Chelsea Manning Sentence Commuted

[Azdeus]

Meh, he's better than the Swedish prosecution that leaked literally everything from interviews to victim statements to Assange's name in the first place- of course, no charges or sackings for those leaks. The US and Sweden have been so utterly dishonest he shouldn't hand himself over to either under any circumstances.

That's a very low bar though, they're worth less than the skidmarks in a hobo's pants.

 

Assange has had my respect before, and I actually expected more from him, I expect the Swedish "justice" system to be ****.

[ShadySands]

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

[Amentep]

He didn't flee to Russia, the US cancelled his passport while he was in the Russian transit lounge- en route to Bolivia, hence Evo Morales' plane being forced down for a Vienna Convention breaking search a little later. That's the same technically not quite slanderous tactic used against Assange to claim he fled Sweden when the prosecutor said he had no case to answer then another prosecutor just happened to reinstate charges after he'd left.

I didn't say it, I just paraphrased what a pundit said.

[Gromnir]

 

He didn't flee to Russia, the US cancelled his passport while he was in the Russian transit lounge- en route to Bolivia, hence Evo Morales' plane being forced down for a Vienna Convention breaking search a little later. That's the same technically not quite slanderous tactic used against Assange to claim he fled Sweden when the prosecutor said he had no case to answer then another prosecutor just happened to reinstate charges after he'd left.

I didn't say it, I just paraphrased what a pundit said.

 

*chuckle* been down this road 'fore. you got our sympathy.

 

and in reference to earlier comments, yeah, libby got 30 months (don't quote us on that number, but am reasonable sure we is at least close) for perjury (2 counts?), obstruction and making a false statement to feds. not espionage. chelsea got a 35 year sentence for espionage. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

am also thinking we woulda' worked out something different for snowden

 

 

lucky for him we weren't in charge o' anything.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps mostly joking... kinda.

[BruceVC]

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

Do you mind sharing why? I know you will have an interesting reason

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

Snowden was advocating for Manning's release, probably because he figured Trump was gonna drop the guillotine.

[Zoraptor]

Assange has had my respect before, and I actually expected more from him, I expect the Swedish "justice" system to be ****.

 

Oddly enough I don't particularly 'respect' Assange and never have at least in the 'being honourable' aspects of respect despite being a fairly strong defender of him. Respect/ honour is a fine concept but at those sort of consequence levels I'd expect anyone to do just about anything as avoidance, and Assange has already done some morally questionable stuff for such reasons- at very least he's stiffed the guarantors of his UK bail; albeit I'd be surprised if they didn't at minimum half expect him to do so and they were not short of cash. But as such I never expected him to uphold that or any other pledge relating to his continued freedom/ 'freedom' as I wouldn't expect anyone (nearly) to.

 

OTOH I do respect Snowden as his conduct has been about as honourable as it's possible to get in the circumstances. If he pledged to do the same exchange I'd actually believe it- though I'd think he was very ill advised to carry it out without at minimum absolutely cast iron guarantees.

 

 

He didn't flee to Russia, the US cancelled his passport while he was in the Russian transit lounge- en route to Bolivia, hence Evo Morales' plane being forced down for a Vienna Convention breaking search a little later. That's the same technically not quite slanderous tactic used against Assange to claim he fled Sweden when the prosecutor said he had no case to answer then another prosecutor just happened to reinstate charges after he'd left.

I didn't say it, I just paraphrased what a pundit said.

 

 

I understood from 'the rationale [you] heard' that you were paraphrasing what others had said, as such my comment was aimed at the rationale rather than you in a personal sense. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that was basically Obama's rationale (yep, Der Spiegel interview, Nov last year) for why he couldn't pardon Snowden- though there's plenty of precedent against that reasoning, most famously Ford pardoning Nixon.

[Tigranes]

Other issues aside, commuting Manning achieves two practical benefits: (1) it dilutes Snowden, Assange, and other future whistleblowers' moral ground, because now James Clapper can say "look, we are fair and merciful, he's just dodging justice." Of course it's more complicated than that, but it's about diluting the claim. (2) a nice little bonus is dispensing with the extended PR headache caused by Manning's various protests. 

 

Keep in mind that the number of people who actually get charged via the Espionage Act is extremely low: there are only eleven cases by most common counts. Eight of them are under Obama, but it's unclear whether the Obama Administration has deliberately ramped things up as a change of strategy or it's just a combination of (1) more relevant cases, and (2) not particularly trying to avoid suing leakers who work in the government. And of course, Granddaddy Daniel Ellsberg got away with it...

Edited January 19, 2017 by Tigranes

[Oerwinde]

 

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

Do you mind sharing why? I know you will have an interesting reason

 

Manning's leaks endangered lives, caused the deaths of innocent people, and aided Al-Qaeda, Snowden's embarassed the NSA?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I would have worked out something for Snowden before Manning but I guess that's why I'm not in charge of anything

Do you mind sharing why? I know you will have an interesting reason

 

Manning's leaks endangered lives, caused the deaths of innocent people, and aided Al-Qaeda, Snowden's embarassed the NSA?

 

That would be my answer. I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets. Snowden embarrassed the would be "Big Brother" ambitions of an out of control government agency. Big difference.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Guard Dog

[213374U]

I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets.

Yeah. You do know that kind of reasoning was thrown out by the US in, er, the Nuremberg Trials, right? Following orders is not a valid defense to justify supporting illegal wars or wartime acts, let alone some twisted interpretation of "patriotism".

 

And by the way, unlike in the US, there was conscription in Germany. Dat victor's justice doe

 

I guess, following the same logic, that you'd be on the side of All-American gangbangers mugging and killing foreign tourists, "once the shooting starts". Provided they proudly wear the US flag on their shoulder, ofc.

Edited January 19, 2017 by 213374U

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/18/why-liberals-just-love-to-set-terrorists-free/

 

Shouldn't really be surprising, Obola's been releasing Guantanomo terrorists for 8 years. On the subject of Snowden, he did more damage to national security than anyone in history.

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets.

Yeah. You do know that  kind of reasoning was thrown out by the US in, er, the Nuremberg Trials, right? Following orders is not a valid defense to justify supporting illegal wars or wartime acts, let alone some twisted interpretation of "patriotism".

 

And by the way, unlike in the US, there was conscription in Germany. Dat victor's justice doe

 

I guess, following the same logic, that you'd be on the side of All-American gangbangers mugging and killing foreign tourists, "once the shooting starts". Provided they proudly wear the US flag on their shoulder, ofc.

 

First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.

 

For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

Eh, its no more intellectually vacant than post #45.

[Guard Dog]

Eh, its no more intellectually vacant than post #45.

An engine is NOT a motor dammit! I don't care what MIT says!

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'm opposed to military action in Syria, Iraq, Libya and (insert name of any country here) but once the shooting starts there is no questions whose "side" I'm on right or wrong. Manning jeopardized the lives of Americans and American intelligence assets.

Yeah. You do know that  kind of reasoning was thrown out by the US in, er, the Nuremberg Trials, right? Following orders is not a valid defense to justify supporting illegal wars or wartime acts, let alone some twisted interpretation of "patriotism".

 

And by the way, unlike in the US, there was conscription in Germany. Dat victor's justice doe

 

I guess, following the same logic, that you'd be on the side of All-American gangbangers mugging and killing foreign tourists, "once the shooting starts". Provided they proudly wear the US flag on their shoulder, ofc.

 

First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.

 

For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.

 

GD  dont let 2133 try to enforce this spurious notion of  an illegal war " , this is just a generalisation and anti-USA  sentiment. Some people love to blame the state of Iraq and ISIS on the USA...its not as I'll explain later 

 

I like 2133, he is clever and supports deep SJ issues and has a way with words. But he constantly attacks and criticizes global finance markets and institutions, He thinks the EU is an unjust, mercurial and biased union....all this would be acceptable in a forum debate except for the incongruous and contradictory view he has  of why his own country is undergoing necessary and self-inflicted austerity ....he refuses to accept Spanish responsibility for the austerity and blames the EU and Germany. See the reasons for the austerity in Spain

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5525/economics/spanish-economic-crisis-summary/

 

This also covers the negative but things are better than this article. In summary factors like inflexible labor markets, rising government debt and failure to regulate there banking sector which left them susceptible to the 2008 crisis. Spain need to take responsibility for sustaining  there own economy like many African countries do ..i have faith in them, just drop the siestas and try to work a full day 

 

 

And now Iraq, yes the USA  initially went into iraq under the wrong pretense. But the Shias and Sunni were truly offered a chance at peace and there interpretation of Democracy. Are we suggesting the Iraqis aren't capable of understanding peace? Of course they can but they wanted to annihilate each other, we saw this enhanced in aspects of the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS and there ideological objective of total war on most of the ME

 

But the USA  still left iraq with a functional government in 2011 under a Shia majority and Nouri al-Maliki  as PM, all he was told was " integrate the 20% Sunni minority " ...but they ignored this as they were aligned to Iran..they marginalized the Sunni who then joined ISIS

 

You can blame the West for Arab leaders failing to follow good governance and support human  rights I wont ....nope the West can take some blame but the majority lies in the ME  

[Guard Dog]

Bruce you are wandering into a different pasture here.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I was actually thinking of the use of feminine pronouns when referring to a man. If you could actually turn a horse into a zebra I'd call it a zebra. But painting black and white stripes on a horse won't make it a zebra. I will admit I am annoyed by the whole touchy feely "I identify as a woman so call me she" b------t. A thing is what it is. 2+2=4 no matter how anyone feels about it.

 

I feel like I'm the King of England so I want all of you to refer to me as Your Majesty from now on. But even if you did when I show up at Buckingham in a U-Haul I'll be in for a disappointment.

Why are you annoyed? Does (s)he get tax breaks that you don't for having a court recognize him as a woman or something? Only affects him*, really, which is why your King of England analogy doesn't hold water. That being said, if you can get the British Parliament to recognize you as the King of England, I'll be happy to address you as befitting your station.

 

Let's imagine for a second that tomorrow gene therapy allows these people to have their chromosomal endowment rearranged. Would you still be uncomfortable referring to him a she?

 

 

*to be fair, it affects everyone, because the whole pronoun thing is a total cluster****

 

You know, I really don't know why it bothers me. It always irritates me when someone refers to their car engine as a motor too. An engine and a motor are two different things. I guess I'm just kind of anal retentive like that. I demand people call a thing what it is. But if they could magically replace Manning's Y chromosome with another X, well that would make him a her. Heck they don't even need to go that far. Once the surgeries are finished that's close enough. But until then he is a dude in a dress taking pills.

 

 

...And here I thought the entire point of your stupid language having two different words for the concept of physical sex (ie. sex) and the concept of gender identity (ie. gender) was so you can make that distinction 

 

(Hungarian doesn't have gendered pronouns nor does it differentiate between engines and motors, so it's clearly a superior language.)

Edited January 19, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

Bruce you are wandering into a different pasture here.

Not really I have been in that pasture since day 1 , I have never changed my view and its become more trenchant and justified actually since the Syria crisis 

 

 

I knew many people in that war and we had civilian contractor work ...so I have first hand view. I encourage people to tell me what is wrong with anything I have said and we can have a debate  

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I was actually thinking of the use of feminine pronouns when referring to a man. If you could actually turn a horse into a zebra I'd call it a zebra. But painting black and white stripes on a horse won't make it a zebra. I will admit I am annoyed by the whole touchy feely "I identify as a woman so call me she" b------t. A thing is what it is. 2+2=4 no matter how anyone feels about it.

 

I feel like I'm the King of England so I want all of you to refer to me as Your Majesty from now on. But even if you did when I show up at Buckingham in a U-Haul I'll be in for a disappointment.

Why are you annoyed? Does (s)he get tax breaks that you don't for having a court recognize him as a woman or something? Only affects him*, really, which is why your King of England analogy doesn't hold water. That being said, if you can get the British Parliament to recognize you as the King of England, I'll be happy to address you as befitting your station.

 

Let's imagine for a second that tomorrow gene therapy allows these people to have their chromosomal endowment rearranged. Would you still be uncomfortable referring to him a she?

 

 

*to be fair, it affects everyone, because the whole pronoun thing is a total cluster****

 

You know, I really don't know why it bothers me. It always irritates me when someone refers to their car engine as a motor too. An engine and a motor are two different things. I guess I'm just kind of anal retentive like that. I demand people call a thing what it is. But if they could magically replace Manning's Y chromosome with another X, well that would make him a her. Heck they don't even need to go that far. Once the surgeries are finished that's close enough. But until then he is a dude in a dress taking pills.

 

 

...And here I thought the entire point of your stupid language having two different words for the concept of physical sex (ie. sex) and the concept of gender identity (ie. gender) was so you can make that distinction 

 

(Hungarian doesn't have gendered pronouns nor does it differentiate between engines and motors, so it's clearly a superior language.)

 

alum how are the LGBT  rights in Hungary under your current PM?

 

Under scrutiny I imagine?

[Blarghagh]

Wow, this thread is so edgy I need a bandaid. Live and let live unless they're not the same as everyone else, huh? The last time I saw such bunched panties over pronouns it was a bunch of SJWs. Horseshoe theory and all that?

 

Anyway, the fact that there's been people summing up punished American whistleblowers concerns me more than this one's punishment. There's so many of them! Why does the US do so much **** their own people can't even live with?

[213374U]

First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.

 

For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.

 

No, you didn't comment on it, which is precisely what rubbed me the wrong way: "once the shooting starts no questions whose side I'm on right or wrong". Those were your words. I might have misunderstood what you meant there, but it sounds like you'd take "our boys'" side regardless of what they did, because they wear the same uniform you did. That's not patriotism.

 

As for the bangers, being part of an armed service in a combat zone does not *in theory* afford you impunity to commit illegal acts, even though it usually does in practice. The big question is if the Iraq war was illegal to begin with. If it was illegal, what is the moral difference between your average jarhead and a common thug? Again, no conscription.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you think that following proper procedure would have yielded any results, especially considering your wider stance on Congressional dereliction of duty, executive overreach, etc. So Manning should have followed the rules knowing that it would have amounted to nothing? Even considering that the leaks were open and public, what has been done about them? The only person to go to jail over the whole affair was Manning. Honestly, what do you think the outcome would have been if some commission had been tasked with "reviewing" the claims made by some nobody analyst with serious issues?

 

I'll have faith in the rules and the system when the people who actually put the lives of servicemen and intelligence assets at risk are made to face the music. Fat chance that Dubya, Rummy and Cheney will be indicted though, so I guess I'll keep rooting for "lawbreakers".

Edited January 19, 2017 by 213374U

[HoonDing]

Julian Assange claimed repeatedly that he would turn himself in if Manning 'got clemency', but of course won't turn himself in since Manning didn't get released immediately.

He's a cuck.

[Zoraptor]

That's a bit out of date now anyway, since Assange has said he may turn himself in (with caveats, of course) once Manning is actually released, ie May. Still won't be holding my breath- and as it stands he'd be sent to Sweden rather than the US as soon as he actually stepped outside anyway, so any agreement would likely have to be at least four way which complicates things more.