The White House issued an Executive Order on July 17 which makes it illegal for American citizens to engage in certain activities with respect to the Iraq war. If you violate the order, your assets can be freezed by the government. The Order allows this punishment of:

Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense . . . to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order." This includes (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."

In other words, your assets will be frozen if a Bush administration official decides that you provided financial support to anyone deemed the enemy in Iraq. Under the unofficial laws of war, anyone can be the enemy in Iraq. Under the slippery legal theories practiced by the Bush administration, anti-war activists can be swept in this net. Does this Executive Order criminalize anti-war dissent? People are asking questions, but not enough people. We are still transfixed by Lindsay Lohan.

This Executive Order coincides with an interesting column by Alexander Cockburn in this week's Nation magazine. Cockburn reminds us that in the 1980's, organizations opposed to the aggressive American foreign policy in Central America adopted "sister cities" and provided support to the beleagured peasants who suffered tremendously under President Reagan's horrific foreign policy in that corner of the world. He wonders why anti-war activists are not sympathizing with the Iraqi resistance.

"But, of course, if you are going to sympathize with the U.S. soldiers, who are fighting a war of aggression, than surely you should also sympathize with the soldiers who are fighting for their homeland. Perhaps not until the antiwar movement starts to some degree recognizing that they should include 'the Iraqi resistance fighters' in their pantheon of victims (in addition to U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians) will there be the necessary critical mass to have a real movement."

Now there are many obvious reasons why the direct solidarity with resistance fighters visible in the Vietnam antiwar struggle and the Central American anti-intervention movement has not been visible in the movement opposing the Iraq war. The "War on Terror" means — and was designed to mean — that any group in the United States with detectable ties or relations with Iraqi resistance movements would be in line for savage legal reprisals under the terms of the Patriot Act. Another important factor: The contours of the Iraqi resistance are murky and in some aspects unappetizing to secular progressives in the West, or so they virtuously claim.

But such cavils were familiar in the '60s and '80s, too, as huge chucks of the solidarity movement found endless reasons to distance themselves from the Vietnamese NLF or the Nicaraguan FSLN. That said, ignorance about the Iraqi resistance is somewhat forgivable. This time there has been no Wilfrid Burchett reporting from behind the lines, and that has had consequences of the kind McGuire sketches out above.

Interesting points. What if someone took Cockburn at his word and organized a support effort for the Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation? Will the Executive Order outlined above kick in? Anyone care to take a chance?

The chilling effect occasioned by the common knowledge that anti-war activists are being watched cannot be ignored. That the government is watching us is not in dispute. It was revealed in late 2005 that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on telephone calls without a warrant. Although the Bushies said they were only listening to terrorists from overseas, further investigation proved that false. The eavesdropping involved domestic phone calls also.

The current furor over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' false testimony before Congress on eavesdropping and other shenanigans overlooks a key point. Gonzales' cagey testimony suggests that other surveillance programs are underway that we don't yet know about. According to Glenn Greenwald, who is staying on top of these things:

Since the end of 2005, Gonzales in particular has qualified almost every statement he has made before the Senate Judiciary Committee by drawing a distinction between (a) the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (which means the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program in its incarnation when it was revealed in 2005 by the NYT) versus (b) "other intelligence activities," including whatever it was they were doing prior to March 2004 that prompted [former attorney general] Ashcroft and [former assistant attorney general] Comey's objections.

Greenwald's essay is a must-read. It's always been my belief that, as bad as we think it is, it's actually much worse. There is much that we don't know about government programs, particularly surveillance activities, which always seem to be exposed years after the fact. Read up on Cointelpro, for example, which was short for counter-intelligence program. Cointelpro was not a program focused on foreigners, but American lefists and agitators. It's never really gone away.

The July 17, 2007 Executive Order raises serious questions about the consequences of anti-war activism that crosses the line in the discretionary judgment of a Bush administration official. What is the true scope of this Order? Does it really criminalize anti-war activism? Anyone want to take a chance? To ask the question is to answer it. I wouldn't trust this administration to feed my dog, much less to protect First Amendment activity.