President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence (theverge.com) 798
The New York Times is reporting that President Obama has commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence. What this translates to is a reduced sentence for Manning, from 35 years to just over seven years. Since Manning has already served a majority of those years, she is due to be released from federal custody on May 17th. The Verge reports: While serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, Manning leaked more than 700,000 documents to Wikileaks, including video of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad that killed two Reuters employees. In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for her role in the leak and has been held at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth for the past three years. Julian Assange, who has long been sought by U.S. and EU authorities for extradition on Swedish rape charges, had previously pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Born Bradley Manning, Chelsea announced her gender transition the day after the verdict was handed down. "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female," she said in a statement. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible." Obtaining the resulting medical treatments was extremely difficult for Manning, and was the subject of significant and sustained activism. After a lawsuit, Manning was approved for hormone therapy in 2015. In September 2016, she launched a hunger strike, demanding access to gender reassignment surgery; the military complied five days later.
Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it was my estimation that the two political parties were more interested in what is best for America, rather than just winning their ideological war, this would hold more weight for me.
Snowdon seems the logical "other pardon". Not sure I'd like that to happen. Would prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Neither case is at the instigation of a foreign government. So the issues need to be gone through in an open court so the country can understand the issues. And legally decide whether a crime was committed, or these were justified acts done by patriots.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for being able to make their case so the country can understand the issues, I suppose they could appear on talk shows. Write a book. Which then becomes a movie, er . . . oh, wait.
Even better would be if there had been legitimate channels where whistle blowers could have reported problems without fear of reprisals.
A pardon may not completely say that their acts were justified, but it at least gets them out of trouble.
The problem with a court proceeding is that it puts them back in jeopardy of whatever way the winds may blow in court.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that Manning was NOT pardoned. His (her?) sentence was commuted. So, he/she still has a criminal record, can't exercise his/her full rights as a citizen (RKBA is gone, for instance, in spite of firearms being completely irrelevant to his crime).
A sentence commutation just means he/she gets out of jail sooner. Not at all the same as a pardon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read 1984 . . .
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
HE committed a crime. SHE is getting her sentence commuted.
If the sex change had happened before the crime, I wouldn't be using he/she at all. If it had not happened before the commutation, likewise....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm genuinely curious as to how it damages / inconveniences / hurts you to just call her a her?
That's not the reason. Some people object to calling humans with penises "she". That's the reason. But if you want play by a different rule, you can do so, madam.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm genuinely curious as to how it damages / inconveniences / hurts you to just call her a her?"
Probably just a semantic thing. I too have a problem addressing a person with a penis as "she".
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does any of it matter? She wants to be referred to as "she", so unless you have some particular reason to be a asshat towards her why not just do it?
Some posters keep complaining about the lack of respect people have these days, while refusing to show the most basic level towards transgender people.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does any of it matter? She wants to be referred to as "she", so unless you have some particular reason to be a asshat towards her why not just do it?
When talking to him directly? Sure, it's only polite to call him "her". Heck, I've been to enough cons - if someone wants to be a Klingon ship captain, sure, I'll play along if they're there and in costume. But they still aren't Klingon, and I'm not going to think of them as Klingon, or refer to them that way in normal conversation.
There's a quote sometimes attributed to Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four - doesn't matter what you call it, it's not a leg".
My sympathy towards anyone with a mistake belief about reality that interferes with their daily life - psychoses suck. But I'm not going to participate in their reality.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no known relationship between transgenderism, and delusions or psychoses. People with delusions tend to have a history of psychological problems and a spread of issues. Trans-folks, once you get over any bumps caused by repression or rejection, don't really have any of that. They have a straight-line, sometimes very strongly felt dysphoria. Calling it a delusion is to ignore all the detail of the phenomenon, which make you a bad nerd!
It's perfectly plausible that hormonal variations during development could cause this stuff - gendered body parts are month 2+, brain is month 6. If your testosterone levels fall off, or your mother is feeding anti-androgens in, etc, then you'll get male body, female brain.
It surprises me that people find this hard to get, when such hormonal variations cause plenty of other conditions. And it's not like "I think I'm female" is an unusual feeling - it's common to over half the world's population, and in the absence of foetal androgens, everyone would say it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet here we are explaining the basics of gender to you, so I guess some of us still have sympathy for the weakminded.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What special privilege is Chelsea asking for? She wants to be called by her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things). She's not asking to go to an all-girls high school or otherwise do anything controversial. In what remote sense does her request harm you in any way?
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
They are not medically or legally different things.
I grew up in a medical family and I've worked in healthcare in various capacities for a couple of decades now. In any organization I've dealt with, "sex" or "biological" sex explicitly refers to your anatomy. That's important because biological males can't get cervical cancer and biological females can't get testicular cancer, for instance. They're the words used on the occasions when anatomy are relevant. Most medical organizations I've been around in the last decade or so distinguish between "sex" and "gender", which is what the patient presents themselves as. Sure, they're most commonly the same value, but they are separate database fields referring to different concepts.
But what you and other extreme liberals
LOL. You presume much, and wrongly. But con/lib aside, I've never encountered a single problem with referring to someone by their gender. The people who care to distinguish between sex and gender appreciate the respect, and understand when medical decisions require healthcare providers to discuss their sex instead. It's easy to be nice to people, so why not do so? It doesn't cost us anything.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Really, So have you looked the term up in a legal dictionary?
From Black's Law Dictionary:
What is GENDER?
Defined difference between men and women based on culturally and socially constructed mores, politics, and affairs. Time and location give rise to a variety of local definitions. Contrasts to what is defined as the biological sex of a living creature.
Seems like you may be full of shit.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Interesting)
her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things)
What? This is the first time I've heard that claim, and I find it hard to believe. I can buy it for a medical definition (though I expect that it must be a recent change), those people mostly only care about what's best for the patient, but legally? In this political climate? In what state? In what country?
My understanding is this: Robert Stoller started distinguishing between the words sex and gender back in the sixties because he found it convenient for his research on transexuality. Some feminists starting picking up the idea in the seventies, when Gail Ruben argued that gender was a social imposition rather than anything tied to biology, and she used the two words separately in her argument. Since then the sex/gender distinction has become common jargon in feminist literature... And that's it. That's as far as it goes. The two words are distinguished in certain academic jargon, but they are synonyms outside of that.
Is there more to this that I'm unaware of? I ask because I've seen this declaration that gender means one thing and sex means something else a lot lately, and it seems so... dumb. It's like that guy who declares that green beans aren't vegetables because they're actually fruits. And technically it's true that green beans are fruits in the jargon of certain academic fields, but this fact doesn't make that guy right. That guy is still dumb. Outside of a textbook: green beans are vegetables.
Or, for that matter, sex and gender have different meanings in linguistic jargon than they do in feminist jargon. Saying that one definition is "correct" is just myopic.
Re: (Score:3)
Legally: Most modern parts of the world allow people to correct their legal gender, including on birth certificates and all other official documents like passports.
Medically: Sport has been trying to find a simple, reliable medical determining factor for gender for decades, and has failed. A little under 2% of women have testicles. Maybe 1 in 60. They probably don't even know until they try to get pregnant. They have XY chromosomes too. There is simply no definitive definition of biological sex, it's a comb
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Funny)
Some people don't want to cater to the delusions of the mentally ill.
... And the rest of us put up with you just the way you are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Some people don't want to cater to the delusions of the mentally ill.
Well, then how do you explain Trump?
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So decorum and manners are of no value at all to you? You basically feel entitled to be as rude and awful as you please? Well go for it. Yes, the government won't haul your ass into court for being an asshole, but I think you'll find your life will be worse for it. Because of course even someone like you knows there are social rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel like you're kind of a sanctimonious shitbag. I could go on, but I feel like I've made my point.
Imagine being in real life when someone like you says stupid things, and then everyone decides to agree with you and label you the sanctimonious
Re: (Score:3)
Compelling a person to say things is kind of tyrannical, isn't it?
It takes a special kind of idiot to hear "it's polite to use her preferred pronoun" and interpret it as "we will force you to use her preferred pronoun". As I pointed out, if you are an asshat you can continue to use the wrong one, just be clear that you are being a deliberate asshat and don't try to hide behind arguments about biology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The personal pronoun refers to her gender, not her sex.
People like you need to be put to death.
Abit extreme I would think. If we killed off everyone who had a differing opinion of how to address others, we might not have such a large population load on the planet, so I suppose there would be an upside.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
There are people whose chromosomes are of one gender but whose external genitalia are of another, as a matter of fetal development. Sexuality is more than genitals and chromosomes, even without the involvement of surgery.
There's a good reason for this. At conception, we are all female [youtube.com]. For the first few weeks, we will have estrogen, ovaries and vaginas. This is because of genetics. You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY. But the X chromosome details female characteristics. The Y details male characteristics. But that means if you have an XY pair, the Y chromosome needs to deactivate genes in the X chromosome. But that takes a few weeks to happen, so in the meantime, the fetus develops as if they're a female. When the Y chromosome 6takes over, then the adaptations begin. The ovaries shrivel and descent, becoming the testes, and the vagina "pops out" becoming the penis. Likewise, estrogen levels go down, testosterone levels rise.
Most of the time the transformation is complete, but since it's genetics and subject to random variation, it's entirely possible the genetic suppression isn't complete, leading to homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.
Maleness is simply a genetic patch on females. As everyone knows, sometimes patches don't apply cleanly.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. There have been some links found between gender dysphoria and genetics and/or developmental variables - http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/art... [jsexmed.org]
Now obviously I can't can say if Manning's gender dysphoria (that is believe what she was diagnosed with) has its roots in this, but the "feeling" that some people have of being one gender when their apparent physical gender is the opposite has been known for quite some time. As it is, if someone has gone through some degree of gender reassignment, insisting upon c
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Y chromosome only contains the code for the testes, which, if they work correctly, will produce testosterone, and testosterone, will, if other parts of the body work correctly, make them develop as male rather than female. Around 1.7% of babies that are issued with female birth certificates actually have XY chromosomes, and a condition that means the testosterone isn't produced, or doesn't work. They have testes where you would normally expect to find ovaries, but other than that, look exactly like girls.
There are other conditions that cause the kidneys to produce testosterone, so around 1 in 20000 babies that are issued with male birth certificates actually have XX chromosomes.
Another thing, thanks to microchimerism, around 22% of women have cells in their bodies with XY chromosomes. Being pregnant with a son increases the chance of this happening, 10% of women who have never been pregnant have cells with XY chromosomes, and many of them have an older brother.
You almost certainly have cells in your body that 100% match your mother's DNA, in addition to the majority that match 50% plus whatever your mother and father have in common.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are numerous other variations. Some biological women have abnormally high testosterone levels - for a long time they were barred from competing in the olympics. Then there is a condition where the body is incapable of absorbing testosterone. And sometimes these can occur in the same person. For a long time women barred from the olympics due to high testosterone levels were allowed back in if they also had that condition.
Human bodies are extremely complex machines and come in many varieties - and most of them are harmless variation. There is nothing harmful about transgender genetics - the only harm they suffer is from the way people treat them, it's not their genes causing that, it's a flawed culture. One of the greatest Winter Olympians of all time had a rare genetic trait that made his body produce far higher than average red blood cells (Polycythemia). What some sportsman try to achieve with drugs like EPO - he had by nature of his genes.
When she was 3 months old my daugher swallowed a peanut which went down the wrong hole and got inhaled. She needed an endoscope to remove it. While doing the endoscope we learned that she had only one tube connecting her airways to her left lung. Generally there are two. I asked the doctor if this was anything to be concerned about and she said "Absolutely not, it's entirely harmless and will have no impact on her life whatsoever. It's a known and perfectly natural genetic variation and it's quite likely either you or your wife also has it. The only reason I pointed it out is because I found it personally interesting because though I knew about it, I hadn't seen it myself before".
Humans are not simple and don't fit into such super-simplistic categories as "male/female" very well and never really have. Just like anybody who says "people have two passages connecting the left lung to the airway" would be saying something that looks extremely obvious on the surface but simply isn't TRUE of all people.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
and the vagina "pops out" becoming the penis
Listen, I'm not a meteorologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that a penis is not an inside-out vagina. I'm pretty sure it's more analogous to the clitoris, and that the little seam that runs down the nutsack and taint (excuse the medical terminology) is the result of the labia closing and sealing.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Funny)
jesus, i always just thought that was a dark line; now you're telling me it's the scar from that time when my vagina healed?
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...
You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.
Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And some females only have a single X...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The fact is that there are some people here who sit some distance along the autism spectrum, probably more than a few people with Asperger's, who are neurologically wired to view the world in very narrow and rigid ways. They need to define gender in the simplest form possible, it's just the way their brains work. They don't want to see the world as nuanced, it's too hard, and it's just much easier to demand, no matter ludicrously, that the world fit into the confines they are emotionally comfortable with. S
Re: (Score:3)
Forget the autistic part: It is just the nature of humans in general to seek to view the world in narrow and rigid ways. It brings comfort and assurance. Nuance leads to uncertainty and self-doubt, things that people seek to avoid at all costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about yourself? Because you have demonstrated every characteristic you criticised in the same post that criticised them. You will not call him she because you want to be an asshole. You want to be deliberately rude and annoying. By your self chosen labels and definitions you are deliberately being an arsehole (the right spelling btw).
Yes, truely, it is indeed the Age of the Arsehole. Your Age.
Re: (Score:3)
When did another person's feelings become more important than other people's feelings?
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Felons by default do not have full rights as citizens, including RKBA and Voting. That is what happens when you commit a felony. Sucks to be a felon, so don't commit felonies.
It depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If we are interested in curtailing re-offense and encouraging re-integration after prison, I don't think that disenfranchisement is particularly productive. There is considerable doubt over deterrent effect of the death penalty - I suspect that the deterrenc effect of disenfranchisement is pretty small.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh hey, it's sanctimonious [slashdot.org] shitbag [slashdot.org] again. Thanks for your comment. You've done us a service by enlightening us with your wisdom. Thanks so much.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
I believe you are correct. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Try citing the actual case.
The relevant case is Ex parte Garland (1867) [justia.com], in which Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the court in a 5-4 decision, wrote that a president's pardon power ''extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.'' This precedent was reaffirmed in Murphy v. Ford (1975) [louisiana.edu].
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.
Not true, the President's pardon power is pretty broad; specifically, the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no mention of conviction or even a trial, merely that an offense be committed "against the United States." The only limit would be in case of impeachment which is not germane to Snowden. As long as someone committed an act against the US a pardon may be issued by the President. Of note is that doesn't prevent state charges, stemming from the same act, from being brought as the President's power only extends to "Offences against the United States." In Snowden's case I have no idea if a state could decide to charge him or even what the charge could be, but someone could very well commit a Federal and state crime in the same act and thus a Presidential pardon would have no impact in the state's case.
I take Obama's comment as meaning his standard for considering a pardon includes having been tried for the act before he will consider issuing one; a standard Snowden has not met.
Re: (Score:3)
And since the power is so broadly defined, each President must decide their own standard. There may be some some argument that Obama's position on the use of the pardon may amount to something of a constitutional convention surrounding who is eligible for a pardon (I've never made much study of pardons in particular, but I'm assuming some scholars have done the work), but constitutional conventions only apply so long as everyone decides they apply, and since the power of pardon has only one person at a time
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
In Snowden's case he wasn't even in a state when he released the documents. In trying to research whether a crime committed in a federal building could be prosecuted at the state level (for the taking of the documents in the first place), I essentially came to the conclusion of "it depends on the property". Meaning if the government simply owns the land in the same manner as a regular private entity would, or it is of "concurrent legislative jurisdiction", the state and city still have law enforcement responsibility. But if it owns the land via "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" you're effectively not in a state while on the property. If you break the equivalent of a state law while in such a location, the feds can "assimilate" the appropriate state law and prosecute it as a federal crime.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm intrigued as to how pardons work legally and in terms of documentation. It seems pretty clear that presidents can pardon pre-try as many people here have evidenced, but what does that pardon look like? If there's been no charges and no trial, then how do they define what the pardon is for? If they pardon for presumed charges then isn't there a risk that when someone like Snowden comes back home they just get run through the system on different charges than were pardoned for? So for example if he pardone
Re: (Score:3)
Why do people keep repeating this zombie talking point? I know y'all didn't flunk out of school before they covered Nixon in civics class.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL. For real. The USG was set up as an elitist institution, with power limited to property owners (and amplified for slave owners) from the get go. You're as sad as a creationist whining that teaching the theory of evolution in science class == schools are teaching kids to hate god.
Re: (Score:3)
It unquestionably is, unless you're an authoritarian who DGAF about Constitutional protections or the consent of the governed.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
I think that pretty much covers it.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need to be convicted or even charged with any crime or act to be pardoned. A pardon is essentially the head of the executive branch saying the executive branch will not execute laws in regards to a specific person, situation, etc.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Interesting)
technically, Obama can pardon him for certain crimes. But is unlikely to if he doesn't make a deal in 3 days. He'll still serve time in jail for any crimes not listed, but it's better than what Putin will eventually do to Snowden.
His best offer is likely to be a few years in federal jail in the US proper. He'd better reach out now. The door will close soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what will Putin do?
If history tells us anything, it's that Putin rarely keeps his pets after using them.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
manning is a traitor. HE will always be viewed as such.
Snowden too.
By stupid rednecks, sure. The type of people who think (ok, that's a legal fiction) that they are right not because of their actions, but by default. The type who "thinks" that there is a finite supply of bad people in the world, and that we can solve all our problems by killing or incarcerating them, never mind the collateral damage. The type who may have heard of human rights, but does not understand that they apply to all humans, even those that disagree with them.
I'm not a big fan of Assange, but he wrote an excellent statement [wikileaks.org] on the Manning case, quoting John Adams: "“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know.” He does not quote the second part, but I find it just as applicable: "...but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
If you look at how Manning was treated both pre- and post-trial, its "as incontrovertible as geometry to any enlightened community of minds" that the people responsible for that treatment are guilty of severe crimes under both national and international laws - regardless of what Manning had done. But, as the presidential election has shown, "this community is an insult to the world" (to steal from Henry Drummond/Spencer Tracy), and so the chance for actual justice is remote.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you can. The presidential pardon is really powerful. It can even given as 'pardon for all crimes from date A to date B' so they can be pardoned for a crime they were never charged with.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it was my estimation that the two political parties were more interested in what is best for America, rather than just winning their ideological war, this would hold more weight for me.
Snowdon seems the logical "other pardon". Not sure I'd like that to happen. Would prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Neither case is at the instigation of a foreign government. So the issues need to be gone through in an open court so the country can understand the issues. And legally decide whether a crime was committed, or these were justified acts done by patriots.
I wouldn't be shocked if Trump pardoned Snowden, it would make Russia look good by justifying their harbouring of Snowden and it's just the sort of PR splash/distraction that Trump loves.
Not sure about Assange though, Trump's lovefest with Wikileaks will come to a very quick end if they ever dump something that he wants hidden. In fact, aiding the election of someone who's campaigned on the vilification of the press may be one of the more short-sighted things that Assange has done.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how I feel about this
Yeah, difficult choice. Should we exonerate somebody who leaked information about the cold blooded murder of innocent journalists by brainwashed gun happy retards?
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
Or the boy-fucking in Afghanistan as revealed in the Wikileaks cables. [houstonpress.com] For authoritarians, the fainting couches get brought out for whistleblowers, but they don't care about children getting their assholes reamed by warlords on their tax dollar.
Snowden wouldn't be ALLOWED to make his case (Score:3)
Snowden would be tried under the Espionage Act, like other whistleblowers persecuted by Obama, which doesn't allow defendants to claim their actions were justified. It would be an open-and shut case for the prosecution, in a closed trial, and then Snowden would be hit with an effective lifetime sentence after all the charges for all the documents were piled up. Then he could look forward to torture (the solitary confinement Manning was subje
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:4, Interesting)
At this point though, now that a number of Congressmen have called for his head (not necessarily following a trial), he has no reason to believe he would get a fair trial if he returned voluntarily. I don't see Russia reversing their position anytime soon so his involuntary return isn't looking all that likely..
So, the closest approximation of justice at this point would be a pardon.
Not Possible (Score:3)
So would Snowden, I imagine. But the laws Snowden would be charged under have no public interest exemption. Likewise, Whistleblower Protections only apply to actual Federal employees, not to contractors (or 'Office Supplies', as we used to call ourselves). So Snowden, in a U.S. court, will be explicitly prevented from 'making his case'. A jury would be forbidden from being allowed to consider it, meaning any such testimony could be blocked.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of how David Petraeus did the same thing for nothing but the motive of wanting to fuck a reporter and how he got away with nothing but a slap on the wrist. That disproportionate punishment should make it easier to sort out your feelings even if you think Manning is guilty as hell. The sentence Manning received was unjust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it is. What Snowden did was altruistic and for the good of the people. What Nixon did was abuses of power designed to line his own pockets.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IWould prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?
Well for one it would be a trial against Snowden, not against Manning. And the request was for "a trial where [the defendant] would be allowed to make his case", not a secret trial by a Mickey Mouse court with a pre-determined outcome.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Informative)
IWould prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?
Well for one it would be a trial against Snowden, not against Manning. And the request was for "a trial where [the defendant] would be allowed to make his case", not a secret trial by a Mickey Mouse court with a pre-determined outcome.
Under the offense Snowden has been charged with, they could have a fully public and perfectly fair trial but the outcome would be completely known in advance. The Espionage Act includes no provision for justification as a defense, so the only question to be tried is whether or not Snowden stole secrets, and there's absolutely no question that he did. Snowden's only hopes if he were to be tried are (a) that the trial judge would hand down a very light sentence, (b) to have his conviction appealed to the Supreme Court who might find that the Espionage Act's lack of a public interest defense constitutes an unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech or (c) a presidential pardon. (a) is unlikely because you can be sure the government would pick a "good" judge, and (b) is a crapshoot, and one that would leave him rotting in jail for years until SCOTUS ruled, assuming they ruled in his favor.
Snowden's best move is exactly what he's doing, staying away until some president decides to pre-emptively do (c). His current status likely also positions him better to generate ongoing publicity in opposition to government spying since it makes him a more controversial and/or tragic figure.
Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?
She pled guilty, so there was no trial. She was not allowed to use the defense that her actions were justified, and in the best interests of her country. That is/was not a permissible defense, and the jury would not have been allowed to hear it. So she had no choice but to plead guilty and go to jail. So much for a "fair trial".
Re: (Score:3)
Manning will definitely lose her right to own a gun and voting rights.
...the latter depends on the state she decides to reside in. Not all states prohibit it. Really, none should, it's a knee-jerk idiot policy, except in the case where a large jail population would run a local town government. But nationally or statewide, if your country has so many felons you have to take away their right to vote for fear of that sort of thing, your country has bigger problems.
Your move, Assange.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your move, Assange.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
Re:Your move, Assange.... (Score:5, Informative)
Assange's offer was for "clemency," which does not necessarily mean a full pardon, and could include commutation depending upon whom you ask. So it's muddy, of course, and easy for him to weasel out of if he has to. In any case, was Assange ever actually facing US prison? It would be like me offering to turn myself in to the Canadian authorities in exchange for Snowden being granted clemency; I haven't even been to Canada, and I'm certainly not wanted for anything there. It's an empty offer, there's nothing for him to make good on.
No, he wasn't (Score:3)
Assanage's offer was always empty, given that the US isn't after him, at least not publicly. Now he contends that the US wants to get him in secret, though he's presented no evidence of this and of course one would have to question if they'd agree to a public deal for something secret.
Assanage is wanted by Sweden and the UK. Sweden for a sexual assault case, and the UK for skipping bail in that case. The US has not filed any charges against him, though I'm quite sure they don't like him. If he left the emba
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
Actually, the tweet said clemency, not pardon; which commutation certainly is based on the definition of clemency: Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. Will be interesting to see what Assange does now that Obama has granted clemency.
Re: (Score:3)
The linked tweet says:
"If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness"
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
Your copy/paste seems to be broken, it has dropped a few critical characters.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, it looks like there are two tweets, slightly different:
The original from last year: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
A new, similar one without the "exchange" from this year: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
Re:Your move, Assange.... (Score:5, Informative)
A definition of "clemency" [thefreedictionary.com] says:
Barring contrary definitions, the President granted her clemency. I strongly suspect Assange is far too little to live up to his promise, but this is exactly the situation the Wikileaks tweet described.
Ben Carson was right (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ben Carson was right (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they go to prison, sure, they can get a gender reassignment.
And I think you're off by a hair on your "millions" estimate. Male to female ranges from $7-$24,000. (source) [google.com]
For reference, a new knee will cost about $50k. Technically a knee replacement is an elective surgery. How many of those were done to inmates last year? Should they be denied therapy as well? Or does gender reassignment bother you because it doesn't match your world view?
Re:Ben Carson was right (Score:5, Funny)
What's the $7 route? A pair of scissors and a bottle of robitussin?
1 point for Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you Obama!!
Manning did the world a great service... I cant say more than this was long overdue.
Next.. Snowden? Perhaps all the people in prison and jail except for murders and rapist after they have had an independent review to make sure that they were REALLY guilty/not guilty??
More....
Incoming trolls!
Best fucking part (Score:5, Funny)
"Earlier this month, WikiLeaks said it would agree to a US extradition request for the site's founder, Julian Assange, if Obama granted clemency to Manning. It was not immediately clear if WikiLeaks would make good on its promise."
I'm sure Julian will honor this....
Re:Best fucking part (Score:4, Informative)
Err... No. Catch up. Sweden's own prosecutor's are going to wind up in trouble in Sweden for breaking Sweden's laws.
There was no 'misconduct' in Sweden and neither of the supposed victims feel that there was anything seriously wrong. They both deny there was any rape. It is the prosecutor (with US connections) that laid the rape charges not the supposed victims. The same prosecutor who agreed to let him leave and then charged him as a fugitive.
For everyone who ragged on Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, because he's not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is a hard core neoliberal neocon freakshow. This is the guy that bombed more countries than Bush, make the Patriot Act look like the Magna Carta by repealing Habeas Corpus with an NDAA, and started a war in Libya without Congressional authorization. Which his own VP said he would have supported Bush's impeachment [huffingtonpost.com] if he had done the same thing with Iran.
You mean after he tortured Manning for a year with solitary confinement, and committed unlawful command [nbcnews.com]
I see some Obamabots have modpoints. (Score:3)
What other facts are you guys going to object to? Yaknow your BFF even wanted to bring back whaling, [foxnews.com] when there isn't even a domestic whaling industry to pander to?
Re:Progressive (Score:4, Interesting)
You're running that Obamabot crap up the wrong flagpole, son. This is the same president that can out-conservative Reagan any day of the weak. Reagan publicly stated - repeatedly - that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. [youtube.com] Yet Obama appointed his Catfood Commission (because the only thing seniors could afford to eat after it was cat food) to reduce the deficit centered around those who want to cut Social Security.
Reagan granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants.
Obama deported them in record numbers.
Reagan withdrew from Lebanon.
Obama arranged to continue Afghanistan occupation until after his predecessor's predecessor.
Reagan signed arms reduction treaties with the USSR.
Obama started a trillion dollar upgrade program of America's nuclear arsenal.
Reagan signed a treaty requiring the prosecution of those who commit torture.
Obama immunized officials from torture and other crimes against humanity.
Obama started a war without Congressional authorization [huffingtonpost.com]
Obama repealed habeas corpus with an NDAA
Obama wanted to re-legalize whaling when there isn't even a whaling industry to pander to
I could go on all day, Obamabot. You might want to put the shovel down now.
For all those calling for Snowden's pardon (Score:5, Interesting)
President Obama noted stark differences between Manning's and Snowden's cases.
From the New York Times article: “Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” Pres. Obama said. “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary, and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.”
He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were “damaging to national security,” the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were “far more serious and far more dangerous.” (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely “secret” level.)
So, the president isn't about to pardon someone who hasn't even been tried for his crimes.
Re:For all those calling for Snowden's pardon (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality: Chelsea Manning wasn't allowed to defend her actions under the Espionage Act, was tortured for over a year with solitary confinement, was constantly subjected to humiliation, was threatened with a longer sentence over trumped up BS, and should have been released after Obama committed Unlawful Command Influence and pronounced Manning guilty before the trial was over, while promoting the judge overseeing the hearing.
Snowden would expect to fare as well.
The USA spies on the entire planet, including the personal communications of allied heads of state. That is unjustifiable.
coughNixoncough
Re:For all those calling for Snowden's pardon (Score:4, Interesting)
Goddammit, you can't even get pedantry right. Sure the president has pardoned people who haven't been tried, but that was a different president. This one could, but all signals point to that not happening.
Pardon means no crime happened, no record. I can imagine some form of clemency after a conviction, but no pardon up front. The evidence for Manning was pretty much available on WikiLeaks.
What Snowden leaked is not known, especially since the reputable news organizations were asked to be careful about what was reported. The actual extent of his actions are not known, so it's hard to know what is being pardoned. I wouldn't agree to that as Commander In Chief.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Obama has it wrong.
Manning released a bunch of random documents, with no real political benefit to America. Snowden released targeted documents, which caused changes to the Patriot Act renewal, changes to public perception about the NSA, and changed the way the FISA courts operated. Snowden was a whistle blower, because what he did caused political and social change. Manning released private communications between ambassadors, which did nothing but embarass multiple nations. What good came from
Now they don't have to pay for surgery (Score:3)
What will the reaction tweet be? (Score:2)
Varied opinions (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, I feel that neither Manning nor General Cartwright should have their sentences commuted. They were both members of the US military who had sworn oaths regarding their behavior and ethics in their service and disregarded them. Gen Cartwright, as an officer should be held to an even higher standard. They were both tried, found guilty and sentenced. What message does it send to the rest of the military if they don't have to serve their sentences? Why should anyone in the military feel compelled to obey any order or protect any secret if they know that whatever punishment they get will be commuted and all they need is some publicity to make it happen.
Re:Varied opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what they did or didn't do, what message does it send to the rest of the military that those imprisoned by the US are tortured with official sanction even up to and including the POTUS?
"Because our enemies are worse" is not a position of respect.
Re: (Score:3)
They were both members of the US military who had sworn oaths regarding their behavior and ethics in their service and disregarded them.
Doesn't the oath include defending America from domestic enemies? Ah yes, there is is, since 1862.
Idiocy (Score:3)
Re:Treason ain't what it used to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Bigoted transophobes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, you might get a few years left where your prejudice may be voiced in polite company, as trans rights are 20-30 years behind gay rights in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical depraved authoritarian groupthink. If you gave two shits about the lawwww, you would in fact demand that Manning and Snowden spend time in prison - behind every politician and official who were revealed to have broken the law by their leaks.
Take FISA just for starters. Up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. You guys demanding that Obama be sentenced to a few million years in prison and be fined a quadrillion dollars
Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Still waiting on SensitiveAuthortarian to see why Manning's release is more upsetting than the fact that government contractors were engaged in child trafficking [houstonpress.com] in Afghanistan - as revealed by Wikileaks. It's only SA's tax dollars that were hard at work, supporting boy fucking abroad...
Re:Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)