One interpretation of the Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” is that is actually provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US-led war.

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon’s military agenda in Iraq. …

In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement.

It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those “Certain Persons” who are “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction”, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq’s oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush’s program of “political reform in Iraq”, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi “government” installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress.

I would love to hear from anyone who has expertise in law, especially constitutional law. It seems that many of these documents are so vaguely worded that it is simply a matter of if/when the administration decides to interpret it to its own goals.

The thing that bothers me the most about this order is that it is intended to be used against American citizens. On the one hand, it could be a useful tool to stop plans for violence. On the other hand, it looks as though it all depends on who interprets what counts as “undermining reconstruction” and so on.