Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing To Testify On WikiLeaks (apnews.com) 461
The Associated Press is reporting that Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, "has been sentenced to jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating Wikileaks." From the report: U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ordered Manning to jail for contempt of court on Friday after a brief hearing in which Manning confirmed she has no intention of testifying. She told the judge she "will accept whatever you bring upon me." Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial. The judge said she will remain jailed until she testifies or until the grand jury concludes its work. Manning's lawyers had asked that she be sent to home confinement instead of the jail, because of medical complications she faces. The judge said U.S. marshals can handle her medical care. Prosecutor Tracy McCormick said the jail and the marshals have assured the government that her medical needs can be met.
Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's very telling that both under a strident Democratic administration, and now a Republican one, that the investigation and hatred for Wikileaks is exactly the same. This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties...
I do feel sorry for Manning though, sending her to jail and not even letting her be confined to home is bullshit. As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify. I think it's sad they can get away with this.
Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt (Score:5, Informative)
> As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify.
I suggest you brush up on your basic civics because, yes, that's exactly the point of being held in contempt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court). This is not because she's affiliated with Wikileaks; this is not because she leaked classified information. This is specifically because she has been subpoenaed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena) meaning her testimony is NOT optional. This is in no way an unusual or unfair outcome of refusing to testify and she is not being singled out. If you are subpoenaed by a grand jury and refuse to testify, you get thrown in jail until you cooperate. Doesn't matter who you are.
Wikileaks saying that on Twitter like they're somehow making a revelation or leveling an accusation is extremely stupid attention seeking behavior as is pretty much standard operating procedure for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.
As for the two parties, one is the Liberal philosophy and one is the Conservative philosophy. They're polar opposites, with degrees of how strongly people push those philosophies. That's the real difference, and it's important. Legislators and administrators will take the country in different directions d
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fifth Amendment protects against SELF Incrimination.
It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just g
Re: (Score:3)
That is not remotely true, says the licensed attorney.
The fifth amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you fail to assert the fifth amendment and voluntarily answer the question "Did YOU mu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Lots of sub-clauses here, but this is the one that is key.
"I refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate me"
This does not indicate that you have or haven't committed a crime, as there is no reasonable person who knows all the crimes they may or may not have committed. There are just too damn many, and the government can use ALL of them against you should you testify. And should you accidentally admit that you committed a crime (that you weren't aware of) they could AND HAVE used such as a w
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it just never occurred to you that the DOJ is non-partisan and its consistency and continuity says nothing about the differences between political parties.
Of course, nothing you post demonstrates the slightest insight.
Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt (Score:5, Informative)
To be the difference between the parties (Score:2)
Re: To be the difference between the parties (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone remember Mr. Cranky? [wikipedia.org] Satirical movie reviews, under the premise that all movies were bad. If the reviewer actually liked the film being reviewed, they'd just make up a bunch of stupid bull
It's a lot more than one point (Score:4, Insightful)
They diverge in some regards but it pretty much any way that matters, both sides look out for power in DC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Manning wasn't transgendered then he'd still be in prison. The only reason he got out is because some people made enough noise about a woman trapped in a man's prison.
This is otherwise a quite simple case of a US Army private making a serious enough violation of the rules on handling secret documents that he could have got the death penalty. Now that "she" is out of prison there's discussion of "her medical complications". What would those "medical complications" be? That "she" has a penis?
Without th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There was a time when Democrats didn't fully insert their heads into their asses, and mocked Romney [youtu.be] for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. In an election where Putin voiced a preference for the candidate not campaigning on raising tensions with his country. Mind blown?
Is there a lawyer in the house? (Score:3)
Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
Re:Is there a lawyer in the house? (Score:4, Informative)
So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
Could be a desire not to endanger people Manning may have worked with or contacted within Wikileaks or even within the military. And of course, from the summary: "Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial."
Always been this way. (Score:3)
This seems like an odd reason to refuse to comply with the court. Grand jury [wikipedia.org] hearings (they determine if there's sufficient evidence for a case to go to a real trial) act as a shield against government harassing innocents by
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.
No, it isn't. I messed up. Several posters corrected me.
Re: (Score:2)
Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
She had her sentence commuted, she did not receive a pardon. She can be compelled to testify and could possibly plead the fifth depending on why she claims a fifth amendment right.
Re: (Score:2)
That means she can't take the fifth
By the fifth I assume you mean the right to remain silent. You have this right to not incriminate yourself, it does not prevent you from having to testify specific information about something when the court has subpoena you.
Speaking of grand juries and the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of
Re:Is there a lawyer in the house? (Score:5, Informative)
Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.
You're right. She was not pardoned -- her sentence was commuted. Thanks for the correction.
Re:Is there a lawyer in the house? (Score:5, Informative)
You can always take the fifth. It's a right, regardless of other process. Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
No, that's not true. There are some caveats, but generally if the government guarantees that you cannot self-incriminate (either via a pardon or a plea agreement) then you may be compelled to testify. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not true. There are some caveats
Calling it a caveat is putting it lightly given what the wording of the fifth actually is:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness aga
not a clear thinker (Score:2)
She won't win this fight unless she's ready to sit out the jail sentence. When a grand jury pulls you up and says "talk" you don't get a say in t
No surprise (Score:2)
The rule of law is alive and well, in the USA, thank goodness. And if you defy a court of law, you will pay a price.
So, Chelsea better get comfortable unless she wants to answer questions.
Manning testified about ... (Score:3)
... certain matters at her trial.
There are other matters that the feds thought were unnecessary to pursue because they already had enough to put her away.
Even the Obama decision did not upset prosecutors. However, the US is gearing up for an Assange trial once Ecuador releases Assange to London.
For that reason, additional actions by Manning, declared moot at the time, are now important to the Assange trial.
Those same facts would also incriminate Manning and expose her to possible further litigation. I predict an immunity deal for her.
Re: (Score:2)
They apparently had already offered full immunity for testimony before the Grand Jury and she refused to testify anyways.
Grand Juries are bad law... (Score:2)
I don't like how this process works, you testify or else. You can take the 5th and not testify, but you cannot pick and choose your questions. It's all or nothing, so as soon as you answer ONE question, you have no choice, even a question like "What is your name?" is enough.
That being said, Manning has competent legal counsel and immunity from prosecution for any possibly related crimes, so there is no pleading the 5th. But if you refuse to testify, jail is the result. Manning knows that, Manning's legal
I didn't want to joke about this... (Score:2)
But I guess she really likes jail. I mean, you could both lie under oath and get away with it, or even tell the truth and know that it won't make shit difference on the opinion of the government (which in the US, has been proven to be the entity that controls justice) about Wikileaks. Even so, Chelsea prefers to go back to jail. Somebody needs to tell Chelsea that it's already too late to trust in heroic actions against that state.
Re:Not so good (Score:4, Interesting)
She is a Traitor to the country. This isn't because of any party loyalty. These were classified documents which she was working on as a member of the military. She chose to be in the military, and work in an area that had such access. This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives. Or Assange who isn't an American Citizen.
Re:Not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically any German that sent classified documents to the Allies would be a Traitor. What's more important, loyalty or morals?
I don't really care for Manning but history will look fondly on this.
Re: (Score:3)
Question: What would history label a German who sent information to the allies about the Nazi extermination camps?
(We know the German high command would probably label them a traitor and jail them, I'm asking about "history")
Re: (Score:2)
Seig heil!
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't; he gave away sensitive information which very well could have gotten plenty of good men and women killed
You say "plenty". Do you have any evidence that a single person did get killed?
Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA. The USA would be a very different place if not for people like Chelsea Manning who are willing to go to prison for their belief in justice.
Re: Not so good (Score:4, Insightful)
While you're there you could comment on the US prison system.
I don't mean the sheer number of people in there, I mean the way that it's a place for institutionalized rape and that most Americans seem to be perfectly OK with that.
The two things (Abu Ghraib and federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) seem related to me. The idea that there's whole classes/races of people who somehow "deserve" to be tortured, abused and shot at seems to be prevalent in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?
No, I want you to explain why the general public thinks they're all "hardened criminals" (they aren't) and (b), why even "hardened criminals" deserve that.
(Conversely, why should the other hardened criminals be allowed to have "fun" doing it? The very worst of society seems to have great fun in prison)
For you to single out the USA says far more about your biases than it does about the actual character of the United States as a nation.
I single it out because a) America makes more noise about being decent and upstanding, and b) Because people in other countries see it as a genuine problem and try to do something whereas it's on the rise in t
Re: It's called "integrity", aka doing the right t (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't expose any such thing, as you well know. Idiots love to pretend that he exposed war crimes, but nobody has given a single example of anything in the released documents which would qualify. I'm sure some dickhead will link to the helicopter video as an example, but that incident has already been discussed to death and I have no desire to rehash it yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we can Strawman this. But just saying you are morally obligated to break a law, is really a cop out. If Manning had a moral objection to what she was doing, she should had quit. Now the difference was if in Germany if you put in an objection you could be killed, so one was forced to do what they find morally wrong.
Historians will look fondly at this, mainly because they have more documents to study. However so far, most of the content isn't that ground breaking, it isn't like she uncovered America d
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Let us just go with the safe pronoun: s/h/it
Re:Not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
She is a Traitor to the country. This isn't because of any party loyalty. These were classified documents which she was working on as a member of the military. She chose to be in the military, and work in an area that had such access. This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives. Or Assange who isn't an American Citizen.
Yes, and the Holocaust was both legal and mostly secret too. Your rhetoric discards all morality in favor of laws that corrupt people wrote to give their blood-soaked oil war cover. Every organized atrocity happens because someone carried out orders. You're hounding for people to just do as their told, no matter how blatantly evil it is.
The Iraq war murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, displaced over a million, and created gulags where torture and rape were carried out in malice by American soldiers against those rounded up indiscriminately in an occupied country. The American people were broadly deceived about the cause of the Iraq War, as they have been for many previous wars waged on behalf of rich people's interest abroad, and our soldiers in particular were lied to about what they put their lives on the line for.
That is morally treasonous, and anyone who disobeyed an order from an official to restore basic human rights is a hero.
I will not hear of traitor from you sadistic authoritarian psychopaths. You're a traitor to humanity regardless of borders. Full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah exactly. To my mind, no one from the west has been held accountable for the iraq war. Certainly not the american executive at the time. People forget about wars and the guilty go unpunished. George w bush is still living it up playing golf and shit.
If people don't get punished, bad behaviour continues and the imperialists keep going with tacit approval.
Re: Not so good (Score:3)
War crimes.
Give me a specific example of a war crime which occurred and for which "no one from the west has been held accountable".
Methed-up helicopter pilots who can't tell the difference between a fucking camera and a rocket launcher, killing journalists before confirming their targets are hostiles.
Give me an example of this occurring. No, the Bradley Manning video doesn't show that, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it does.
Abu-ghraib prisoner abuse and torture.
Plenty of people were held accountable for this, which directly contradicts the original claim.
Robert Bales. Kandahar massacre.
Got life in prison. Again, what kind of retard thinks this is an example of westerners not being held accountable?
The puppy pitcher. Don't look it up.
He was booted out of the marines, an
Re:Not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.
Moral and legal are often not only the same thing but contrary.
However, as everyone from Emerson to King understood, being morally right does not provide legal protect from the consequences of your actions. So when you act on your morality be ready to accept the consequences. The concept that you should not have to accept the consequences of your actions just because you are doing the right thing is a particularly modern notion and unrealistic in the extreme.
Re: Not so good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives
There are lots and lots of ways for a contractor to report illegal activities. And it is a requirement that contractors be briefed on those ways every year.
There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command. They also accept anonymous tips.
"I had nowhere to report it!!" is bullshit designed to make Snowden more appealing after-the-fact.
Re: (Score:2)
There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command.
Only in theory. They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.
What they actually are, are tools that those in power use to find those who might be or might potentially become whistle-blowers, and to provide a propaganda stage-prop to help fool the gullible into believing there are actually effective checks on their powers.
Just like the recent story about the NSA halting some of their spying. I guarantee you that whatever functi
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
And as for everyone here, it is important to understand the US Government has become the enemy of the people, and under no circumstances should you ever say anything to a government agent. Ever.
"I'm taking the fifth. I refuse to answer any questions. Under no circumstances can you infer guilt by my remaining silent and refusing to answer any and all questions, per my Constitutional Rights. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
Re: (Score:2)
They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.
Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge. Which, btw, can be done legally. And they will use their corrupt quest for power to expose it.
If you're as foolishly nihilistic as you are, and not actually in the military, then go the Ellsberg route.
If you're particularly dumb, you go the Snowden route and accept things from other countries for your leaks, thus planting yourself firmly on the wrong side of espionage laws. You also lie about what exactly you leaked, because
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge.
Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs. They're both equally part of the problem. They may use the issue to garner support and votes, but nothing will actually change. What we have currently is the political elite of both Parties versus the citizens.
Strat
Re: Not so good (Score:4, Informative)
The "two party system" is better described as "one party, two faces".
She is not a traitor to the country (Score:5, Insightful)
In the metaphorical sense she's anything but a traitor. She did what she felt was right to expose horrible things being done in my name and yours. Things done to protect the interests of the ultra-wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday working Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
She is a Traitor to the country.
I my humble opinion, there is a difference between being a traitor to a country and being a traitor to a country's military chain of command. The word of law may disagree, but the word of a law may be incorrect, unjust, misguided, out-of-date or otherwise inappropriate, and a civilized and free nation should react appropriately to correct any such flaws if they are democratically determined to exist.
Yeah, lots of "if" statements, but boiling Manning's case down to "she's a traitor" because the law says s
Re: (Score:3)
"Classified" is just a statute construction only in effect since 1917. While it's the single best tool the power brokers have to subjugate the masses, it has no moral authority. You certainly won't find it as a power listed in the Constitution (because the founders knew the dangers of a secret government).
Manning may be a violator of statute but she's a patriot to the Constitution.
Re: Not so good (Score:5, Informative)
She was pardoned by Obama. This is Trump/Republicans trying to go barround it. Most likely denied questioning to protect herself.
Her sentence was commuted. Obama specifically said he wasn't pardening her, he felt that her sentence was out of proportion to what others had received. He didn't even commute the whole sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Details?
The worse I heard, is that there was a higher civilian causality count then reported. And some cases where Solders being less then professional and performing some bad crimes (outside the chain of command) which was covered up.
We know this stuff happens during war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a she. Just saying.
Any time you see someone say "just saying" it's because they have nothing useful to say. Any time you find yourself say "just saying", just STFU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.
Better? Or are you "just saying" that "just saying" something doesn't make it so. He can call himself a girl all s/he wants I don't give a shit about whatever gender they think they are, but saying something ("just sayin") doesn't make it so, even according to your own logic. S/He could call themselves the Queen of England for all I care, it doesn't make it so.
You're not entitled to your own facts. Objective Reality Hurts
Re: Not so good (Score:2)
Re: So not you then (Score:2)
Thanks, always nice to hear from the loonies.
Re: (Score:3)
If i want the societal role of a god
There's a well-respected societal role for a God, but you have to turn water into wine and give away fish and bread, and in the end I warn you it doesn't turn out well. Although you get resurrected.
Re:Not so good (Score:5, Informative)
Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.
Actually not quite. Classification is based on external appearance at birth, which is determined by the effect of androgens during pregnancy.
Even if a baby is known to be XY, phenotype trumps genotype.
Though somehow nowadays, we have people denying any biological basis to gender differences, and claiming things like occupation preference and aggression are purely cultural. So the logical conclusion is that you can be whatever sex you want. :-)
This makes perfect sense if you believe sex is a social construct
S/He could call themselves the Queen of England
NOT the same. Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis. Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself. In some cases it does not, and many people feel the best path is to live as the other sex.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not a she. Just saying.
Yes, a "she". It is a courtesy, like when people call you "sir" even though you are not of noble birth.
If she wants to join the soccer team, or get a female-only scholarship, then you complain about her not being a real woman.
But if somebody wants to be addressed as a woman, its not that hard. For better or worse, it is a social norm.
Re: Not so good (Score:2)
No, he was loyal to himself, and he never gave a fuck about either his country or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I read that the longest she can actually be held for this is 18 months. Though it wasn't clear if at the end of 18 months she could be asked again, refuse, and get another 18 months. I know there have been other cases of people being held indefinitely for contempt of court. If memory serves one man was held for a decade or longer regarding an accusation of embezzling money overseas, eventually the judge died and the next judge decided that was enough.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
piece of trash why? by providing evidence of the crimes against humanity and the ACTUAL COST OF WAR to all involved? ...if you're struggling with that, i think you're suffering from cognitive dissonance from being so thoroughly brainwashed.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:5, Insightful)
Genocide? Of whom? And the video Manning leaked was deliberately misrepresented by Assange to boost his own ego, as others in WikiLeaks have stated.
What's particularly bad about this is Manning was leaking information with the specific intent to cause harm to the Army, (possibly leading to the deaths of US soldiers) without being aware of its contents at all. Manning did this purely out of spite; it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. The reason he did this goes back to his early days in the Army. Read on:
https://huwieler.net/2017/01/1... [huwieler.net]
Nothing would make Manning more happy than to see his comrades die simply because he was deliberately an asshole in basic. As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
" As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck." - Ok, so how do you feel about a coward who lied 5 times to stay out of his duty to country, and looks down on those who enlisted to serve? (Drumpf the traitor)
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
I'm not one for whaboutism, but you may as well ask me about millions of other draft dodgers while you're bringing irrelevant people into the topic. Really, I don't care at all about them, neither do I care about Trump, over any issue at all. They, along with deserters, don't really mean anything to me. They didn't try to get their fellow soldiers killed. I would think more of Manning if he simply deserted instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was offtopic.
But now that the question has been asked, perhaps you'll answer it?
Re: (Score:2)
What other's - that hack Daniel Dumbshit-Berg? To digress for a moment, I've always been ambivalent on Joe Rogan's standup comedy, days on Fear Factor, fight commentary, and most of his podcast guests....but his interview of Bari Weiss [youtu.be] of the New York Times was pure gold. She called Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady", but wasn't able to substantiate her accusation. Or define the word
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:3)
Here's a quote from Adrian Lamo on exposing Manning:
âoeHad I done nothing, I would always have been left wondering whether the hundreds of thousands of documents that had been leaked to unknown third parties would end up costing lives, either directly or indirectly.â
In case you're not familiar, Lamo was the person who Manning was passing these documents to in order to have them made available via WikiLeaks.
I don't care if you want to say bad things about the military or the US government; hell, I'
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
Hell if I know, but you're a fucking moron if you think indiscriminately leaking classified documents to unknown third parties doesn't put military personnel at risk. That's not a talking point, it's just a fact, before and after 2010.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
Be more specific. Name the time period and the specific people that the US attempted genocide on.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
The Cherokee, Hopi and Lakota domestically in the 18th and 19th century.
I think if genocide was the end goal, the trail of tears wouldn't have been a thing, they would have just killed them instead.
In the 20th one could argue that there was an effort underway to do so to black Americans as part of the eugenics movement before World War Two made it unfashionable.
The eugenics movement (outside of Europe) wasn't about race so much as it was about making sure undesirable people, such as drug users, didn't procreate. Prominent black people were participants in it, namely they wanted to improve the image of the black race by sterilizing blacks who were "immoral".
In terms of foreign entanglements, we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.
I recall Israel pulling their own people out of the West Bank, including people who l
Re: (Score:2)
A fetus isn't a baby. Not even you racist dumbfucks believe that, as you don't have funerals for miscarriages at 13 weeks or earlier - when most abortions are performed.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
Oh. I don't care.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
The way back machine has to know about a website before it can archive it. You should leave the thinking to those of us who can.
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
Uhh.... Manning had a connection with WikiLeaks. When he leaked classified Army data, who do you think he gave it to?
Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight (Score:2)
Also, he didn't "rat" on anything, he indiscriminately gave out classified information without even knowing what's in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is just as it is, a place that broadcasts leaked information. Its problem is often leaked information isn't complete, and often parts of classified documents that really should be classified can now hurt people.
Now most of the stuff leaked was stuff we already knew about or at least assume it happened unless you just into the American propaganda. They were some Russian leaks on Wikileaks as well, and leaks from other countries too.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a Dude.
What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?
Re: (Score:2)
They are birth defects. What have they got do do with Chelsea Manning?
Re: (Score:3)
Does Manning have any of those conditions?
Utterly irrelevant.
The original claim is XY means male. The existence of those conditions proves beyond any doubt that XY is not the same as male, because there exist cases of XY where people are clearly, indisputably not male.
What you're trying to do is muddy to waters so the original claim of "XY is male" stands while hedging like hell.
Allowing people to live a lie that they are some other gender than what they were born is not good for their own mental health
Allo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are so incredibly insecure in your identity that you fear nothing more than a person that has made the decision to switch genders? You have a serious problem.
Re: (Score:3)
This panicked claim again. What is your problem? Male/Female is not nearly as definite as you insecure idiots claim.
Re: (Score:3)
There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned". For every woman that decides to get "reassigned" there are 9 men that do the same, so this is largely a matter of men allowing themselves to be castrated.
Ah, _that_ is your defect. And, not surprisingly, you have no understanding of what the facts actually imply. The simple reason female to male is much rarer is that it does not really work well surgically. This has absolutely nothing to do with "an attack on masculinity". If that one is real, it is happening somewhere else.
Re:Nazi state 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
he US is in the same category ad China, Russia or Nazi Germany.
You're delusional. I suggest you talk to people who lived under the nazi flag. Talk to those who first-hand fought the fights, flew the raids, occupied Germany at the end. I suggest you educate yourself on what WWII Germany was doing, how they did it, and the sheer scale of what was done. Every country has blood on its hand, but WWII Germany was something else. Russia, too. Stalin offed twice as many Russians -- his own people -- than what Hitler did to the Jews and others Not Like Him.
We're not running a machine of death where we feed body upon body by the thousands into the furnaces. No, we just knock over dictators to put another dictator in, one friendly to our interests.
All we have here is a few minor inconveniences. For fuck's sake we can still buy guns with relative ease. And drugs. And cars, bikes, etc etc. We're a fucking paradise, my commie-pinko friend, even when compared to places in the Carribean.
I will fight people like you in the voting booths, now and until I die. You cannot be allowed to win. You have your right to say it, but we have the right to vote your people into oblivion.
And who the fuck modded you +1 anyway? Your post smacks of arrogant ignorance!
I think the point is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if Stalin had actually killed 40 millions
12 million, wsn't it? where did you get 40 from?
Still. Way to endear yourself to your people, killing your own. Niiiicely done.
Stalin: How many (Score:2)
Some interesting stuff from Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin [wikipedia.org]
In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), [British historian Robert] Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, at least 15 million people were killed "by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors".[64] Rudolph Rummel in 2006 said that the earlier higher victim total estimates are correct, although he includes those killed by the government of the Soviet Union in other Eastern European countries as well.[65][66] Conversely, J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft and others insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by "revisionist" scholars.[67][68] [British historian] Simon Sebag Montefiore in 2003 suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.
Mod this troll as well, please (Score:2)
I give you facts, you mod them troll, then you have less modpoints. I'll get more karma tomorrow. Mod away!
Re: (Score:2)
You left out quite a lot of information by cherry picking those parts.
Those facts, you mean. If you have a problem with those facts, then by all means counter them. Otherwise, in short,
Fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascists have no decency and no compassion. You can see this nicely in this example.
Re: (Score:2)
Let enough time pass and let the current corrupt holders of power be forgotten, and the verdict will just be the second. Because it is the only thing that has a logical base.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, like White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, you are ineffectively intolerant and misguided.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are born different. One of my best childhood friends came out as being gay shortly after high school. Looking back, it's very obvious now. It wasn't a choice he made, it's just who he always was.
I'm not going to pretend to understand how anyone in those communities actually feel but I will respect them as individuals until given a reason not to. Their personal decisions have no impact on the lives of us, so why rant about it?
Re: (Score:2)
It was Obama who started the "Asian pivot" to start threatening China with the US Navy, not Trump. As Hillary Clinton is just as incompetent, petty and bloodthirsty as the Evil Mutant Death Walrus, [caitlinjohnstone.com] I have no doubt she would have continued that policy.