Effects

[pecunium]

In the course of seeing the reactions to the Executive order, lots of people are saying it might not be too bad. That only a few people are likely to be affected by it.

Bullshit. If they start to use it to deal with people who are expressing dissent (see the post on the Undersecretary of Defense saying Hillary is helping the insurgents by talking about withdrawal) it will ripple.

If Soros is affected (one can't say prosecuted, this is something done by diktat) and Moulitas gets smacked becuase he's said people ought to support MoveOn.org, how many people will clam up?

A Stasi is effective because people are afraid, as much as it is because people are arrested. One of the glories of the internet is that it made samizdat something everyone can do.

Someone else commented to me that ISPs would be safe from being frozen, because they have common carrier-like protections. I don't see that this means anything. There are no procedural safeguards in place. The Treasury Secretary says, "Having consulted with the SecDef (or state) I find this organisation to be, de facto, providing indirect support to "x" whom we find to be undermining democracy in Iraq.

And there is no recourse. According to the order there is no cause of action if this happens. The Unitary Executive has, in his Commander in Chiefliness, spoken.

Glenn Greenwald says he can't get all up in arms about this, because it's all part of a pattern, and something sooner than this ought to have outraged people enough.

I don't care. If this is what gets the people who are appalled at those who belong to the "Order of the Shrill" to hop off the fence and man the barricades, good. I'll take them being outraged now, to them being outraged later. Welcome to the good fight; not "well you didn't do anything sooner."

That sort of recrimination isn't going to help.

Comments

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the key element is the direct association with violent acts, either committing them or "sponsoring" them.

I think you need some US_specific legal knowledge to be sure of "sponsoring", but I think It's quite possible that the DoD idiot doesn't care what it means, because he reckons nobody else does.

If it turns out that calling for US troops to be withdrawn is reckoned to be "sponsoring", the FUD method of control, the Tree of Liberty needs a flash flood.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

See this analysis of the linguistic effect of the structure of the clauses.

It looks to be a sound reading of how the law can be implemented.

TK

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the Shrub Maladministration may be trying to bring down not just its opposition but the entire Republic. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it does seem increasingly likely.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

If the exercise of normal constitutional rights is seen as 'sponsoring terrorism' then it may well be time for Locke's remedy.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There has been the trend (see Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et. alia) of saying just that.

Micheal Reagan, son; and radio personality, of the late former president, said that Howard Dean ought to be hanged, because he said the war in Iraq was a bad idea, had been handled badly and we likely to lose.

Jefferson thought we'd need revolts every fifty years or so.

TK

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

It's when it goes beyond the wingnuts and becomes policy that we should be worried. That, sadly, looks like the trend as the current Oval One continues to believe that he and god are on speaking terms.