Obama’s Yemen EO Still Lets Our Spooks Pay the Targets of the EO

As I noted earlier, Obama just signed an Executive Order ostensibly targeting the US assets of those who undermine Yemen’s stability, potentially including US citizens who do so. I’ve been comparing this EO to one of the analogous ones pointed out in Karen DeYoung’s article on the EO: one issued against Somalia in 2010 (h/t to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross for the link).

The EOs are very similar, including the language potentially targeting US citizens. But there are some interesting differences.

As DeYoung pointed out, the Yemeni EO, unlike the Somlia one, does not include an annex with named targets, even though the EO itself speaks of “certain members of the Government of Yemen.” As such, this EO seems to be a threat with consequences, not an immediate sanction.

The Yemen EO also uses slightly different language in the clause targeting those who materially support those destabilizing the country. Whereas the Somalia EO includes those who provide “logistical” or “technical” support, the Yemen EO includes those who provide “technological” support. So make sure you don’t serve as webmaster for someone Hillary Clinton thinks is destabilizing Yemen.

The most interesting difference, IMO, is this clause, which appears in the Yemen EO but does not in the Somalia one.

Sec. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

In other words, while Obama doesn’t want you, or Ali Abdullah Saleh’s leave-behinds, or the AP to destabilize Yemen, he reserves the right for US government employees, grantees, or contractors to do so. Which presumably means, as happened in Afghanistan, we are and plan to continue paying some of the people who are in violation of this EO.

I wonder. Among all the adjectives we might use to describe the Saudis, do we use “grantee” among them?

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

25 Responses to Obama’s Yemen EO Still Lets Our Spooks Pay the Targets of the EO

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @dcbigjohn Have you been butt hurt? Perhaps even "sliced"? I want to create a "safe space" for your feelings on this!
emptywheel How do newspapers know the best books of any given year 3 days before 2nd to last month ends?
bmaz @TyreJim @LegallyErin And, yet, I have still not heard from her on the Bears/Packers fiasco.
bmaz @GottaLaff "Terrorism", whether "domestic" or "foreign", is where both the founding Constitution and Bill of Rights goes to die.
bmaz @JasonLeopold @breaking Jesus fucking christ, even you are using the idiotic term "active shooter"???? Stop!
emptywheel @FreedomofPress Um, you mean @NYTimes reports on something many outlets have reported on years earlier. No investigation there.
bmaz @GottaLaff Honestly, no, its not. Crime, murder, aggravated assault, kidnapping etc? Sure. Society will rule day too much called "terrorism"
bmaz @bsdtectr Meh, on the whole Fuented is just lame and shallow more than problematic
bmaz Because @CNN sure wouldn't be using thugs like this if they wanted sober, honest and expert reportage and commentary https://t.co/Q0S19NfRo0
bmaz One can only assume that @CNN uses reactionary police biased jackboot thugs like Jonathan Gilliam+Harry Houck to drive up ratings.
bmaz @bmaz Fuentes is often a little shallow, but not a biased jackboot jerk. Which can't be said for CNN "experts" Jonathan Gilliam+Harry Houck.
emptywheel RT @CliveSSmith: Mothers of Saudi kids set to be crucified for protesting ask to be executed with their sons, https://t.co/b1gbfHQ2aH @Repr