I've seen a lot of furor lately over George's executive order blocking the transfer of property by people who threaten the stability of Iraq. I don't get it.
This is how I read that order (summarizing, obviously): Property in the US thats owned or controlled by people who have or probably will commit violence in Iraq, or will try to screw up the economic recovery of the country, can't be "transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in".
So if you want to cause harm to Iraq, and you own assets here, we're going to freeze them. I'm not a big fan of freezing assets, as a rule, but it does have its purposes, and this does seem to be one of them. I'm as willing as the next guy to not trust George and his cronies, but I don't see this as all that big a deal. Of course, I know that George likes to rewrite the rules he can, and ignore the rules he can't, so its not out of the question that 'commiting violence or screwing up the recovery' could be expanded to mean 'whispering doubts in the dead of night to your cat about the effectiveness of this whole endeavor'. But at the moment, what's the problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment