So in that spirit, I recommend checking out BAGnewsNotes, which describes itself as “a progressive blog dedicated to the political picture, and the discussion and analysis of news images.” If you're a news junky (and I think you are if you're still reading this!) then you'll enjoy taking a deeper look at some of the images the mainstream media publishes. Today's image is particularly gripping:
An Iraqi interpreter wears a mask to conceal his identity while he assists a soldier delivering an invitation to an Imam for a meeting with an American colonel.
As well as the analysis behind the image:
The way the Iraqis, including the interpreter, are lined up in a diagonal row, with the American the only one offset, is a fateful piece of geometry given the failure of the U.S. to line up with or get behind its in-country support. The way the interpreter is so completely "out front" is another angular expression of the fateful situation.
Read the rest here.
4 comments:
Hi, The following is long. It is from TPMMuckracker - Please read and discuss... Broad New Exec. Order Targets Iraq-Related Finances
By Spencer Ackerman - July 19, 2007, 4:04 PM
In a little-noticed executive order issued on Tuesday, President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
The order empowers Treasury, in consultation with the State and Defense Departments, to target those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:
For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
Representatives from the ACLU are still studying the executive order. But preliminarily, says spokeswoman Liz Rose, the order appears to expand the assets-seizure provisions of the Patriot Act, known as Section 806, to organizations linked to Iraqi insurgent groups. Much like the order, Section 806 allows the government to seize assets of banned organizations without prior notice and without a conviction of involvement in banned activity. "It is by far the most significant change (in the law) of which political organizations need to be aware," the ACLU wrote in 2002, contending that the vagueness of Section 806 potentially implicates legitimate political protest as well as material support for terrorism.
Mayer isn't as certain. "I don't think this is the kind of authority that poses any kind of broad risk, because they're freezing assets, they're not confiscating them. They're making it impossible to move them around," he says. "Look at the other examples after 9/11. There are comparable (executive) orders freezing the assets of groups like the Holy Land Foundation. This looks a little bit different: they're not formally designating groups as terrorist, but they want the authority to block their money from going around."
That leaves unanswered a basic question: why was the order issued? Tony Snow briefly addressed that question on Tuesday -- a day when the news was dominated by the morning release of the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism and the Senate's marathon debate on Iraq. Snow led his press briefing with a description of the executive order and described it as "a gap left in other executive orders to make sure that we have the means to go financially after anybody who is trying to go after the efforts to secure freedom and democracy in Iraq." When asked who the act was aimed at, Snow replied, "Well, what this is really aimed at is insurgents and those who come across the border," meaning the Syrian and Iranian borders.
The order itself makes no mention of either country, and focuses exclusively on financial assets within the United States deemed to assist the Iraqi insurgency. It's possible that the order means to target charitable or business organizations inside the U.S. that have ties to Syrian or Iranian entities considered by the Bush administration to be in league with the insurgents.
Contacted last night, a White House official declined to elaborate beyond Snow's description and referred questions to the Treasury Department. A message left with a Treasury counterterrorism spokesperson today was not immediately returned.
UPDATE: Treasury's side of the story is available here.
Treasury: Exec. Order "Filling in the Cracks" of Insurgent Financing
By Spencer Ackerman - July 19, 2007, 5:16 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 U.S. residents and citizens have their assets frozen by the department, it will be because they're actively abetting a panoply of insurgent and militia groups.
Previously, Treasury hasn't had the authority to target the finances of insurgent groups in Iraq aside from al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements. The order now provides what Millerwise calls "seamless coverage." The department is in the process of compiling a list of organizations, entities and individuals covered by the executive order, and it will include "Shia militia groups linked with Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria and some of the indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups." Millerwise would not specify precisely which groups will find their way onto Treasury's list, but stated unequivocally that the organizations will be made public.
While some civil libertarians have raised questions about the broadness of the executive order, Millerwise says it lists a "perfectly legitimate" set of criteria for asset seizure, and that U.S. persons shouldn't fear designation by the order if they aren't supporting insurgent organizations. "Be assured that the individuals and entities we add to this list are in full faith acting in an aggressive, violent and reckless way in financing the insurgency," she says "These things are strongly vetted, going layers and layers back. (A group) donating money to orphans getting swept up in this doesn't seem to be a valid concern."
Millerwise adds that the language of the executive order was an "interagency effort," and that it "falls in line with the language found in these types of executive orders" -- a point disputed by the University of Wisconsin's Ken Meyer, an executive-order expert, who says that "this has the kind of things that jump out" in terms of broad executive discretion.
There's no timetable on when Treasury will publicize which insurgent groups fall under the order; and it will be an ongoing process, with groups added as necessary, Millerwise says. An added benefit of the publicity, she adds, is that foreign financial institutions often voluntarily comply with blocking assets of organizations banned in the U.S., and so insurgent-linked finance wouldn't just be frozen within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003726.php
If they want to hold my assets for "undermining(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq," they sure won't get much.
We were talking about this on one of my other boards. I honestly believe that this was issued due to intelligence and desire to act upon it. Our government doesn't have the manpower nor the desire to piddle around with our blogs. They're going after the money, which is the best way to stop them. Kill the supply is how we operate. It's the BEST action to take against insurgencies. Money stops trickling, leaders stop providing for the peons who DO the attacks, protection dwindles for the leadership once dissenters start ranting and raving. Once those lower-level insurgents start singing, the leaders can't hide. It works. That's all the detail I will give :)
and of course it was more stinkin' Army people responsible for f-ing with reconstruction and bribery and embezzlement... always people with clearances too. it's embarassing :/
Post a Comment