Obama executive order declares national emergency; Ukraine crisis an “extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security

Today, at 1:05 pm, U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement to the press that:

“This morning I signed an executive order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, or for stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people.

According to my guidance, the State Department has also put in place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals and officials.  These decisions continue our efforts to impose a cost on Russia and those responsible for the situation in Crimea.  And they also give us the flexibility to adjust our response going forward based on Russia’s actions.”

But Obama left out the most important and quite extraordinary part of his executive order from his press statement:

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Here’s his Executive Order of March 6, 2014 in its entirety:

Executive Order — Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine

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 (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property 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 any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following 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:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine;

(ii) to have asserted governmental authority over any part or region of Ukraine without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine;

(iii) to be a leader of an entity that has, or whose members have, engaged in any activity described in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section or of an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(v) 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 apply except to the extent provided by statutes, 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 effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles 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 section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) 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

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, 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. 6. For the 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. 7. 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 those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 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.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 10. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Advertisements

21 responses to “Obama executive order declares national emergency; Ukraine crisis an “extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security

  1. Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
    To call Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula “an extraordinary threat” to the national security of the United States is patently absurd. Even more absurd is to use Ukraine as the pretext to declare a state of national emergency in America. But that’s exactly what Obama did this morning.

    For what is he setting the stage? Another war?

    Like

    • I “love” the get-out-of-jail-or-civil-liability-free card that is Sect. 10. In other words, “we can screw anyone we decide to name under this diktat, but anyone harmed by it has no legal recourse against anyone involved in screwing them.”
      I absolutely loathe and despise sovereign immunity, and even qualified immunity should be held to a very strict standard of only applying when an initial screening is made to determine there clearly was no wrong-doing at all on the part of the government official. Otherwise, I consider it the tool of totalitarians. All public officers should at all times be potentially personally liable for their actions, and if that means the courts would be flooded with frivolous lawsuits against our government that would have to at least be screened and winnowed out somehow, then SO BE IT.

      Like

  2. Has this ever been done before by another president in a similar situation or is this unprecedented?

    Like

    • As far I know from reading history, I cannot recall any such. This insane creep has so expanded the boundaries for Executive Orders it will take a Mars Mission astronaut to find them!

      Like

  3. Russia’s business has nothing to do with the US. No sweat on our national security unless this is another ploy like WWII or O’Bumbo’s scheme to further destroy America.

    Like

  4. I’m inclined to agree with Patriot;I think O has been working up the nerve to go for it since he took office.but hasn’t been given a big enough threat to the US to make it fly. Well,guess what-it STILL ain’t gonna fly.

    Like

  5. Reblogged this on saboteur365 and commented:
    h/t to Fellowship of the Minds
    Obama is a Manchurian candidate, a mystery man determined to destroy the USA, whether for his own personal reasons or because he is a sock puppet of the New World Order. This extraodinary executive order means what? War with Russia? Martial law in the US? Read it yourself and understand that Obama’s declaration of a national emergency over the Ukraine is a dangerously insane act:
    I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

    Like

  6. 3MoreYearsIs3YearsTooLong

    I feel a sneeze coming on…”BULLSH*T”
    Funny, he didn’t declare a national emergency when the Christians were being bombed, beheaded, and shot all over Africa and Syria. Obama is butting his nose in because his bosses, Soros and the bankers (not the American people), want war and war is very profittable $$$.

    Like

  7. Pingback: Obama executive order declares national emergency; Ukraine crisis an “extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security |

  8. Pingback: Obama executive order declares national emergency; Ukraine crisis an “extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security

  9. Hail, Ceasar!

    Like

  10. I freely admit I have no facts to back up my following statement, and I’d love to be shown wrong, but I’d guess that many presidents have issued many E.O.’s that use this or substantially similar language: “… [blah blah blah]… constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

    Like

  11. I agree, we do have a national emergency, ever since this moron was elected. It appears that he may be invoking his authority under the his executive order “The National Resources Preparedness Act.”
    If so I have beaucoup cans of lima beans that I would like to force feed him. It brings back memories of the seven cans of ham and limas I forced a Viet Cong suspect to eat. War Crime?

    Like

  12. anchorageknight

    Wow. Such comments! Bad as this EO might be, and most of the problems are likely to be theoretical rather than actual, the comments are anything but even handed or entirely germane to the present crisis.

    This EO IS somewhat unprecedented, and somewhat disconnected from the objective facts of the crisis. Nevertheless, it is probably more a case of political rhetoric than of legal justification for any sort of action. To be precise, it is likely to create the appearance of acting to substitute for a more meaningful policy.

    While there has been no similar EO, an academic study some years ago resulted in a book showing that every President has engaged in officially illegal acts – generally because they WERE in our national interests but the crisis did not justify going to war. In that sense, Jim is right. It is why heads of state, and those acting on their direction, have considerable immunity. It is an ancient concept enshrined in our law and unlikely to change, ever.
    My view is the present EO is simply a weak form of that – used to substitute for actually doing something that might change events which are, in fact, not going to change.

    To his credit, Obama correctly charged yesterday that the “militias” in Crimea are not that – but out of uniform Russian soldiers. They are. My first clue was the hand grenades on the 50 men who took the regional Parliment: local farmers can have shotguns – but not hand grenades. And local farmers tend to be of mixed age, not uniformly young. Putin – ex KGB – simply took a few days to come up with a plan – and is using the militias as an excuse to go in to protect local Russians. His propaganda in the Russian language also is aimed at those in the area more than at the world at large. This is a deliberate invasion, made knowing there would be diplomatic noise and possibly sanctions, but no effective counter. The decision was made – in MOSCOW – to re-annex the Crimea. All else is smoke.

    Never mind agreements or the original decision to annex Crimea to Ukraine (when it was part of the USSR) – under international law if you are NOT willing to FIGHT for a territory – you do not own it. The critical moment was probably at the beginning: had the squad leader of the 8 men guarding the Parliment elected to resist, however briefly, it would be an act of aggression for foreign troops to size it. Or if any Ukranian military or naval unit had acted – to test if the opposition was bluffing (and it was not) – at least a formal case would exist that Ukraine was serious about claiming the territory. Putin calculated no one would – and that no one anywhere would act absent a real fight – and he (probably) calculated correctly. The descision to annex is past: all that now follows is the details of ratification of Putin’s policy choice. Unless someone is willing to make a fight of it – and I myself am unwilling to do that – it is a done deal already – even if the ink isn’t yet on paper. While I am not willing to fight for Crimea – it isn’t my country – and it isn’t my country’s claim that is being contested.

    Like him or hate him, Obama’s response is basically correct. We should make political hay out of Russian misbehavior and reduce its status in the world on all sorts of bodies. More than so far is happening. His mistake was to threaten and not be credible, and not have a backup plan for more than token ‘sanctions’ which Putin surely is willing to put up with. Putin – today – seems even to be effectively using counter sanctions: a senior official said sanctions will hurt us sooner than they will Russia – and the dumping of US treasury notes makes that a reasonable assessment.
    EU/NATO COULD force the Russians to leave – probably – IF it was willing to risk a war of larger proportions. But it isn’t.

    Never forget – if you are not willing to fight for a territory – it belongs to anyone who is. It is why Britain ordered a junior officer to lead a single squad ashore on South Georgia to face an invasion. They had only two LAW type small rockets. They put one into a helicopter – forcing it to land a constructive total loss (without killing anyone) and the other into a patrol boat (killing a couple of sailors) – and surrendered. But the legal point was made. Britian is at war, and the territory will not be simply handed over even after it is occupied by a foreign military force.

    Like

    • To be clear, I in NO way approve of or even condone this E.O. from The Obamination. Expediency may very well be cited by some as their reason for acting in an illegal or even unConstitutional way, but expediency is NEVER an acceptable excuse by elected/appointed political officials who act in an illegal/unConstitutional manner. Claiming that Russia (and regardless of whatever Sid is saying about their unmarked uniforms, it was crystal clear to everyone that they were Russian troops right from the very beginning of their invasion) invading part of Crimea is somehow anything like an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” and is a “national emergency” is absolutely nothing less than complete bullsh!t, and solely the actions of a totalitarian. Nothing less than that.

      Like

  13. Dear anchorageknight:

    I read yr long & thought-filled comment, and gave it a ‘Thumbs up!’ for its salient points, however, there is a great deal more that needs to be taken into consideration. But it’s 6:20 a.m. now, and late –or early, depending on one’s POV!– so I’ll keep this reply as brief as possible.

    The over-riding issue here is the role of international law. The US has over-ridden it so often and so massively since Oil War 1 in Iraq that the rest of the world –w/VERY few exceptions– will neither support nor follow the US into what is now a perfect set-up for WW3.

    This time it will be nuclear, w/o a doubt, no matter how ‘limited’ it’s initially described. The international bankster class [IBC] and the Oil & Energy Mafia [OEM] are heavily into this, as they have a lot to gain, at our expense of course. How many know about the recent huge oil fields discovered in Western Ukraine? It has tens of billions of barrels, good for at least another Iraqnam Oil War, to say nothing of the natural gas, or the many very large oil & gas supply lines that run across Ukraine to warm and feed all Europe….

    And this is not to mention Ukraine’s history, filled as it is w/old-time Nazi sympathisers, current era neo-Nazi factions, lethally fervent Zionistas, and now murderous mercenaries paid for by George Soros and covert US funds. Are these the people you see as a better alternative to the former democratically-elected government, no matter how corrupt it later became?

    This is a VERY complex situation, one in which Russia has –by the weight of history– the upper hand, so we must not expect an easy outcome brought about by loudly trumpeted threats from the likes of Ketchup Kerry and the Obamination.

    Finally, we cannot forget how the US under President Kennedy reacted when the Soviet USSR installed ICBMs in Cuba [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis]. Now we have the reverse of that coin, when Russia sees this situation as the same, but diametrically opposed, and is of course just as unhappy as was the US in 1963.

    It’s often said that foreign policy is the Obamination’s weakest point [albeit it’s difficult to select one from so many!], and now we have its greatest test. Not much to hope for there. But that’s my opinion, based on known history.

    Good night, and good luck!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s