President Bush issued an executive order on July 16 that expands the government’s authority to block the U.S.-based financial assets of individuals or groups in Iraq beyond those it designates as supporters of terrorism, to include those who act, or assist those who act, against peace and stability in Iraq. The order, titled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, directs the U.S. Treasury Department to freeze assets of those who impede “efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.”
Experts both in and out of the charitable sector have expressed concern about the potential impact on civil liberties and provision of aid in the region. As the Washington Post warns, “Be careful what you say and whom you help — especially when it comes to the Iraq war and the Iraqi government.”For years, charities have protested the lack of clear standards and due process in Executive Order 13224 signed by Bush in 2001. It prohibits the donation of money or humanitarian articles, such as food, to people and groups the Department of Treasury designates as being associated with terrorists and terrorist organizations. The new executive order (E.O.) raises many of the same issues but could have an even broader impact on charities operating in Iraq, since assets can be seized without any finding of a link to terrorism. All that is required is that Treasury, in consultation with the Departments of State and Defense, finds that any individual or group “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.”
No clear standards are outlined to define what criteria will be used to determine when an entity poses a significant risk or what constitutes a threat to the peace or security of the Iraqi government. Ken Mayer, a University of Wisconsin expert on executive orders, told the blog TPMMuckraker.com that a threat to the stability of Iraq “could be anything. Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S….”
The E.O. also allows assets to be frozen without notice. Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, told TPMMuckraker, “I’ve never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. . . . And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose ‘a significant risk’ of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you’ve committed a crime if there’s significant risk that you might commit a crime.”
The E.O. prohibits charitable donations to any group listed under its authority. No listings were included in the E.O. when it was published, but a Treasury spokesperson said the department is in the process of making its list. Any person or organization that aids someone else whose assets have been blocked, knowingly or not, will be subject to being listed as well.
Michael German, the ACLU’s chief national security lawyer, was also quoted in a TPMMuckraker [3] blog post, citing the possibility of “a chilling effect on humanitarian donations in Iraq . . . a lot of these provisions where charities are being demonized, to a certain extent, would cause a chilling effect, and that’s what’s so counterproductive with this type of policy.”
07/24/07