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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @kgosztola: Why is Sanders target of questions on whether Trump will succeed in winning over his supporters? Shouldn't that be asked of…
20mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz This is irrelevant at this point. The real point for this question has always been after a Clinton win in November. https://t.co/sPjdGu8O6G
21mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DanCBarr Yeah, I should have held off sending my ballot off. Oh well, it is a little ugly yes or no.
24mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sbagen And they did it without that blithering idiot Lester Munson!
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sbagen Can't remember how many minutes, but yeah a full discussion, with clear implication the extension is significant.
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz No, the discussion on Mike and Mike was totally uninformed+stupid. The appeal extension doesn't mean diddly squat https://t.co/8nDTv7Qaw1
49mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @jacklgoldsmith: Trump is "face of Scalia’s jurisprudence...in election where Repubs invited judgment fr Amer. people on [his] work" htt…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz This is one of the most reactionary and un-democratic suggestions imaginable. https://t.co/Q7k7hmUHUT
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @joanneleon Yeah, I think "fascistic" is analytically problematic this year, bc it's a word people will only apply to Trump.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel The IC Can’t Even Decide What Is Classified in Hillary’s Emails But They’re Attempting To Do Same on the Internet https://t.co/Jaq8U9QgYT
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Think piece needed: GOP primary voters are very much like militants trained by the CIA in how they turn against their creators.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV We survived Nixon, an evil president. We survived W, an idiot president. Could we survive Trump, an evil idiot president? Dunno.
3hreplyretweetfavorite