Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Anti-Donation Executive Order, Bitcoin Donations For Snowden Jump

Posted by timothy on from the evading-injustice-is-more-like-it dept.

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.

17 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous donations? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Anonymous donations? by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't see any language that targets Mr. Snowden so I'm assuming it's perfectly fine to send him your donations. From TFS

      The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad.

      Now that I think about it that sounds more like the NSA than Mr. Snowden.

    2. Re:Anonymous donations? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      This suggests there's a list of people it is forbidden to donate too, but the list is secret: You don't get to see it until the FBI or CIA come after you for funding terrorism.

    3. Re:Anonymous donations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't worry too much; giving away money is now a first amendment right as an expression of free speech. If there ever was a positive side to Citizen's United, this is it.

    4. Re:Anonymous donations? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That degree depends a lot on what you know when doing so. It has to do with the "mens rea" or state of mind. For instance, donations to a "feed the children" charity or a legal defense fund for someone when used to render such aid would likely not show intent and couldn't be prosecuted outside of who misused the funding.

      You don't know what mens rea means, so you should stop describing it wrongly to people. The act must have been deliberate (conscious). Not the intent, but the act. So giving $1 to "save the children" thinking it was UNICEF and having it be an IRA front is a crime that meets all the requirements of mens rea. You intended to do the act that someone else later thought illegal.

      You needn't have any intent to break the law (ignorance of the law is no defense), nor do you need to have any intent to have the outcome. You must only have intended the precipitating event.

      Example: you are cleaning a gun, and you accidentally snag the cleaning cloth on the trigger and the gun discharges, killing someone, there is no mens rea, because you didn't intend to pull the trigger. If you are cleaning the gun, and you want to clean the hammer, so you cock it, then later attempt to dry fire it, but there was one in the chamber, you meet the mens rea requirement because you intended to pull the trigger. That you didn't intend to fire a bullet, or strike a person with it is irrelevant. You intended the action that lead to an illegal result.

      That may not be the Latin definition, nor the original or non-US definition, but in the US currently, mens rea is tied solely to the intent to commit an action, not any intent to commit a crime, nor any act after the last conscious one. It's a low standard, and the way it's applied now, is useless, aside from being the basis for insanity pleas, though those are rare, as they last longer than the penalty for the crime, and are generally served in worse conditions, unless the rare "temporary" condition can be argued. But that happens more in TV shows than real life.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  2. What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Even worse. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Even worse. by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actual Executive Order

      Nothing there says criminal penalties.

      Also, it says that the actors must be outside of the United States. Remind me again, but Snowden did all of his stuff inside of the United States, right?

      As usual, non-lawyers read something think it means something that makes them upset, and it spreads and no one actually sits down to read the actual law.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Even worse. by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's much worse than that. The president, by himself, created and enacted a law which carries a criminal penalty.

      I agree that is bad. I don't know if the alternative is worse though: Congress has effectively become completely useless, because no bill on any issue can ever get pushed through Congress these days without major blockades from the non-sponsoring side, and (usually last thing on a Friday afternoon) without large amounts of unrelated legislation (riders) being stuffed into the bill after hundreds of pages of fluff so the riders won't actually be read by anybody before they're signed into law.

  4. Ed is welcome by AndyCanfield · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ed Snowden is my hero. He can sleep on my floor anytime.

    - Andy Canfield (Thailand)
    www.andycanfield.com

  5. Re:Executive orders are not law in and of themselv by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. FTEO by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  7. Re:Executive orders are not law in and of themselv by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Informative

    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".

  8. How do I know if I'm breaking the law? by Cacadril · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To find out if this order applies to what you intend to do, you probably need to study the conditions specified in the order. Donations...

    "...to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order..."

    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.
  9. Re:Executive orders are not law in and of themselv by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Edward Snowden for Senate ! by randalware · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  11. Re:Account number? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to wonder what would happen if Snowden returned home to stand trial. Would they be able to convict him? I think they'd have to try him many times to get past a hung jury. In the end I think he'd walk free. At least a third of the population support him in some way.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

    To convict requires a unanimous jury and I really don't think that's possible. My father is a 90 year old WWII Navy vet who supported the war in Vietnam and even he, who watches Fox news every day and by the standards of today is heavily conservative, thinks Snowden is a hero. I personally disagree but I doubt they'd ever be able to panel a jury to convict him.