General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Obama’s new free speech threat
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/obamas_new_free_speech_threat/singleton/Wednesday, May 16, 2012 08:48 AM EDT
Obamas new free speech threat
An Executive order seeks to punish U.S. citizens even for "indirectly" obstructing dictatorial rule in Yemen
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below Update II)
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 todays 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 Yemens security or political stability, is the first issued for Yemen that does not directly relate to counterterrorism.
<edit>
UPDATE II: The Executive Order has now been issued and, as Marcy Wheeler notes, it is extremely similar to what the Post article described (which makes sense given that the Post article was based on the statements of anonymous officials authorized to speak about it). The EO blocks the assets of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen. One difference between this EO and the prior one issued for Somalia is that this one exempts U.S. government agencies, which means, as Wheeler puts it, that while Obama doesnt want you, or Ali Abdullah Salehs leave-behinds, or the AP to destabilize Yemen, he reserves the right for US government employees, grantees, or contractors to do so. Which presumably means, as happened in Afghanistan, we are and plan to continue paying some of the people who are in violation of this EO. It is, then, in so many respects, a perfect expression of American justice when it comes to the War on Terror.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)His focus on civil liberties has not changed.
NDAA section 1021 was afforded a preliminary injunction due to, in part, similar vague language.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)that the executive order represents an attack on free speech in the US
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.
It covers those who have materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for the acts described or any person whose property has already been blocked, as well as those who have acted on behalf of such people ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-obama-executive-order-will-give-treasury-authority-to-freeze-us-based-assets-in-yemen/2012/05/15/gIQALWPUSU_story.html
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).
In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."[13]
In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks.[14] The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog."[15]
His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses,"[16] and he appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)article. He's strictly minor league as long as he relies on facts and stuff like that.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)You know... if one wanted to disagree with Greenwald... one might wanna come up with a cogent counter-argument.
At least you'd think...
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)I guess for some people "He's just trying to get Ron Paul elected" is counter-argument enough.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Free speech? Not really. You can post freely about your concerns with Yemen, and nobody's going to bother you. Unless you provide some sort of material support that has some effect on Yemen, nobody's going to give a crap.
Now, if you're a prominent person who speaks to people who can materially affect Yemen, and encourages them to take action, donate money, or do some other form of action that threatens the "peace, security, or stability" of Yemen, you might want to consider carefully what you're doing and weigh the risks. But, if you're some DUer posting on DU about your distaste for Yemen's current situation, it will have no effect, and will not draw any interest.
I think that Greenwald doesn't have to worry about this, and I'm certain no DUer has to worry about this.
Edit to add: Greenwald is famous for doing exactly this - taking some EO or law and extending it far beyond what the language in the EO or law actually supports. Constantly doing an "worst possible case" analysis of normal documents is akin to crying "Wolf!" After a while, nobody with any sense listens to such things. Maybe he'll mention me again in his writings...