Slashdot Mirror
After Anti-Donation Executive Order, Bitcoin Donations For Snowden Jump
ZDNet reports that after a recent executive order from President Obama "said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund," anonymous donations to the fund have soared -- at least ones as anonymous as Bitcoin makes possible. From the article:
A new executive order signed into law this week by the president has one online community up in arms, after its loose wording effectively ruled out donating to Edward Snowden and others.
In a post on Reddit's Bitcoin subreddit, members pledged to donate to the whistleblower's relief fund, despite the wording of the new executive order suggesting that doing so was illegal.
In the new executive order, signed into law on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama declared cyber-threats aimed at the US a "national emergency." The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad.
The wording of the order specifically addresses any person whose "property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States."
Redditors were quick to assume (likely correctly) that this includes Edward Snowden, who for more than a year-and-a-half has lived in Russia, evading US justice.
Fuck anonymous donations. As an act of civil disobedience I intend to donate directly from an account with my real name on it. They can come and get me.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
a recent executive order from President Obama "said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund,"
What in the actual fuck? It is now illegal to donate to fund someone that has not been convinced of anything, and who has done great justice exposing criminal things our government has been up to? And yet it's totally fine to donate under the table to politicians (ie, bribe) for "favors"?
When will it end? What the fuck happened to having a free society?
So... Release information that will incriminate Uncle Sam in support of U.S. foundational principle and law of the land is taboo. They'll still attack out of spite and to starve you. Still they say freedom in the U.S. is a big seller and better than any place else in the world. Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one. I'm thinking the powers that be are bent on Hitler's ways, and in a both feet sort of way. Germany has all that shit behind them, I'm thinking that one of the two is perceptive enough to learn, and certainly not capable of learning from another's mistakes. So, Obummer, when do we all get bar codes, oh wait I forgot about the Obummercare thing, and the FEMA camps are looking a bit baron without barbeques. So tell us, which race will it be this time?
Link to ZDNet article: http://www.zdnet.com/article/snowden-donations-rocket-after-obamas-cybersecurity-order-outlaws-fund/
Link to executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m
What in the actual fuck? It is now illegal to donate to fund someone that has not been convinced of anything, and who has done great justice exposing criminal things our government has been up to?
It's much worse than that.
The president, by himself, created and enacted a law which carries a criminal penalty.
(My outrage meter is pretty much pegged, and I had a polemic about secret laws, secret courts, ordering US citizens killed, and such... but I think that one statement above stands by itself. The US is well and truly fucked.)
No link? [citation needed]
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Ed Snowden is my hero. He can sleep on my floor anytime.
- Andy Canfield (Thailand)
www.andycanfield.com
For this to be true, there must be some law passed by Congress making the donation illegal, presumably when the recipient is a member of some group as determined by the executive branch.
How 1980's!
There is only one branch of government, the Executive, then there are the minor agencies and departments like the Congressional Dept. and Legislative agency, all closely overseen by the Executive branches' all-seeing intelligence and monitoring apparatus.
Any who buck the status quo are destroyed.
But hey, there's rumored to be a new Marvel Comic-based movie in the works!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I am also thinking of doing just that
What's the account number that I can donate to help out Mr. Snowden?
To /. pranksters: This is serious, so please, spare your pranks for the next victim
Thank you !
Fuck the executive order. This president has pushed the boundaries with his executive orders. He usurps the authority of congress with many of them, including his immigration/amnesty orders.
The President of the United States has ZERO authority to tell people how they can spend their money.
This is the same mouthy prick who told stay at home moms that he had no use for them. He doesn't WANT mothers caring for their children, or for their aging parents/grandparents. He wants them in the work force, so that they are paying SOMEONE ELSE to care for those children.
I kinda voted for Obama, in that I voted against Romney. But, Obama is as big a prick as any president has been. Liberal love him, but that doesn't make him a good president.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The Executive Order cites the laws that are claimed to authorize the order in the first paragraph, to wit "including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code".
He can cite them all he wants. They don't apply. There is no emergency. Fuck Obama.
-- Will program for bandwidth
are being prohibited. Now, how do I know whether Snowden is such a person whose property is blocked pursuant to said order? Is there a registry over such persons?
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
That's an interesting read. While nothing in the order says criminal penalties it mentions the laws which apparently let one person rule by diktat so I expect that they specify the penalties.
The part I thought interesting though was that any of these funds which come under the control of an "American person" are included. I'm guessing that this means Americans with jobs in the financial sector abroad are going to have a hard time: if they follow this law then they may find themselves breaking local laws, or at least out of a job, and yet if they don't they will be breaking US law.
I wish them luck trying to figure out how to deal with the slightly insane decrees coming from their leader. Now I think of it didn't the US have a revolution to get rid of a king who was issuing somewhat insane decrees? A bit of nostalgia for the "good" old days is one thing but I think you might be taking this a bit too far. Mind you it was issued on 1st April...
The US has been in a perpetual state of emergency since 9/11. Every time things look like they are settling down, some new crisis is presented to prolong the panic a bit longer.
contributing to a crook running for political office is legal !
if an executive order against that happens, we will get the political reform we need !
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
The perpetual state of emergency extends back even further, to Jimmy Carter in 1979. At this point, it's just a tool for the executive branch to hang on to the additional powers granted by the 1976 bill.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Every president has done such things.
If the US wants to change the current course it needs to make some changes at the "executive" level.
1) No more "executive orders", laws should be passed via congress not a presidents whim.
2) No more "secret orders" (FBI participating in political warfare in secret).
3) Make it easer to get rid of a president. In many ways a US president is more like a king then an elected (sort of) official. Most "democratic nations" have several tools to remove their leader and trigger an election to vote for a new one. The US only has impeachment, and even when they break the laws they are just pardoned by the next president anyhow.
Last comment, the US laws around armed citizens was suppose to be about the citizens being able to protect themselves from their government.
There are literally millions of guns in citizens hands, when will they stand up against the gvt?
The answer is pretty simple: we need to throw out the Constitution, and switch to a Parliamentary style government like every other democratic republic in the world (except a few crappy places like El Salvador and Honduras). I read a great, though lengthy, analysis of this not long ago, but can't find the link now, but the main problem with presidential republics like ours is that the President has too much power, can't be replaced easily, and worst of all is frequently at odds with the rest of the government due to the way elections work. When the Executive and Legislative Branches are in conflict, then the business of running the government screeches to a halt, and can stay that way for months or more. When Clinton and Congress got into it over the Lewinski affair, the federal government basically stopped operating for over a year. This never happens in a Parliamentary system: there, the Prime Minister is selected by the ruling party in Parliament. If there's a big problem, Parliament can be dissolved and new elections held, and the government can get back on track very quickly.