At the same day’s White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow assured the press that the measure was aimed at “insurgents and those who come across the border” and referenced prior executive orders, summing up, “So anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the borders, who may be -- who may not fit neatly into those other two categories, this provides ways of going after those who provide financial, logistical or other support for them.”

And life went on. That all sounds perfectly reasonable--except, of course, that the Executive Order itself wasn’t nearly so narrowly tailored as Mr. Snow’s remarks; the true intent and extent of its possible application can’t be known. And the real possible applications of this executive order are terrifying.

A bit of historical perspective might be helpful. During the Vietnam era, those deemed by the White House to be possible destabilizing forces included not only anti-war protestors of varying stature (including Martin Luther King, Jr. and later his widow, Coretta Scott King), but also certain Democratic Congressmen who opposed the war.

The Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Person’s Who Threaten Stabilization in Iraq might not be used for any such purpose. It might be applied exactly as Tony Snow would have us believe. But it’s not limited to that application by its own terms, and that’s something we should all be aware of. It’s something that should have been much more widely reported.

Here’s the listing, directly from the Executive Order itself, of people and entities to whom it applies (emphasis added):

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.

Let’s consider a hypothetical. Your brother makes a donation to a political organization that, among other things, protests the war in Iraq. One day, during a protest, certain members of that organization get a little out of control and damage some property. When the police come to break up the rally, tempers flare and a couple of members resist arrest. The organization’s assets are frozen. After the government has reviewed the organization’s list of contributors, your brother’s assets are frozen. Your brother comes to you for help, and you give him $500 in cash to tide him over while he straightens out what you think is surely a mistake. Your assets are frozen.

Outrageous? You bet.

Unlikely? Reasonable people may disagree.

Legal under the terms of the Executive Order? Absolutely.

Would our government go that far? I don’t know. I’m not here to argue that point. I’m just wondering why, if this is as far-fetched as it sounds, the White House felt it necessary to include terms that would make it all possible.