Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government United States Politics

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Agrees to US Prison If Obama Pardons Chelsea Manning

Comments Filter:
  • Never (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @03:40PM (#52913313) Homepage

    Assange knows that will never happen. Obama has trouble even treating Manning like a normal human being.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18, 2016 @04:13PM (#52913513)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18, 2016 @04:39PM (#52913621)

            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.)

            • >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

            • by johanw ( 1001493 )

              Indeed, loving your country does not mean you have to appease it's fuhrer in every way.

          • Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @06:43PM (#52914139) Journal

            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.

            • Nice strawman. The AC you quoted didn't mention treason. Very few people [sfgate.com] have been convicted under the Treason clause of the U.S. Constitution, namely because the Founding Fathers made it so damned difficult to prove it.

              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
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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)

            by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday September 19, 2016 @05:31AM (#52915789) Journal
            The grandparent said:

            "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:Never (Score:5, Insightful)

        by William Baric ( 256345 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @05:01PM (#52913719)

        I will agree to traitors to their government, but "traitors to their country" is debatable.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by quenda ( 644621 )

        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.

      • by johanw ( 1001493 )

        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      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

      • Being pissed off at the system in general is a valid motivation for blowing the whistle on the portion of it that you can affect. Just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix something.
        • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

          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.

          • It also doesn't mean that it's right, so your argument sucks. You don't care for your manager, and there would be no ethical problem reporting him or her for illegal activity. Don't want the whistle blown on you, don't treat people like sh*t and don't do illegal sh*t.
    • Never say Never (Score:3, Informative)

      Actually Obama illegally traded terrorists to get Manning returned to the US and free of his fellow terrorists. I see no reason to think that Obama wouldn't also pardon Manning for his high crimes, including desertion and possibly treason. It is the rest of America that don't want to see this traitor pardoned, so it seems likely that Obama would do it even without an Asange incentive. Obama might even give it a metal.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Obama might even give it a metal (sic).

        Manning is not an "it." That's the ultimate "objectification" of her.

  • Today vs Yesterday (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 )

    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

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @06:15PM (#52914035)

        >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

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )

        Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime

        Nixon, Libby, North and so on - the list is long of people who were pardoned before conviction.

      • 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.

    • Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.

      Too true. Those damned Mexican judges.

  • I'm surprised that he chose Manning and not Snowden.

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      Assange has a connection to Manning (allegedly). Snowden has nothing to do with Assange.
    • Quid pro quo. The bulk of Wikileaks' files on the U.S. came from Manning. In fact it could be argued that Wikileaks and Assange got most of their fame because of Manning. Snowden has been releasing the files he has via other press outlets.
  • by kamapuaa ( 555446 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @04:11PM (#52913493) Homepage

    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?

    • Correct. Assange isn't even wanted for anything in the US. So there is no offer to be made from him. Last - he can't be extradited from Sweden as that would be illegal under Swedish and EU law. However, he should leave Britain since he will not be protected by he EU rules there in a couple of years
    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @05:00PM (#52913707)

      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.

      • by quax ( 19371 )

        Nicely summarized. If I had mod points I'd vote this up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

      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

  • by wjcofkc ( 964165 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @04:18PM (#52913535)
    It does not matter where I personally stand on any of this politically. That is torture and the authorities backing and authorizing it know it.
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @04:56PM (#52913689)

    "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

  • by quax ( 19371 ) on Sunday September 18, 2016 @05:09PM (#52913765)

    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.

  • is as far as the government is concerned; Manning already got off light. There were many that wanted it executed; the same way the people "in power" don't want Snowden in jail; but want him dead on a slab.

    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.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      So what do you want done to the spooks that Manning exposed who were selling little boys to warlords to use as sex slaves?

      In comparison to what was revealed Manning is a saint.
  • So now the military puts suicide attempt people in isolation. I am absolutely certain that that will ensure that such a person will not commit suicide in the future. It must follow the logic that a boring dingy cell can somehow make a violator a better citizen.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...