Obama Declares Syria National Emergency, Outlaws Reporting on Rebels/Terrorists

Okay so the talk in the order of the technology of Iran and Syria... Does that effectively cover their news sites like presstv and such? There's also the talk in the article about Syria Tracker? I hadn't heard of it before today.

reply to post by neo96


Yes, those specially cloaked individuals, and entities,
Like Corzine, whos is still bundling for Obama.

Trying to think of the right name, is it bagman?

Section 7...

(b) the term “information and communications technology” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information processing and communication by electronic means, including transmission and display, including via the Internet;

reply to post by burntheships


Henchman i think like Hitler had.

Second.

Originally posted by jlm912
Section 7...

(b) the term “information and communications technology” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information processing and communication by electronic means, including transmission and display, including via the Internet;

OK. After this I give up.

The stated purpose is to prevent the sale or gifting or donating of equipment to the Iran and/or Syria governments for the purpose of prohibiting or blocking or impeding the communications of the rebels. That's really all it says. It has nothing to do with reporting on events of any kind. I'm sure they (this Administration) would prefer that those countries couldn't get any official (or unofficial) news and/or print and/or internet reports out into the world. But that's not what it says. That's not the thrust of it. That's not the intent of it....

reply to post by neo96


A fair assement here,
www.eff.org...

though I must say I dont agree with them in the end,
they think its a good thing, and I think its a thinly veiled inroad into electronic
communications, and social media.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Understood. Why didn't he just say that?

Seriously, though, I get it now. It still seems a little vague, but I see how it appears to be aimed primarily at those in direct relations with said governments...

There's nothing in the EO that prevents anyone from reporting on the rebels, terrorists, or Syrian govt. activities.

It seems designed to prevent money from flowing back to the Syrian govt. or Syrian national from the USA.

This is how idiotic the right-wing blogosphere has gotten, that they can put up such a lame headline and not expect anyone to fact check them on it.

reply to post by neo96


And to really put it in perspective, this kind of blows a hole in the thing.
Obama spars with Xi over trade and Syria


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


It is what it is, no matter what the title or spin.

Here, not to muddy the waters, however its plain as day what is going on here:

Obama announces new steps on Syria, Iran, Kony.
This is obvious destabilization to pave way for a regime change.

President Barack Obama set his sights Monday on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad and Joseph Kony as he announced new efforts aimed at combating their regimes — and others — that commit atrocities against civilians.

Speaking to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day, Obama promised he would “always be there for Israel” and that the United States would continue to reject any efforts to attack the Jewish state

www.politico.com...

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Understood. Why didn't he just say that?

Seriously, though, I get it now. It still seems a little vague, but I see how it appears to be aimed primarily at those in direct relations with said governments...

Thank you. It's very rare on these boards to have someone "come around," as it were....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Well, thank you
I'm not afraid to give credit where due. It does amaze me how some people just won't admit when they're mistaken or have misinterpreted something. IMO there's a line where defending one's "pride" just becomes shameful in itself. I try not to cross it.

That being said, I still don't agree with all the heavy sanctioning against Iran and Syria, or the intervention in general, but that's a separate conversation...

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Understood. Why didn't he just say that?

Seriously, though, I get it now. It still seems a little vague, but I see how it appears to be aimed primarily at those in direct relations with said governments...

Pardon my emphasis...but this EO really has shaken me a bit and I don't want to see people just gloss this over. This came out of left field and the potential for abuse is rather high from where I'm sitting.

Indeed..as others noted and you note as well, this is aimed at people who are assisting Syria and Iran with the oppression of the rebels/opposition. I guess Obama figured he kinda blew it when even mentioning how Egypt was actively doing this during their revolt seemed too much and needed over-corrected and with a vengeance before it happened again.

...the problem is still not with what is said, but what isn't clarified and what isn't limited. If I still had confidence and trust in the judgement of the State and Justice Departments for how those vague areas and mushy reasoning is interpreted, I'd be entirely fine with this. It's routine add-ons to existing sanctions.

It's just ...wow.. vague, open ended and just plain mushy does seem to characterize the laws lately. NDAA was the same way. It sure didn't say it was for going after Americans domestically...it just didn't quite say it was prohibited either. Well, another gray area, at best, to add to the pile of ''

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


No, I welcome the emphasis, and I agree; those were my words. Taking into consideration...

(A) to have operated, or to have directed the operation of, information and communications technology that facilitates computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the Government of Iran or the Government of Syria;

(B) to have sold, leased, or otherwise provided, directly or indirectly, goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used to facilitate computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the Government of Iran or the Government of Syria;

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

(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

It very well could be applied to a wide variety of actions due to that phrase. It doesn't define any limitations to the word "indirectly." We'll see how it is applied, though, inevitably....

reply to post by jlm912


You know what happens when you allow your president to repeatedly sieze power and create unconstitutional laws? Theyre field testing the waters to see how much people are willing to let them get away with before they finally drop the hammer and by then it's too late. Americans are so asleep they are not seeing these subtle clues.

All of this is just testing us to see how far we let them go, the patriot act laws, suspending free press etc. are all just field testing the iron fist thats about to close on us. Mark my words, when you see someone come to power who siezes ultimate power in order to play "the hero", America will have it's first Caesar. We are following in the footsteps of Ancient Rome and playing it very well.

...meanwhile, as dozens of journalists from many different countries continue to report on the Syrian "Rebels/Terrorists" without any interference from pretty much anyone other than the Syria government...

This story is lulzy. Misinterpreted third-hand interpretation of the actual data.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Thank you, sir, for your paraphrased repetition of what has been previously stated.

Seriously, though, excuse my sarcasm. I happen to have come to agree with such a view. I mirrored the thread title after the title of the article without critical review - admitted mistake. You live and learn, right?