I have a question--To what extent did the M$M news cover the Exec Priv

[Jackpine Radical]

story?

One of the (very few) disadvantages to TV avoidance is that I never know what kind of pap is being fed to the masses, and whether there is any particular public awareness of issues like this.

So, what are the talking heads doing with this story? Is it a story at all, as far as the general public knows? Does anybody seem bothered by the fact that Bush has declared himself Dictator?

[malaise]

1. I've seen nothing on the networks or cable n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

3. When reading Pravda, it is wise to pay particular attention

to the stories that aren't there.

[woodsprite]

2. The only thing I've seen so far this a.m. has been on DU.

I saw nothing on NBC10 News or GMA.

[mod mom]

5. Not even Huff Po but TPM covered it:

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.

-snip
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003726.php

[Jackpine Radical]

8. This isn't the particular story I'm talking about. I was referring to yesterday's assertion

that they basically aren't gonna enforce ANY Congressional subpoenas on the Exec branch.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yeah. I only picked up the story this morning on DU myself.

But then, except for online & snatches of public radio, I never know what's happening. We actually have a TV, and I think my wife knows how to turn it on, but I don't. Literally. I think we have a DVD player in the cabinet with it, and there are 2 or 3 of those remote thingies, but I haven't ever sorted out how to work any of that stuff.

[jojo54]

4. Keith Olbermann mentions it frequently,

simply because (IMO) he detests this administration, just like the rest of us.

[blondeatlast]

11. He's referring to the specific story from yesterday--and Keith didn't cover it then

(not enough prep time, I would guess) though I think and hope he will tonight.

[earthside]

6. Big Story

The Washington Post story "Broader Prvilege Claimed by Bush" made the front page of the Denver Post this morning.

On the other hand, it was completely missing from this morning's Rocky Mountain News.

I haven't turned on the radio or television yet ... but this story should be the BIG news of the day.

This 'executive privilege' claim by Bush is indeed tantamount to a declaration of dictatorship. Now, Bush can call anyone, any document, any communication part of an executive deliberation and the right of the Congress and the people to know what their own government is doing is shut down.

If there is no possibility of oversight, then the executive branch is indeed a law unto itself ... that is tyranny!

It looks like the U.S. House of Representatives is left with two choices: inherent contempt, ie., sending out the sergant-at-arms to detain those in contempt of Congress and then Congress conducting its own trial; or ... IMPEACHMENT.

Isn't it becoming more obvious everday that Bush/Cheney are punching the Constitution and the Democratic majority in Congress in the face? Are the Democrats going to keep letting themselves be bled to death, or are they going to finally hit back and impeach these tyrants?

[ThomWV]

9. Dam near nothing

And what reporting there is plays down the importance or doesn't even mention a Constitutional connection.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Seems to me that this may be the biggest story of the new century.

Much bigger than 9-11. And it gets NO coverage. The President has just quietly asserted that the Executive Branch answers to nobody. And the media ignore it.

This event leaves me trembling in a fit of impotent fury, screaming a silent scream and shaking my fist at an uncaring sky.

[blondeatlast]

12. I agree--but it just isn't sexy. The man is committing political terrorism against the citizens and

the Constitution, but since there's no blonde girls or bodies, it's not worthy of coverage.

Gotta sell those leg relaxers and boner-boosters. Depressing, unsexy news turns people off.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Stuff the Corporate State doesn't want told doesn't get told.

Stories in the WP do not register on the national consciousness. Neither does Olbermann. GE doesn't want you getting all excited about some boring Congress stuff, so they will not find it necessary to inform you about it.

[Wednesdays]

14. It's not that there's no sex, it's because it involves a Repuke

Take a look at how much coverage the Al Gore-Chilean Sea Bass thing got. I rest my case.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. How much coverage did the falsification of the sea bass story get?

Did it get mentioned anywhere?