And Speaking of Dark Lords...

[catscradle]

No, there are no spolers to Harry Potter here, but I do wonder if there is where JKR gets her ideas for the Ministry of Magic...

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

I find it interesting that while there is a sense of urgency and freakout in this order because NATIONAL SECURITY, THEY'RE COMING TO GET US! There's no news coverage of this executive order. Or most executive orders where in civil liberities of citizens are chiseled away in the name of "security."

It seems as though who is difined as a "certian person threatening stabilization in Iraq" is specific, but really no. It's vague enough where just about anyone poo pooing Bush's policies can have their property confiscated.

I'm getting very nervous about what's going to happen in the next few months...

Comments

criminalizing the anti-war movement

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003733.php

Re: criminalizing the anti-war movement

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link!

[witchwillow.livejournal.com]

Voldemort (despite his inability all through the books to successfully deal with Harry) is still cooler and scarier than Bush. The problem is, we don't have a Dumbledore reminding us to fight back.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

They're out there - the trouble is finding them when they can't find a mic.

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

What kind of legal status does this have? Is it a law? And is there a time limit to it, or does it have to be withdrawn?

I'm shocked that this kind of thing can be passed without public commentary. Why don't your Democrats drum this up? That's what an opposition is there for, to provide checks and balances! Or is there so little public interest in these things that the opposition knows that the news would ignore any effort they make?

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

What kind of legal status does this have? Is it a law? And is there a time limit to it, or does it have to be withdrawn?

Executive orders have the power of law, though they can be struct down by the Supreme Court and they can be challeged by Congress. If congress feels there's a violation they can issue a conflicting legislative order or cut off funding that would kill the executive order. The President then has a chance to veto the Congress - the Congress then has to pass a vote with 2/3rds of Congress backing the Congressional veto over the President. That's tough to do.

The problem here is that the Supreme Court is now leaning in favor of the Republicans, so they won't do anything. Congress is currently in Democrat hands, but they don't have the numbers to swing a 2/3rds majority to over turn the Executive Order.

The Democrats right now aren't doing anything because they know that they can win the 2008 election in a landslide no matter who they put up. The republicans on the other hand, have no front runner and are losing financial support from their own base. Basically the Democrats are biding their time.

And if everything stays the same, then they're right. They can easily win this election. But then the question remains - why would Bush be passing all these executive orders, stripping away civil liberties, if there's no way a republican can win and he's only got a little more than a year left?

The fact that the Bush Administration is so adament that we are in certain danger of a homeland attack VERY SOON is very concering to a lot of us. There are those that believe - even former Reaganites - that this administration is planning another 9/11. For 7 years they've been building a climate of fear here and now that it's crumbling, they may be forced to deliver the threat they keep telling us is coming. After that, with all their little exectutive orders in place and the Patriot Act, they can do whatever they want.

The news media ignores this because they're in the hands of corportations. Corporations have a vested interest in war. The media could have easily stopped the war in Iraq if they stopped to ask a few questions, which they didn't. We get more reliable news from the BBC.

I hope I'm totally wrong - it's so easy to be paranoid in this political climate...

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

This may seem a foolish question, but why is your Supreme Court allowed to have political leanings? Isn't that contrary to the idea that judgment should be objective? I'm not fool enough to think that it ever is, but your Supreme Court seems awfully open about its political orientation. I'm just comparing this to our constitution that calls for independent judges on all levels of the justice system, who will be suspended if political leanings are suspected.

So essentially, as long as Bush doesn't turn half of his own party against himself, he has free reign? That's a rather scary prospect. But it also explains how he can get away with executive orders like that. The question is, as you say, what those changes are supposed to do. News of that executive order showed up in the more intelligent papers today, and the general reaction is that nobody can believe how a people can just stand quiet and let things like that happen. I admit I can't, either, and I couldn't even see how the Patriot Act could be permitted to pass in a free and democratic country. But I have no idea of the internal climate.

The idea of a staged 9/11 repeat is something that is bandied about here whenever news of some other restrictive measure cross the Atlantic. It's a very common thought that gets echoed not only in the more intellectual papers. Why all this effort when there's nothing to show in the end? They need to have their predictions of threats come true unless they want to look like complete fools and do lasting damage to their reputation.

What I have to say puzzles me about your political climate is how uncritical it seems to be in comparison to ours, and how that appears not to bother many people. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that anyone can be happy with such an apathetic attitude. Even with news as streamlined and controlled as yours, there's just no excuse not to find out the real story. It's a Google Search away, so anyone who can find porn can find out about a few answers.

I hope the paranoia is misplaced. Not only for selfless reasons, but also because anything that happens in the US has a considerable effect on the rest of the world. The Iraq/Afghanistan mess is big enough already, no need to add to that any further.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

This may seem a foolish question, but why is your Supreme Court allowed to have political leanings?

It's not. They aren't allowed to talk politics or give us any of their personal beliefs or let those interfer with court rulings. Their job is to up hold the Constitution. But they are chosen and appointed by the President - Congress must approve the choice, but only the President can nominate. So whenever a judge dies or retires, the reigning President has the power to swing a court in favor of their political leanings if the remaining judges are split 4/4. This happened recently when O'Connor retired and Chief Justice Renquist died. Bush selected a few totally inept individuals that the Congress shot down - so when he introduced ultra conservatives that had a long enough judicial track record, they were approved without much fight. Then rather than appoint a sitting judge as chief justice, he name one of his new appointments to the position.

The four judges left that are more moderate or liberal in leanings have come out slamming court rulings and claiming a travesty of justice. This has never happened before in US history. Judges are always out of the media light and quiet on their personal thoughts. O'Connor, appointed by Reagan, has gone to the media and talked about the dangers to the judicial branch.

the general reaction is that nobody can believe how a people can just stand quiet and let things like that happen...

Because unless you dig, you don't know what's happening. There's no media coverage of it. If there were, all they have to do is spin it to say "Hey, if you're not a terrorist or aiding a terrorist, don't worry about it", totally ignoring the ambiguity and fuzzy nature of the order. The Patriot Act was passed in the middle of the night - no one in Congress had even read it. The Patriot Act II has been challenged and the first act was only extended for a short time - so it will eventually expire. I don't recall the date now.

The idea of a staged 9/11 repeat is something that is bandied about here whenever news of some other restrictive measure cross the Atlantic.

It's talked about here in many circles, but not in the mainstream. There are many people here that firmly believe that if anything happens, it is government/CIA stages. They get labeled as nut cases by most.

What I have to say puzzles me about your political climate is how uncritical... and how that appears not to bother many people. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that anyone can be happy with such an apathetic attitude.

I think it's done through education, tossing so many burdens at people that they can't find time to protest and through controling the media.

I'm horrified to find out what my students are learning in public grammar school and high school. It's pathetic. They teach so the students can pass these standardized tests in reading and math and ignore subjects like social studies, science, music, art... If you want to actually learn, you have to go to private schools these days and those can be very expensive.

The economy really sucks here right now. Most people aren't making what they used to make - the dollar isn't going as far. Many have more than one job, many don't have health insurance. So you're over worked, your sick and you have a family to raise. There is no time or energy to sit on the internet and research the latest covert operation of the government because the nightly news won't cover it. Mostly people believe what they hear at night - they don't know there's more out there they should be looking for. And add to that - how do they know they can trust the news coming from some independent source?

But people have started to notice and people have been protesting a long time. The media here refuses to cover it - but having been to protests here, I can tell you there have been tens of thousands protesting at the state capitol in Denver - the media will tell you maybe a few hundred showed up. It's amazing. But it's happening here - I wish the people of Europe understood that there are far more of us fighting than they think.

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

This happened recently when O'Connor retired and Chief Justice Renquist died. Bush selected a few totally inept individuals that the Congress shot down - so when he introduced ultra conservatives that had a long enough judicial track record, they were approved without much fight.

So all the fuss over the judges was about the Supreme Court. I wasn't sure whether it had been in relation to that, or whether they belonged to some specialized court. So in order to get a politically impartial judge, you'd realistically need congress opposed to the president and a compromise candidate both sides can live with?

At least your judges speak out and the matter gets media coverage. As long as that happens, not all is lost. But of course, once a precedent is set, it's easier next time to put more political partisans into the seats.

There are many people here that firmly believe that if anything happens, it is government/CIA stages. They get labeled as nut cases by most.

Cassandra comes to mind... But it gets talked about, so unless there is a way to silence those voices, it at least won't be forgotten in case something does happen.

I think it's done through education, tossing so many burdens at people that they can't find time to protest and through controling the media.

That's a trend we see here too, though I don't think it's quite as pronounced. But why educate your people when you just need them as voters? Much easier when they don't know what's going on - they won't question you, they'll just make their cross in the place you tell them to. From a government's position, it makes a lot more sense to have a large, stupid, ignorant mass and a small layer of elite-school-educated people who know they're there to rule the rest.

The economy plays into it - give them something other than politics to worry about, never mind that's where the problems come from.

I wish the people of Europe understood that there are far more of us fighting than they think.

A lot of people here more or less gave up on the US when Bush got re-elected. The 2000 election is widely believed to have been fishy, but the 2004 one looked clean, so it was figured that you had to want someone we all thought was an incompetent marionette in the hands of people who turn the country into a police state. It's where a lot of the Anti-American sentiments come from - it's hard to believe anyone can be so blind not to see what is going on, so it must be deliberately accepted. And that's both incomprehensible and frightening, what with all the rethoric about the US being the best country on Earth and how all others should follow that example.

There isn't much coverage of protests here unless they have a key figure involved - we hear of actors and celebs protesting, and of course people like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan. But a regular demonstration would probably have to be covered by your media so ours can buy the pictures. Correspondents don't usually get to a point where they can mention protests extensively. There's an awareness that not all Americans stand behind Bush, but without visible/audible signs of protests it looks like a minority movement to us. News on the US, right now, cover either Iraq-related issues, Guantanamo or the strained relation to Russia. Internal affairs get little attention - all the protests we hear about are the anti-war ones, and only if they get big enough.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

A lot of people here more or less gave up on the US when Bush got re-elected. The 2000 election is widely believed to have been fishy, but the 2004 one looked clean, so it was figured that you had to want someone we all thought was an incompetent marionette in the hands of people who turn the country into a police state. It's where a lot of the Anti-American sentiments come from

At think it's important to point out here that of the nearly 300 million Americans, about half of the voting population did not cast a vote for him. That's a lot of people to give up on. Also, it's very regional - most of the major metropolis areas did not vote for him and in fact did not vote for him by huge margins (Denver, for instance, had more than 70% of their votes cast for Kerry). The majority of Bush supporters are located in more suburban and rural parts of the country where you find a more religious/morally uptight % of the population.

Thankfully his support has slipped to 31% approval and this has trashed a Republican chance of winning an election in 2008. My guess is that this occured right after Katrina, since Bush nicely showed that we had far more to fear from him than from terrorists. After that, new developments in the lie he told on Iraq came out and support slipped more to the point where people totally want out of the war.

This is a huge reason, though, that it's feared there will be a staged attack to win back support...

[alighiera.livejournal.com]

It's a lot of people to give up on, as you say, but in combination with very little news on protests, it's tricky to figure out from the outside just how much support he has. With those approval rates of 70% or so that were bandied about not so long ago, it seemed quite obvious that the majority of the country stood behind him. Although that again ties in with "how much can you trust the media's figures".

I can't even express how glad I am every time I get reminded that not everybody supports the current government and the directions it's taking. The thing is that whatever the US does affects so many others, and we don't get a say in who is at the helm. Poking Putin into threatening with new rocket launch bases very close to the EU borders may not bother Bush and his supporters much, but that one certainly scared the hell out of Europeans, who then proceeded to blame him for such idiocy (and held his voters responsible). So all I can hope for is that the Republicans get thoroughly trounced at your next elections so you can get someone sensible in command. And that there are Republican attempts to blow up the country in order to avoid that.