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

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.

Exactly.
He is also under the control of Russia. Probably was long before we knew who he was.

What a sheeple comment.

I think the 'sheeple' comments are from those who have took the OP at face value and either haven't read or understood the Executive Order. Snowden isn't named, contribution to a defence isn't named - anywhere, yet because the OP implies both a lot of people assume it must be the case.............. now, how do you define the word 'sheeple'?

originally posted by: lambs to lionsGood. 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.

You're probably in favour of Guantanamo Bay too. Why bother with judges, juries and silly stuff like that when our democracy is in danger, eh?

Unconstitutional! But what is this:

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 4. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.



Sec. 10. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 1, 2015.

Restricting the unrestricted?




Watch out ATS!!!!!

I am thinking Mr Snowden is lucky, didn't you Americans, just kill that Mr Obama Binladin fella and with no trial?
Based on that Mr Snowden should be grateful, if you American people ship him off to raped and brutalised in the name of your law and order, or should I say peace and war.

Poor Mr Snowden

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Hr2burn

He should write a book and sell it. OR be poor.

Lord knows he will never be hired for a normal job ever again in his life.

Oh, the irony.

Oh i don't know...if i were an employer looking for someone with a deep seated sense of integrity to the extent we're talking about with Snowden, i'd hire him...unless my business was as dodgy as the US Government is, then i probably.

originally posted by: IpoopThere4IAM
When the government fears its' people, it's democracy.
When the people fear their government, it's tyranny.

This is tyranny.

I will be sending bitcoin.

Edward Snowden’s defense fund raised over $12,000
in Bitcoins in two weeks back in 2013. One of Bitcoin’s
biggest selling points is that it allows users to remain
anonymous, so we’ll likely never know who the donors
are unless they come forward.

blockchain.info...

So far 193 BTC ($45,410 USD) have been raised

a reply to: Hr2burn

Not seeing how this applies to Snowden defense?

This is aimed at correcting the failure of the current law to be able to prosecute hackers that do their illegal hacking outside the US but live, visit or have economic interests in the US. It's bee a topic of discussion lately.

I read the whole EO, please be specific where you think it forbids people from contributing to Snowdens Defense?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: lambs to lionsGood. 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.

You're probably in favour of Guantanamo Bay too. Why bother with judges, juries and silly stuff like that when our democracy is in danger, eh?

It doesn't matter if you think Snowden is "Treasonous" or a hero?

Do you think when a terrorist is tried in the USA that the Lawyer that defends him pro-bono can have his assets seized? Or anyone supporting his defense financially?

This EO has nothing to do with Snowden...It is aimed at Identity Theft, CC Theft, Hackers etc. who have US Residency or interests.

originally posted by: Indigo5
It doesn't matter if you think Snowden is "Treasonous" or a hero?

Nope. It does not matter what I think at all. Nor does it matter what you think. Let's not be pretentious. But it DOES matter what a judge (and if your system comes with it: the jury) thinks. In a proper democracy (in my book) a judge is the only person allowed to judge somebody (hence the name). A judge is bound to abide the law and the law should be just in the eyes of a (very!) significant majority of the people. So, Snowden - if he is accused of treason - should not be judged by us, he should be judged by a judge.

Do you think when a terrorist is tried in the USA that the Lawyer that defends him pro-bono can have his assets seized? Or anyone supporting his defense financially?

I don't know, but if that were the case I would see that as a serious flaw in the American legal system. Every man has the right to a proper defense by a proper lawyer, who's task is to do his/her stinking best to ensure his client walks. Even if that client were Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden or Stalin, for that matter. That's how it should be done.

This EO has nothing to do with Snowden...It is aimed at Identity Theft, CC Theft, Hackers etc. who have US Residency or interests.

Still, anybody, hacker or not, has the right to stand trial and should be seen as innocent until proven guilty.

a reply to: Hr2burn

This type of censorship is happening everywhere now. From lose your property to lose your job. And people defend it.

Go figure.

Is this a joke? It's dated April 1st.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Thank you for the reply.

I have posted this message over and over for two years. You're the first reply I've ever received, so if you don't mind I have always wanted to make two points.

The first point you already made for me, Snowden didn't do anything that hasn't already been done years before him.

The second point is a question. Now that it has been established that Snowden isn't actually a whistleblower, what the hell do you think the Russians and US are up to?

Because I sincerely doubt they missed this report by 60 minutes in 2000. Lol

My second point is where the actual conspiracy lies. By the lack of replies to that my position I am very short on theories as to why he is being touted as a national hero in both countries

There is a lot more to this than what meets the eye that is for sure, first, the NSA would spy first on its employee's, Snowden couldn't have done much without it being known.. IT knows if someone stuck a memory stick in their computer and exactly what got downloaded onto it AND it gets reported immediately at a regular job even if it seems reasonably harmless... NSA is going to be at least that strict if not more so on their own employees.. so it has to be said this was "allowed' to happen...

So the question is, why was all this allowed to happen, why why why... this was immediately after the new whistleblower laws btw.. immediately after they went into effect this happened with Snowden - and automatically Snowden became an exception ..

I am going to have to say this has to do with changing laws, or placing exceptions to those laws into place...

Mind blowing the opinions from different people. I just whole heartedly believe that Ed's intention was to bring to light that millions were being surveillanced without cause....he did that, it was swept under the rug even though the larger percent of people do not want this.
No matter your crime, you deserve council, they are taking away his right to FAIR COUNCIL. Look at Hilary Clinton, SHE decided what was admissible in her emails and deleted/formatted the server. I couldn't imagine being able to pick and choose what is being used against me in legal proceedings....she's running for PRESIDENT. That's a huge disparity isn't it?? The only secrets he has released are ones that put our government in a situation where it needs to answer for its wrong decisions.
As far as the executive order link from the White House I posted, this came along FOR the purpose of shooting down his fund for council.
Believe as you wish, but when the people who point out our government's wrong doings have to go on the run and be refused to have a fair trial....well, we have some BIG problems.

a reply to: uncommitted

Read this closer...


freespeechtwentyfirstcentury.com...

originally posted by: crazyewok

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

No not really. This would have never been released in the united states. Even ATS, GLP using reddit or any other large group of servers to channel info would've been removed and the source located most likely, not to mention no major news media outlet would've taken on the story as they are all controlled by the CIA and it would've been shut down. Infowars and global net daily probably wouldnt've touched it either until it surfaced in some other country because they are doing all they can not to leak classified stuff or step on toes in the past few years, even publicly discouraging classified leaks to their guests on their shows and what not or potential whistleblowers, Jones in particular has done this. Russia was the only place that it was guaranteed to make it out before CIA got ahold of it, and considering he went through channels that weren't controlled it got out.

Well, Snowden isn't mentioned in the order...but you could derive from it that if the United States views him as a cyber-criminal, then donating to his defense fund would be illegal...which is obviously messed up...but that whole context was created by the OP...is Snowden having trouble getting a good lawyer, or something? Is there any reason for this context to be created?

a reply to: Hr2burn

So does this mean that the documentary Citizen Four will not allowed to be sold or shown anymore?

b

Thanks for that lead...I had not heard of that before...it says "pre-sale" so I assume it's not being shown yet. I bet Snowden won't see a red cent. I really don't believe Snowden is angling nor will ever make a profit from this. He gave up a pretty fantastic life to be on the run. I sincerely think he only exposed this for the benefit of the people of the USA (perhaps other countries as well). Everyone was mad, it is now since been brushed under the rug...nothing has changed. Our attention span in the USA is about 3 minutes...

[/URL]


a reply to: Bspiracy

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...

I'll agree wholeheartedly. To an attorney, or maybe to a whistle-blower fund that happens to represent the law office/lawyer who represents him...

Executive orders, unless I am mistaken, are to only be used for trivial things while congress is not in session, and that those things in the executive order *only* apply to the executive branch of Gov't....

originally posted by: Hr2burn
Thanks for that lead...I had not heard of that before...it says "pre-sale" so I assume it's not being shown yet. I bet Snowden won't see a red cent. I really don't believe Snowden is angling nor will ever make a profit from this. He gave up a pretty fantastic life to be on the run. I sincerely think he only exposed this for the benefit of the people of the USA (perhaps other countries as well). Everyone was mad, it is now since been brushed under the rug...nothing has changed. Our attention span in the USA is about 3 minutes...

[/URL]


a reply to: Bspiracy

Agreed as well...if they are doing nothing wrong, nothing that would upset the law-abiding citizens who trustingly voted them into office....then....