There’s this little thing in the U.S. Constitution that you may not have heard of. It protects us from unreasonable search or seizure. That’s why the cops have to get a warrant before they search your home unless you choose to let them in. It protects you and it protects the case anyone might have against you, lest you claim that someone planted evidence in your home.
Well, we can argue all day over whether or not the NSA wiretapping program is in violation of that very thing. At the very least, we can all agree that the program’s revelation raised more than a few eyebrows and was the subject of tons of press coverage. So why is it that nobody seemed to care when President Bush gave this executive order last week? If I hadn’t been skimming the executive website, I’d have never known of its existence. The order gives power to the Secretary of the Treasury to freeze assets of, well… pretty much anyone. The order is worded in such a way that it can be argued to be directed at those who sponsor terrorist organizations, but further down, it gets very vague. You could be a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend.
“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 (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.”
I’m pretty sure Kevin Bacon fits into this somewhere. Let’s say you give to your church, and your church gives to a charity, which gives to another organization that may have fallen under some suspicion of sorts. As far fetched as it sounds, terrorist organizations have been known to raise money through so-called charities, and the people you give your money to may not be as smart with it as you are. It also works in reverse, if such an organization is donating to an organization that in turn helps you out.
Now, I could go on, but my point in writing this has nothing to do with the order itself. I’m not particularly shocked that the Bush administration or the Department of Defense would want to “follow the money.” In fact, it seems to be common sense if done correctly. Rather, I was shocked at the lack of coverage. Agree or disagree with the order itself, this was not super secret top secret classified information. It was published on the White House website, not in the New York Times. So why the lack of coverage from the MSM?
***
Bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum appear to be outraged: The Newshoggers; Boing Boing; Talking Points Memo; Wonkette (Adult language); Firedog Lake; Reason Magazine
Loading ...
11:27 am on July 23rd, 2007 1
Unfortunately this is more than similar to many other “executive orders,” earmarks, and bills that have been slipped in or ram-rodded through. They sound almost as though they could be well-intended when in fact they erode our freedoms and rights by placing more and more power where it doesn’t belong. It is too easy to define someone or something as being terrorist.
12:41 pm on July 23rd, 2007 2
It IS outrageous. In my opinion, the SCOTUS would shred this order to ribbons if the “Gub’mint” ever delved too far into the gray, but it does ram home the fact that this President and his neocon buddies despise liberty and freedom…
2:25 pm on July 23rd, 2007 3
The reason the MSM never covered it is because it is a Non-Issue. As GTL demonstrated a few weeks ago, selectively quoting from ANY source can be made to “prove” whatever point you want it to. Even the Ten Commandments, which says, among other things, “Thou shalt…kill” and “Thou shalt … steal.” As you said yourself, an earlier part (before your quote) indicates that it refers to those supporting terrorism.
Don’t worry, the government isn’t going to freeze your assets, or mine.
GTL’s? Now that may be a different story
2:36 pm on July 23rd, 2007 4
Heh… that was fun — might just have to do it again someday soon
2:46 pm on July 23rd, 2007 5
[...] Gun-Toting Liberal has a post up today expressing outrage over a recent executive order that freezes the assets of, [...]