 | A federal energy policy: can it happen here? | The Oil Drum | Updated World Oil Forecasts, including Saudi Arabia |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Lots of this kind of stuff appears in blogs and never appears in the MSM. There was another such declaration on July 17 that threatens to freeze assets of those interfering with the Iraq war effort. Maybe someone can find and post.
There is no reason to presume hostile Syrian intent any more than there is to presume hostile Iranian intent or hostile X-ian intent where X is anything other than the US gov't. It has been and is on a rampage. Not that China and Russia are lambs -- but they haven't, so far, been doing the "pre-emptive" military thing.
davebygolly, read the Executive Order dated July 17th on the Whitehouse website. You can find it by googling Bush, executive order. Don't believe it unless you've read it yourself. I read it myself, and I believe it, but if you have another interpretation, tell us.
Bob Ebersole
Here's the link to the press release: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
An interesting analysis by Prof Michel Chossudovsky here, sees it in terms of the criminalization of dissent - and no response from the House? WTF?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6377
There's an argument for legitimizing the EO in terms of its application to acts of "violence" (or threat thereof), rather than opposition per se. But what is really interesting is how the EO seems to apply to those who work for or with agents who may *later* be deemed to have used violence to upset the Iraq plan. Read it closely, folks, this is the future (present).
Incidentally, Chossudovsky sees the EO (and others like it. surely) tied in with NSPD 51, which we should all be aware of by now:
"In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack)."
Like they say, by the time you hear the gunshot, you're already hit.
sm
About Lebanon, previous order, June 29, 2007,
Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Responsible for Policies and Actions That Threaten Lebanon's Sovereignty and Democracy
white house
The US supports the Siniora Govmt, with all the clout is has. The Lebanese reacted very badly to this order: travel restrictions, etc. and who can certify who supports or not the present Govmt? How do ‘they’ decide? What about a person who is somewhat for and a bit against?
Fascist Gvmts. as we all know tend to keep such criteria secret so that ppl are left vulnerable, subservient, afraid, and guessing, as in WW2, then within nation States (not only but mainly).
Other views: unapplicable orders are empty sops, posturing, to satisfy this or that party, thus making a mockery out of any law, rule, order, etc.
so now dissent about 2 countries is effectivley stopped
Why doesn't Bush just pass an Executive Order that says "Anyone that does not think what I think, is going to be hunted down and jailed/tortured"? It would save him time instead of passing all these "little" Executive Orders.
I like the way it also covers spouses and dependent children. Nice touch - leave no bit of the Constitution behind. [I don't recall this in previous Edict - was it there?]
cfm in Gray, ME
you would think that wouldn't you? but no thats not what they will use it for. Crushing all dissent by using this would be too obvious of a power grab and would be extremely counter-productive. The military industrial complex as well as the current handlers of bush learned this lesson during Vietnam. No what they are doing is slightly more complex but very simple to understand. they will let small scale dissent flourish under their watchful eye of course. though when a group of these dissenters start to make traction thats when they act, with this order and the one about iraq they can effectively shut these operations down. When doing so they will of course not state the real reason, they will say they were terrorist or some such thing but the effect is the same.
They don't even have to hide this any further then a simple lie as to the reason of any of the required raids. Anyone else in the dissenting crowd would be even further marginalized by both factions in their own group and the public at large if they tried to tell the truth. Mainly because it is hard to believe a so called free and democratic country could practice tactics, the same kind of tactics used by nations many of us were taught as we grew up were evil. Remember only small lies need protection, the big ones protect themselves.
so breed dissent with the system but prevent the people from expressing it to their elected officials!
hooray fascism.
Dissent has to find a legitimate support, has to have some validation in the media, otherwise ppl might riot.
If mild dissenters or questioners or grumps are ‘represented’ by the Dems, by some TV shows, commentators, pundits, they can nod and say, right on, and feel they are still part of the total fabric of the US, their pov is out there in the public space, legitimate. This defangs them completely and keeps them quiet, buying charcoal for the BBQ, debating about supporting Hillary C or Obama - a *lot* to discuss over the beers and steaks.
Not to mention that any active dissenters are easily tagged if they join groups, so that disinformation campaigns and false-flag infiltrators can get them into trouble and separated from the larger group quite quickly. If someone starts a "Democrats for Death" group, then an undercover agent will join and offer the tools to get them into 'proper' trouble, when otherwise, they might have slowly educated people to stand up for themselves.
Speculation Alert: The Republicans are sure to lose the White House in 2008, unless they employ extraordinary means to win the election. One of those tactics may be the use of this EO, in combinations with others, to pick off one or more of the prominent democratic grassroots organizations such as moveon.org or kos. Their assets would be taken or frozen and the MSM would brand them supporters of terrorism. By branding them terrorist supporters, any presidential candidate would also be tainted and excoriated by most of the MSM as well. Such a tactic could have the effect of swaying some independent voters to the Republicans who would otherwise have voted Democratic.
This seems more logical to me than the theory that a catastrophe will be engineered to justify imposition of martial law under these EOs. Martial law would be too disruptive to business interests. They've got enough on their hands with the credit and mortgage debacle.
I agree with the slow erosion as I suspect The Patriot Act powers will be used to track down criminals that the public will not care that their rights were violated. I am wondering if the original Pedophile and high level drug prosecutions will be used to get law enforcement and the public to accept this type of invasion of privacy.