NLN editor Thomas Good, “detained” at Ellis Island
(Photo: Donyal Svilar / NLN)

NEW YORK — On Thursday, July 23, 2009, NLN photographer Tom Good visited Ellis Island, photographing the buildings and exhibits in the former immigration station, now a museum. Of particular interest: the Red Scare display which prominently features the IWW, exhibits chronicling deportations of “hyphenated Americans“, a chilling section on mental examinations, and the more upbeat displays that show the diversity of immigrants coming to the U.S. as well as the etymology of some “Ethnic Americanisms”, for example: “snoop” (Dutch).

A depiction of diversity
(Photo: Thomas Good / NLN)

“They asked us questions. ‘How much is two and one? How much is two and two?’ But the next young girl, also from our city, went and they asked her, ‘How do you wash stairs, from the top or from the bottom?’ She says, ‘I don’t go to America to wash stairs.’ ”

— Pauline Notkoff, a Polish-Jewish immigrant in 1917, interviewed in 1985.
(From a display at the Ellis Island museum).

Inside the Registry Room of the “Isle of Hope/Isle of Tears”
(Photo: Thomas Good / NLN)

To get to Ellis Island: take the Circle Line Ferry (buy tickets online or at the Battery Park office on Pier 16). Travel light – the “Airport Style Security” involves removing any items containing metal: belts, car keys, shoes, etc. (From Red Scare to Terror Scare?)

If possible buy tickets for a specific ferry (based on time of departure) as the lines for the “flex” tickets (good for three days) are very long. On a weekday — over an hour.

View Photos/Videos From Ellis Island…

The Red Scare resulted in mass deportations – including one Emma Goldman
(Photo: Thomas Good / NLN)

ACLU, Other Advocacy Groups Express Concern After Meeting With Department of Justice

Washington, DC – Following a briefing today at the Department of Justice (DOJ), the American Civil Liberties Union reiterated its deep concern over new guidelines that would govern FBI investigations. The new guidelines would lower standards for beginning “assessments” (precursors to investigations), conducting surveillance and gathering evidence, and would replace existing guidelines for five types of existing guidelines: general criminal, national security, foreign intelligence, civil disorders and demonstrations.

The rewritten guidelines have been drafted in a way to give the FBI the ability to begin surveillance without factual evidence, stating that a generalized “threat” is enough to use certain techniques. Also under the new guidelines, a person’s race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move the ACLU believes will institute racial profiling as a matter of policy. The guidelines would also give the FBI the ability to use intrusive investigative techniques in advance of public demonstrations. These techniques would allow agents to conduct pre-textual (undercover) interviews, use informants and conduct physical surveillance in connection with First Amendment protected activities.

“Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of an historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes. Racial profiling by any other name is still unconstitutional,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “The new guidelines offer no specifics on how the FBI will ensure that race and religion are not used improperly as proxies for suspicion, nor do they sufficiently limit the extent to which government agents can infiltrate groups exercising their First Amendment rights. The Bush administration’s message once again is ‘trust us.’ After eight years of historic civil liberties abuses, the American people know better. From the U.S. attorney purges to the abuse of national security letters, the Department of Justice and the FBI have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of policing themselves.”

Both the FBI and DOJ have documented records of internal abuse. Recent DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports confirmed long-held suspicions of widespread and systemic abuses of the national security letter statute, and the FBI’s involvement in interrogations at Guantánamo Bay. With no outside oversight and with FBI agents acting autonomously, these new guidelines will likely lead to more unchecked abuse.

“Handing this kind of latitude to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Agents will be given unparalleled leeway to investigate Americans without proper suspicion, and that will inevitably result in constitutional violations. Lowering the threshold for unwarranted surveillance and scrutiny allows the FBI to come perilously close to infringing on the First and Fourth Amendments. Our right to protest the government and its policies is not suspicious behavior; it is constitutionally protected speech. Let’s not forget that the reason the FBI adopted internal guidelines was to combat abuse and political spying. They are a direct result of the surveillance of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. To forget that legacy and adopt these ill-conceived guidelines would be a travesty.”

NSA Monitored Personal Conversations Of Innocent Americans, Report Says (10/9/2008)

New Information Suggests That Bush Administration Misrepresented Scope Of NSA Surveillance Activities

CONTACT: (212) 549-2666;

NEW YORK – National Security Agency (NSA) officials have intercepted, listened to and passed around the phone calls of hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens working overseas, according to an ABC News report out today. The new information shows the government has misled the American public about the scope of its surveillance activities, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The NSA used its surveillance powers to intentionally collect the personal communications of innocent Americans, including service members and humanitarian aid workers,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Today’s report is an indictment not only of the Bush administration, but of all of those political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who have been saying that the executive branch can be trusted with surveillance powers that are essentially unchecked.”

In the ABC report, two former military intercept officers who worked at the NSA charge that the government spying agency listened in on calls to the United States made by soldiers, journalists and human rights workers working in the Middle East, even after it was clear that the calls were not in any way related to national security. The NSA officials regularly passed around salacious calls such as the private “phone sex” calls of military officers calling home, according to the report.

The new information seems to contradict the statements of Bush administration officials who assured the public that the NSA’s surveillance activities were directed at suspected terrorists.

“The American public is led to believe that the NSA is eavesdropping on calls where one party is a member of al Qaeda, but in reality the NSA is monitoring and collecting the personal communications of innocent Americans,” said James Bamford, who first interviewed the former intercept officers for his book, “The Shadow Factory,” due out next week. “What’s worse, once a telephone number or e-mail address gets picked up, it stays in the system. Every communication from the number or address is picked up, monitored and stored permanently.”

The ABC report suggests that the surveillance program was ineffective and even harmful to national security because it diverted surveillance resources from actual threats. By collecting so much information about innocent people, said one of the former officers, the NSA was actually “hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security.” The report also raises troubling concerns that the NSA was listening in on the calls of aid workers at organizations including the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders.

“What’s tragic is that Congress recently enacted a law giving the NSA even more authority to collect our telephone calls and e-mails – in fact, more authority than the agency has ever had before,” said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Rather than reining in NSA lawbreaking and abuse, Congress has given the NSA carte blanche to conduct dragnet, suspicionless monitoring of all our international communications – precisely the kind of invasive and ineffective monitoring described by whistleblowers in the ABC story.”

In 2005, the New York Times reported that President Bush had repeatedly authorized the NSA to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans, without a warrant and in violation of the Constitution. The ACLU won an initial legal challenge to the program in August 2006, but in July 2007 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case – which included scholars and national nonprofit organizations, as well as Bamford and other journalists – had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the NSA. In February 2008, the Supreme Court denied to hear the ACLU’s appeal of the case.

In July 2008, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, giving the NSA even more power to spy on Americans without warrants than it exercised under its illegal surveillance program. The ACLU filed a landmark lawsuit to stop the government from conducting surveillance under the new wiretapping law, arguing that the law violates the Fourth Amendment by giving the government virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans’ international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pledged to revisit the FAA again in 2009 when provisions of the controversial USA Patriot Act are due to expire.

“This is exactly what we warned Congress would happen when it was debating the FISA Amendments Act,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The fact that NSA employees treat the most personal communications of our troops and overseas civilians as break room entertainment is shocking. This kind of untenable spying power should never have been granted. Congressional leadership is obligated to revisit this statute and fix its mistake.”

More information about the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit is available online at:

Md. Police Put Activists’ Names On Terror Lists
Surveillance’s Reach Revealed

By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2008; A01

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.

The department started sending letters of notification Saturday to the activists, inviting them to review their files before they are purged from the databases, Sheridan said.

“The names don’t belong in there,” he told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “It’s as simple as that.”

The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists “fringe people.”

Sheridan said protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations in the databases, but his staff has not identified which ones.

Stunned senators pressed Sheridan to apologize to the activists for the spying, assailed in an independent review last week as “overreaching” by law enforcement officials who were oblivious to their violation of the activists’ rights of free expression and association. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, does not apologize but admits that the state police have “no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime” by those classified as terrorists.

Hutchins told the committee it was not accurate to describe the program as spying. “I doubt anyone who has used that term has ever met a spy,” he told the committee.

“What John Walker did is spying,” Hutchins said, referring to John Walker Jr., a communications specialist for the U.S. Navy convicted of selling secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutchins said the intelligence agents, whose logs were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland as part of a lawsuit, were monitoring “open public meetings.” His officers sought a “situational awareness” of the potential for disruption as death penalty opponents prepared to protest the executions of two men on death row, Hutchins said.

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said. Hutchins said he did not notify Ehrlich about the surveillance. Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell said the governor had no comment.

Hutchins did not name the commander in the Division of Homeland Security and Intelligence who informed him in March 2005 that the surveillance had begun. More than a year later, after “they said, ‘We’re not getting much here,’ ” Hutchins said he cut off what he called a “low-level operation.”

But Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County) noted that undercover troopers used aliases to infiltrate organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists. He called the spying a “deliberate infiltration to find out every piece of information necessary” on groups such as the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance. When Hutchins called their members “fringe people,” the audience of activists who filled the seats in the hearing room in Annapolis sighed.

Some activists said yesterday that they have received letters; others said they were waiting with anticipation to see whether they were on the state police watch list.

Laura Lising of Catonsville, a member of the Baltimore Coalition Against the Death Penalty, received her notification yesterday. She said she wants a hard copy of her file, because she does not trust the police to purge it. “We need as much protection as possible,” she said.

Both Hutchins and Sheridan said the activists’ names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries.

The police also entered the activists’ names into the federal Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area database, which tracks suspected terrorists. One well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max Obuszewski, was singled out in the intelligence logs released by the ACLU, which described a “primary crime” of “terrorism-anti-government” and a “secondary crime” of “terrorism-anti-war protesters.”

Sheridan said that he did not think the names were circulated to other agencies in the federal system and that they are not on the federal government’s terrorist watch list. Hutchins said some names might have been shared with the National Security Agency.

Although the independent report on the surveillance released last week said that it was part of a broad effort by the state police to gather information on protest groups across the state, Sheridan said the department is not aware of any surveillance as “intrusive” as the spying on death penalty and war opponents.

The police notified the protesters at the recommendation of former U.S. attorney and state attorney general Stephen H. Sachs, who was appointed by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) to review the covert monitoring. In a report last week, Sachs also recommended regulations that forbid such spying on protest groups unless the state police chief believes it is justified.

“I can’t imagine getting a letter that says, ‘You’ve been classified as a terrorist; come in and we’ll tell about it,'” said Sen. Bryan W. Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel). Two senators noted that they had been arrested years ago for civil disobedience. Sen. Jennie Forehand (D-Montgomery) asked Sheridan, “Do you have any legislators on your list?” The answer was no.

ACLU Letter to the House Armed Services Committee Strongly Supporting the Davis Amendment to the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (5/2/2006)

Support the Davis Amendment to the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act

Dear Representative:

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to support an important women’s health amendment that will be offered by Representative Susan Davis during the House Armed Services Committee’s consideration of the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

The Davis amendment would ensure that all U.S. servicewomen and military dependents, regardless of where they are stationed, have equal access to comprehensive reproductive health care. Current law prohibits women from obtaining abortion services at U.S. military hospitals, even if they pay for these services with their own private funds. The Davis amendment does not require the Department of Defense to pay for abortion services. Rather, it would simply repeal the current dangerous ban on privately funded abortion care and allow U.S servicewomen to use their own private funds to obtain abortion services at U.S. military hospitals.

For military women and dependents stationed overseas, the current restriction poses grave health risks. Local facilities are often inadequate or entirely unavailable, and traveling to a safe facility can result in delays that may substantially increase the risks of an abortion procedure. Moreover, it can be it extremely difficult for military women to access abortion services off base. Retired Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in the United States Army, has spoken out again this ban, explaining that it is “imperative that our soldiers have access to safe, confidential abortion services at U.S. military hospitals overseas.” General Kennedy noted that a soldier’s situation is “different from that of a civilian woman” because “she is subject to the orders of the officers appointed over her. Every hour of her day belongs to the U.S. Army and she must have her senior’s permission to leave her place of duty.”

The ban on privately funded abortions also discriminates against women and their families who have volunteered to serve their country and have been assigned to military posts overseas. These women are prohibited from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to choose simply because of their military service and where they have been stationed. In a letter to Congress dated May 7, 1999, the Department of Defense opposed this harmful restriction, emphasizing “it is unfair to female service members, particularly those assigned to overseas locations, to be denied their constitutional right to the full range of reproductive health care.”

For all of these reasons, the ban on privately funded abortions should be repealed. The ACLU urges you to support the Davis Amendment and the health of our military women.


Caroline Fredrickson, Director
Washington Legislative Office

Greg Nojeim, Associate Director
Washington Legislative Office

ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006)

Re: Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-wide, we write today to explain our opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (AETA), a bill that amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), now 18 U.S.C. § 43. The AETA criminalizes First Amendment activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investigations, and boycotts. The bill is overly broad, vague, and unnecessary because federal criminal laws already provide a wide range of punishments for unlawful activities targeting animal enterprises.

It’s important to let the reader know what conduct is criminal under current law, too. What are the elements of the crime? Setting them forth now is useful to make your point that the bill criminalizes speech. The AEPA, which passed in 1992, created a penalty of $10,000 or 10 years to life imprisonment for any physical disruption that leads to $10,000 in damages to an animal enterprise. AETA expands the class of criminal behavior in 18 U.S.C. § 43, by changing the term used to described activity “for the purpose of causing physical disruption” to activity “for the purpose of damaging or disrupting” an animal enterprise. The overbroad class of “disruptive” activities apply to any and all activities that result in “losses and increased costs” in excess of $10,000.

Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision because they “disrupt” the company’s business. This overbroad provision might also apply to a whistleblower whose intentions are to stop harmful or illegal activities by the animal enterprise. The bill will effectively chill and deter Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights to advocate for reforms in the treatment of animals.

Alarmingly, the bill would also make the expanded crime a predicate for Title III federal criminal wiretapping. This provision could be used for widespread domestic surveillance of animal rights organizations. A court will be far more likely to find probable cause for a vague crime of causing economic damage or disruption to an animal enterprise than for a crime that requires some evidence that the organization plans to engage in activity causing illegal “physical disruption.”

While the bill provides an exemption for “lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise,” that exemption applies only to claims of economic “disruption” and not claims of economic “damage.” It also does not necessarily cover the entire range of expression protected by the First Amendment, which covers more than a lawful “reaction” to a “disclosure of information.” Ordinary persons would not understand which activities are prohibited and which are lawful.

The bill AETA also expands the types of facilities covered by the AEPA. The bill adds facilities that sell animals, expands the class of criminal behavior to include threatening conduct (which could have a chilling effect on legitimate whistleblowers) and expands the class of entities protected from the enterprise itself to persons connected to the enterprise. Finally, AETA doubles the criminal penalties and criminalizes attempts to disrupt, which creates a greater danger of encompassing protected speech.

Amendments to AEPA are unnecessary. The Department of Justice has successfully used the existing Animal Enterprise TerrorismProtection Act to obtain indictments of members of animal rights organizations alleged to have engaged in violent behavior. The ACLU urges you to oppose the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239.

We thank you for your consideration of our views.


Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office

Lisa Graves,
Senior Counsel on Legislative Strategy

ACLU Applauds House Judiciary Action to Restore Habeas Corpus (9/6/2007)


Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union is encouraged to see the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is meeting to mark up a vital bill to restore due process rights to detainees. H.R. 2826, introduced by Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) of the Armed Services Committee, will restore habeas corpus rights to those being detained by the United States government at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“Congress must do the right thing and restore habeas rights. We live in a country that is governed by laws and a Constitution. This means not keeping people in detention camps for years without any charges against them, or any legal process for determining their future. The Bush Administration has not heeded the wisdom of our nation’s founding fathers who enshrined the idea of basic due process protections in the Constitution. We hope that today’s action shows that the House leadership will start to focus on a major reason why they were put in power—to restore constitutional checks and balances and make sure that no president will ever be a king or queen.”


Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union applauds today’s Senate vote of 56 to 43 on a procedural motion related to an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would restore habeas corpus rights. It is now clear that with a majority of senators voting for the amendment, habeas restoration is not only needed, but also desired by the Senate. To restore Habeas Corpus for those detained by the United States (S.AMDT. 2022), offered by Senators Specter (R-PA), Leahy (D-VT) and Dodd (D-CT), would restore the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus that was stripped away by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).

“Today’s vote was a victory for those seeking to restore both the rule of law and our nation’s Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped away one of our most fundamental rights – to challenge your imprisonment by the government. While the amendment ultimately was not filibuster proof, a majority of senators have made it clear that they want to restore the right of habeas corpus. The ACLU has worked diligently, leading a coalition of support for the restoration of habeas corpus. That tireless work is beginning to pay off and will be vindicated once habeas is signed back into law.”

The MCA stripped the constitutional right to habeas corpus from persons the president alone designates as enemy combatants. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners indefinitely at places like Guantanamo Bay, without ever charging them or giving them their day in court. The MCA was pushed through Congress just weeks ahead of the midterm elections in 2006.

Senators were voting to cut off debate to allow a vote on attaching the amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense measure, H.R. 1585, which authorizes funding for the Department of Defense for the upcoming year. Unfortunately, this procedural move by Republicans required 60 votes to attach an amendment, which means that habeas restoration did not make it into the defense measure at this point. However, this ploy cannot take away from the fact that a majority of senators feel habeas corpus and the rule of law should be returned to the American people.

“Senators Specter, Leahy and Dodd should be commended for their efforts to restore our Constitution. Almost a year ago, the Senate voted to strip habeas corpus protections from hundreds of people, but today a majority of senators voted for bringing back American values,” said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the ACLU. “Because of procedural hijinks by Bush’s allies, the habeas fix will not get in the bill at this time. But the majority vote gives a green light to future conferees that the Senate supports putting a habeas fix in legislation being sent to the president.”

# # #

Bills to Restore Habeas and Fix the MCA (Military Commissions Act of 2006)
ACLU Document


* Ends indefinite detention. The RCA fixes the problems that the MCA caused in undermining the Constitution and the rule of law. It restores habeas corpus and due process at Guantanamo Bay and to other detainees held indefinitely by the federal government.
* Makes clear that the Constitution is the law of the land. The RCA stops any president from arbitrarily deciding who is an enemy combatant, ensures that no one will be prosecuted based on evidence literally beaten out of a witness and that no president can make up his or her own rules regarding torture and abuse.
* Ensures top government officials are held accountable. The bill makes sure that all felony torture and abuse can be prosecuted, even if the perpetrator is sitting in an office in Washington instead of serving as a private in the field.


* Restores fundamental American values. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act restores the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus that the Congress and the President took away with the Military Commissions Act.
* Protects against unlawful detention. When we have people who have been held without charge in Guantanamo Bay for more than five years, there is nothing more fundamental than letting a court decide whether their continued detention is lawful.


July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

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, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), 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 date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, 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 United States 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 and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have 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;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) 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 include, but are not limited to, (i) 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 (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, 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. 3. For 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. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type 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 this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. 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 these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, 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 and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.



July 17, 2007.