8 for the bill.

"With this bill, we will be keeping our promises to the families of 9/11, we'll be honoring the work of the 9/11 commission and we will be making the American people safer," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

The bill, which would implement many of the remaining recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks, was a high priority for Democrats since they took control of Congress in January and will help them fight Republican taunts of a "do-nothing Congress."

Bush had earlier threatened to veto the legislation over a provision that would have allowed union rights for some 45,000 airport workers. Democrats backed away from that demand and the White House said on Friday that Bush would sign the bill.

Republicans also won a provision that would give lawsuit protection to people who report suspicious activity near transportation systems.

The bill also aims to enable state and local governments to better share information with federal authorities and provide money to help communities upgrade their communications.

It requires that within five years all U.S.-bound cargo be inspected before it is loaded on ships. Democrats have pushed the cargo screening requirement for years, arguing it would guard against terrorists slipping explosives into the United States. But opponents said 100 percent screening was costly and unnecessary.

The bill also requires that all cargo carried on passenger airplanes be screened within three years and authorizes more than $4 billion in grants for rail, transit and bus security.

Congress has been suffering from low public approval ratings and Democrats are hoping to win a few more accomplishments before starting a month-long recess at the end of next week. The September 11 bill helped Democrats fulfill the third of six major campaign vows they made last year in winning control of the House and Senate.

The two others passed and sent to Bush were to increase the federal minimum wage and legislation to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research, which backers say could help combat debilitating diseases.

Bush signed the wage increase, the first in a decade. But he vetoed the stem-cell bill because the procedure requires the destruction of human embryos to derive stem cells.

Democrats' other pending campaign promises, all involving domestic matters, involve efforts to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and college and to move toward energy independence.

Much of the voter anger at the new Democratic-led Congress, however, stems from its inability to keep another promise to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, polls show.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)

U.S. justices Roberts, Alito "duped" Senate

Reuters
Democrat charges U.S. justices "duped" Senate
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "duped" the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.

Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

"Were we duped?" he asked.

"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?" Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"

"Yes," he said.

His comments came days after Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican, said he intended to review the congressional testimony of Roberts and Alito.

The Politico, a Washington-based newspaper, quoted Specter as saying he wanted to see if Roberts and Alito had "lived up" to their promises to respect legal precedents.

In a series of 5-4 rulings in the past year on topics such as abortion and racial integration, the court's conservative majority, bolstered by Roberts and Alito, unsettled established law and riled liberals.

A Republican leadership aide dismissed Schumer's criticism, saying, "The only people that were duped were those that listened to Democrats tell us the sky would be falling once these jurists were on the bench.

"I'm happy to report that after the first full term with both justices on the bench, Americans are still free to speak their mind ... even Senator Schumer," the aide said.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Documents Contradict Gonzales' Testimony

AP
Documents Contradict Gonzales' Testimony
LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON — Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents underscore questions about Gonzales' credibility as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program's legality.

"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."

"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers' intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.

Schumer called the memo evidence that Gonzales was not truthful in his testimony.

"It seemed clear to just about everyone on the committee that the attorney general was deceiving us when he said the dissent was about other intelligence activities and this memo is even more evidence that helps confirm our suspicions," Schumer said.

Bush acknowledged the existence of the classified surveillance program in December 2005 after it was revealed by The New York Times. In January, it was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for judicial review before any wiretaps were to be approved.

Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales "stands by his testimony."

"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."

The disagreement over whether to renew the program led to a dramatic, and highly controversial, confrontation between Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the night of March 10, 2004.

After briefing the congressional leaders, Gonzales testified that he and then-White House chief of staff Andy Card headed to a Washington hospital room, where a sedated Ashcroft was recovering from surgery. Ashcroft had already turned over his powers as attorney general to Comey.

Comey was in the hospital room as well, and recounted to senators in his own sworn testimony in May that he "thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

Ultimately, Ashcroft sided with Comey, and Gonzales and Card left the hospital after a five- to six-minute conversation.

Gonzales denied that he and Card tried to pressure Ashcroft into approving the program over Comey's objections.

"We never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent," Gonzales told the Senate panel Tuesday. "At the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, 'I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is.' And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left."

Democrats and Republicans alike expressed disbelief at Gonzales' version of events.

"There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said after listening to Gonzales, raising the possibility of a perjury inquiry. "We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not."

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, top Republican on the panel, also disregarded Gonzales' description. "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," he told the attorney general.

House and Senate lawmakers who attended the Situation Room briefing are divided on the accuracy of Gonzales' account of that meeting, which he said concluded by a "consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey."

Three Democrats _ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller and former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle _ dispute Gonzales' testimony. Rockefeller called it "untruthful," and Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker disagreed that it should be continued without Justice Department or FISA court oversight.

On the other hand, former GOP House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, "does not recall anyone saying the project must be ended,' spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said. And former Senate Republican leader Bill Frist stopped short of confirming or denying the meeting's outcome.

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital and that our meeting was part of the administration's responsibility to discuss with the leadership of Congress,' Frist said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Katherine Shrader contributed to this report.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

N.H. Republican fundraiser to feature machine guns

Reuters
N.H. Republican fundraiser to feature machine guns

BOSTON (Reuters) - A planned Republican fundraiser in New Hampshire aims to promote gun ownership in America by letting supporters fire powerful military-style weapons -- from Uzi submachine guns to M-16 rifles.

The Manchester Republican Committee is inviting party members and their families to a "Machine Gun Shoot" where, for $25, supporters can spend a day trying out automatic weapons, said organizer Jerry Thibodeau.

"It's a fun day. It's a family day," said Thibodeau of the August 5 event. "It's quite exciting."

Local Democrats say the event is in poor taste amid a spike in violent crime in Manchester and seeks to glorify the use of machine guns for political gain. The right to own guns has come under heightened scrutiny since the April shooting at Virginia Tech where a gunman killed 32 people.

"It is downright offensive," Chris Pappas, the Manchester Democratic party chairman, told the Union Leader newspaper.

Thibodeau said he invited all the Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential race to the event at Pelham Fish and Game Club outside of Manchester, the state's largest city, but he said they declined. He said all shooters would undergo training.

Buying a gun in New Hampshire, whose official motto is "Live Free or Die," is relatively easy.

The state does not require buyers to obtain a handgun license or undergo safety training before buying a handgun, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control lobby group.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Veterans sue U.S. over "shameful failures" in care

Reuters
Veterans sue U.S. over "shameful failures" in care
By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The many medical claims by veterans of U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has completely overwhelmed the American government, leading to "shameful failures" in treatment, a class-action lawsuit filed on Monday alleged.

"Because of those failures, hundreds of thousands of men and women who have suffered grievous injuries fighting in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being abandoned," according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California.

More than 1.5 million U.S. service members have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001.

Repeated and extended deployments to war zones have driven a rise in post-traumatic stress among troops. But Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department lack the resources and staff to help service members, according to recent reports.

The filing by two veterans groups sued various officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and challenged the constitutionality of a 1988 law establishing various VA practices. The two plaintiff organization represent about 12,000 American veterans.

"Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system and other social services in our communities," the suit said.

The suit said the Department of Veterans Affairs faced a backlog of 600,000 claims, with some veterans dying while waiting to settle claims. It also claimed the VA was unable to deal with the growing number of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder cases.

A spokesman for the Veterans Affairs Department was not immediately available.

In April President George W. Bush announced a government plan to improve health care and related services for U.S. troops and returning veterans.

The General Accountability Office reported last year that the Pentagon referred only 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for mental health evaluations.

(Additional reporting from Kristin Roberts in Washington)

Peace activist Sheehan arrested at Congress

Reuters
Peace activist Sheehan arrested at Congress
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Cindy Sheehan and 45 fellow Iraq war protesters were arrested on Monday after they refused to leave a U.S. lawmaker's office and adjoining hallway, authorities said.

Before police escorted her away, Sheehan, who emerged as a leading peace activist after her son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, announced what she had earlier suggested -- that she would be a candidate for Congress next year.

Sheehan said she would challenge House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. Pelosi has refused calls to start impeachment of Bush and Cheney for what critics charge was misleading the United States into war.

The new Democratic-led Congress has been hit with approval ratings of less than 25 percent largely because of its failure to deliver on a campaign vow to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Sheehan and fellow protesters were led away in plastic handcuffs after they refused to heed repeated calls by Capitol Police to depart the office of Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, and a hallway outside his office.

"What do we want? Impeachment. When do we want it? Now," Sheehan and others chanted while seated on the floor of Conyers' office following her private meeting with him.

A spokeswoman for Capitol Police said the 46 protesters were being charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and were likely to be released within hours after processing.

Conyers had raised the possibility of impeaching Bush more than a year ago while Republicans were in charge of Congress.

But Pelosi rejected the idea during last year's campaign that saw Democrats win control of the House and Senate, saying she wanted to concentrate efforts on ending the war.

"The speaker is focused on changing course in Iraq by bringing our troops home safely and soon and refocusing our effort on protecting Americans from terrorism," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's press secretary.

When Sheehan and others arrived on Capitol Hill they were confronted by a number of backers of the war. One held a sign reading, "Patriots want victory in Iraq."

Bush Policy - Neglect and Fantasy

Media Monitors Network
Bush Policy - Neglect and Fantasy
by James Zogby

"If Bush had wanted to make headway toward the goal of a two-state solution, he would have had to address the consequences of his seven year legacy of neglect. The path of progress is now far steeper than Bush will acknowledge and will require more than he is willing to deliver. Saying that the speech was “too little too late” does not mean that nothing can be done. Rather, it necessitates genuine U.S. leadership and determination to undo the damage done. This, I fear, will not be forthcoming."

On the heels of his upbeat mid-summer progress report on Iraq, President Bush delivered an equally fanciful account of his Administration’s efforts to achieve a “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was the speech the President had been expected to give a few weeks ago on the fifth anniversary of his “two-state vision” speech. And because it bore no relation to reality, it was the speech I feared he would give.

In his selective recounting of the events that have transpired since 2002, Bush ignored the damage done by his Administration’s neglect; and described the current situation through his ideological prism, rather than the reality that exists on the ground.

Bush was right to praise Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salim Fayyad, but wrong to ignore the deep division now plaguing Palestinian society (and not just between the West Bank and Gaza, but also within them).

Bush was also right (though woefully late) in stating that it is time to show Palestinians a way forward to peace. But he was wrong to place the heaviest burdens for progress on the already overburdened Palestinians, while ignoring or dramatically downplaying the Israelis’ responsibilities.

And it was good that Bush pledged support for Palestinian moderate leaders, promised U.S. financial assistance and spoke of a peace conference to be convened some time in the fall. But upon examination, there is much less to these statements than meets the eye. The public embrace by a very unpopular and weakened U.S. President can do more damage than good in a deeply divided Palestinian society – especially if not reinforced by concrete actions.

In this context, it is worth noting that the aid pledged by the President is mostly “old” money that had already been promised but not yet delivered. And the announcement of an international peace conference is, at best, premature and even potentially dangerous since it raises expectations which at this point the Bush Administration cannot deliver. This is the problem with “hype:” it may seem promising, but it evaporates when you examine it closely.

In the end, this Bush speech might be dismissed as “too little too late” – but it is likely more problematic than that.

Here’s why.

In too many areas of the “broader Middle East,” from which the President contended that contributors to regional peace will come, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has a patterned course. In many instances they failed to act when U.S. leadership might have made a difference. When they did act, they all-too frequently allowed ideology to trump reality, making bad situations worse.

Their ideology of choice, of course, has been neo-conservatism with its radical and simplistic Manichean world-view, and its fetishistic fixation on a narrow definition of democracy that does not take into account the history or social dynamics at work in the society that is to be “democratized.”

Being radical ideologues and not practiced diplomats, instead of working to solve problems, they have hastened to “sharpen contradictions;” insisting that “good” never compromise with “evil.” The refusal of complex reality to cooperate with their ideology has not shaken their beliefs. To the contrary, successive failures have only stiffened their resolve.

And so here we are, six years into the “war on terror,” with no successes to speak of, and no victory in sight.

Trapped in the middle of the messy situations created by this conflict between fantasy and reality are the people in the many countries impacted by our policies and their “moderate” leaders we have sought to support.

The Administration’s failures in Afghanistan have left the Karzai government isolated in Kabul. Their miscalculations in Iraq have left the Maliki government, which we once celebrated, able to exert its authority in fewer and fewer places. And now, the Administration, applying the same disastrous logic in Lebanon and Palestine, are putting the Siniora and Abbas governments also at risk of being painted into corners. All of this is so deeply troubling precisely because, especially in Lebanon and Palestine, the leaders in question are in fact good men who deserve so much better.

If Bush had wanted to make headway toward the goal of a two-state solution, he would have had to address the consequences of his seven year legacy of neglect. The path of progress is now far steeper than Bush will acknowledge and will require more than he is willing to deliver. Saying that the speech was “too little too late” does not mean that nothing can be done. Rather, it necessitates genuine U.S. leadership and determination to undo the damage done. This, I fear, will not be forthcoming.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Bush outlaws protests against the war in Iraq; Press asleep and fails to report; Congress ignores

Here is the full press release as it appears at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

The White House, President George W. Bush
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Fact sheet Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: 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; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

# # #
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html