Should President Obama pardon Chelsea Manning before leaving office?
Displaying poll results.10019 total votes.
Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and lined them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?
Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But it is polite to call them by their name. For example Jack Smith marries Jane Koff, and he takes her last name. It would only be polite to use his new name.
I worked with Jack. The first time somebody called the office and asked for him by his full name and said he worked in the back room I thought they we joking. When they insisted I go get Jack I decided to ply along and asked for Jack. Turns out that was his real name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brad changed his name to Chelsea because he is mentally ill.
Got any proof that gender dysphoria is a mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association would like to see it, because they believe otherwise.
Besides, as Denny Dallas said, if you weren't a transsexual before the sex change, you sure are one after. (think about it - its a warning for the non-transsexuals, the cross-dressers who go to far in pursuit of their fetish).
Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When brain scans detect cross-gender similarities in brains of transsexuals even before any hormone treatments, it's not just politics. To the contrary, it's the people refusing to consider the increasing mountains of physical evidence who are refusing to call a spade a spade for political or religious reasons, or just plain orneriness.
Form follows function, and if certain parts of the brain more closely resemble the other sex, they're going to function that way. Hence the whole "born with the wrong body"
Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
"Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, had her sentence commuted by President Obama today after...."
I guess I think it is about intent in using the old name. It is just an old name, and using it to simply clarify who we are talking about shouldn't be a problem anymore than a woman who recently got married being referred to as "Mrs. Alice Jones, nee Smith" should. But I can see how deliberately using the old name instead of the new one is indeed very offensive, as it shows a lack of respect for the choices a grown adult makes. But I am a straight white male, who doesn't really know anybody in the trans community. If I am off-base and any trans person or advocate is reading and wants to fill me in on how the community really feels about this, I am all ears.
In any case, I really don't understand or agree with this commutation. Snowden has a better case if you ask me, and I wouldn't likely support that one either. Manning leaked a tremendous amount of classified info for no apparent purpose. The exposure of the journalist's deaths was only a small part of what was leaked. Manning, in my opinion, is someone who simply should not have had a security clearance.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said that all transvestites are gay - but obviously it's a sore spot for you, mr AC. The ones who are make a real hobby out of attacking transsexual women, claiming that the two are the same are, however, mostly gay. BTW, transvestism is classified as a sexual paraphilia - (see "Transvestic Disorder").
Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't entirely agree with Manning. While it was a good thing to expose what was exposed, the wholesale release with no thought to damage and danger to others is very irresponsible. Snowden arranged for filtering of released data, to protect the under cover agents and any field activities that may be happening. Manning dumped it all. Troop movements, names, home addresses, the whole shebang.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. If you want to be a whistle blower, there are already avenues that are perfectly legal, up to and including finding a friendly senator or congressperson, who are charged with oversight of the rest of the government, and passing one (or the entire legislature) the information. They can then make public with immunity and/or take action against others inside the government. Leaking directly to the press is a last resort because it is both illegal and potentially life threatening to covert operatives.
Re: (Score:2)
This. If you want to be a whistle blower, there are already avenues that are perfectly legal, up to and including finding a friendly senator or congressperson, who are charged with oversight of the rest of the government, and passing one (or the entire legislature) the information. They can then make public with immunity and/or take action against others inside the government. Leaking directly to the press is a last resort because it is both illegal and potentially life threatening to covert operatives.
A great idea -- until the first senator you go to turns out to be not so supportive and turns you in. So much for getting the data out at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I keep hearing this about "proper channels". But, no, I don't really think there can be proper channels that work. Why? Because of Snowden and Manning leaks we know two things:
1) Blatant abuse of the power of their secrecy among the military/intelligence has been going on for many, many years.
2) Nobody has spoken up before Snowden and Manning.
The fact that blatant abuse has been happening, and nobody has informed the public about it means one of two things:
1) Every single person in military/intelligence is
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the judge in the Pentagon Papers made it clear that it wa
Re: (Score:2)
I don't entirely agree with Manning. While it was a good thing to expose what was exposed, the wholesale release with no thought to damage and danger to others is very irresponsible. Snowden arranged for filtering of released data, to protect the under cover agents and any field activities that may be happening. Manning dumped it all. Troop movements, names, home addresses, the whole shebang.
For me it's not even that. Manning tried to paint it as if those soldiers were committing murder, which wasn't true at all. I watched the video, I plainly saw both a Kalashnikov and an RPG. Idiots trying to say that those were cameras are idiots, and terrorists tend to like to use human shields, up to and including using disabled people, elderly, and children in suicide bombing missions. When the soldiers in the gunship saw a van coming to render aid to the fallen jihadis, there was no way they could know t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"When the soldiers in the gunship saw a van coming to render aid to the fallen jihadis, there was no way they could know there were kids in it"
Neither the van nor the people in it posed any threat & there were no American soldiers nearby.
Shooting up the van was simply wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
No less than 4 separate senior pentagon officials have testified that Manning's releases did not endanger any soldiers, agents or other US staff in any way - and that's JUST this week.
Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her name is now legally Chelsea. Even the military is required by law to refer to her that way. "Bradley Manning" has no legal existence. It's simply not possible to pardon Bradley Manning because there is now no such person to legally be granted a pardon. A pardon in the name of "Bradley Manning" would have no legal effect - that's one reason why the poll asks about a pardon of Chelsea Manning.
Your whole "learn to tell the difference and why one is vastly more important than the other" is the fallacy of r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:4)
I honestly don't get why some people view this almost as if it's a crime against humanity.
A friend of mine always gives me shit about the fact that I have a really thick beard because he hates them, and so one day I said to him "Why don't you ever try growing a beard? Oh, of course, women can't grow beards!" and we both just laughed. I've said similar things to both men and women, (about a month ago I told a girl at the gym that she does pushups better than most men I've seen) and I've even had people say things to me like "stop acting like a woman", or "you throw like a girl" (guilty) and it's just funny. If normal people don't immediately get offended by that kind of thing, then why is it so offensive to refer to a trans person as the gender they don't identify as? Even when you do it in jest, they blow a headgasket, whereas everybody else tends to just roll with it.
Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:3)
Because "normal" people do not experience a lifetime if othering, exclusion and denial that often ends in death... and unlike trans people do not, in fact, exist. There is no such thing as normal.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about offense is, if someone genuinely tells you they're offended by something, it deserves respect and consideration.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. You can laugh off things like "you throw like a girl" because in your case it doesn't negate who you are. Misgendering a transperson is not the same because we have had to fight to be acknowledged as who we really are. It's the same as if someone punches you in the arm - no big deal, it's not a sore spot. Now how about if instead everyone spent decades punching you in that same spot every time you were in public - and you
Re: (Score:3)
You know how when you go over to a friend's house, and accidentally call their female dog "he" or their male cat "she"? Most people would then add, "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know."
Why does a human being deserve less courtesy than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly off-topic, but you have an interesting point. People need to stop getting so butt hurt if they don't have any direct reason to be. The ultra-sensitive person you are referring to used to be what was meant by "SJW." People overreacting to a perceived injustice where none existed. For instance my brother gets offended when people use the word "waitress." That's just stupid; nobody cares. (Of course, he could have been feigning offense just to elicit laughs... not sure.)
In fact, sometimes the overreac
Re: Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score:2)
My sister legally changed her name two years ago, and I don't think I've heard even one person use her new legal name even once.
Re: (Score:3)
And just how does that somehow make it okay?
In my experience, people often aren't referred to by their legal name with or without a legal name change, myself included. And yeah, I think that's ok.
How is it right that nobody is respecting your sister's wishes?
I'm honestly not sure what her wishes are as she always introduces herself informally as the same name everybody else refers to her as. I really have no idea why she changed her name; my best guess is that it's for career reasons as she's really into stage performances.
Or, let's just cut to the chase. Why do you revel in being an ignorant prick? Think it makes you look tough? Have you considered the possibility that to most people it just makes you look ignorant? Or are you too immature and insecure to have any empathy for others?
If I wanted to look tough, or if I felt insecure, I likely wouldn't have admitted to all o
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing - some people have reason to be insecure.
Oh boy...first you accuse me of being insecure, and then begins the justification of insecurity itself. Hypocrite much? Nonetheless, you are forgiven.
And that paper problem is important. It affects everything from job applications to health care to education. But beyond that, even after it's straightened out, how do you work when you can't give references to previous jobs because that would out you - or maybe your previous employer didn't know? If you had to start again tomorrow, no references, no school records, no body of work you can point to - in other words, starting off lower than when you left school - how well would you do?
What's the reason for this? Ashamed of your past? Jenner doesn't seem that way, even though he killed somebody and then sued one of the victims, which is a totally inexcusable and shameful thing to do. But, he gets a sex change, and all is forgiven and he can go about his life of fame and fortune. Now, I'm not saying that this applies to all trans people, but
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a question of being a hypocrite - unlike you, I don't think there's anything wrong with being insecure if there are reasons for it. I've listed plenty. However, your insistence on pushing your POV wrt gender on others (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or not, by belittling others) rather than just going "okay, no big deal, whatever" shows that it's an issue for you.
Also, it's not a question of shame of the past, but unfortunately we live in a world where others will discriminate given th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a question of being a hypocrite - unlike you, I don't think there's anything wrong with being insecure if there are reasons for it. I've listed plenty. However, your insistence on pushing your POV wrt gender on others (which is what you're doing whether you admit it or not, by belittling others) rather than just going "okay, no big deal, whatever" shows that it's an issue for you.
Meanwhile you just threw a blanket accusation about being insecure to me without knowing much of anything about me. I hope you got a ladder, because you're digging yourself a hole.
Create a world where trans people can be safe, have equal opportunity, and not be discriminated against and there will be no problems. Same can be said by substituting "trans" for "women", "children", "people of color", "poor people", etc.
Umm...I met two of those descriptions for most of my life, and I never felt particularly unsafe...if you're trying to make a point about something, you need to try a bit harder than that.
I certainly am not ashamed. I was outed online in 2006, and publicly in 2013, including notices of apology published at my insistence after I was publicly outed, in the primary news sections of the two largest newspapers, over 400,000 circulation. That's not the action of someone who is ashamed.
That last sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of this.
However, the reality is that guys who hit on me or sexually assault me probably don't know, since there was no picture with the apology. So, like any woman who's been sexually assaulted, I am going to be cautious. That is certainly not shame, or else there's a billion women who are ashamed.
You talk about it as if it happens all the time, and if so, I have t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to focus on your most egregious statement here, because it doesn't affect just me, doesn't affect just trans women, isn't even limited to women - because it shows a mind set and belief that are far and away too common, and needs to be opposed by all right-thinking peoples.
According to your statement, since more than half of all women are victims of sexual assault at some point in their life, it's their fault. Here's your exact words:
Like any woman who's been sexually assaulted, I am going to be cautious. That is certainly not shame, or else there's a billion women who are ashamed.
You talk about it as if it happens all the time, and if so, I have to question what you're doing. If you walk around in dark alleys half naked all the time and then wonder why you get sexually assaulted, you shouldn't really be arguing that it isn't your fault. People are fundamentally animals and can do unpredictable things. That would be like saying that you should be able to chum the waters in an area with a known great white population and have the right to not get bitten.
I "talk about it as if it happens all the time" because it DOES
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to look at what the person I've been responding to has been saying. He's really into the whole "blame the victim" thing when it comes to sexual assault. I'll quote just a bit of it here - you can see my full response here [slashdot.org]
According to your statement, since more than half of all women are victims of sexual assault at some point in their life, it's their fault. Here's your exact words:
Me: Like any woman who's been sexually assaulted, I am going to be cautious. That is certainly not shame, or else there's a billion women who are ashamed.
ArmoredDragon: You talk about it as if it happens all the time, and if so, I have to question what you're doing. If you walk around in dark alleys half naked all the time and then wonder why you get sexually assaulted, you shouldn't really be arguing that it isn't your fault. People are fundamentally animals and can do unpredictable things. That would be like saying that you should be able to chum the waters in an area with a known great white population and have the right to not get bitten.
This isn't a question of being trigger happy at all. As you can see, it's not just on trans issues. That's probably the least of it. He knows my history, and he knows of at least 2 of the sexual assaults I've mentioned in my reply, neither of which involved "walk(ing) around in dark alleys half naked." So for the first time I've put all 5 out there to further disabuse anyone of the idea that I, or anyone else, should be routinely dismissed with an argument along the lines of "she was just asking for it." It's upsetting to do, but drastic times call for drastic measures, and his posts have been pretty drastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see the AC's have absolutely no sense of irony.
Re: (Score:2)
And you've done a gene study on this person ?
Otherwise you have no way of knowing if Manning is, in fact, XY, could just as easily be XXY or any of a half dozen other chromosomal types that appear as "male" but aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Without a gene study there is nothing "indisputable" about it. Humans come in more than two chromosome combinations. You have no way of knowing whether Manning is XY or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when have we insisted on genetic testing before calling people by their legal name? I just love it when the fundies bring out the whole "gene" argument, and when you ask them the relationship between genes and chromosomes, they haven't got a f*cking clue.
It's an indisputable fact that Chelsea Manning is her legal name. A pardon issued to Bradley Manning would have no legal value, since legally, Bradley Manning doesn't exist. No need to bother looking at the gene issue - her genes could be WZ for all
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't asnwering the name issue, I call Chelsea by her legal name. I was answering the claim that it is, supposedly, a fact that she has XY chromosomes. The person claiming this has absolutely no evidence to back this - up it came directly from that person's anus without passing through the critical faculties of any brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender change as collateral damage? (Score:2)
Took me a while, but I figured out what was bothering me about this aspect of the question, apart from the obvious ad hominem evasion (assuming that to be the "substance" of the AC comment I never actually saw). After extreme torture and brainwashing, and I think that was how they treated Manning, I have to question his or her judgment on everything, even including judgment of his or her own gender.
Apparently no response to my earlier and more substantive comment on the topic including the alternative poll
Re:Gender change as collateral damage? (Score:5, Informative)
If you had bothered to do even a bit of research, you would have known that Chelsea Manning had disclosed to the military that she gender problems before the arrest [wikipedia.org]
On April 24, 2010, Manning sent an email to her supervisor, Master Sergeant Paul Adkins—with the subject line "My Problem" - saying she was suffering from gender identity disorder. She attached a photograph of herself dressed as a woman and with the filename breanna.jpg. She wrote:
This is my problem. I've had signs of it for a very long time. It's caused problems within my family. I thought a career in the military would get rid of it. It's not something I seek out for attention, and I've been trying very, very hard to get rid of it by placing myself in situations where it would be impossible. But, it's not going away; it's haunting me more and more as I get older. Now, the consequences of it are dire, at a time when it's causing me great pain in itself ..
Adkins discussed the situation with Manning's therapists, but did not pass the email to anybody above him in his chain of command; he told Manning's court-martial that he was concerned the photograph would be disseminated among other staff.[69] Captain Steven Lim, Manning's company commander, said he first saw the email after Manning's arrest, when information about hormone replacement therapy was found in Manning's room on base; at that point Lim learned that Manning had been calling herself Breanna.
Manning was arrested a month later, May 27th, 2010.
Gender identity problems don't suddenly spring out of nowhere full-formed. And disclosing them to anyone is hard enough outside the military. It's never 100% safe, which is why it's often done in a public place so the person making the disclosure can hopefully avoid getting the sh*t beaten out of them if it's taken the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently this is an important issue to you, but I was just articulating why it was not important to me. Perhaps I lack sympathy, since I've never felt that much concern about my gender identity? My fuzzy understanding is that these things are supposed to be something of a spectrum, and I felt that the ad hominem attack based on Manning's gender is just a meaningless distraction. The details of Manning's personal history and his or her movements on the "spectrum" don't even matter to me, except insof
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not "defining other people's gender choices." What I am doing is stating that those choices are not medical conditions, and as such they should, there's no polite way to say this, stay the fuck out of trying to redefine who and what transsexuals are. The LBGT community has no right trying to co-opt us into their "community", because, unlike sexual preference or "gender choices", transsexualism is neither a preference nor a gender choice. It's a medical condition with a very specific set of criteria - o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you make those sort of foul remarks in regards to anyone who has a vasectomy before having children? Do you consider doctors unethical for allowing anyone to voluntarily sterilize themselves? Do you realize that there are other goals in this world besides creating ones own biological children?
The primary concern currently preventing Manning from having a family is prison, not whether she continues to exist with intact gonads.
Just because you have a hangup doesn't make your opinion fact. Cosmetic surgery
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of psychosis:
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
It's the proper term for "delusional."
And I looked up Gender Dysporia in the DSM and you know what? It's not classified as a delusion.
To be more specific, the letter from my psychiatrist is very explicit - my psychological evaluation did not detect any psychosis.
If you think GD is a delusion, you're suffering from a psychosis. You have replaced external reality with your own delusions, same as everyone else who thinks that we should ignore (at least in my case) more than a hal
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, your stating that those that suffer from psychosis are idiots. That seems of the same branding you'd prefer to avoid personally. How do you justify making that statement in light of the grand offense you typically take at generalizations and assumptions?
No, I'm saying this particular individual is an idiot - and I'm using their own arguments against them as proof, because their arguments are the arguments of an idiot. You're the one putting words in my mouth claiming that I am saying all people who are delusional are idiots. And of course, since that is obviously not what I said, and anyone reading it can see that, you're an idiot too.
There are plenty of schizophrenics who are geniuses. Delusions don't discriminate on the basis of IQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley Manning is violating basic human decency by not living ing the skin nature put him.
What, aren't you into recycling? They don't just cut it off - they turn it from an outsie into an insie, complete with the capability of multiple orgasms. Feeling a bit jealous?
Re: (Score:2)
And sacrificing your personal liberty to inform the American public of terrible abuses done in their name does not earn your respect ? So you're all off:
1) Anti-American
2) A traitor to the ideals of the founding fathers
3) A douche.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, by the way, it's no longer a matter of speculation. Obama has now commuted Manning's sentence and she'll walk free in May. This is one last act of Obama that Trump can't undo either - presidential clemency is basically protected against everything, up to and including the next president.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
So if you want to go around calling Obama a traitor go ahead, I doubt he cares, republicans have been doing that since he took office. He goes to the middle east to try and repair some of
Re: (Score:2)
Blame Clinton and his stupid DADT policy for making life hell for many in the military.
Not Pardon, only Commute Sentences (Score:2)
Presidents can not just pardon (wipes slate clean) but can also commute sentences (and any prosecutions) for a crime identified up to a point declared.
Don't pardon. Commute the sentences to time served for Manning and to time to be served for Snowden.
Sends a message and accomplishes the greater good.
A lot of people had their covers blown, regardless of intentions, by both. They died. Pardons make it "no foul". Commutation makes it "foul but let's not get crazy".
Snowden has to fully debrief and give intel on
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just limit any sentence Snowden might receive to a year, just so that the weiners in congress can feel like they've been vindicated.
There needn't be any concern about his future employment potential (plenty of places would LOVE to hire him, in spite of any felon status) so they can make it any charge that they'd like, just cap it at a year.
I don't care about Manning though.
Re: (Score:2)
He can't commute until after conviction. A future conviction is highly speculative, though I do expect Putin to arrest Snowden and send him to #PresidentTweety as an inauguration gift.
Re: (Score:2)
He can't commute until after conviction. A future conviction is highly speculative, though I do expect Putin to arrest Snowden and send him to #PresidentTweety as an inauguration gift.
Bull. Shit. Nixon got a complete pardon, no conviction required. Not even charges. Go read the letter.
And you can be damn sure that Obama has already signed letters of pardon for himself even if he hasn't any reason to believe he did anything illegal, just as a precaution. He'd be really stupid not to, as a simple protection. And there's also going to be one for Clinton in that pile. "Just in case." There's a lot of question as to whether Obama's kill list is illegal, and the case is working its way throug
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I mistook you [3785311] for someone who was looking for a sincere discussion with some relation to reality. Now that I recognize you for a troll, do you expect me to care if you are sincerely insane or just paid to act like it?
I would say that the discussion is pointless and closed, but now I realize that it never existed in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please prove evidence that anyone died or had their cover blown due to Manning's actions.
Here is a link where the government actually admits that they cannot find any evidence that people died or had their covers blown by Manning's actions:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm
If you make a claim, but cannot support that claim with evidence, then you have nothing but your opinion. It might be correct, but until you can show it is correct, it has no place in a conversation.
Here is another link wh
Re: (Score:2)
No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardoning him at this point sends a message to others, indicating their punishment won't be as strict so long as they "had good intentions". Integrity means making the tough choices especially when the consequences are most dire.
Re: (Score:3)
The Baghdad video was, in my opinion, not only a responsible leak but it represents the kind of important wa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem inside the military with those instances & "PR disasters" (My Lai, Abu Ghraib, etc.) was a lack of leadership. When leadership is strong and effective throughout the chain of command, these things simply don't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Then strong leadership does not exist- because there has never been a war where shit like that didn't happen. Never. In the entire history of mankind.
It simply never fails to happen.
Because war is destructive, and always brings out the worst in people. Hence it should never be anything but an absolute last resort. War is never noble, it's never just, it's never pretty and it's never honorable and all the slogans and ideals in the world will never change that. There is nothing more idealistic than to think y
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that it's inevitable that when enough soldiers are exposed to war some of them will go too far, there is also the issue of putting them in a situation where mistakes are more likely to happen.
For example, troops on the ground with rifles vs. in a helicopter. Being on the ground exposes the troops to more danger, but also makes mistakes less likely. Politicians have a moral duty to resist calls to protect their own people at the expose of innocents on the other side. Failure to do so is a war c
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with America today is, there hasn't been a war in America in far too long. The last time was the civil war. The only time since then there was any combat on home soil was Pearl Harbour (a single battle) and 9/11 (not even part of a war). The last time you had a war against another country that was even on the same continent was the Mexican/American war and that was before even the civil war. The Spanish/American war happened almost entirely at sea.
So with nobody left who can remember what war really looks like - it becomes way too easy to start them. War for America means sending your sons and daughters off to die somewhere far away, the other losses don't exist for Americans, they only happen to other people. America never has to see it's cities reduced to rubble, it's monuments and history and art lost for ever, it's factories and economy and productive capacity entirely shattered. It's women and children raped and tortured. That only happens to other people far away.
There's a reason the biggest doves in Washington are the generals - they are the only people there who actually know what war *really* means. The evidence of world war 2 is still visible throughout Europe, it's destruction still seared in people's memories - and that's a big part of why Europe has not had another war since world war 2. They know what it means. Americans no longer do. Ozzy Ozborne spoke of how Black Sabbath's tone was largely inspired by the rubble and destruction of world war 2 that was still everywhere in their home city of Birmingham when they were teenagers... and that was in the 1970s. Birmingham wasn't fully rebuilt until the late 1990s. It took 50 years to rebuild after that war !
People who know what war really means see it as an absolute last resort, it's never something to be considered lightly or, indeed, for any reason short of a truly verified and immediate threat.
Pardons aren't for innocent people (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that the only reason to pardon someone is if they have done something illegal in the first place right, otherwise they wouldn't need to be pardoned...
Re: (Score:2)
If I was the Executive with the power to pardon these individuals, it more than likely wouldn't happen. I would need highly compelling reasons to pardon, or even commute sentences. As such, I would disagree with any sitting President doing the same, whether it is Obama or someone after him -- not without very significant explanation, at least.
YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, Snowden did the right thing in talking about illegal actions of NSA and other groups. And his rational for it was also the right thing. BUT then he went off the deep end releasing information about all of the LEGAL spying that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we have the defense of justification [wikipedia.org] that makes it clear that, even though what was done was illegal, it was in some cases something that any reasonable person would do and violating the law was in society's interest.
In some places it's illegal to do abortions, and yet if the choice is having the mother die along with the fetus, or just the fetus, good luck getting a conviction over an abortion, because the act was justified. Unless, of course, you're living in some fundamentalist caliphate state w
Re: (Score:2)
Commutation of sentences is a possibility, which sends a very different message. The debt is seen as having been paid, rather than being treated like it never really existed (despite loss of actual time served, etc., which is an inevita
Re: (Score:2)
For those saying that the law MUST be upheld no matter what when it comes to treason, fine - let's dig up the signers of the Declaration of Independence and desecrate their graves as traitors to the lawful government of the time.
Otherwise you're just a bunch of lying hypocrites.
Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning and Snowden are simply not comparable at all.
Snowden for his one personal beliefs about the legality and morality of the situation acted. Yes he did violate the law but that was after he attempted to use the proper channels and was shut down. When he finally did go to the press/public he made arrangements to filter, redact, and limit the release of the material with the help of a few trusted press agents. It was of course necessary to disclose some secrets because without doing so the public/press would have little to no way to affirm the credibility of anything he was saying about the existence of the invasive domestic spying programs.
Manning was entirely different. He basically was talked into doing what he did, and had help of an external actor. His reasons appear to be more born out of a desire to personally get even with 'the system' than to be a reformer. He made no effort to use the proper channels that we know of and little effort to control the release of material. He certainly took no personal responsibility for material handing it all to wikileaks with no judgement of his own about what was or was not to harmful to leak.
Finally Snowden's leaks might have harmed intelligence gathering efforts, disclosing methods and capabilities but they did not out people as Manning's leaks almost certainly did. There is cause to believe lives may have been lost due to Manning's leaks. That issue alone should make it a very different discussion about pardoning him, and the moral justification for his actions.
I can see a pardon or reduced sentence for Snowden but there is no way I would ever let Manning out of the clink.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a pardon or reduced sentence for Snowden but there is no way I would ever let Manning out of the klink.
Fortunately there's never been a successful escape from Stalag 13.
Re: (Score:3)
Finally Snowden's leaks might have harmed intelligence gathering efforts, disclosing methods and capabilities but they did not out people as Manning's leaks almost certainly did. There is cause to believe lives may have been lost due to Manning's leaks. That issue alone should make it a very different discussion about pardoning him, and the moral justification for his actions.
I can see a pardon or reduced sentence for Snowden but there is no way I would ever let Manning out of the clink.
The very witnesses called against Manning had to admit, under oath, that there was no evidence that anyone was outed or killed due to the actions Manning took.
The government spent millions investigating and came up with no evidence. How is it that you seem to have some secret knowledge about what 'really' happened? Where is your proof, and why have you been hiding it for the last 3 years?
You can believe whatever you want, but without evidence, it has no value.
We should strive to deal with facts and evidence
2 between the eyes (Score:3)
How was that being a whistle blower?
Reasons MATTER.
If somebody is shooting at me and I shoot back and kill them, I did so in self-defense.
OTOH, if I simply shoot somebody and kill them, I am a murderer.
RIGHTLY.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're one of those people who keep pushing "the Russians leaked the Clinton emails" to take away from the illegal actions of Clinton. Keep telling people to kill the messenger and ignore the message and the man behind the curtain. Good little prole.
Same thing (Score:2)
your wish is granted... (Score:3)
He just did (Score:3)
Obama commutes Chelsea Manning sentence - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FBBCBreakin... [twitter.com]: Chelsea Manning - serving 35-year sentence for leaking army documents to @Wikileaks - will now be released on May 17 http://bbc.in/2j6oWUT [bbc.in]
aaand... pardoned (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon polling of the same form should be modded redundant. Moot to me, though I think it may be sort of okay. It seems possible that I have been immunized against negative mods from trolls and sock-puppets at the price of never seeing a mod point of my own. Sort of like a moderation vasectomy? If I'd been asked, I'd be likely to cop the plea...
Perhaps a more interesting poll would have been about who President Obama should pardon. While I agree that the whistle-blowers should be pardoned, I think it would
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, I thought option (2) was at least going to get some reply comment on the subtle typo. Should have been '"the Siber[ian]" Candidate' with the double quotes to reference #PresidentTweety's comments about "the cyber" (versus "the Siber")...
Oh well. Preview is no excuse.
And remember: Nobody expects the Email Inquisition!
Re: (Score:2)
to spend tens of thousands of dollars and have things cut off because "you felt that you were a girl since childhood"
Doesn't have to cost that much, there are other ways to cut things off a person; I'm sure the Arab Slave traders did it more economically.
Re: (Score:2)
That you do not understand a diagnosis has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that diagnosis. Even if you were a trained and qualified psychiatric doctor, you would be opposing the consensus that agrees it is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bring up the uterus? So women with hysterectomies aren't women any more? Or (it happens) women born without one but with a set of ovaries aren't women either? Or that women with XY genes who give birth aren't women (one of the reasons that the Olympics had to give up gender testing - someone they claimed was a man according to her genes ended up having a baby)?
Re: (Score:3)
Because he said so...
Army Leaker Chelsea Manning on Obama's 'Short List' for Commutation [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean besides the fact that he has already put Manning on a shortlist of candidates for commuted sentences ?
That was reported this week - this means the white house is already, seriously, considering it - some of the people on that list WILL be getting commuted, public opinion definitely plays a role in which ones - so campaigning now makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Hang him high, I say!
Sorry eo disappoint you, but after surgery she's not hung at all. :-) That's kind of the point, you know ...
Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score:4, Insightful)
And none of these is really conclusive in all cases. Here's the case of a woman who was barred from the Olympics [wikipedia.org] for failing the genetic test and yet managed to give birth to a son. As we learn more, we learn that we know less. The same applies to how we ultimately define male and female. Like everything else in life, it can be complicated.
Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score:3)
Define "male". Not in terms of social norms - those vary between societies. And, since you didn't accept the suggestion of a genetics test, you don't get to use that either. Historical records are of no interest, you weren't there when they were made so you can't vouch for them. Besides, plenty of species have individuals change gender. History proves nothing.
You could try a neurological test, but I'll wager you that it shows Manning to be female. The feelings come from the brain, there's no such thing as a
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.
I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unl
Re: (Score:2)
First, resignation is NOT always possible - it can be called desertion depending on when and how, and can get you a bullet in the head without a trial under certain extreme conditions. Then again, the counterbalance is fragging of unpopular officers.
Also, last I looked, the Commander in Chief is a civilian, and the military is under congressional oversight.