Assange Agrees to US Prison If Obama Pardons Chelsea Manning (theverge.com) 401
"If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to U.S. prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness," Wikileaks announced on Twitter Thursday. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Verge:
WikiLeaks' statement was released one day before a Swedish appeals court decided to maintain a warrant for Assange's arrest over a 2010 rape charge. Assange has said that extradition to Sweden would lead to his eventual extradition to the US, where he could face charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of secret government documents... Assange has been living in political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012...
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
Never (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange knows that will never happen. Obama has trouble even treating Manning like a normal human being.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because Manning isn't a normal human being. Manning is a traitor that leaked an enormous amount of data after appearing to be manipulated to do so, much of which was legitimately classified. There were certainly exceptions, but there always are exceptions.
Add to that that Manning decided afterward that he wanted to be a she, and that the US government is somehow obligated to pay for it. Why any prisoner (in the military or not) is somehow entitled to sex reassignment surgery is beyond me; there's not
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Your second paragraph is trivially wrong - you don't deny people medical care just because they're in locked up. Whatever your political opinion on gender identity disorder and associated therapy+surgery, the medical opinion is what matters.
As for your first/third paragraphs -
1. It would be tactically nearly impossible for an individual to leak information about unconstitutional activity without also dropping information about legal activity.
2. Who released this information to the public?
3. "Traitor" is a label thrown about by mindless patriots, dredging up old memories of McCarthyism and the Cold War. America hasn't been put in danger because a private contractor revealed some information about how America spies on others, private and public - information that ten thousand private contractors before Snowden have had access to and undoubtedly tossed into the wrong hands.
On the contrary, to have a chance of putting America in danger, you'd have to clandestinely help other countries do precisely what America was doing to others, IOW you would spy on America on behalf of another country. If you were also an American citizen, you might then be a traitor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.
Re:Never (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions.
2. Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the President's color, for all I care.
2. Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt [her] nation" please.
She didn't seriously injure her country or try to destabilise it or encourage war against it. She did not cooperate with a foreign nation. She was acquitted of "aiding the enemy". To stick the "traitor" label on her is ridiculous.
(Also, to stubbornly stick with "him" suggests you're not really interested in facts and are emtionally clouded.)
Re: (Score:3)
>1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions.
Yes. This. Besides which I would go further and quote Oscar Wilde: Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
He was right too. Loving a country is simply an insane idea which is pushed only by those who want to engage in, or get others to engage in, or get others to cover up vicious behavior. It's merely a contemporary form of good old fashion tribalism. Love individuals who act good. A country - that's just an attempt to establish an a
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, loving your country does not mean you have to appease it's fuhrer in every way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only been a couple of decades that your attitude has not held legal sway, jailing men who like being "fucked in the ass".
You owned all history up until then, and still do on most of the planet.
Good riddance.
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.
Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war. [thefreedictionary.com]
The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was June 5, 1942. [wikipedia.org] Authorizations of military force (not to trivialize them) do not rise to the level of a declaration of war.
Therefore, Chelsea Manning, no matter what else you think of her, and no matter how deserving she is of punishment for leaking sensitive information, did not commit treason. Ditto for Edward Snowden.
Re: (Score:3)
Manning and Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 [wikipedia.org]. It reads as almost a textbook definition of "traitor". (Personally I think Snowden could be pardoned for acting as a whistleblower, since he's been careful to release only documents relating to questionable government p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the letter of the law can be grounds for being imprisoned it must also be grounds for release. Legally speaking - America refrained from going to war, so treason was not legally possible.
America has had a habit ever since the end of world war 2 of fighting wars without declaring them. It started during the cold war when, arguably, there was some good reason for it - declaring those wars could have led to a direct confrontration with the Soviet Union which neither side wanted. Using proxy wars without dec
Re:Never (Score:5, Informative)
Posting AC to preserve Moderations.
Re:Never (Score:4, Interesting)
The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason.
No, they were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage. [wikipedia.org] You might think that's the same as treason, but it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Dwilden's example shows that that clickonthis' attempt to narrow the definition of traitor to uniquely apply during times where congress has declared war (in an attempt to disqualify using it for Manning) is obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
> America has had a habit ever since the end of world war 2 of fighting wars without declaring them.
It leaned from Japan the value of a good surprise attack, aka "preemptive strike".
Re: (Score:3)
Technically speaking Manning only publicly exposed traitors when actions where illegally taken to obstruct justice by keeping secrets of criminal activity. Expose just one crime and that is sufficient, in fact it is illegal to keep those secrets so Manning adhered to the prima facie law, that law that it is illegal to obey illegal orders, including orders that purposefully obstruct justice. This further demonstrated by Snowden when he exposed high crimes, whereby the President on down broke their constitut
Re:Never (Score:4, Funny)
"Traitor" is a label thrown about by mindless patriots
You replied:
traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots."
I find it interesting that your subconscious autocorrected 'patriot' to 'idiot', but it doesn't really help the point that you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's what's between the ears that counts. Your brain governs everything you do. It's who you are. And when your brain has developed (in the 1st trimester) to be atypical, with some structures and signalling behavior that leans towards the opposite sex, what would you expect? And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever. When you have control and custody of someone, you're supposed to act as a good custodian. It's not li
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Because it's what's between the ears that counts.
So if I believe that I'm a helicopter then that makes me a real helicopter. Got it. But at any rate, that doesn't make any kind of a case for surgery.
And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever.
I really don't think you understand what orthodontic care means, and why it's not health related. In fact if you go to prison already having braces, chances are the only "care" you'll get is to simply have them removed. There's only super rare medical cases where orthodontic care is medically necessary, and chances are that if you were born with a medical need
Re: (Score:2)
I never tried to "explain the causes" of female-to-male trans, because we just don't have enough information (and it's irrelevant to the discussion of Chelsea Manning anyway).
Also, your figures for spontaneously deciding against it are based on fraudulent studies, including those at CAMH, where one of the leading proponents of "reparative therapy" was fired and his clinic shut down. He (Kenneth Zucker) made quite the killing over the years milking parents financially by interpreting ANY behaviour that was
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's what's between the ears that counts.
If it's what's between the ears that counts, there is no and can be no argument for any kind of sex reassignment surgery, because what is between their legs does not count at all.
It's your brain that's acting, and it is influenced by the structure of the brain. (How it) function(s) follows form.
Yes, and people are allowed to have different brain structures, a male having a stereotypically female structure does not make them any less a male. Likewise with female but with stereotypically male structure.
Quite often females in engineering pursuits can have stereotypical male traits such as better spatial awareness and poorer
Re: (Score:2)
The Olympics also banned a couple of XY women who later on gave birth to children. All those who like to shout "but chromosomes" don't really have a clue. Then again, so many of them are guided by religion, not science, that they don't dare question what they have been led to believe.
And it's not like there aren't animals that spontaneously change sex, becoming fully functional in their new sex, including being fertile. It's part of nature, and it highlights that we just cannot take such a complicated subj
Re: (Score:3)
>I'd otherwise agree except, as GP stated, this isn't medically necessary and is purely cosmetic.
I'm sorry but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is, in fact, medically necessary and, indeed, lifesaving. Untreated gender dysphoria is known to cause suicidal depression on an unmatched scale - transgender people have a successful suicide rate (which is far lower than the attempt rate) 4 times higher than the national average in every demographic. That's clear evidence of a medical need.
Yes, y
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>Until very recently, homosexuality effectively removed your genes from the pool,
Nope. Never been true. Gay people have been having kids since time immemorial. Most of them married somebody of the opposite sex as part of their cover after all. Not to mention the best scientific evidence we have suggests that homosexuality is transfered epigenitically - which means you don't need a gay gene to have gay offspring. The fact that homosexuality has been observed in over 3000 species and is now believed to exi
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
I will agree to traitors to their government, but "traitors to their country" is debatable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it funny ... how the people quickest to yell "traitor" are so often the same ones who seem to almost worship the Founding Fathers?
That treason actually killed tens of thousands of people, but is somehow more OK.
Re: (Score:3)
People like you used to have the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" excuse after WW2. You're just pissed that Manning, Snowden and Assange have rendered that excuse void.
Re:Never (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing to recall here is the Manning is not Snowden. Manning had access to a bunch of embarrassing information and he had an axe to grind. When Assange came along and afforded him the opportunity to grind said axe he took it.
It turned out that there ware some revelations in the documents that probably indicated criminal action by the state however that does not a whistle blower of manning make. Intent counts a lot here or should. Manning did not come forward with information because he wanted to prev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because pissed off at something doesn't mean the something is wrong. I don't care for my manager, that doesn't mean that it's right to dox him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never (Score:4, Insightful)
Solitary confinement is torture.
I agree...
Further, I feel that life in prison is also torture... the idea that we put people into 10 foot by 8 foot concrete boxes for the rest of their lives is evil in my view...
Even if the person does horrible things, that is now how you treat humans, or you're no better than them...
Maybe you can't let them go free, but you could have prison farms and communities made up of such people where they have an area to build a home, farm food, and have a life away from the rest of us...
Re:Never (Score:4, Interesting)
He's in solitary because he tried to kill himself. The correct action is to allow the suicide. I really hate the Christian idea that has become a part of US culture -- that we have to actively prevent suicides from succeeding. It's stupid and usually counter-productive.
Never say Never (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama might even give it a metal (sic).
Manning is not an "it." That's the ultimate "objectification" of her.
Re: (Score:2)
Language works the way people use it. "He" is the correct pronoun to use for someone born with a penis. That has not yet changed, despite your attempts to make it so.
Fortunately, the courts disagree with you. Here continuing to refer to someone as "he" after they've started to transition (before or after surgery) is classified as sexual harassment. You're harassing someone based on their previous sex.
There are a few trans judges around. Why don't you give it a try and see if you can avoid contempt of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a pest and a thorn in the side of the US but they don't have anything they can legally go after him for. Nor have they every indicated any intention to prosec
Today vs Yesterday (Score:2, Insightful)
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Assange would do well to stay where he is, even if it feels confining. Because he would be disappeared like Chelsea They would bury him so deep in the system that death would be preferable.
--
BMOME-163B
Pentagon papers (Score:2)
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
I think the only reason Ellsberg didn't go to jail is because the government completely bungled the investigation and engaged in clearly illegal [wikipedia.org] actions while investigating the case. Had they been more restrained they might very well have gotten a conviction.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Sadly you might be correct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Manny was never disappeared. From the minute he was taken into custody his location was known. He was in solidary confinement in the Quantico military base. He was there because he was charged with some serious crimes. He was in solidary under suicide watch. He was also kept away from other military personnel that were also in custody for his protection. For some reason the military, even those in jail, do not tolerate someone who they consider an oath breaker and traitor.
The US could have extradited Assang
Re:Today vs Yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
>Manning isn't disappeared
Just because we know where he is doesn't mean he's not disappeared. When you are put into solitary confinement with no contact with the outside world with no day-night cycle (they keep the lights on all the time) you have been thrown in a hole to be forgotten about.
BTW, long term solitary confinement is torture. Not all torture is physical.
And no, he's not in "protective custody" to prevent other inmates harming him. You can request and get out of protective custody (which is a form of solitary confinement) and people often do to take their chances in general population because pc is so awful.
>Snowden can't be pardoned because he hasn't been convicted.
You don't need to be convicted to get a pardon. Ford pardoned Nixon before any conviction happened. Your argument is invalid.
>The US doesn't want Assange evidenced by the fact that Greenwald is free
Greenwald is an old-school journalist and thus protected in the court of public opinion as well as by precedent. Assange isn't. Assange has been bad-mouthed enough that the general public doesn't give a shit about him and probably thinks he "deserves whatever happens to him." Going after Greenwald is a non-starter. Going after Assange will get someone promoted.
>Contrary to popular belief the US Foreign Intelligence services are not required to work within the Constitution or Bill of Rights
US foreign intelligence isn't supposed to spy on US citizens. That's a violation of my rights as a citizen. Fuck you for defending this.
How do those boots taste?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon, Libby, North and so on - the list is long of people who were pardoned before conviction.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime.
Of course the PotUS can pardon him without Snowden having a conviction. Nixon wasn't even charged with a crime before Ford pardoned him.
Re: (Score:2)
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Too true. Those damned Mexican judges.
Manning? Really? (Score:2)
I'm surprised that he chose Manning and not Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Chelsea is very unlikely to be raped at all, let alone daily.
His guards probably harass him in much more creative ways than the ones which have some prayer of getting sympathy for him.
They stuck that kid in a hole in the ground and are making it their personal lives' mission to show how miserable life can get without breaking any rules in the process. They would never do something as idiotic as sexually assaulting him and risk having their little slice of righteousness enforcement taken away from them.
Witho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is he asking for? (Score:4, Insightful)
He is a fugitive from raping two women in Sweden, volunteering to go to jail in the US as long as the US lets go of someone who was in the military and admits releasing lots of military secrets?
Is this offer serious? To me it comes off as laughably weird. Why not volunteer to go to French jail if they pardon Carlos the Jackal?
Re: What exactly is he asking for? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is not a US citizen. He broke no applicable law by publishing the material from Manning.
He's just showboating (Score:5, Insightful)
He's trying to get himself attention, and succeeding it would seem as here's a story on it.
Assange has acted rather oddly throughout this whole thing, at least if you take his rhetoric at face value. He happily went to Sweden and spent time there until these allegation came up, at which time he went to the UK. He then claimed that the reason was that the charges were BS and Sweden would just hand him over to the US because they were after him as soon as he went back. That of course makes one questions:
1) Why would he go to Sweden in the first place, if he knew it was a country that would hand him over to the US extra judicially?
2) Why would he flee to the UK and feel safe there, a country with such a special relationship with the US it is literally called the "special relationship"?
He then fought the extradition to Sweden in the UK courts and lost. They were ruling just on the validity of the extradition request, not on the validity of the charge behind it. He then fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, claiming that he'd be handed over to the US if he went to Sweden.
So there we are today. Now near as I know, the US has not sought his arrest. While they don't like him, it doesn't look like he's broken US law. Publishing classified US information isn't a crime if you weren't the one who had access to it. So a guy who has a security clearance and gets information and gives it to a paper, he's breaking the law. However the paper that then publishes it is not.
Now maybe he really does know something most don't, but it seems more likely this is just him trying to get in the news. He knows this is an empty offer since the US wouldn't agree to it as they don't have a valid charge to bring against him. This is all between him and Sweden and now him and the UK (even if Sweden dropped the charges, he still broke UK law be fleeing his bail). The US isn't involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicely summarized. If I had mod points I'd vote this up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"2) Why would he flee to the UK and feel safe there, a country with such a special relationship with the US it is literally called the "special relationship"?"
This absolutely is it. I think he left Sweden because he was allowed to, rather than fleeing, and the charges appeared afterwards, but if he really feared extradition to the USA over Wikileaks, he would have gone _anywhere_ but the UK at that point; it's not as if there was anything particularly new on the US front.
The entirety of his argument seems t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe you left out the important fact that he stated he was more than willing to accept extradition to Sweden so long as they did not hand him over to the US when he got there at which point they refused. That is a huge point you missed.
Also, you missed the point that he didn't flee the country to avoid charges as none of that happened till after he was gone and even then he never was facing charge in Sweden either only questioning.
And he happily offered to do the questioning over the phone or they coul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is a fugitive from raping two women in Sweden
You have to get "allegedly" into your vocabulary if you want to be a lawyer.
-- from the motion picture Primal Fear
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much it. It would be the same if you went to a clinic for a prostate exam and found out that the guy with his finger up your ass wasn't a doctor, but an impostor. You didn't consent to being fondled by someone who wasn't a doctor, even though they could argue that you consented when they asked you to "assume the position" so they can examine you. Doesn't change the fact that they are guilty of sexual assault on your person.
Ditto for someone who lies and tells you they don't have AIDS, or who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, US courts have already ruled that an usolicited finger in the anus is not a crime.
They've also ruled many times that any unwanted penetration, successful or not, with a body part or an inanimate object, is a crime.
Feckless Censors (Score:3)
I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.
Re: (Score:2)
indefinite solitary confinement (Score:4, Insightful)
This quote says it all for me (Score:5, Interesting)
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously??? WTF, are you mentally deficient? the "secrets" they are holding pertain to them breaking federal law and violating your constitutional rights.
Dumb-ass.
Nice attention whoring. (Score:3, Insightful)
Making himself the hero, while deflecting from the fact that he is holed up in the embassy because he is wanted for sexual misconduct in Sweden.
The problem.... (Score:2)
Snowden will never come home, Assange will have to either stay where he is or face prison elsewhere, and Manning will likely never see the outside of a prison cell. As far as a lot of people are concerned; they want all three dead.
And that's not just within the US.
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison to what was revealed Manning is a saint.
Military Perversion (Score:2)
Not indicted (Score:4, Informative)
This is completely bizarre. Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition. I'm not sure how he can "agree to go to prison" when he hasn't been charged with a crime. The U.S. doesn't actually let people go to prison just because they want to; they have to be found guilty of a crime.
Assange is wanted in Sweden (although so far he's only wanted for questioning.)
Assange is wanted in Britain-- for jumping bail.
But he's not wanted for a crime in the U.S. He could agree to go to prison in Sweden or Britain-- why doesn't he volunteer to do that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is just a paranoid nut who thinks just because he doesn't like the US that the US wants him captured.
In terms of US he just posted stolen information. Then the US news repeated it. Manning is the real criminal stealing the data to begin with.
Re:Not indicted (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition.
You actually don't know that... there are "secret warrants" and sealed indictments...
He may well be wanted but the government just won't admit it...
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't very secret.
Some years ago it was. Even Hillary said a few things to the press on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does the US even want him? (Score:5, Informative)
"EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks Investigation Ongoing"
https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki... [epic.org]
US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
more at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj... [amlaw.com]
"The FBI's "still active and ongoing" probe of WikiLeaks" (March 06, 2015)
http://www.courthousenews.com/... [courthousenews.com]
from https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki... [epic.org]
i.e. "... the Department of Justice and FBI’s multi-subject investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information published on WikiLeaks, which is “still active and ongoing” and remains in the investigative stage."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nobody cares. Do you keep up with what Snoop Dog is calling himself every week? Is it Snoop Lion still? What about Prince? Or whenever streets or a short stretch of freeway around you get "officially" named after a dead guy? What about a University of library that renames buildings and wings after whatever cocksplash donates a lot of money each year? Have you ever asked your dog what his or her gender preference is? How dare you think you can choose his or her name! And how dare you think "his" or "
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point. The topic we are both replying to is "Re: You Mispelled (sic) "Bradley Manning""
Chelsea Manning has taken control of that aspect of her life. Otherwise her legal name would still be Bradley Manning.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a pretty small consolation that you're finally the gender you want when you're rotting away in a cage
To a transsexual, it might seem worth it rather than being a prisoner in the wrong-gendered body. Besides, the knowledge that you did the right thing by blowing the whistle on illegal government activities is better than the guilt of being too chicken-sh*t to do something when you had a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that the issue of surgery has come up only after he's in a position to get tax payers to pay for it? Why didn't he do it before committing a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they pretended anyway, and since they got away with it that may as well be true.
Try breaking a US law in such a place and people will find the law does apply to individuals despite being waived when inconvenient to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If YOU are asserting that a critic of "trans-people" is bad and probably a latent homosexual, then you are BY DEFINITION asserting that you also believe homosexuality to be a bad thing.
Non sequitur.
Barbara is alluding to the fact that folks who are suppressing something as fundamental as their sexuality tend to act out on it in other ways--generally, by attacking anyone displaying the trait they're denying in themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery), GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery), GAS (Gender Affirming Surgery), they all mean the same thing. The newer terms came to the fore to de-emphasize the "sex" part. And no, gender is not a psychological construct. It's embedded in the physical - otherwise there would be no need for SRS. The perception of being wrong-gendered is due to the development of the brain before birth, and that's controlled by the expression of the genes of the fetus, same as everything else.
The attem
Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five (Score:5, Informative)
...a 2010 rape charge
a) He hasn't been charged with anything
b) It isn't "rape" he's wanted for questioning over.
Re: (Score:2)
a) He hasn't been charged with anything
Only because he can't be charged in absentia.
b) It isn't "rape" he's wanted for questioning over.
Sweden says it is. Specifically, it's a lesser degree of rape which doesn't involve violence but still includes non-consensual intercourse. I suppose your scare quotes are because this doesn't meet the your definition of rape?
Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five (Score:5, Informative)
Sweden doesn't charge you unless you are present to defend yourself.
Why can't idiots learn that?
And they've been given ample opportunity to question him before deciding whether or not lay charges, which they should be doing as part of their investigation, but aren't, because this is politically motivated.
Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for that completely fucking irrelevant piece of information.
Given that Assange was questioned in Sweden prior to leaving the country and prosecutors deemed there to be no charge to answer, I think it's pretty fucking valid to point out that he hasn't been charged with anything.