Comments on: And we thought Haneef had it bad

By: Ingolf

Ingolf — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:13:08 +0000

It’s no less alarming for having been done before, of course, but judging by this listing of Executive Orders, this sort of horror is nothing new. Your post led me to the White House site where there’s a listing of all Executive Orders from the current reign. Previous similar EOs have targeted “Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, “Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus”, Persons in Connection with the Conflict in Sudan’s Darfur Region “, “Additional Persons in Connection with the National Emergency with Respect to Syria” and so on.

As far as I can see, the first one to include more or less the full draconian wording was issued in May 2004. In all of them, the threats were uniformly deemed to “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and [I] hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.” Not inclined to understatement, it seems.

By: amphibious

amphibious — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:59:40 +0000

I squirm everytime I hear “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to fear”.
Apart from always having been bullshit, in “the current climate” there is the added factor of when the State knows more about you than you know yourself. IE Plain wrong but nonetheless it’s sitting on many databases AND is used to inform other evaluations. The obvious case for most people is when a credit agency has got it wrong but it’s way too common with law enforcement agencies also. Don’t imagine that someone, somewhere isn’t noting the books you take from the library, the Letters to the Editor you write and even critical letters sent to MPs or quangos.
Maybe that’s why unemployment is (claimed to be) so low?
A prime example is the USofA, 7% of the (adult)population has been through the judicial system but think of the vast infrastructure, jobs, prison buildings etc to service that population?

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:33:54 +0000

TigTog Just realized, the XO is issued "pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act". And the Oz regime has sent even mere copyright offenders to the US for trial and hard time. I'm riffing on this with a Room 101 for Australians post. I hope I'm just being paranoid. btw: Apologies for "apt" in my prev cmt. Its my abbrev for "appropriate" and stuffs up the sense of things.

By: mark (not b)

mark (not b) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:56:12 +0000

presumably Section B could also infer senators who vote against bills, peace demonstrators and generally people who Bushco decide are policy obstructionists.

By: Tom Noonan

Tom Noonan — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:36:37 +0000

It’s politics. Check out the paranoia emanating from responsible people such as Paul Craig Roberts, at Information Clearing House here.

These are possibly the targets, although I think there are more flakey targets they can start with.

Tom Noonan.

By: Katz

Katz — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:33:59 +0000

Ah yes. Good old EO 13303.

Memo, persons living under US jurisdiction. (And where does that end?)

You are living in a tyranny justified by a completely bogus declaration of a “national emergency”.

Chimpo thinks he has the right to promulgate these Executive Orders that can unperson anyone.

Enjoy the rest of ride until January 2009.

By: amphibious

amphibious — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:32:14 +0000

The “drug Trade” was the moral panic when we didn’t have “terrorism”.
Both were a weapon against the dreaded “Other”.
What I find odd is that so many ( Nick Minchin for gawd’s sake)are willing to admit toking but not Krudd or his Stepford wives including, idiotically, Garrett!!
Let’s imagine, Alice/Red Queen style, that it were true, “I can believe six impossible things before breakfast”
Do you REALLY want to elect someone in the 21stC who DIDN’T have a toke, or twenty, in their youth?
Like Krudd, whom I totally believe didn’t smoke, inhale or know anyone who did.
That’s the problem – what the hell was wrong with them, then & now, and what does it say about them, after years, decades of seat warming, yea-saying and smoozing that they are little, read- NO – different to the Norman Grey’s then in power?

By: tigtog

tigtog — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:40 +0000

I suppose the only ability to fix this is with a generic case using their Bill of Rights. Does anyone know if you can bring anything before the supreme court without a specific case that involves the proscribed person. (Proscription is not too harsh a term to use, and the overtones from Sulla’s day are apt).

A case before the Supreme Court of the USA has to be brought by someone with “standing” ie someone affected. A case such as this would have to go through the Federal Court first as I understand it.

Your parallels with Sulla’s proscription laws are apt. I’d overlooked that, due to being gobsmacked.

By: skribe

skribe — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:12:00 +0000

Nope, it won’t happen unless the Dems think they can actually succeed in impeaching both Cheney and Bush and for that they’d need a smoking gun, the bullet, plus a video-taped confession to convince the 25 or so Repub senators. Anyway being an arsehole isn’t enough for impeachment – which requires treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanour. It’s merely the basic requirement for getting on the ballot.

By: E

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:44:15 +0000

It might be a good time to reflect on our asset seizure laws which were justified by the alleged menace of the drug trade.