Comments (71)

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 5:24 PM:

Based on experience with the Bush/Cheney Admin, I don't see any reason to trust her one iota.

What's she gonna say? "Our lawyers purposefully made this Executive Order as broad as possible in order for us to bring some test cases against American citizens and residents with only the most tangential ties to anything involving Iraq."

Of course not. She's obviously going to say exactly what she did say, regardless of the truth of the matter.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 5:24 PM:

I'd like to see someone argue that it's O.K. to target the financing of al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements but not OTHER insurgent groups in Iraq. Hit me with your best shot.

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 5:29 PM:

"'Tuesday's broad executive order on freezing Iraq-related financial assets is solely intended to target supporters of the Iraqi insurgency,' Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise tells TPMmuckraker."

If that were true, the wording would reflect it.

The only reason for broad or ambiguous language in this kind of order is to keep the door open for abuse. Otherwise, why not word it distinctly?

Again, the only reason for ambiguous language from micromanagers is that they have a future agenda.

bobh wrote on July 19, 2007 5:29 PM:

Trust is what we lack jake. God honest american hate for the enemy aside, we dont trust bush or anyone toting his line in public. There is no trust in the preznit jake.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 5:32 PM:

So, no name, you think it's NOT okay to target even the financing of al Qaeda simply because you hate Bush?

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 5:34 PM:

Semi-fiction from JEP;

US Headlines, ca. July 2007;

In response to their devastating election loss in November 2006, a secret branch of the Republican Party has developed a new organization, called "Trolls for The New American Way", which channels funds from Republican campaign coffers around the country to pay these "trolls," as they are known on the blogosphere.

"It is good to see experienced right wing bloggers are finally getting paid for their work," said one well-known troll who calls himself "King of Zouk, and who also uses many other names on "The Fix" blog at The Washington Post (despite the fact that The Fix host has promised not to let people post under more than one name).

According to sources close to the source, this new wave of Republican paid trolls has been recruited to infest the left-leaning, liberal blogs on the internet. When asked why these blogs were targeted, one Republican operative, who spoke anonymously, answered "cuz those go%$#&mn tinfoil-hat lib'rul sunsabitches on the blogs lost us the last election!"

When asked what they were being paid for their pieces, "Jake", a recent newcomer to the paid-troll ranks, said "We only get paid when someone responds, but that's so easy to do, all you gotta say is "Bush is Great!" and you get a whole string of responses from these stupid leftwing geeks! I'm rakin' in the dough, especially over at TPMMuckraker!"

When asked how much he was paid for his work, the new troll responded, "about a hundred bucks for every one who responds."

The interview then ended, because a fight broke out immdeiately among the trolls, apparently because some of the other trolls were only getting $50 for each response.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 5:38 PM:

Of course, as I have stated several times already, the "fiction" part of semi-fiction would be claiming that I get paid ot post here. I don't.

Strangely Enough wrote on July 19, 2007 5:47 PM:

So, what about the Saudis?

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 5:48 PM:

prove it, liar.

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 5:49 PM:

Good point, Strangely, wonder where Bandar Bush lands on that rogue financier's list.

And what of the Bin Laden family?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 5:58 PM:

I'm supposed to "prove" a negative, that I don't get paid to post here? Even if I proved to you I am retired, living comfortably on my investments, with no connection whatsoever to GOP consultants, how exactly could I "prove" that I don't secretly get paid $100 per response? How would YOU "prove" you don't get paid to post here, JEP?

Steve5117 wrote on July 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

Hmmm... I suppose the debit to my bank account supporting ANY Democratic candidate could put me in that catagory...

The Real Steve5117 not 5117Steve nor 51Steve17,

Congradulations, Josh on such a great site.

Do you smell that. That's troll shit. There's nothing better than the smell of troll shit ....

...You know, someday this war will be over.

Anderson wrote on July 19, 2007 6:13 PM:

"Interagency effort" = "vetted by David Addington."

conniptionfit wrote on July 19, 2007 6:16 PM:

I cannot think of ANY person who meets the definition of aiding and abetting recruitment for both al Qaeda in Iraq, and the mother branch of al Qaeda than George W Bush. I say we confiscate his ranch and his office building, and stick him in the deepest hole the CIA can provide.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on July 19, 2007 6:17 PM:

No one could have anticipated (fill-in-blank).
Saddam has WMD.
Saddam helped to orchestrate 9/11.
Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Saddam sought uranium from Niger.
We do not torture.
We do not rendition.
I will fire anyone involved in the leak.
We will bring dignity and honor back to the White House.
Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

And they want us to trust their motives???

powkat wrote on July 19, 2007 6:19 PM:

Face it folks, better have your passport in order - this is the first step in declaring martial law and rounding up dissenters. BushCo can't afford to leave office - as soon as they do all their crimes will be exposed and they'll end up in prison. Rather than running to Brazil like most crooks, they will attempt to hold on to power here. And then we'll all have to decide where we stand. I've made my choice.

Richterscale wrote on July 19, 2007 6:25 PM:

Ughh. Stop feeding the troll people.

Don't you realize that YOU are part of the problem here? Every time you respond to his ridiculous little stabs, you enable him, or her to continue disrupting this site.

Look at it this way... If he or she, IS being paid to troll here, your responses ensure that he will continue to be paid to hang around here. If he or she is NOT a paid troll, then if you stop giving him attention, eventually he will go away to where he can get some.

So please, just stop responding. And that's the last of this you'll here from me.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 6:27 PM:

And, once you flee to a foreign country, don't forget to find the closest consulate office or Embassy and formally renounce your U.S. citizenship . . .

wtf wrote on July 19, 2007 6:30 PM:

it's not a ranch

it's a multi million dollar vacation house

Slippery Slope wrote on July 19, 2007 6:31 PM:

Are there any other "friendly" countries besides the Saudis that might be financing a destabilizing effort in Iraq?

Beyond the Saudi home of more the 50% of the 9/11 hijackers, does Israel, Turkey or the likes of Qatar – the new home of Halliburton – have anything politically, militarily or financially to gain from a destabilized Iraq? Is it so unconceivable that there are “friendly” nations attempting to influence the outcomes in Iraq too?

A more narrow a question would be are there factions in Iraq that these countries would like to see gain an “upper hand”? Would they even financially support these “friendly” factions? Of course. But are these “friendly” factions committing acts of terrorism in the streets of Iraq as well?

And what of the recent reports of British paramilitary dressed in native garb driving a car full bomb making material?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 6:36 PM:

Or, Richterscale (and I understand you won't respond, so this is for the benefit of everyone else), regardless of whether I am paid to post here or not, you could take this advice from another thread:

"It would be nice if Democrats wouldn't do what Republicon's do, instead just address the point they raise. Republicon's attack the messenger NOT the message. So when supposed left leaning do the same as Republicon's who's the troll?"

Posted by: female
Date: July 19, 2007 6:02 PM

What?! wrote on July 19, 2007 6:40 PM:

...oopps, does this mean all of our US Treasuries bills/notes will be frozen?

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 6:43 PM:

To recap my questions thus far on this thread:

1) How can someone argue that it's O.K. to target the financing of al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements but not OTHER insurgent groups in Iraq?

2) Do you think it's NOT okay to target even the financing of al Qaeda?

3) [just for JEP] I'm supposed to "prove" a negative, that I don't get paid to post here? Even if I proved to you I am retired, living comfortably on my investments, with no connection whatsoever to GOP consultants, how exactly could I "prove" that I don't secretly get paid $100 per response? How would YOU "prove" you don't get paid to post here?

bobh wrote on July 19, 2007 6:47 PM:

Now jake wants us to play by rules. Go take a fucking long leap onff our short bus jake.

powkat wrote on July 19, 2007 6:50 PM:

Go to Crooks and Liars or Huffington Post and watch Max Blumenthal's video on the College Republicans. It is marvelously funny and dead on as to what little cowards they are. And an amazing number of them have medical conditions that prevent them from serving: asthma, 'bad knees' from playing catcher, bad backs. My favorite is the little sh*t who was rejected by the AF Academy 'for medical reasons' and therefore believes he is unable to serve at all, when you know he just thinks he's too good for the Army.

PS Muckrakers - good work in troll avoidance -now it's complaining because we won't respond. Hee, hee.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 6:50 PM:

No, bobh, I fully expect you will continue with the ad hominem attacks, cursing up a storm, just like you always have. I was simply suggesting a third possibility.

SP wrote on July 19, 2007 6:57 PM:

Has anyone drawn the connection between this action with the Eric Edelman letter? Hillary better get a Swiss bank account for her campaign funds real fast.

The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 19, 2007 6:57 PM:

powkat:

SIX posts responding to my posts (that's either $300 or $600 according to JEP), with more on the way, equates to "good work in troll avoidance"? LOL!

gimmegimme wrote on July 19, 2007 7:09 PM:

This is one of the main problems with the country. We don't need a new proclamation from the King to make it illegal to financially support terrorism.

We already have those laws and many people have been justly put away for violating them. Every new law is another link in the chain that is holding us down.

Anyone who isn't disturbed by the insane power grabs of our despotic leaders is a simpleton, or someone who hates freedom. In other words...they don't like being free. I can't say it any...you know...more clearer. It's like, I'm the decider. The Constitution lets me decide what is illegal and that me and my friends should get away with it. In other words, I hope you welcome your...your...new overlords.

gimmegimme wrote on July 19, 2007 7:10 PM:

This is one of the main problems with the country. We don't need a new proclamation from the King to make it illegal to financially support terrorism.

We already have those laws and many people have been justly put away for violating them. Every new law is another link in the chain that is holding us down.

Anyone who isn't disturbed by the insane power grabs of our despotic leaders is a simpleton, or someone who hates freedom. In other words...they don't like being free. I can't say it any...you know...more clearer. It's like, I'm the decider. The Constitution lets me decide what is illegal and that me and my friends should get away with it. In other words, I hope you welcome your...your...new overlords.

JEP wrote on July 19, 2007 7:11 PM:

Just wanted all that other info you have supplied, now we actually know something about you, you old coot.

Jane wrote on July 19, 2007 7:21 PM:

This sounds essentially like a speed trap -- set up to catch whoever is in disfavor with the cops.

At certain times of year, Muslims have a religious obligation to donate to charity. Now they will have to check Bush's list first: has the charity advertising meat donations to the poor given food to the destitute widow of a fighter in the insurgency? If so, you better rat out your fiery young friend who was saying that the Iraq War conducted for the benefit of Haliburton or we have something on you.

This is like arguing that because a Catholic put something in the collection plate without checking the sympathies of the local priests, that the contribution is made as part of a conspiracy with the violent wing of Right to Life.

pointus wrote on July 19, 2007 7:23 PM:

Uh... let me see if I get this: they're freezing the assets of anyone who supports the insurgents, right? And it's part of covert US strategy in Iraq to provide weapons and financing to insurgents in order to get them to turn on Al Qiada, right? So one can only assume that Treasury will seize the DOD budget.
Right?

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 7:34 PM:

"Has anyone drawn the connection between this action with the Eric Edelman letter? Hillary better get a Swiss bank account for her campaign funds real fast."

My take on this order and its timing is that it's meant (right now) more for individuals like members of Congress and the Senate, and some of the other wealthier folk who have gone walkabout in public on the Bush line. I think there's been a pattern of intimidating these people with some pretty serious stuff that's often not been fully out in the open. For them to risk stepping out this far now is not necessarily a sign of their strength.

Not that they wouldn't get to the rest of us eventually. (And whoever mentioned test cases is right on, too.)

anon wrote on July 19, 2007 7:41 PM:

Whereas the current Treasury OFAC program blocks US persons and entities from dealings with specific named individuals and entities as defined within Executive Order 13224, this new Exec Order takes a broader approach by applying asset transfer blocks to anyone engaged in any activity defined in Sections 1(i) through 1(iii) of the current Order. That's a rather dramatic expansion. Indeed, given the vague language of Sections 1(i) through (iii) and considering Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, this Order could likely be applied to nearly anyone who gives money/assistance/aid/etc. to any side -- be it Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, etc..

Sadly, it's more of the same poor thinking from the usual group of underqualified hacks, ahem.... "advisors" in the White House.

Anonymous wrote on July 19, 2007 7:45 PM:

"undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"

There's nothing in that sentence about violence or financing. The press had better start asking why "undermining" isn't better defined within the order.

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 19, 2007 8:03 PM:

Uh... let me see if I get this: they're freezing the assets of anyone who supports the insurgents, right? And it's part of covert US strategy in Iraq to provide weapons and financing to insurgents in order to get them to turn on Al Qiada, right? So one can only assume that Treasury will seize the DOD budget.
Right?

Posted by: pointus
Date: July 19, 2007 7:23 PM

That's exactly what I was thinking..

And if applied retroctively, we can freeze the CIA assets for funding and training Bin Laden!!

deRougemont wrote on July 19, 2007 8:11 PM:

Thanks to SP for first bringing up the possible connection of this edict and the Edelman letter to Hillary; Now at least we are aware, make others aware of threat, and publish.....a blog proactive hit.
Thanks SP!

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 19, 2007 8:41 PM:

This same proceedure could have been done before any of this other insanity if this is for what they are now saying.
Juat like hussien should have been arrested,the end.
Like everything else they do, they are the ones who determine who they target.
No one would allow anyone with this groups mental condition to have the opportunity to control these type decisions.
They are building their kingdom (in their mind) and will not let anyone stop them, real or imagined.
Taking chunks of evryone's ability to stop them is a must in thier playbook.
Just like crak was introduced and glamorized to keep money from accumulating in poor sections any loose change must be siezed before it can gather together and resist.
Who determines what money gets frozen?And, who get's this frozen money?
If this was really to "prevent" then this should have been done years ago.

BTW: the long term damage to u.s. economy is already past a disaster.Lost over 6% to china this year and in the last month almost 10% to india and you can see in eu over 30% scince euro began.
We owe everyone big time and no one wants our money anymore.Guess what happens then?

peaceout wrote on July 19, 2007 8:41 PM:

WAKE UP AMERICA...it is all so very clear...take over all the governing agencies...take control of the media...abolish all dissent...take control of anyone's assets for any reason...obstruct all criticism...defy and abolish the Constitution/Bill of Rights...construct the detention camps...get the injections ready...crown George the Fuhrer...Dick the Executioner...RepubNazis forever...game over...United States of America...history!

WE NEED A MAJOR IN THE STREETS REVOLUTION TO TURN THIS AROUND NOW!!

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 19, 2007 8:50 PM:

Doesn't the Carlyle group fund the Bin Laden family?
Hmm... I wonder if junior dipshit will freeze elder dipshit's assets for funding the evildoers?
That would be great!

Fozzetti wrote on July 19, 2007 8:53 PM:

and the rupugs think anyone who is against the war (occupation) is supporting the insurgents/terrorists

The Raven wrote on July 19, 2007 8:54 PM:

Along with peaceout, quoting Poe:

NEVERMORE!

NEVERMORE!

NEVERMORE!

NEVERMORE!

The word is "army" - read the Declaration of Independence. Seems to be time again to overthrow tyranny!

regular lurker wrote on July 19, 2007 8:56 PM:

Thinking about the new executive order...would the administration stretch its reach to include activist groups who are pushing Congress to leave Iraq?

And what about legal representation? The Pentagon has already threatened its contractors to stop using law firms providing pro bono services to Guantanamo inmates. There's the lawyer who released names of some of the inmates and there's the case of Lynne Stewart, defense council for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted of aiding terrorist activity.

The Bush administration doesn't do anything without a specific goal in mind so it's safe to assume this executive order has a pre-determined target. The question is: who or what?

aileench wrote on July 19, 2007 9:25 PM:

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to see our current “president” and the political leaders behind him, support more international affairs. Problems like global poverty are affecting each and every one of us on a daily basis. We should not forget the commitment the U.S. made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

tas wrote on July 19, 2007 10:26 PM:

OK, the Pentagon issues a statement attacking a US Senator who also happens to be the front runner for the Democratic nomination for President, claiming that requesting info on how we intend to ever leave Iraq "emboldens and aids the enemy." Now the President issues an executive order (Imperial Decree) that says he can declare anyone an enemy of the State of Iraq and freeze their assets without due process of law. Does anyone now doubt what is happening in our government? Excuse me, I can't think right now. the helicoptors outside are interrupting my train of thought.

Security code is "past", as in we used to have freedom - in the past.

regular lurker wrote on July 19, 2007 11:36 PM:

tas,

That's the thing. They have so abused their reach that they can't be trusted. Is this administration so far gone that they would seriously consider seizing campaign funds as well as banning the Democratic Party?

malcolm wrote on July 20, 2007 1:10 AM:

Powcat, I think you're right. It's time to be out of here, unless Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas all drop dead of heart attacks in the next month or so. For those interested, there are good properties for sale for reasonably low prices in Saxony, which used to be in East Germany.

rjj wrote on July 20, 2007 5:10 AM:

Seems to me to read that people who have been downwind of people who have aided and abetted are also subject to this attachment.

Anyone of any means who buys a falafel from the local pushcart guy who is sending money to his little cousin in Iraq would be wise pay cash.

Beth wrote on July 20, 2007 7:19 AM:

I didn't read anything in that EO that mentioned that the "list" would be publicly available. Does that mean we must, just to be safe, never make a charitable contribution or a political contribution to anyone who disagrees with the administration?

Beth wrote on July 20, 2007 7:19 AM:

I didn't read anything in that EO that mentioned that the "list" would be publicly available. Does that mean we must, just to be safe, never make a charitable contribution or a political contribution to anyone who disagrees with the administration?

Patrick wrote on July 20, 2007 8:22 AM:

I guess it is time for me to start paying to protect my liberty. I cannot trust any branch of the government. The executive branch is sytematically eliminating the checks and balances. The judicial branch is being demonized and stacked with yes men and Congressional members assist and acquiesce to protect their own power and influence.

It is almost incomprehensible to me that I am voluntarily giving money to lawyers. But, today I will become a member of the ACLU for the first time in my life.

Note to ACLU - I apologizze for the lawyer crack. I have had some bad experiences with some bad lawyers. I think of the lawyers in the ACLU as the good witches!

Patrick wrote on July 20, 2007 8:23 AM:

I guess it is time for me to start paying to protect my liberty. I cannot trust any branch of the government. The executive branch is sytematically eliminating the checks and balances. The judicial branch is being demonized and stacked with "yes men" and Congressional members assist and acquiesce to protect their own power and influence.

It is almost incomprehensible to me that I am voluntarily giving money to lawyers. But, today I will become a member of the ACLU for the first time in my life.

Note to ACLU - I apologize for the lawyer crack. I have had some bad experiences with some bad lawyers. I think of the lawyers in the ACLU as the good witches!

jerri wrote on July 20, 2007 8:53 AM:

Please...bush is trying to look busy like he is on top of things. Remember, it has not been a week...a saudi bank in Iraq was robbed of almost $300 million. bush should be interested in what the money is for at this point. What in the world are bush's enemies planing to buy...airplanes????

MissingMyRightsAlready wrote on July 20, 2007 9:14 AM:

How long before bush decides that all the liberals are interfering with his goals in Iraq? I have no doubt that he was jealous when he saw Putin outlaw all of the opposing political parties.

The Democrats don't have anything at all to worry about. They don't seem to be trying to slow him down in the least.

JTho wrote on July 20, 2007 11:06 AM:

I used to think like you people... then I grew up.

You have a fundamental disconnect with the reality of the world, if you really, honestly think that Bushwhacker and Cheinous are going to declare martial law, abolish the Senate, deconstruct the bill of rights, and eat your firstborn babbies.

This is America, you morons. As "peaceout" so ironically states, we have the right, no, the obligation to violently overthrow any governmental entity that violates our rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

This Executive Order is not a secret, maniacal attempt to starve out J.J.J. Schmidt because he donated to Billary's campaign. This Executive Order is because the US is the greatest source of funds for the rest of the world, both legal and illegal, for good and for bad, because our economic system is uniquely exploitable by anyone.

If this is going anywhere "oppressive", it's trying to set a precedent for a similar freeze on illegals sending Dollars down to Mexico, but what it's really set up for is to correct the ridiculous situation that existed where contributing $5000 to a presidential campaign was serious trouble for all involved, while sending millions of dollars overseas to directly fund Hizbollah was A.O.K.

If you want to stand up and tell me that that situation was acceptable, then you and I are not capable of communicating.

JT -- pinko-liberal, added accountability

Pilgrim wrote on July 20, 2007 11:22 AM:

"undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people"

If a private contractor scams on his contract, does he fall under this? If so, Halliburton and KBR - among others - all qualify to have assets seized. A good starting point for the Dem President in 2009.

P J Evans wrote on July 20, 2007 11:48 AM:

JTho

Optimist.

This order is written in such a way that it could easily be expanded to 'anyone the President doesn't like', just like some of the laws of the last few years. Remember, there's one that amounts to 'the president can decide you're an enemy combatant, and you have no recourse'.

rjj wrote on July 20, 2007 1:07 PM:

"This is America, you morons."

I don't think we are in Kansas anymore, JTho.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 20, 2007 1:14 PM:

"I used to think like you people... then I grew up."
-- JTho

It isn't necessary to break out the tinfoil.

The country has, since the Truman administration, had emergency plans for continuity of government and responses to a variety of worst-case natural or man-made disasters -- including pandemics, urban insurrections (after the summer of 1966), and, now, terrorist incidents. Insofar as I know, FEMA is supposed to be the principal governmental agency coordinating the execution of these emergency plans.

There's nothing inherently sinister about this.

Bush and Cheney have done more to inflate the alleged 'powers' of the Executive branch, including:

1) Suspension of Habeus Corpus;

2) Establishment of unprecedented surveillance programs, and the expansion of federal law enforcement powers to conduct wiretapping and secretly obtain commercial, financial or other personal records with no true oversight;

3) Development of the concept in law of persons (including U.S. citizens) declared "enemy combattants", whose legal rights are effectively voided, and who can be detained indefinitely solely upon Executive order;

4) The development of a legal basis for the use of "extreme coercion" -- torture -- directed by Executive Order;

5) Expanded powers of search and seizure for law enforcement under the Patriot Act;

6) The use of thousands of "signing statements" attached to laws passed by Congress -- all essentially stating that execution of these laws are subject to interpretation by the Executive Branch;

7) Restrictions on air travel for thousands of citizens, often erroneously, and expanded restrictions in being granted a Passport; all based upon a series of secret "Watch Lists" with no oversight;

8) The subject of this TPM article -- essentially establishing another principle that the Executive branch may order the financial assets of specified groups or individuals (including U.S. citizens) frozen, solely upon Executive order.

All of these are facts. In and of themselves, each point has raised concern and debate -- but that debate has been ultimately meaningless because without challenge, the Executive branch continues to do as it wishes.

It is also a fact that Bush and Cheney, and their 'administration', have assumed more unilateral power than any other Executive branch in American history, even overshadowing Lincoln's during the Civil War.

I don't argue that, with the next terrorist attack in America, we might expect martial law, freezing of assets and mass arrests of whole classes of persons -- declared enemies of the state, on the basis of public comments or private communication, or association with other 'enemies' -- and that tens or hundreds of thousands could be held in secured compounds across the country.

I'm not suggesting that the current 'administration' -- frightened that any potential criminal activity it has committed might be exposed, and convinced that they are the only persons to save America from internal and external threats -- are desperate or fanatical enough to use the cover of a terrorist 'incident' to establish an effective dictatorship.

There's no 'wink, wink' here. I'm not arguing that any of this will occur. I mention the secured compounds (they're real; Haliburton has the contract) not for the tinfoil value, but because their construction hasn't been adequately explained by anyone, or the expenditure of public funds. However, it's fair to mention that they could just as easily be used in a variety of scenarios -- some benign, some not -- calling for the housing of large numbers of refugees, illegal immigrants, quarrantined pandemic flu victims, etc.

I only offer one opinion: The United States has not fought a real war on its own soil since 1865. We've never been physically invaded or occupied by a foreign army since 1813.

We have never experienced a true breakdown in government in our lifetimes -- or a dictatorship a la Fascist Italy, nazi Germany; Soviet Russia or Communist China; or the worst of the Eastern Bloc.

We haven't experienced living in fear of a true Secret Police, whose purpose is to enforce laws that protect ideological or religious orthodoxy through torture, imprisonment and ultimately, murder.

Somehow, as Americans, we believe that our system of government (based, supposedly, on the Rule of Law) renders us immune from the repeating patterns of governments and history that mark the Old World. It's part of our national self-image.

Unless we actively preserve those things we feel protect us from authoritarian rule, from ending up as "just another failed experiment" in the governing of human affairs, then it's foolish to believe we *are* protected, or special -- and that It Can't Happen Here.

I don't believe that we are immune from history, or that persons like Bush and Cheney are any less faliable than the rest of us.

The real questions are whether, by continuing to assert the authority of the Executive branch as trumping all others, that Bush, Cheney and their ideological allies are convinced that they alone perceive the 'real world' and understand what America is -- and, that the current war and expansion of Executive authority are critical necessities to protect "America";

And, whether they feel that in order to protect "America", they must maintain their control of government, the military, and foreign policy -- *at any cost* -- because their concept of The State is indivisible from their persons, and their ideologies.

A nation, finding itself in the hands of leaders at this particular crossroads, isn't a new occurance in history. It is, however, a new enough occurance for us that we aren't able to recognize the dangers inherent in the situation.

Nell wrote on July 20, 2007 4:31 PM:

Ms. Millerwise's sister, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, was an assistant press secretary for Cheney (one of "Dick's girls").

I'm sure she's all about transparency and accountability.

RJClawson wrote on July 20, 2007 5:50 PM:

I find the order seditious because it deliberately undermines the Constitution.

Jail to the chief.

Burzootie wrote on July 20, 2007 6:56 PM:

"My favorite is the little sh*t who was rejected by the AF Academy 'for medical reasons' and therefore believes he is unable to serve at all, when you know he just thinks he's too good for the Army."

I saw that piece, the guy's a little annoying, but the complete bullshit the college Republicans feed him when asking why they don't serve in what they consider to be the great cause of their time, is telling. But, as to the quote above, I think the guy is full of shit. In order to be admitted into any of the service acadamies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, or the Naval Academy, you not only have to have an outstanding academic record, you have to secure the nomination of one of your state senators. His explanation that he was rejected from for medical reason seems so unlikely, assuming that he'd gotten through the procedural hurdles, that I find it almost impossible to believe. So, he's not only a hypocrite, he is also a liar.

Burzootie wrote on July 20, 2007 6:56 PM:

"My favorite is the little sh*t who was rejected by the AF Academy 'for medical reasons' and therefore believes he is unable to serve at all, when you know he just thinks he's too good for the Army."

I saw that piece, the guy's a little annoying, but the complete bullshit the college Republicans feed him when asking why they don't serve in what they consider to be the great cause of their time, is telling. But, as to the quote above, I think the guy is full of shit. In order to be admitted into any of the service acadamies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, or the Naval Academy, you not only have to have an outstanding academic record, you have to secure the nomination of one of your state senators. His explanation that he was rejected for medical reason seems so unlikely, assuming that he'd gotten through the procedural hurdles, that I find it almost impossible to believe. So, he's not only a hypocrite, he is also a liar.

deRougemont wrote on July 20, 2007 11:02 PM:

I just bought a Prius. Does that mean I'm undermining the economic growth in Iraq?

deRougemont wrote on July 20, 2007 11:02 PM:

I just bought a Prius. Does that mean I'm undermining the economic growth in Iraq?

wiley wrote on July 21, 2007 12:42 PM:

Clearly the government is whack and we are not even the shadow the Republic we once were. The seizure of power is so blatant it's almost embarrassing to me to say it anymore.

I'd like to point out the bait in this proclamation, that most people are unwittingly taking. The U.S. government launched an illegal, unprovoked, and aggressive attack on a sovereign nation. The "insurgents" are not "terrorists". They have every right to defend their nation. Our military and mercenaries are the terrorists. This is state sponsored terrorism on the part of the U.S. government and what remains of the C.O.W. in Iraq, and the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan.

I'm not sending them money and love letters, but I'm not letting it slide when they are called "terrorists" either. Who wouldn't protect their home and families in this circumstance?

The biggest block to the "reconstruction effort" is carpet bombing and Halliburton. It's hard to reconstruct when you're being bombed,terrorized in your home, having laws imposed on you by globalist corporations; and when you have no clean water, electricity, health care, security---and all the other plagues that the U.S. military and BigCo has visited on the Iraqi and Afghani people.

One law has been passed making it illegal for Iraqi farmers to harvest their own rice for seed. They are required by law to buy GM rice seed. Many are now growing opium instead.

There are plenty of unemployed engineers in Iraq who have rebuilt the nation before, and plenty of money going down the rabbit hole of crony-ville that should be used to finance their work---and believe me, their bids would be much lower than Halliburton's and the quality of their work superior. They don't want to get rich and launder money in the Camens, they just want to live with dignity.

"Terrorists" are people who refuse to be terrorized into submission. Psychopaths hate that.

Mayfly wrote on July 21, 2007 2:30 PM:

You said it, Wiley!

Lyle V Sansom wrote on July 21, 2007 9:11 PM:

What I worry about is that these idiologues have plans for Iran and they are putting things in place where martial law can be declared if there is a major attack. This order has anough teeth to apply to anyone who disagrees with their war mongering policies. Kind of like we are discussing here...):

wrknt wrote on July 23, 2007 6:02 AM:

SP has it right. The Edleman letter is really bizzare and he is still on the DOD payroll. They are all in synch !!!!

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 2:19 PM:

This order only allows the blocking of assets, not seizure, correct? In the original article, that distinction was made, but here, the word seized is used. This makes a big difference. Are they seizable, or merely blockable?