The News That Didn’t Make the News: Project Censored

Project Censored came out with their latest, and while they're all doosies, it was the story they ranked #5 that blew me away. The ones before it may well deserve their rankings, but they weren't surprises to me. (Although they would be to a majority of Americans, unfortunately -- thus the name, "Project Censored.") This one, thought, did surprise -- and sicken -- me.

# 5 Seizing War Protesters’ Assets (Excerpts:)

President Bush signed two executive orders that would allow the US Treasury Department to seize the property of any person perceived to, directly or indirectly, pose a threat to US operations in the Middle East.

The first of these executive orders, titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” signed by Bush on July 17, 2007, authorizes the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to confiscate the assets of US citizens and organizations who “directly or indirectly” pose a risk to US operations in Iraq...

The act further authorizes freezing the assets of “a spouse or dependent child” of any person whose property is frozen. The executive order on Lebanon also bans providing food, shelter, medicine, or any humanitarian aid to those whose assets have been seized—including the “dependent children” referred to above.

Vaguely written and dangerously open to broad interpretation, this unconstitutional order allows for the arbitrary targeting of any American for dispossession of all belongings and demands ostracism from society...

In an editorial for the Washington Times, Fein states, “The person subject to an asset freeze is reduced to a leper. The secretary’s financial death sentences are imposed without notice or an opportunity to respond, the core of due process. They hit like a bolt of lightning. Any person whose assets are frozen immediately confronts a comprehensive quarantine. He may not receive and benefactors may not provide funds, goods, or services of any sort. A lawyer cannot provide legal services to challenge the secretary’s blocking order. A doctor cannot provide medical services in response to a cardiac arrest.”

G.W., and his enablers, seem to think he's king. He thinks he can pick any person opposing his war, and not only take everything that person and his family own, he can make it illegal for anyone to help him.

And I can't decide which is worse: the unconstitutional behavior of a leader gone mad, or the press that didn't think it was important enough to let us know about it!