The latest executive order by Obama was created in the name of "Iran sanctions" but it gives him the authority to seize Americans' bank accounts WITHOUT the ability to sue.
I am worried about this EO for two reasons:
1.Money used to fund terrorism should be frozen but innocent persons should also have the right to defend themselves and get their money back.
2.The loose definition of "sanctioned person" worries me.
The term used in the EO via Whitehouse.gov is "sanctioned person".
(iv) with respect to section 6(a)(8) of ISA, block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
According to The New American:
The order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.
And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.
http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121015008-obama-eo.html
I am worried about this EO for two reasons:
1.Money used to fund terrorism should be frozen but innocent persons should also have the right to defend themselves and get their money back.
2.The loose definition of "sanctioned person" worries me.
The term used in the EO via Whitehouse.gov is "sanctioned person".
(iv) with respect to section 6(a)(8) of ISA, block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
According to The New American:
The order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.
And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn't allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.
http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121015008-obama-eo.html
