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
Bettykath:
“Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”
Tell that to Bradley Manning.
*******************************
COURT DATES: US v. Bradley Manning
Hearing: June 6-8, 2012
Hearing: July 16-20, 2012
Hearing: August 27-31, 2012
Hearing: September 19-20, 2012
Trial: currently scheduled to begin September 21 through October 12, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/bradley-manning-judge-denies-dismissal-sets-trial-date/
Mike S.,
“perspicacity” ! Wow. I had to look that one up! 🙂
Dredd,
“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:”
I’m aware of the EO but there is a lot of wiggle room. He signed the law therefore assassinating US citizens w/o trial is now legal. Indefinite military detention isn’t quite the same thing as assassination. An EO that says he won’t do something can be easily overruled by a new EO. And it’s only binding on his administration, not subsequent ones.
“Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”
Tell that to Bradley Manning.
MIke A:
“And if you believe that the phrase “acts which directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen” cannot be applied to speech, I respectfully suggest that the controversy surrounding Jane Fonda’s notorious trip to North Vietnam years ago provides a more accurate example of how the expression of contrary views may be popularly regarded as treason.”
************************
That was (is) the view of many but not the U.S. Dept of Justice who declined to prosecute her precisely because of free speech concerns and the inability to prove that she provided “aid and comfort” to the enemy. In essence there was no “overt act” performed by Fonda which provided “aid and comfort.” Her speech in support of the NVA and her 10 radio broadcasts, and even the infamous photograph on the AA gun was simply not enough.
None of the comments I have read on this thread change my views on the executive order. In the first place, no occupant of the White House takes a strict constructionist approach to the topic of executive power. And if you believe that the phrase “acts which directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen” cannot be applied to speech, I respectfully suggest that the controversy surrounding Jane Fonda’s notorious trip to North Vietnam years ago provides a more accurate example of how the expression of contrary views may be popularly regarded as treason.
The point is that a vaguely worded grant of authority whose interpretation and implementation rely solely on the good faith and discretion of the grantee from time to time is a bad law.
Civility, what a concept.
Still, giving the benefit of the doubt to the establishment, the 1%’s, in the name of civility, might be a bridge too far. I know that’s not what generally being said, however, I’m not one who believes if we’re all just civil enough everything will work out for the average guy.
Further, I generally agree in the uselessness of labels like liberal, conservative, progressive, etc., especially across categories of issues. But I smell a political environment that is increasingly totalitarian and, if that’s a label, sorry ’bout that.
As for more wars. Haven’t we really been there, done that, enough times to show it futility, and as a game profiting the MIC (sorry, I know, that’s a label — even if Ike coined it!)
Good post, Barking Dog. You certainly don’t suffer from the “detached purism” that Andrew Sullivan claims Glenn Greenwald suffers from. Probably just got myself in trouble with some on here. Whatever……….
Ron Paul just co-sponsored impeachment legislation, maybe this next Obamination might convince people this facist in democratic clothing should be removed from power.
“This executive order was intentionally written broadly to capture areas that are presumed to be protected like free speech.”
**********************************************
While no fan of usurping power by executive fiat, I fail to find support for this view. The Order prohibits those who:
” 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;”
The operative word is “acts.” Is speaking against the agreement an “act”? I see no construction or interpretation to that effect and would be just as outraged as many of you if it were.
I think this argument mirrors the debate over the defense authorization bill where a rather extreme interpretation of the language (that was debunked by the bill’s sponsors) led some to conclude that Americans would be rounded up and imprisoned without trial or even an opportunity for a habeas petition.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/16/indefinite-detention-of-citizens-a-response-to-senator-carl-levin/
That didn’t happen and we’ve all moved on from the rhetoric. I prefer not to see ghosts in every piece of legislation or executive order. Let’s tackle problems that are more than speculation.
Well said Barkindog! Civility should be the goal for all of us.
Yoo, Gonzales and Bebee still advising this administration……
I am struck by the tendency of folks on the blog here to criticise each other or more likely to catagorize themselves or others by these rather imprecise terms that are floated about in America when it gets down to politics. A person could be a Liberal and be in the Libertarian Party, or the Democratic Party, but probably not the Republican Party. A person can be a conservative in any of those three. A person with extreme views will hedge and call themself a conservative when in fact they are bigots or nazi. A communist will perhaps call themself a libertarian or liberal. A tee party person thinks of themself as a scion of the American Tea Party tradition in Boston in 1776 or so.
But if you scratch a present day Tea Party person they would be in Philadelphia not Valley Forge and be fighting with the elites and King George, not George Washington. Pee Party is a more fitting phrase.
If one believes in the Bill of Rights and say the First Amendment in particular then how does that translate into Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Pee Party hot or cold?
I submit that few people on this blog fit into Liberal, Conservative or Moderate as one travels about different topics.
There is not need to castigate each other on this blog. And, really the differences are not all that far apart. This is not a Caucus Night in a state where one goes to decide whom one will sit with and determine which candidate gets the vote of the county caucus. I might agree with any one of you on some issues and not on others. I can be a Liberal on civil rights and free speech and still argue that bombing Iran might be a good thing. They are not antithetical. I would have been for George Washington at Valley Forge and not King George. I would have thrown the tea into Boston Harbour back in our revolution. I would throw the present day Pee Party folks into Boston harbour. But it doesnt mean that I would disparage them on this blog. If I think someone is a closet Willard Romney supporter then I will out them on this blog. I think it a bit shallow to throw rocks at the President by criticizing this Yemen issue to gain favor for numnuts. I dont want another war but I dont want another Trade Center attack. A barkin dog believes in free speech. The german shepard in the group calls it frei sprech or somesuch terminology.
“This is not a Caucus Night in a state where one goes to decide whom one will sit with and determine which candidate gets the vote of the county caucus. I might agree with any one of you on some issues and not on others. I can be a Liberal on civil rights and free speech and still argue that bombing Iran might be a good thing. They are not antithetical.”
BarkinDog,
Thank you. Your entire comment that this came out of was very well put. My initial comment on this thread admitted my lack of knowledge of the circumstances that led to this Presidential Order. I knew there was some sort of conflict in Yemen, but it hadn’t interested me enough that I’d spent more time on it than glancing at headlines. Therefore in reading this post, while at first put off by the implications it had for free speech, I was also curious as to why the Administration saw fit to issue it and what was their aim in doing so.
Context is all important in trying to honestly analyze any issue and I lacked context. Many commentators I believe also lacked context, but reacted on a gut level. Perhaps their “guts” led them to the truth, but perhaps they were responding from a general belief to a specific instance and as such failed to make an insightful analysis, because they to hadn’t paid particular attention to Yemen. The idea of a “party line” has never been limited to Marxists. It is a given of any “Ism” in which one chooses to believe. By wholeheartedly embracing ay particular “party line” one actually diminishes their ability to react to each new event spontaneously and thus gain clarity.
Certainly, your initial comments and Malisha’s, added differing points of view on this topic. In my own mind I am an extremely intelligent person and I have the acquired wisdom of age. However, the life lessons I’ve learned have proven to me time and again that I’m not as smart as I think I am and can be led up a wrong path via my “intelligence”. A motto I adopted in my 50’s, developed through the times I was convinced of my perspicacity, only to see for myself how wrong I was, is this: I first began to see I was developing wisdom when I realized how very little I knew.
As Glenn Greenwald notes:
No one but those we pay to violate this executive order may violate this executive order.
“National emergency,” my aching ass.
Rafflaw, ever time I get into a conversation with Mouses, I come away more and more impressed with my ignorance. For example, he told me once how many of our State Dept. people get confused when they are speaking with the Arab diplomats, etc. They do not, for example, understand the ways that “Inshallah” may be used to mean either “yes” or “no.” It astonishes me, how much there is to NOT KNOW. In fact, I once heard about a possible misinterpretation of the Japanese response to the American threats before bombing Hiroshima. Apparently the Japanese spokesperson said a word or phrase that could be interpreted as either “no” or as “Time to think it over,” and then came the bomb attack. I am sorry to say I cannot remember the details of this, but I think I read it in a reliable source, about semantics, or linguistics, or meaning, you know, one of those subjects that uses a little example like that to show something.
We are just overwhelmed. So much noise in the environment, so many lies, so much hidden stuff, so little real transparency, so many ulterior motives, so much conflict, even in the telling of it, so much to decipher…
Michael Murry,
Wow,
You nailed it.
Wow, you nailed it.
For a long time I was trying to find a way to ask the question, “How have they been able to turn ‘liberal’ into a per se negative epithet?” I never could figure out why our leaders refused to stand up and call themselves liberals, until I saw that they weren’t — none of them was a liberal, not ONE!
How did this rout get accomplished?
Simply by the so-called “Conservatives” (and they aren’t conservative!) stealing a march on the language?!
One time I had a lawyer who was “Conservative” (this had nothing to do with his job as my lawyer, which he did not do — he just wanted to take the money and talk about himself for long enough to “use it up”) and when he was making polite conversation with me (on my nickel) he said that he had heard that I was a liberal. I said, “Who told you that?” He asked, “Do you deny it?” I answered, “Of course I do; I’m MUCH more radical than a liberal!” He’s tea-party now. He never did the job he took my money to do, and when last I asked him about it, he said he was very busy repealing Obamacare. He was the lawyer who represented Paula Jones; he had a mistress and a wife at the time that he argued that one in front of the US Supreme Court, if rumor has it right.
We do deserve our tyranny. Of course I, the individual I, do not, but of course, I am also one who feels the yoke most heavily. That’s in the nature of finding out how enslaved we are. If we have benevolent private masters, we may not even discover it…
You want unfettered dissent in America, Professor Turley? Then help organize a force to compel the American government to rescind the ludicrous “AUMF” — i.e., Aimless, Unlimited, Military Farce — and thus free Americans from the tyrannical yoke of “permanent war [on something or someone, somewhere].” By way of support for this position, consider what Chris Hedges writes in Death of the Liberal Class:
The so-called “liberal class” crawled up its own ass and died long ago, so don’t suppose that anything by that name any longer exists to save America from the crony-corporate crypto fascists. You cannot shame these non-existent “liberals” into saving your freedom for you by taunting them for their “silence.” Unlike the Republicans who only remain silent when they’ve got the Democrats barking for them, you don’t hear anything from the “liberals” because they no longer exist in numbers sufficient to voice more than a pitiful squeak of ignored protest. Instead, today, you have “Democrats” like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, so terrified of the “liberal” label that they at best will only consent to call themselves “bipartisan.” Whipped already by nothing but a word.
Help us end this Aimless, Unlimited Military Farce and wage Peace instead. Then you can have your dissent without fear. But if you must have your needless, pointless, endless “
warAUMF,” then you deserve the tyranny you’ve gotten and will get.I just read every comment. None of us, self included, take on the assertion in the heading of the Turley article here that the Executive Order is aimed as stiffling criticism of Yemen–he employs the words: To Silence Opponents Of Yemen’s Leader.
To Silence a person means to shut them up, not deter their overt acts to arm a rebellion for example. I am an opponent of the Yemen leadership but this act does not address silencing speech. Aiding an abetting a rebellion with goods and services is not the same as criticizing the leader whom the rebels oppose. I am critical of the leadership in Iran but I am not aiding and abetting the opposition by giving them guns and butter.
The heading of this article distorts what the President has done in this Executive Order. This kind of distortion can best be described as a “Willard”. When you distort, you commit a Willard. If my first name was Willard I would adopt a nickname. Like “My” if I was Swedish or Mitt if I was an American.
Malisha,
Thanks for the clarification.
When I saw the photograph of Yemenianalyst, I recognized him and gave him a call. He is an independent Yemeni-born American journalist who has often reported on Arab affairs for the BBC and who is known throughout the Arab world as a fierce independent voice. He has tirelessly AND fearlessly opposed the Saleh regime for all of his adult life. (Yes, his credibility is enhanced by the fact that there is a Fatwah out on him, has been for years now.) He pointed out to me that the Executive Order, which appears to support Saleh’s own people (since Hadi served in his Regime) is actually quite the opposite; it is the Hadi government that is gaining the necessary power and position to throw off the yoke of the shadow government that Saleh set in place when he realized his own days were numbered. My friend Mouses tells me that the Yemeni Opposition [to Saleh’s people] are figuratively dancing in the streets (not time to do it literally, yet), saying “Finally the U.S. got it and will help.” The problem with the order, of course, is that it should be merely an emergency measure, not something that should last on and on…
Now that doesn’t make the Executive Order right, and of course, we have our constitution to think about. Even as an emergency measure, you look at something like this and realize how ephemeral any of our freedoms are. Like the suspension of habeas corpus rights during war-time, an order like this can snatch up your substantial rights and then erode any possibility of restoring them. And I brought that up with Mouses, and he said that Imam Ali (the son-in-law of the Prophet) said, “The right argument for the wrong result.”
And I thought back to the Elizabeth Morgan/Eric Foretich case and the ridiculous federal law that was passed JUST to apply to Elizabeth and her daughter, a law that wouldn’t do anybody else a bit of good. I ruefully remembered the years Professor Turley put in, defending the Constitution and helping Foretich redeem rights he could never exercise, to get the bill, which really WAS a bill of attainder in confusing and chaotic form, repealed long after it was moot. And I realized that the bill itself was “the wrong argument for the right result.” And sometimes I guess we need to know more Arabic proverbs.