Guilty until proven innocent
Published by marco on
Apparently, we aren’t going to take the careful approach to not angering any more of the rest of the world. (Newsday: Buck Stops Here):
<q>The executive order is extremely broad in scope, allowing the government to freeze the assets not only of those who have committed terrorist acts but also of those who, in the government’s view, <q>pose a significant risk of committing</q> such acts. It further allows the government to move against those who aid terrorists, serve as fronts for them or are <q>otherwise associated</q> with terrorists.</q>
However, the terrorists (and suspected terrorists)…
<q>have most of their assets in foreign banks. As a result, they said, the most important part of the order would likely be the authority to impose sanctions on such banks if they refuse U.S. demands to freeze the assets of the targeted groups or individuals.</q>
So, we’re going to cut off money from actual terrorists, suspected terrorists and pressure other countries and banking systems to comply? That could be even harder than it sounds. That’s not too reassuring to those of us who would rather not have more attacks. On what evidence is all of this action based? And who gets to see it?
<q>Bush and other officials said they had developed the hit list mostly on the basis of secret evidence and had no intention of making it public for fear of hampering U.S. intelligence capabilities. “It’s important as this war progresses that the American people understand we make decisions based upon classified information, and we will not jeopardize the sources;</q>
Oh. The secret evidence defense. Great. Same one we gave to the Taliban when they asked to see evidence before turning over Usama Bin Laden. That always inspires confidence and quells all talk of “they don’t have any evidence”. So, apparently, the U.S. isn’t going to take the position of alienating fewer peoples and countries in the future. Rather the opposite it seems.