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
DonS,
Thank you for introducing the subject of memory through your reference to “those of us old enough to remember certain things.” Thank you, as well, for taking note of the distinction between the superficial and the significant. I can certainly remember when the war drums began beating for Deputy Dubya Bush’s stud-hamster vendetta against the toothless tinpot Saddam — “he tried to kill my daddy” — Hussein. Those of us with relevant experience from Vietnam screamed as loud as we could: “DON’T LET THE RAMPAGING BULL ELEPHANT LOOSE AGAIN, YOU FOOLS! Naturally, the big-thinkers-of-the-moment trotted out their superficial factoids to dismiss our warnings. “How absurd to make analogies with Vietnam,” they pompously intoned. “Can’t you dirty fucking hippies see that the bull elephant rampaging through a Vietnamese restaurant has nothing in common with the same bull elephant rampaging though an Iraqi restaurant — because the restaurants sit on different sides of the street and serve completely different kinds of food.” See the distinctions that make all the difference? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
America suffers from not just a lack of collective memory, Don, but from a rank
inabilityunwillingness to see the profound forest amid the trivial trees.As much as I loved and respected my WWII-generation parents, we never resolved our differences over Vietnam. My mom would ask: “Who will protect us from our enemies if you don’t?” To which I always asked in return: “Who will protect me from my own government if you don’t?” I never saw the Vietnamese as my enemy, but I certainly saw my own hyper-militarized government that way. I got it right and my parents got it wrong; which only goes to show that some generational experiences have no bearing on the truth whereas other generational experiences do — even if the truth has little chance against the orchestrated cacophony of lies shamelessly spit at the American people daily by their own hyper-militarized government.
Mike A.,
Here’s more on the propaganda story:
Misinformation campaign targets USA TODAY reporter, editor
By Gregory Korte, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-19/vanden-brook-locker-propaganda/54419654/1
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON – A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.
Fake Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names.
The timeline of the activity tracks USA TODAY’s reporting on the military’s “information operations” program, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan — campaigns that have been criticized even within the Pentagon as ineffective and poorly monitored.
For example, Internet domain registries show the website TomVandenBrook.com was created Jan. 7 — just days after Pentagon reporter Tom Vanden Brook first contacted Pentagon contractors involved in the program. Two weeks after his editor Ray Locker’s byline appeared on a story, someone created a similar site, RayLocker.com, through the same company.
If the websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption.
“We’re not aware of any participation in such activities, nor would it be acceptable,” said Lt. Col. James Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman.
A Pentagon official confirmed that the military had made inquiries to information operations contractors to ask them about the Internet activity. All denied it, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiries were informal and did not amount to an official investigation.
The websites were taken down following those inquiries. Various other sites and accounts were removed for violating their providers’ terms of service.
Mike, I hope your lawn is a whole lot flatter than the one I am currently struggling with! Re the propaganda? It’s a great psychological tool; simply make the covert overt .
Thanks, Elaine. I was looking for something to obsess about while I mow the yard tomorrow.
Here’s an interesting story for you:
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
Propaganda that was supposed to target foreigners could now be aimed at Americans, reversing a longstanding policy. “Disconcerting and dangerous,” says Shank.
Michael Hastings
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban
Excerpt;
An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.
The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website.
The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mark Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.
In a little noticed press release earlier in the week — buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations — Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.”
The bill’s supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.
Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.
Elaine:
I read the article on the reporter’s privilege case. Once again the Obama administration is asserting an indefensible and extremist position on a First Amendment issue.
Michael Murry:
I agree with you. BTW, I really like your site and the biting edge of your poetry.
DonS:
My first clear understanding of what was happening in Viet Nam came when I read Bernard Fall’s “Hell in a Very Small Place” in 1965, the lessons from which remain unappreciated to this day by American foreign policy makers and the American exceptionalism crowd. My first clear understanding of the government’s willingness to lie came when I learned what was really behind the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
File this Obama story under “Bad as Bush”:
‘Reporter’s Privilege’ Under Fire From Obama Administration Amid Broader War On Leaks
Posted: 05/18/2012 2:48
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/reporters-privilege-obama-war-leaks-new-york-times_n_1527748.html
Excerpt:
RICHMOND, Va. — The Obama administration Friday morning continued its headlong attack on the right of reporters to protect their confidential sources in leak investigations.
Before a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a Department of Justice lawyer argued that New York Times reporter James Risen should be forced to testify in the trial of former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who is charged with leaking classified information to Risen about a botched plot against the Iranian government.
Rather than arguing the specifics of the case, DOJ appellate lawyer Robert A. Parker asserted that there is no reporter’s privilege when a journalist receives an illegal leak of national security secrets.
When Judge Robert Gregory asked Parker to explain why the public’s interest in a free press was outweighed by the specific circumstances in this case, Parker declined.
“I don’t think there would be a balancing test because there’s no privilege in the first place,” Parker said. “The salient point is that Risen is the only eyewitness to this crime.”
“Ms. Fonda was not prosecuted. That’s why I used the phrase “popularly regarded as treason.” — Mike Appleton
Many of us Vietnam Veterans considered Jane Fonda a complete babe in Barbarella and a slew of other fine films. We only wished that our country had more just like her. Right wing whiners against the protests that eventually ended that stupid, vainglorious disaster in Southeast Asia do not constitute “popular regard” but only the constipated bile of bitter, defeated reactionaries. That America has blundered into two more Vietnams (with more apparently on the way) because the backward bastion of buffoonery refuses to learn from enlightened citizens like Jane Fonda only adds more luster to her fame. She got it right when it counted, and this Vietnam Veteran has always loved her for that.
Persecute the prophets and reward the REMFs — the ‘Murican Way.
Mike A., you and Mespo both have points of course. Sometimes I think it boils down to noting the legal niceties of a situation, and noting the practical, moral implications.
Those of us old enough to remember certain things, in person, mights be less apparently forgiving of the patterns we see. Having been lied to by LBJ over Vietnam, and Nixon. Having been lied to and scammed by Reagan over just about everything — Central America being one covert example of not being able to trust your government. Having been lied to, or shall we say finessed by slick Willie and the so-called third way to selling out to Wall Street. Having been lied to by Dubya-Cheney and company over, well you name it. Why now, with Obama already having established a well documented history of bait and switch, too little too late, hard core right wing foreign policy, would one give him the benefit of the doubt?
Those with the mind to see, and the heart to feel, need to use those attributes to constantly speak truth to power. IMO. History is lettered with the wreckage of too many afterthoughts.
“… when the protection of fundamental rights is dependent upon the subjective judgment of the President, it is of no consolation that the current holder of that office may have a benevolent disposition.” — Mike Appleton
Before I would repose confidence in the “benevolent disposition” of the current President of the United States, I would want to see evidence of it. The petty, vindictive persecution of Private Bradley Manning, to cite only one egregious example, argues conclusively for the absence of any such quality.
mespo, I know that Ms. Fonda was not prosecuted. That’s why I used the phrase “popularly regarded as treason.” But there were plenty of people in Congress at the time who would have been happy to see her prosecuted, and it cannot be denied that there has been a marked increase in the public’s willingness to surrender constitutional rights in the aftermath of 9/11. Further, Congress has almost completely abandoned to the executive the legislative role in the initiation and prosecution of war, primarily to avoid responsibility for outcomes. Much is made of Pres. Obama’s stated intention not to use all of the power at his command, but when the protection of fundamental rights is dependent upon the subjective judgment of the President, it is of no consolation that the current holder of that office may have a benevolent disposition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/indefinite-detention-bill-fails_n_1525659.html
“Bill To End Indefinite Detention Fails In House”
Posted: 05/18/2012 10:03 am Updated: 05/18/2012 11:35 am
WASHINGTON — A judge may have found unconstitutional the law that allows people to be held indefinitely without trial by the military, but the House of Representatives voted Friday to keep it anyway.
On Wednesday, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest found that the law violates rights to free speech and due process. But House members defended it, ultimately voting 238 to 182 against an amendment to guarantee civilian trials for any terrorism suspect arrested in the United States.
The measure, sponsored by Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.), had been backed by a mix of conservatives, moderates and liberals who argued that letting the president decide to detain anyone — including Americans — deemed to be a terrorist was granting the executive too much power. And they argued that with more than 400 terrorists having been tried and convicted in civilian courts while dozens of plots were prevented, the law was unnecessary.
“The president right now has the authority to go outside the normal due process, constitutionally protected rights that are part of a court trial, and lock somebody up indefinitely or place them in military custody here in the U.S.,” Smith said in floor debate. “That is an extraordinary amount of power to give the executive branch over individual freedom and liberty. I don’t think it is necessary to keep us safe.”
DonS,
😉
As Carl Oglesby of the SDS rightly said, “It isn’t the rebels who cause the troubles of the world, it’s the troubles that cause the rebels.”
Gotta watch it AN. “Radicalizing” may be a label 😉
Listening Scahill interview makes it pretty obvious that US government behavior is becoming the best recruiting tool for AQ. -Francois T
I posted the same link upthread. The U.S. government is, without question, radicalizing people in Yemen, the U.S. and, I dare say, the world over.
I would venture that this Administration hate it when a real journalist like Jeremy Scahill goes on NPR Fresh Air (17-may-2012 on WHYY-FM 90.9 Philadelphia) to essentially question with FACTS, the whole US engagement in Yemen, the countless mistakes that cost so many innocent lives, the systemic coverup by alleged heroes like David Petreaus etc. etc.
https://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=152854335&m=152854545
Listening Scahill interview makes it pretty obvious that US government behavior is becoming the best recruiting tool for AQ.
“…but that was yesterday… and yesterday’s gone. ”
“Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 726 days.”
http://thisdayinwikileaks.blogspot.com/
“Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 725 days.”
Thursday, May 17, 2012
05/17/12
WikiLeaks has been financially blockaded without process for 531 days.
Julian Assange has been under house arrest without charge for 528 days.
Bradley Manning has been in jail without trial for 725 days.
A secret Grand Jury on WikiLeaks has been active in the US for 611 days.
“Journalist, Plaintiff Chris Hedges Hails “Monumental” Ruling Blocking NDAA Indefinite Detention” -Thursday, May 17, 2012
“This is another window into … the steady assault against civil liberties,” Hedges says. “What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.” -Chris Hedges
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/17/journalist_plaintiff_chris_hedges_hails_monumental
“In a rare move, a federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law signed by President Obama that gave the government the power to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial — including U.S. citizens. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. We speak with Chris Hedges, a journalist who filed the suit challenging the NDAA along with six others, and Bruce Afran, the group’s attorney. “This is another window into … the steady assault against civil liberties,” Hedges says. “What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.”
Chris Hedges, senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters that was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. He is the author of a number of books, including Death of the Liberal Class and The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress. He is a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act.
Bruce Afran, lawyer representing Chris Hedges and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act.
Excerpt of interview, which touches on “appeal” issues:
AMY GOODMAN: So, what happens now? I mean, this was struck down by Judge Forrest. Where does it go now?
BRUCE AFRAN: Well, technically, there could be a trial on a full issue of a permanent injunction. That very rarely ever happens. Usually, the government will appeal. They have 60 days to appeal. We don’t know what will happen. We, Carl Mayer and I, my co-counsel, are calling on the government to issue a permanent—agree to a permanent injunction, put this permanently, you know, under a rule that it is unconstitutional and can’t be enforced. Right now it is illegal. The judge has put a hold on it. And we’re calling on the President to agree to make it a permanent injunction.
AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, where do you go from here?
CHRIS HEDGES: I think that, you know, this is a never-ending battle. The security and surveillance state has already boxed us in, those of us who don’t conform to the official narrative. And this was a tremendous victory, but there are still important issues to be fought. The Espionage Act is a good one, the Authorization to Use Military Force Act itself, the PATRIOT Act, the refusal to restore habeas corpus, of course the FISA Amendment Act, the warrantless wiretapping. There are still other issues that those of us who care about an open democracy have to go out and fight for.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us, Chris Hedges, senior fellow at the Nation Institute, former correspondent for the New York Times; Bruce Afran, lawyer representing Chris Hedges and the other plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act. Judge Forrest has struck down the statute that would allow for the indefinite detention of anyone anywhere considered a terrorism suspect, without charge, without trial, including U.S. citizens.