Exec order, donate to Snowden defense, have your property confiscated

originally posted by: Hr2burn
There are not many agencies carrying this story right now....they're probably gun shy considering the risks of upsetting our "leader". You can find the story in a few places but here is the executive order from the White House's website. They didn't like the money that was rolling in to defend Edward Snowden...so they made it illegal.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Can you tell me where Snowden is specifically called out in the document? You can't? No, because he's not. It's actually very clear in making this point -

(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:
(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity described in subsections (a)(i) or (a)(ii)(A) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

Which bit of section A based on the actual wording, not your interpretation of what you think it could mean, do you have an issue with?

I can see why this is what it is.

Mr Snowden is blabing about official secrets to the world. To the law makers thats breaking the law, so helping somone breaking those laws to get away with it - avoiding penalties for the actions, if Snowden "gets away with it", to weakens the laws in place to protect such secrets, possibly giving a green light to other whistle blowers to blab about all sorts of stuff.

Now im happy to hear about the twisted things governments are doing to their own people in breach of constitutional rights and such - however if the subject matter was "how to make a nuke with household items", i bet there wouldnt be the same support for the whistle blower. Information can be good for the public, bad and completely destructive - just because some info exist doesnt mean it should always be public knowledge.

If anything comes out of this whole debacle it should be that official secrets need only be to information that actually needs to be kept secret. Things that are of the public interest of this magnitude should never have been kept a secret in the first place. Going round and saying "oh, this might upset people, lets just slap a top secret sticker on it and its all okay" thing is what needs to change.

Im against Snowdens whistle blowing, but for the information he has letting out to have been made public in the first place.

originally posted by: lambs to lions

originally posted by: Hr2burn
There are not many agencies carrying this story right now....they're probably gun shy considering the risks of upsetting our "leader". You can find the story in a few places but here is the executive order from the White House's website. They didn't like the money that was rolling in to defend Edward Snowden...so they made it illegal.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Good. He is a treasonous criminal and shouldn't be allowed to hoard money from his fan club to pay for some high-priced celebrity lawyer.

Yeah , how dare he tell you and me about the facts that your country is creating and using systems to spy on every citizen in america and the rest of the world holding on on all your collected data which is open to abuse in case the day comes that they dont like you.

Quite interesting though that Bush senior's father was caught and convicted of treason during WWII dealing with the nazi's but instead of getting the death penalty or jailtime his son ended up becoming head of the CIA and then president of the united stated followed by his son becoming potus aswell.

But snowden is a criminal because he told you they are spying on your and everybody elses emails , phonecalls and any other private comunication you might have and storing it. According to you he should be labeled as a criminal for exposing the NSA's criminal activity just becuause they labeled their own criminal activity as "national security"...

Please..

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: miniatus
Executive orders are more like executive suggestions.. with that said.. this is still a big deal because the suggestion is likely to be backed up..

I never touched the Snowden situation because of that ... I keep my commebts on it limited .. which is scary when you think about it ... Why should we as free Americans have to? ... that in and of itself is a HUGE problem... this would never stand in mass... it would stand in individual private cases I suspect...

Aiding and abetting along with conspiracy charges could come to his supporters some day after he is found guilty of treason.

Aiding and abetting has to do with helping with the crime. Not only is in not a crime to defend oneself in court, but it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Sending in money for his defense is not in any way "aiding and abetting."

Snowden may be a treasonous asshole, but he does deserve his day in court and people have the right to support his defense if they wish.

a reply to: Hr2burn

Your title is misleading. Why doesn't it say FOREIGNERS can get property confiscated. I know why because like a typical republican you are trying to scare people into believing your way. Just like 9/11 and the war on terror.

I see this..." cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States ".

After 8 years of George Bush we are too smart for your Fox News tactics anymore.

a reply to: Kali74

Which is malarky, to be honest. According to the Constitution you are afforded the right to a fair trial; well how can you afford a lawyer worth his salt if the government seizes all your finances and prevents anyone from helping you?

My opinion on snowden has changed since I have matured a bit

He did the right thing in the wrong way.

There were abuses under US law that needed outing I 100% agree there.

But he should have gone through the right channels.

Running of to Russia with tons of uncensored classified documents was and is dangerous.

He went beyond exposing anti constitutional unregulated domestic spying. He is releasing things that are now touching on what the security agency's are meant to do. He is throwing the security agency's of allies under the bus too.


BUT

He still deserves a FAIR trial. And he deserves a defense.

a reply to: crazyewok

What is the "right way" to go about this? Which channels should he have used to expose this? The government literally shut down every option he had until Russia agreed to take him in. If you recall, he spent quite a bit of time hiding out in airports and hotels in other countries seeking asylum there. Russia wasn't his first choice. Now, for some reason, everyone acts like he wanted to go there all along...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

What is the "right way" to go about this? Which channels should he have used to expose this? The government literally shut down every option he had until Russia agreed to take him in. If you recall, he spent quite a bit of time hiding out in airports and hotels in other countries seeking asylum there. Russia wasn't his first choice. Now, for some reason, everyone acts like he wanted to go there all along...

US does have whistle blowing channels and laws?

If not I will shut up

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's the most plausible theory I've heard yet.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

What is the "right way" to go about this? Which channels should he have used to expose this? The government literally shut down every option he had until Russia agreed to take him in. If you recall, he spent quite a bit of time hiding out in airports and hotels in other countries seeking asylum there. Russia wasn't his first choice. Now, for some reason, everyone acts like he wanted to go there all along...

That is exactly how a successful extraction would be made to appear.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's the most plausible theory I've heard yet.

Another very important aspect is it sowed distrust among allied intelligence services.

originally posted by: abe froman
But I can still donate money to Bowe Bergdahl with no problem right?

Hell, you can still contribute to Jonathan Pollard if you so desire...

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

What is the "right way" to go about this? Which channels should he have used to expose this? The government literally shut down every option he had until Russia agreed to take him in. If you recall, he spent quite a bit of time hiding out in airports and hotels in other countries seeking asylum there. Russia wasn't his first choice. Now, for some reason, everyone acts like he wanted to go there all along...

That is exactly how a successful extraction would be made to appear.

Is that how they are supposed to look? Like a complete random string of attempts to go to every country but Russia then Russia? Riddle me this, why after Snowden left the country didn't he just return to Russia right away? If he was truly a spy for Russia, why would he care what the American public or government thought of him? He'd just go right away to Russia and be done with it. There is no need for the subterfuge outside of a ridiculous Hollywood plot.

originally posted by: japhrimu
Wow...

I guess don't donate TO him? Maybe to a lawyer, or something?

The legalese dissuades me from reading whole exec order... We need to Barney-Stylize laws so the average American can understand them...

You can't use Barney style because it is not precise enough, and eaves the interpretation up to the imagination.

a reply to: crazyewok

Considering that Obama was heavily cracking down on whistleblowers at the time, I can kind of forgive him for not using proper channels. What's the point of going through proper channels if the government is publicly destroying whistleblowers?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's one of the other things that bothers me about Snowden. Echelon involved England, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

But do you hear he Englishmen complaining about England's involvement?

Do you hear any Canadians complaining about Canadian involvement?

Do you hear any Australians complaining about Australian involvement?

Do you hear any New Zealanders complaining about New Zealand's involvement?

The answer those questions is no. All you see is everyone pounding on their favorite target . It is one of my biggest complaints on these sites. America didn't do it alone other countries did too.

I just wish every one would clean up the crap in their own backyard before they attempt to tell us how to clean up ours.

Money is the currency that buys injustice thousands of times every day because it buys better lawyers. I am not saying to support Snowden or not. But Snowden deserves a decent defense against the unlimited money reserves of those who want him, and more importantly, anyone like him, anyone who would dare think about bringing the wrath of the power proxy, the U.S. government, gagged, destroyed. I say, let the money flow to his defense like Noah's flood. May we all have a chance to hear all we can from both sides before the end of the show.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's one of the other things that bothers me about Snowden. Echelon involved England, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

But do you hear he Englishmen complaining about England's involvement?

Do you hear any Canadians complaining about Canadian involvement?

Do you hear any Australians complaining about Australian involvement?

Do you hear any New Zealanders complaining about New Zealand's involvement?

The answer those questions is no. All you see is everyone pounding on their favorite target . It is one of my biggest complaints on these sites. America didn't do it alone other countries did too.

I just wish every one would clean up the crap in their own backyard before they attempt to tell us how to clean up ours.

Well there has been alot of fuss in the UK. You just dont see it being in the US.

But it slightly different here as what GCHQ has done is not illegal here. They have got warrants ect It might be a bit dodgy and need reigning in but unlike the NSA it is within bounds and not contrained by the US constitution.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Hr2burn

Well yeah... by our laws (cough) Snowden has committed crimes, though I consider it whistle blowing. If you give money to a criminal (Snowden doesn't deny what he did) then you are aiding and abetting a criminal which is also a crime.

Way too often, what is right isn't the same thing as what is legal