President Obama has issued an alarming executive order that would allow the government to crackdown of U.S. citizens and other individuals who “indirectly” oppose U.S.-backed Yemeni President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Hadi was the right-hand man to the prior dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and won an “election” composed only of himself. We, of course, immediately embraced Hadi and the Obama Administration is now threatening anyone who opposes him, including our own citizens. The Administration appears delighted that, while opponents are not welcomed in the country, American drones are.
The executive order Wednesday gives the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” the political transition in Yemen, including U.S. citizens who are “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.” One Obama official is quoted as saying that the order is meant to deter people opposing the regime to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .” That would be called a chilling effect designed to deter opponents of the regime.
One of the greatest threats posed by this order is that it places such actions in the the administrative law process on the agency level. Citizens are given fewer protections in that process and agencies given absurd levels of deference by federal courts. Various organizations have complained about that process in being detailed as aiders or abettors of terrorism. Glenn Greenwald has an article below discussing the new order.
The executive order appears to fall into that ever-widening category of extreme presidential powers claimed under the “Trust me I am Obama” rationale. Once again, Democrats and liberals are silent despite the fact that they would be outraged if this had been done by Bush. Once again, Obama’s failure to respect constitutional principles are excused by saying that others like Romney would be worse. This short-sighted and relativistic approach by Obama supporters will likely come back and haunt them when later presidents not of their liking invoking the same authoritarian measures created by Obama. What will be said then? These were really just for Obama? If Obama can do this with Yemen, how about critics of Israel or Saudi Arabia? You can question the factual need to support “stability” in these countries, but the question is one of the authority to order it. Once the authority is accepted, the rest is left to the discretion of the President, whoever that may be.
Note that the government already has ample means to move against any terrorist organizations and a material support law that has been denounced as so ill-defined as to cover the most minor interaction or contact with targeted groups. It also has laws barring efforts of citizens to lend military or violent means to support opposition to the regime. This executive order was intentionally written broadly to capture areas that are presumed to be protected like free speech.
While Section 11 contains vague boilerplate language, the obvious thrust of the law is to allow for greater government action against opponents to the Yemeni government than already exists on the books. Note that such opponents would not be terrorists to be nailed under this law, just indirect threats to stability.
The Administration has not shown how the existing laws would not be entirely ample in combatting unlawful activities by U.S. citizens and others in the country. Now however you can have your property seized and pulled into a government investigation if you “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services” that are viewed by Obama officials of “indirectly” threatening or obstructing the “stability” of the Yemeni government. Of course, nothing is more stable than an election with only one candidate — an election praised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a great triumph for democracy.
This executive order was written by people without a scintilla of concern for free speech or due process. It also reflects a perception of immunity by the Obama Administration when it comes to civil liberties.
It appears that a man elected in an election of one fits nicely into our plans for fighting Al Qaeda. As a result, things like the first amendment in the United States are deemed as expendable by our own supreme leader.
Here is the executive order:
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF PERSONS THREATENING
THE PEACE, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF YEMENBy 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), 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 certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen’s peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. I further find that these actions 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. 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, to:
(a) have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen;
(b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in subsection (a) of this section;
(c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in subsection (a) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(d) 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.
Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order 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. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 6. (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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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
Source: Washington Post and Salon
The illusion of change. I don’t like the government. I don’t like the R. or the D. parties. They are simply two sides of the same coin, in which both sides come up “whatever keeps us in power and money”. I’m sick of em all. Leave. Other. Countries. The. F@#k. Alone.
If there is another attack on the Empire State Building or the Empire State or the Pentagon, it will be folks from al qaeda with roots in Yemen. The President is on this piece of territory because the spys on our side know that the bulk of the Hamid guys have migrated to Yemen. If this was December 8, 1941 there would be some criticism if FDR for sleeping while the Japs pounced. Joseph Kennedy looked like a chump after the war began because of his desire to be pals with Hitler before the war started. Romney and his minions will throw any rock at our President and the one rock from the faux liberals who are really Romney schmucks, as in this diatribe from Willard Turley, is a bit out of whack. And while you are at it Mister President, please bomb, bomb, Iran. I am a liberal who remembers the World Trade Center and I say Never Again.
I am also a Rottweiler so I do get agitated in my barkin.
As long as I started a scorecard on “liberal” blogs avoiding any comment so far, add Juan Cole — who isn’t shy about opining about anything — to the list.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama served notice that he would sanction individuals and entities who undermine the stability in Yemen, as the government in the Middle Eastern nation ramped up its campaign against al Qaeda militants
President Obama signed an executive order Wednesday allowing the Treasury Department to freeze U.S.-based assets of those who the White House says “threaten the peace, security and stability” of Yemen.
The order gives Yemen’s new president, Abed Rabbo Hadi, another tool to sweep out relatives and cronies of authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh, who are refusing to relinquish the political or military posts the former strongman doled out during his rule.
Mr. Hadi issued a decree in April ordering the holdovers to leave, and the U.S. presidential order could essentially target the assets of anyone who fails to comply, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the policy.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the order was meant to send “a message to those who are trying to block transition that we have this tool to use against them, and that they should think again about the policies that they are pursuing.”
Yemen is a strategic counterterrorism partner for the U.S. and officials fear that political instability there will provide an opening for al Qaeda affiliated terror groups to expand their influence. The White House says Mr. Obama took the step because he believes the legitimate aspirations of the Yemeni people cannot be addressed if political progress there stalls.
On Wednesday government troops and warplanes pounded al Qaeda positions in southern Yemen, killing at least 29 militants as part of a ramped up campaign against the group, military officials said.
The fighting is part of a four-front offensive the military began Tuesday, using warplanes and heavy artillery to clear the way for an assault by ground troops on towns where al Qaeda fighters are either operating or in control. For the first time, Yemen’s army is receiving direct help from U.S. troops, who are operating from a desert air base near the main battle zones to help coordinate assaults and airstrikes, according to Yemeni officials.
The officials said it was the most direct American involvement yet in the country’s expanding campaign against al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, which has been blamed for directing a string of unsuccessful bomb plots on U.S. soil from its hide-outs in the impoverished country at the tip of the Arabian Peninsula.
On the face of it this seems awful. However, I’ve not been paying attention to the situation in Yemen, or to the agreement signed. Is there some faction i Yemen that is considered to be threatening? Is there some faction in the U.S. that has some pernicious interest in assuring disruption of the Yemeni peace process? In fact what is the Yemeni peace process? I will try to find that out, but perhaps someone here has that info on hand and can supply it. I is hard for me to make a judgment on what is going on here absent any real of just what the issues in Yemen are.
As a for instance, with absolutely o connection implied to the situation at hand. In Central and South America companies like United Fruit continually intervened to assure a compliant government. Is a situation like that happening in Yemen aqnde that is why Treasury is being brought in. I have no idea at this point, but I will try to educate myself.
BettyKath,
sorry for not including the link to my post upthread, which has the link to the court decision. LINK
bettykath 1, May 17, 2012 at 11:37 am
Among other things, since taking office Obama has (partial list):
– Signed the NDAA into law — assassinating US citizens w/o trial now legal
===================================
Actually, when Obama signed the law he disavowed the section:
Just sayin …
BettyKath,
With that Obama deeds list you might get invited to be a part of his history group, the ones behind bars. Oh, you are under constitutional protection—uh huh, just like the assassinated citizens are/were.
Crown and Country have been involving their citizens in wars of one kind or another since Crown and Country had citizens to tax and send. External war tactics always, always become internal tactics for Crown and Country on the hunt finds enemies everywhere it looks both without and within.
Citizens, attempting to justify taxes raised and lives lost, always try to find morality in war. They never do because there is no morality in war.
DonS, I posted on this yesterday. No one seemed interested except anon nurse. Judge Forrest is an Obama appointee. She replaced Judge Rakoff. TPM did have something on it. I read about it on Bloomberg.
Still waiting to hear a peep on this, or the District Court (Judge Forrest) rebuke to the Administration on NDAA indefinite, detention, out of Americablog, TPM, Kos, Talkleft, Think Progress, etc.
Seems like we’re on First Amendment overload, and I sure wish the MSM would do some serious journalism on it.
This is a link to a post on “Moon of Alabama” (successor to Bilmon’s “Whiskey Bar”). I don’t read it regularly, but it is on topic, and this mess needs to be talked about:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/05/an-executive-order-to-silence-opposition-to-us-policy.html#comments
BarkinDog 1, May 17, 2012 at 11:47 am
In the past few years the fertile spawning ground for al qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is drying up. They have been moving into Yemen. I did not see any liberals applaud the World Trade Center disaster.
=============================================
Are the Saudi’s who bankrolled 15 of the 19 hijackers, liberal or conservative in your estimation?
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/15/jeremy_scahill_why_is_president_obama
Jeremy Scahill: Why is President Obama Keeping Yemeni Journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in Prison?
“The Obama administration is facing scrutiny for its role in the imprisonment of a Yemeni journalist who exposed how the United States was behind a 2009 bombing in Yemen that killed 14 women and 21 children. In January 2011, a Yemeni state security court gave the journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a five-year jail sentence on terrorism-related charges following a disputed trial that was condemned by several human rights and press freedom groups. Within a month of Shaye’s sentencing, then-Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh announced he was going to pardon the journalist. But Saleh changed his mind after a phone call from President Obama. Thirteen months later, Shaye remains behind bars. We speak to Mohamed Abdel Dayem of the Committee to Protect Journalists and award-winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill. “Abdulelah Haider Shaye [is] a brave journalist. He just happened to be on the wrong side of history in the eyes of the U.S.,” Scahill says. “His crime seems to be interviewing the wrong people and having the audacity to publish another side of the story.””
Monday, May 14, 2012 11:11 AM EDT
Chomsky on Obama
Bush disappeared and tortured those the US disliked, while the Obama administration simply “murders them”
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/singleton/
Excerpt:
Appearing on Democracy Now this morning, Noam Chomsky said the following:
If the Bush administration didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers.
If the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them.
Though a bit oversimpified — the Bush administration killed plenty of people, while the Obama administration makes use of kidnapping and torture chambers albeit by proxy; also, as this tweeter noted: it’s “unfair to say the Obama administration kills those it doesn’t like, since they claim power to kill people without even knowing who they are” – this concise comparison just about about sums it up. But it’s important to note that President Obama has progressivism in his heart and that makes all the difference in the world.
Regarding the Obama administration’s constant killing of Muslims in numerous countries, Chomsky said that “it’s almost as if they’re consciously trying to increase the threat” (last week, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief warned that Obama’s drone strikes in Yemen risk converting Yemeni domestic militants into “dedicated enemies of the west“). What’s most remarkable, Chomsky said, is how little debate is stirred by these constant acts of lawless violence compared to the controversy created by the less lethal Bush policies (though see the prior paragraph for why that is: “President Obama has progressivism in his heart and that makes all the difference in the world”). (end of excerpt)
Nothing like a little ambiguity to provide clarity in the world.
I was just beginning to wonder if this blog is actually a Libertarian blog disguised as an unhiased blog for legal “experts”. Sometimes I enjoy the blog postings and comments on here, but this post makes me wonder why I bother. I’m an Independent with leanings toward the left. My son will be leaving Afghanistan in a few days after a 7-month tour. There are some things that Obama has done that I don’t like or have reserved Judgement about. And Yemen and the subject of this blog is something I’ll have to find out more about. Probably most of you would consider me a liberal so I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess why all the liberals aren’t as outraged over this issue as you seem to think everyone else is. I’m guessing that liberals and anyone else who haven’t expressed outrage over this is because either they haven’t heard about it or they’ve heard about it but want more information before making an informed opinion. On the face of this post, and the embedded document, it appears that Obama is over-reaching his authority or setting a precedent. One could say that about our last president. My son was 14 when we entered Afghanistan. My son is now 24 and ending his tour there in 2 days. Do I blame Obama for a 10 year war? No, I lay it all at the feet of George W. Bush.
@Karen – (1) Your son’s choice to serve (and thank him for his service for me); and (2) yes, if you can still blame Bush for President Obama’s policies at 3 years and 4 months into his presidency, I might consider that an earmark of a Liberal. Bush inherited the problems in the mid-East and SW Asia from his predecessors, who inherited them from their predecessors, and so-on and so-on… One thing from my perspective and many others, this administration has not provided the “change” we were promised, in the Army we would say, “SS/DD” Same shit, different day…
Obama’s new free speech threat
An Executive order seeks to punish U.S. citizens even for “indirectly” obstructing dictatorial rule in Yemen
By Glenn Greenwald
May 16, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/obamas_new_free_speech_threat/singleton/
Excerpt:
There is substantial opposition in both Yemen and the West to the new U.S.-backed Yemeni President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Hadi was the long-time Vice President of the Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh, and after Saleh finally stepped down last year, Hadi became President as part of an “election” in which he was the only candidate (that little fact did not prevent Hillary Clinton from congratulating Yemen “on today’s successful presidential election” (successful because the U.S. liked the undemocratic outcome)). As it does with most U.S.-compliant dictators in the region, the Obama administration has since been propping up Hadi with large amounts of money and military assistance, but it is now taking a much more extreme step to ensure he remains entrenched in power — a step that threatens not only basic liberties in Yemen but in the U.S. as well:
President Obama plans to issue an executive order Wednesday giving the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” implementation of the administration-backed political transition in Yemen.
The unusual order, which administration officials said also targets U.S. citizens who engage in activity deemed to threaten Yemen’s security or political stability, is the first issued for Yemen that does not directly relate to counterterrorism.
Unlike similar measures authorizing terrorist designations and sanctions, the new order does not include a list of names or organizations already determined to be in violation. Instead, one official said, it is designed as a “deterrent” to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .
The order provides criteria to take action against people who the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the secretary of state, determines have “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.”
In other words, the U.S. Government will now punish anyone who is determined — in the sole discretion of the U.S. Government — even to “indirectly” obstruct the full transition of power to President Hadi. But what if someone — a Yemeni or an American — opposes Hadi’s rule and wants to agitate for a real election in which more than one candidate runs? Is that pure political advocacy, as it appears, now prohibited by the U.S. Government, punishable by serious sanctions, on the ground that it “obstructs” the transition of power to Hadi? Can journalists who report on corruption or violence by the Hadi regime and who write Op-Eds demanding a new election be accused, as it seems, of “threatening Yemen’s political stability”?
Jeremy Scahill, who has reported extensively from Yemen over the last year, reacted to the news of this Executive Order this morning by writing: ”This Executive Order appears to be an attack on Americans’ 1st Amendment Rights and Yemenis’ rights to self-determination“; he added: ”apparently the 1st Amendment had an exception about Yemen in it that I missed.” He then asked a series of questions, including: “What if a Yemeni citizen doesn’t believe in a one candidate ‘election’ and is fighting to change their government? US sanctions?” and ”How would Obama define an American citizen as ‘indirectly’ threatening the stability of Yemen’s government?” and “what if an American citizen doesn’t support Yemen’s government and agitates for its downfall? Sanctions from US Treasury? Wow.” Marcy Wheeler has some typically astute points to make about this as well.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/152854335/why-the-u-s-is-aggressively-targeting-yemen
“Scahill tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross that increased drone attacks by the U.S. military have led to many civilian casualties in Yemen and a growing resentment and anger toward the United States.
“Because the drone strikes started by President Obama’s administration in 2009 have not been precise, what I saw was Yemenis starting to say, ‘The enemy of the enemy is my friend. If the United States is saying they’re fighting AQAP but they’re killing our children and our grandchildren and our wives, then we’re terrorists too,'” he says.”
Gene H. 1, May 17, 2012 at 11:47 am
anon nurse,
A suggestion:
“Obama has also failed to stop a expanded covert and draconian domestic programs, the details of which remain hidden from the majority of Americans.”
======
Gene,
From where I’m sitting, and given my personal experiences with the particular program to which I’m referring, little has changed. Having said, I agree with your “suggestion.” “Expanded” is more accurate, I’m certain. Thanks for the correction. 😉