In one of his last moves in office, President Obama has commuted the 35-year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army private who leaked a massive trove of military secrets to WikiLeaks.
The former intelligence analyst's prison sentence has been shortened to expire on May 17, 2017, according to a statement from the White House.
Her lawyers at the ACLU expressed relief after the decision, saying that Manning has already served more time behind bars than any other whistleblower in U.S. history, and under difficult conditions.
Also at the BBC and the New York Times.
Previously: Chelsea Manning Reportedly on Obama's Short List for Commutation; Assange Offers Himself in Trade
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
Related Stories
It's no pardon, but it will do:
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News. A decision could come [...] for Manning, who has tried to commit suicide twice this year and went on a hunger strike in a bid for gender reassignment surgery.
"I have more hope right now than I have the entire time since she was sentenced," Manning's aunt, Deborah Manning, told NBC News.
[...] Manning's supporters believe the harshness of the sentence can be traced to another leaker; the scandal around former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was erupting around the same time. "I really believe the judge felt she needed to send some sort of message," the aunt said. "I think in a way she was a scapegoat for Edward Snowden." Snowden, who has asked Obama for clemency, tweeted his support of Manning shortly after NBC News' report about the commutation decision aired on TODAY on Wednesday morning.
Four former and current Army intelligence officers told NBC News the documents leaked by Manning pale in significance to highly classified top secret material released by Snowden. The officers, who would not allow their names to be used, said the Manning sentence seems excessive.
Also at The Hill.
Time magazine adds:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will agree to be extradited to the U.S. if President Obama grants whistle-blower Chelsea Manning clemency before his term ends on Jan. 20, the organization has said.
In a tweet posted on the group's official account Thursday, WikiLeaks said Assange would not oppose extradition to the U.S. "despite [the] clear unconstitutionality" of any potential criminal complaints that the Justice Department may have against the whistle-blower website, if U.S. Army private Manning is released.
Update: President Trump has pardoned I. Lewis Libby Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. He is better known as "Scooter Libby":
"I don't know Mr. Libby," Trump said in a statement, "but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly. Hopefully, this full pardon will help rectify a very sad portion of his life."
President Trump plans to pardon I. Lewis Libby Jr., who as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney was convicted of perjury in connection with the leak of a C.I.A. officer's identity, a person familiar with the decision said on Thursday.
Mr. Libby's case has long been a cause for conservatives who maintained that he was a victim of a special prosecutor run amok, an argument that may have resonated with the president. Mr. Trump has repeatedly complained that the special counsel investigation into possible cooperation between his campaign and Russia in 2016 has gone too far and amounts to an unfair "witch hunt."
Mr. Libby, who goes by Scooter, was convicted of four felonies in 2007 for perjury before a grand jury, lying to F.B.I. investigators and obstruction of justice during an investigation into the disclosure of the work of Valerie Plame Wilson, a C.I.A. officer. President George W. Bush commuted Mr. Libby's 30-month prison sentence but refused to grant him a full pardon despite the strenuous requests of Mr. Cheney, a decision that soured the relationship between the two men.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:36AM
This is good. Why not give Snowden a full, free, and absolute pardon? And how about not granting the intelligence agencies even more access to our unconstitutionally-collected data before leaving office, you scumbag?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:59AM
You took the words right out of my mouth. Failure to pardon Snowden is the ultimate indictment of Obama's term in office. Many things he could not do because the Republican-controlled Congress stonewalled him. That is, he could at least claim he could not do them because of congressional stonewalling, when there is indication that worked as well for him politically as for them.
This, though, he can do unilaterally and there's really nothing anyone could say or do to stop him, including the NSA and CIA or the Deep State. But he demurred, and we know him without a doubt for the worthless mercenary he is.
We know you did it for the lulz and the sweet, sweet ride after the presidency, Barack, but something tells me you will not have long to enjoy it Nor will any of us.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:26PM
I don't know. There are several other indictments that may be worse:
1. That Gitmo is still open. Especially as we now know that many of the people who were imprisoned there were completely innocent and had no connection with terrorism whatsoever (at least, before they went in - if they join ISIS or something afterwords, I won't blame them for hating us). And no, Republicans didn't stop him from closing it, they stopped him from closing it in a way that allowed him to keep some of the prisoners stuck in jail for life without trial.
2. That nobody was prosecuted or jailed for war crimes, even in cases when the perpetrators of said war crimes announced their involvement on national TV news, even though we are required by treaty to do so.
3. That no person was prosecuted or went to jail for Wall Street fraud perpetrated on a scale we haven't seen in almost a century. In the 1980's S&L crash, a bunch of people went to jail for doing the same kinds of things bankers totally got away with doing in the early 2000's.
4. That he ordered drone strikes against US citizens without anything remotely resembling due process of law. In one case, the target was 16 years old (the CIA claimed that somebody else was the target, but the alleged target was nowhere near the US citizen they killed, and they had just killed the kid's father a couple of weeks earlier, so the CIA is lying about that).
5. That he boosted rather than stopped the surveillance state.
I should also mention that many of these things were the exact opposite of promises Obama made on the campaign trail.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:27PM
Republicans didn't stop him from closing it, they stopped him from closing it in a way that allowed him to keep some of the prisoners stuck in jail for life without trial.
Thank you, I need to save and reuse this short simple explanation.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:04PM
I agree that all these things are bad, and should have been avoided if possible - but hijacking airliners and suicide bombing them into skyscrapers and political target buildings is also bad and avoiding that in the future is probably worth some collateral damage. In the past, collateral damage of war included the deaths of thousands of our citizens, thousands more of their citizens, destruction of property on a vast scale rendering dozens of cities destroyed beyond the point of sheltering even half their former inhabitants, and perpetration of atrocities that left millions of survivors physically and/or emotionally scarred for life.
So, while I agree with and support all the criticisms of how the "war on Terror" was wound down, all in all, I think we're making progress - orders of magnitude progress as compared to how things were handled in, say, Vietnam and Korea. I'd call the relatively small number of victims collateral damage, unfortunate, and we should strive to do better in the future - reducing collateral damage casualties from the hundreds down to as close to zero as possible, but when the opening act of a war kills thousands - containing and ending it with mere hundreds in collateral damage would seem to be a measured, proportionate response to ensure that it won't happen again, soon at least.
Now, the invasion of Iraq on the pretense of WMD - leaves me speechless and ashamed, that is something I cannot justify or support from any perspective. But, then, my family doesn't derive fortunes from the petroleum industry.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:33PM
absolutely correct, mr mercenary, er, merchant of death, er, merchant...
of course the correct and right ratio is 1,000,000 barbarians killed for every twue bwue 'merikan killed...
it is only right and proportional, in a 1,000,000:1 way...
perfectly understandable...
totally not vengeful or predicated on korporate/money issues at all...
well, maybe a little bit, but, c'mon, we gotta pay for these wars to start these wars to pay for these wars to start the wars to pay for the wars ad infinitum...
(um, excepting we ain't weally at 'war'-war with anyone, just -you know- defending 'our' (sic) democracy fucking EVERYWHERE on the planet but HERE...)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:57PM
How exactly does imprisoning and torturing people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackings or suicide bombings do anything useful to battle terrorism? Bear in mind that every serious study on the subject has determined that torture does not yield anything resembling useful intelligence [theweek.com], so even if you have the bad guys you'll learn exactly nothing from torturing them.
The pro-torture crowd generally likes to portray themselves as Tough Guys who are the only ones willing to do what is necessary, unlike the rest of us pansies. But the reality is that they are actually mostly idiots and sadists putting other people through the worst possible treatments imaginable for the fun of it. When civilians do that to their fellow citizens, we lock them up for a very long time. When these guys do that to what amount to randomly selected foreigners, we protect them from criminal prosecution and give them whatever equipment they want, and pay them handsomely for the job.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:34PM
You have to wonder where the CIA recruits torturers. They recruit heavily from the military and law enforcement, but institutionalized torture is not part of the culture at those places. Do they pull serial killers and such out of supermax prisons and give them the job? I would think that if you tell any normal person to torture others (despite the Milgram experiments) that eventually they would figure out what's happening and become very angry and likely to turn on the ones giving the orders. Even when the Nazis were murdering thousands of undesireables in Eastern Europe the officers in charge were constantly going crazy or committing suicide when confronted with the enormity of their crimes, and that was with the full faith and backing of the Nazi state telling them what they were doing was good.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:51PM
It isn't? OK, maybe not the "institutionalized" part, as in no commander is going to be caught giving orders for it to happen, but it definitely happens a lot. Also, those are the kinds of organizations and professions that attract those who want to cause pain and injury and death to others - I mean, what career would you choose if your primary skill is pushing nerds into the lockers?
And I should point out, in your Nazi comparison, that (a) the Milgram experiments were inspired by the behavior of Adolf Eichmann, and (b) the US torturers had the full faith and backing of the US government telling them what they were doing was good or at least necessary.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:12PM
I'd say that you recruit from the guys that apply for law enforcement jobs and fail the psych profiles in those specific areas. There are plenty of people in this world "looking for payback," it's more or less an animal instinct response to abuse, and plenty of people are abused as children in all sorts of ways.
Still, at the end of the day, why exactly do you torture? It's not to obtain accurate or useful information, I think it's more to strike fear in the minds of the enemy.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:26PM
I think you're probably right.
On the subject of torture it is one of the most repugnant developments of the last 20 years in the United States that people seriously discuss the efficacy of torture, as if it's a legitimate, normal practice. It's not. It's a war crime and utterly abhorrent. It is a profound disgrace and shame on a people who think they live in "the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave," that they contemplate having anything to do with torture beyond shooting torturers dead on the spot.
Bringing the CIA and other 3-letter agencies to justice for their depravity is at the top of the list when the revolution comes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:43PM
I normally don't credit our chief executive with much, but I will give W credit for this particular move. The lawyers he chose to back up his position should be taken out and shot in front of him, one by one, until he confesses that it was a bad idea to coerce them into rendering their opinion approving the operation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:08PM
imprisoning and torturing people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackings or suicide bombings
It's an easy criticism to level now. At the time they were imprisoned, the captors believed that they were preventing future attacks - I do believe that. Now, even if they were mistaken and got the wrong guys, I don't see any difference between that and bombing a village that's suspected of harboring an enemy sniper unit, killing innocents in the process of attempting to get the bad guys.
Torture, in my opinion, is always a mistake - but nobody asked me. Unfortunately, after capturing the wrong guys and torturing them, it appears that our guys weren't man enough to own up to the mistake and do what they could to make amends (never enough, but better than continued limbo...)
For the future, if we can accidentally capture and interrogate (not torture) one or two "wrong guys" instead of killing a dozen innocent people to attempt to meet the same goal, which is often to stop an attack that could kill thousands - I'd call that progress.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:53PM
That could easily have been avoided.
Within a few months following 9/11, every door to every airliner's cockpit was replaced with a secure one.
The "penny-pinching" airline industry had spend millions of dollars fighting this tooth and nail for years and years.
All the long lines and groping and all that shit are completely unnecessary.
Daddy was a military pilot.
Whenever we would be watching a (dumb) TV movie where there was an aircraft with a situation on board, Daddy would say, "GET THE AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND AND LET THE EXPERTS HANDLE THE PROBLEM."
Secure cockpit doors make that totally possible.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:22AM
All the long lines and groping and all that shit are completely unnecessary.
Only if you believe that the point is airplane security. They are a necessary part of delaying the realization that productivity has advance to the point that we have more people willing to work than we have demand to be working. So they create a bunch of TSA jobs which reduce worker productivity for business travelers and cuts into private citizens' free time. So now the TSA agents have jobs, companies hire more people to offset company time lost in airport lines, and we have to pay someone to do the things around the house we couldn't get to because we added 4 hours of airport time to our holiday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:26AM
Within a few months following 9/11, every door to every airliner's cockpit was replaced with a secure one.
Which was then proven to be an effective way of locking the pilot out of the cockpit, so you can crash the plane without being disturbed.
Unfortunately that happened in Germany, so nothing game of it. Had it happened in the US, those secure doors would have been outlawed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @11:29AM
Your sample of 1 is completely unimpressive.
You also failed to mention that it was a cockpit crew member who went bananas.
...and that Malaysian guy appears to have augered -his- aircraft into the sea with the cockpit crew still in the cockpit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:20PM
I meant "ultimate" in the sense of "final," as in "the last thing he does before leaving office." It was one last chance for a small bit of redemption, but he took a pass.
Your list of course is a strong one. Among the many ways to consider what it means, a few that occur to me are 1) Obama is an evil corrupt POS like all the rest of them and was always in it for the payday, or 2) He didn't do those things because the President doesn't actually have the power to do any of those things, unlike what the rest of us believe, or 3) The government and system has run amok because the bandwidth of any one President, no matter who, is limited and is easily sidetracked and frustrated by self-interested cronies and bureaucrats who are in charge of minutely scheduling your day.
The last I offer for consideration to those who think Trump is going to fix everything, because he has surrounded himself with those same cronies and insiders who surround every other President before him, and who always make sure that the needs of the country go unmet and unheard.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:00PM
... are idiots. Even if Trump could fix everything, he won't, because he will benefit from the very system he's decrying. For example, like all presidents since at least Richard Nixon have been he will be completely immune from criminal prosecution forever, and we can be reasonably certain that somebody with his checkered history would not want to give that up.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:55PM
1. That Gitmo is still open.
Wasn't it one of his campaign promises, closing it? Maybe even the first time he ran for President?
How do you tell when a politician is lying
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:48PM
1. You didn't mention specifically that closing that place was one of his campaign promises.
This demonstrates that, in several ways, O'Bummer and Donnie Tiny Hands are quite similar.
It seems that it's impossible to get the top gig without being a two-faced lying bastard.
O'Bummer also expanded both of Dubya's wars after campaigning as a "peace" candidate.
Again: Two-faced.
...and he went on to drop bombs on several more places.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:06PM
Oh, yeah?! Well, uh... at least Trump was transparent about being a liar!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:26PM
This, though, he can do unilaterally and there's really nothing anyone could say or do to stop him, including the NSA and CIA or the Deep State.
Well, since you put it that way, I suppose they could assassinate him.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:57PM
Assassinate him, with, what, 5 days left in his term? Yeah, that makes sense.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:38PM
Not that I'm a fan of bob but you're being a little naive. Yes, it is well within his power to pardon Snowden without any official or legal recourse for folks to stop him, but keep in mind he is soon to be an ex-head of state with much much reduced power and influence, there's always the threat that if he pisses of folks too much, he and his own is not going to get a smooth ride.
People keep saying he has nothing to lose since it is his last term so he should do the right thing... I would disagree, he has a lot of to lose personally if he did the wrong thing that pisses of the wrong folks. Even in the normal course of the daily rat race, there's a lot of bridges one would never go down, but burning them would not be smart.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:47PM
Oh, please. Even if I assume that risk exists, he should do it anyway for the good of the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:59PM
Why not give Snowden a full, free, and absolute pardon?
The story around Snowden has been painted that rather than seeking asylum in Russia after his passport was revoked, he instead intentionally went there as a defector and brought vital US intelligence with him. I find it unlikely he'll be let off the hook any time soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:51PM
Painted that way because it was mostly done that way. Don't forget, he ran to the Chinese first.
The story painted around here is that he walks on water and his shit doesn't stink. That in and of itself doesn't mean he should get off with no consequences. His revealing of sources and methods against foreign powers had nothing to do with domestic surveillance, and they should be treated and considered separate from his other actions. You can't always have the ends justifying the means only when it comes to the particular ends that you care about and not to others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:23PM
His revealing of sources and methods against foreign powers had nothing to do with domestic surveillance, and they should be treated and considered separate from his other actions.
But it still revealed some relevant information, such as Obama vowing [usatoday.com] that the US wasn't spying on Merkel while such spying, authorized [telegraph.co.uk] by him, was going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:52AM
Relevant to whom? The argument is about the US and US interests. Your comment is irrelevant to the argument.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:41AM
Relevant to whom? The argument is about the US and US interests. Your comment is irrelevant to the argument.
Well, it's quite relevant to my interests when my president readily lies to another head of state without first figuring whether the lie could be easily revealed. Look at the dates of the denial and the reveal that I linked in my previous post. A mere four days later, Obama was shown to be a crass liar. Even for the notorious amorality of international politics, that was quite incompetent and unprofessional.
And what are "US and US interests", if not the interests of its citizens? The US is a democracy for a reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:56AM
So, you're saying that we shouldn't be trying to get on friendly foot with our largest enemy, Europe, but keep focusing on our good old friend Russia?
Seems you elected the right guy for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:07PM
The American people have no say in foreign policy!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:53PM
Don't forget, he ran to the Chinese first.
You realize that he had an escape route that he was taking and that Russia wasn't his intended final destination, right? Buying into blatant propaganda--propaganda that has been debunked a billion times over--just makes you a moron.
His revealing of sources and methods against foreign powers had nothing to do with domestic surveillance
Guess what? Domestic surveillance wasn't the only important issue, you bootlicker. Revealing how they were conducting mass surveillance on foreign countries could also help us protect ourselves form the same exploits. Also, I think we should respect people's rights even if they are in other countries, so it's easily morally justifiable to leak that information. I would have liked to see everything leaked, as a punishment for conducting mass surveillance in the first place. If you don't like that possibility, then don't engage in heinous acts that necessitates it.
You can't always have the ends justifying the means only when it comes to the particular ends that you care about and not to others.
Then you can't justify mass surveillance, even against people in foreign countries. I for one believe that freedom is well worth the risks. It's when you're taking away people's freedoms that the 'the ends justify the means' argument doesn't work, and revealing what is happening is certainly not an unethical thing to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:08AM
You shouldn't buy so much into Snowdens propaganda, hastily thrown together after dumping the data to foreign intel ("look, look, see, see, look at all this domestic surveillance! See, I'm doing this for you!!!!! (You don't mind if I hand over the remaining 99% of the info to these nice Chinese and Russians, do you?).
So he has this grand and carefully planned out escape plan. And it was almost foolproof as well, except for holding a press conference in Hong Kong in the middle of his "freedom escape". Geez, who's the fucking idiot? Perhaps you should extricate your nose from where it is buried (I think it is plenty brown enough) and look at what really happened from 30,000 feet and get out of your bobby soxer hero worship state.
LOL. Yeah, sure, we'll set up a github and gofundme to do our intel collections.
Bootlicker, huh. Ok, maybe I have erred in my opinion and it isn't Snowden's anus you have your face buried in, it is Putin's. Or are you one of those "there should be no secrets" idiots? You know, it is a VERY short step from "there should be no secrets" to "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."
Holy fuck. Hipster Intel. Maybe when you're president you can give out participation trophies to the CIA and NSA employees. "Great job guys! I know you weren't allowed to do anything, but I'm proud of you because you have so much spunk!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:28AM
(You don't mind if I hand over the remaining 99% of the info to these nice Chinese and Russians, do you?).
More baseless assertions, unless you mean that the Chinese and Russians can see the leaks as well. But if that's what you mean, then of course they can; the information is being released publicly.
So he has this grand and carefully planned out escape plan.
It doesn't matter how good your plan is if you're up against a country as powerful as the US.
I don't know why we're still going over events that happened years ago that have long since been resolved. Maybe next you'll tell me that the NSA isn't "wittingly" collecting people's metadata, or repeat another lie straight from the intelligence agencies that have shown themselves to be generally untrustworthy. There are just so many lies and baseless assertions to choose from, and smearing and speculation is all too easy.
Or are you one of those "there should be no secrets" idiots?
I'm one of those rare "the government shouldn't do evil" people. I'm also one of those people who think there should be consequences if the government does do something evil, and one of those consequences may be that your secrets get revealed, and maybe more secrets get revealed than you would like. So be it.
You know, it is a VERY short step from "there should be no secrets" to "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."
There's a difference between violating individual rights and using 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' as an excuse and having a transparent government. Whistleblowers are sometimes necessary for transparency. Revealing a government's wrongdoing has absolutely nothing in common with a government violating individual liberties. The 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' argument is always used to trample upon liberties.
The intelligence agencies have not only repeatedly shown that they are filled almost entirely with unethical scumbags, but that they are untrustworthy as well. To me, anything they say is suspect, because it's just far too easy for them to smear whistleblowers while claiming that all the damning evidence is top secret.
At any rate, it's blatantly apparent that you're a gullible and/or disingenuous bootlicker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:05AM
Snowden hasn't been charged or arrested or imprisoned. There's as of yet nothing for which Obama can pardon him.
Instruct the DOJ that they shall not prosecute him, but heeyyy there's a new guy in office this year! Bet the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:38AM
Snowden hasn't been charged or arrested or imprisoned.
Never heard of Nixon, I take it?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:36AM
Leaking information that gets US soldiers killed: Heroic whistleblowing.
Leaking information that shows how corrupt Democrats are: Treasonous, start World War 3.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:46AM
Leaking information that gets US soldiers killed
Blaming information for the actions of actual people is just silly. Furthermore, I doubt you can offer concrete evidence that the information actually was used to kill people that doesn't come from untrustworthy sources such as intelligence agencies. Even if you could somehow prove it, the leaks were still justified because they revealed war crimes. If the government doesn't want people leaking potentially important information, it can start by not committing acts evil; then leaks would be unnecessary.
Leaking information that shows how corrupt Democrats are: Treasonous, start World War 3.
There are people who think that both leaks are good, you partisan moron.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:00PM
I'd have to go for the other angle:
What has resulted from these leaks? Who's been punished for the war crimes? What uproar about this has there been?
Not much, as far as I can see. There are no sanctions, arrests, dismissals, discharges, etc. that have occurred publicly as a result of the information revealed, except that of the whistleblowers.
You can argue about "the good done" all you like - nothing actually happened in either case. It made a news story, and future whistleblowers know that they'll have to visit the Ecuadorian embassy or Russia if they want to find a friend should they follow suit.
As such, it's literally a waste of time, as nobody with any kind of influence is actually caring about it at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:07PM
What has resulted from these leaks? Who's been punished for the war crimes? What uproar about this has there been?
Well, if the whistleblower could unilaterally punish people and change policy, you'd have a point, but that just isn't the case. The public has to push for change aggressively, which is hard when there are so many of them are either apathetic or authoritarian. Whistleblowing opens up the possibility for the public to take action, but it's on them if they don't take that opportunity.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:23PM
Even as a Constitutional scholar, Obama knows political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And how can he oppose a self-interested and well-armed amoral shadow government? We know what happened to Kennedy.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:37PM
>What has resulted from these leaks? Who's been punished for the war crimes? What uproar about this has there been?
Eh? The uproar and results have been massive. The Snowden revelations changed the nature of debate around global surveillance fundamentally and spurred congressional hearings, legislation and widespread awareness of the way the US government approaches the data of it's citizens.
The war crimes thing is a whole other kettle of fish. That will play out over the next decades, and I doubt anyone will go to jail. Perhaps lessons will be learned and progress will be made.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:07PM
Jesus. I want the lessons learned to be that they dangle from the end of a rope until dead. I want them personally, in actuality, to learn that lesson: Commit war crimes, pay with your life. Period.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:51AM
0 killed, so Chelsea is no hero.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:00PM
0 killed
That's incredibly insightful for another reason. He's served "about a short murder sentence" and they've been waiting for a body to surface, no matter how politically distorted the argument will have to be to blame the leaker, but no bodies appeared over quite a few years.
This also fits in with the whole commuted sentence deal vs pardon. Well, he did do something illegal, but it hurt no one, so an in between response seems reasonable.
As I look out the window I see a guy jaywalking. In an attempt to avoid hitting him, a driver could swerve into a bus full of nuns and orphans causing zillions of deaths, that being why jaywalking is illegal. Lets toss that jaywalker into prison for a murder sentence and see if any bodies are found in the street or parking lot. (wait a decade here) Oh there were none found? Well, may as well let the jaywalker go, IF he had killed someone he served a murder sentence already anyway. And jaywalking is illegal even though I'm sure he had excellent reasons to do it so its not like he's getting a pardon just because there were no bodies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:08PM
Jaywalking is illegal because drivers don't want to slow down for every knobhead who wants to cross the road arbitrarily, and because a city based around taxation and fining needs to make bank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:17PM
Jaywalking is illegal because early auto-makers didn't want pedestrians spoiling the driving experience, so they bought legislation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:53PM
...while, at the same time, upholding the oath taken to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:41AM
She's got time for a Trumpmeat Sandwich before she gets out.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:50AM
Stale white bread loaded with phony bologna and a smidge of expired mayo?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:09PM
Yeah, except it's more like the sandwich Homer Simpson kept around and kept gnibbling, because we're gonna get to enjoy it for at least the next 4 years.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:32AM
I dunno about that. Actually, I have a weird little feeling der Drumpfenscheisser is going to end up in a world of impeachment-flavored shit, and it'll be the GOP leading the charge. The guy is a useful idiot, and both Putin and the scary Theonomists played him like the world's ugliest Cheeto-dust-stained piano.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:21PM
The Trump Sandwich:-
Sliced bread, white of course.
Filled with Bologna
Russian Dressing
… and naturally, a very small pickle.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:18AM
Although I haven't followed every step of his 8 years in office, this is the first time I can recall where I thought: Obama did something good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:34AM
Quick, give the guy the Nobel peace price... oh.... wait.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58AM
That would be a good first move towards actually deserving his Nobel prize.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:57PM
They gave him the nobel peace prize as an incentive.
They intended to remind him to not be a warmonger like his predecessor.
On one hand it worked - no new occupations.
On the other hand, he kinda found a loophole and went balls deep with drones.
And a case can be made that maybe we should have intervened in Syria - the million+ people displaced have experienced severe misery and death and destabilized europe. Refusing to support the rebels forced them into the hands of radicals like ISIS, now the rebels lost but ISIS still gained influence.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:31PM
Uhm, what do you call of this, chopped liver?
Healthcare for 20 million people who did not have it before
Signing the paris climate agreement
Killing bin laden
Auto industry bailout, preserving millions of jobs
Support for lgbtq rights like repealing dont ask dont tell, full marriage rights and trans equality in a state of the union speech
First president to call himself a feminist
1000+ pardons of non-violent drug offenders, more pardons than all other presidents combined
Ending the embargo on Cuba
Police accountability via DoJ investigations from small towns like ferguson to big cities like chicago and baltimore
4+ million children protected from deportation by DACA
Contained Iranian nuclear development
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:44PM
Healthcare for 20 million people who did not have it before
A baby step in a better direction.
What 80 percent of USAians want is Medicare for All.
(If we actually had a democracy--AKA "The Majority Rules"--we'd already have that.)
What happened was mandated payments from anybody with an income to a for-profit insurance company (a middleman which doesn't actually provide any care)
Signing the paris climate agreement
Symbolic but actually meaningless.
Killing bin laden
...who was unarmed at the time.
Execution without due process of law by order of a "constitutional scholar".
Auto industry bailout, preserving millions of jobs
...then handed right back to the executives who had driven those for-profit corporations into the ground.
A proper response would have been for the gov't to buy those up for pennies via eminent domain and turn them into worker-owned cooperatives.
Allow the workers to get rid of the failed managers (with their compensations hundreds of times what the productive workers take home).
First president to call himself a feminist
Call yourself anything you want but actions speak louder than words.
Ending the embargo on Cuba
Window dressing.
When there is actual trade going on and USA's imperialism stops, write back.
Police accountability via DoJ investigations
More window dressing.
When there is a federal law without a giant loophole for murderous cops and federal special prosecutors are putting them in jail, write back.
Contained Iranian nuclear development
Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.
The strongest stuff they ever produced was medical grade isotopes.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:08PM
Support for lgbtq rights like repealing dont ask dont tell, full marriage rights and trans equality in a state of the union speech
1000+ pardons of non-violent drug offenders, more pardons than all other presidents combined
Police accountability via DoJ investigations from small towns like ferguson to big cities like chicago and baltimore
OK, I'll give you those. The rest, I'm either ambivalent, or those actions in my opinion were harmful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:23AM
Yeah, healthcare for 20 million people. No biggee. I'm sure they are pretty ambivalent too.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:10AM
Hey, anyone who can dip into my pocket and get free stuff is going to be happy about it. That doesn't mean it is a net good for society.
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:16PM
Sure there are maybe a few people who couldn’t get some kind of disability payment, but I’m assuming the vast majority of those 20 million are people who didn’t need or want health insurance. They were just coerced into getting it under threat of IRS penalties. Even then they probably just got the cheapest plan about $4,500 a year. With credit the plan may have been zero out of pocket for them. Since they will never visit a hospital, it’s just pure profit for the insurance agency. The government likes it since they’re the creditor. Person paying zero out of pocket has to pay back the debt at any time of their choosing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:40AM
Killing bin laden
Thus ensuring that he will always be innocent by definition to anyone who subscribes to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".
- It's not like Osama was killed in a firefight or anything, they had him in a position where they could easily have brought him back to the US to stand trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:26AM
Snowden
Larry Hoover
That's all I care about, who stop you want to be pardoned?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:41AM
This is unexpected. I'm not sure whether Manning deserves clemency - there are arguments on both sides - but I didn't expect Obama to do this.
What's really odd, though, is this: Why not a pardon? If not a pardon, why not an immediate release? Why a commutation that doesn't take effect for 4 months? What's special about May?
There's some hidden agenda here, and one wonders just what it is...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:56AM
Can the next president (Trump? Pence?) undo this commutation?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:13PM
IANAL, but I cannot imagine it would be possible to revoke a pardon or commutation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:13PM
Double jeopardy jumbo mumbo.
Chelsea would need to be framed for murdering some guards or something.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:03PM
If they can't, I expect there will either A) be a new rule introduced swiftly, or B) they'll just say "fuck the whole thing" and do it anyway.
The notion that government is actually accountable to rules seems pretty shaky these days :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:31PM
I would agree that this was very odd and unexpected. As I understand it Manning did what he (or she) did because he was angry with the Army. Not to be some kind of whistleblower hero. For that he could have stayed in Leavenworth forever. That his conditions are difficult, as the ACLU put it, is a creation of his own doing.
As far as I know the Russians just recently decided to allow Snowden to enjoy the comforts of Russia for a few more years. I would assume there are limits to what even Obama can do but then he does have two more days to surprise us. But I would think that a pardon for Snowden is out of the question. But then I didn't think he would commute part of Mannings sentence either.
What I do find interesting is that Assange offered himself up in some kind of exchange for Manning, so is he going to step outside the comfort of the embassy? Somehow I doubt that. The delicious embassy soapbox is probably to much to give up.
I wonder if this was just one final farewell fuckyou to Trump before Obama fades into oblivion. It sure did manage to get the Republicans angry. It's not, as far as I know, anything that the next president can do about it. It's not like he can cancel the order. I guess there are a few more months for Manning to get surprise shanked in the shower.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:54PM
What I do find interesting is that Assange offered himself up in some kind of exchange for Manning, so is he going to step outside the comfort of the embassy?
Probably not. He said he would let himself be extradited to the US. But there is no outstanding extradition request from the US, only the phony one from Sweden.
To get Assange, the US would have to make an extradition request, thus admitting to both voters and US and Swedish courts that Assange has been right all along, and I don't think they want to admit that. In addition, an official extradition would take him to a US court, where he would be pretty hard to convict (he wasn't the one taking the leaked data, he's a spokesperson, not the one running the servers, and even if they can find someway around the whole freedom of speech thing, he did those things outside the US. The people previously "extraordinarily renditioned" from Sweden has been flown directly to black sites, without ever setting foot on ground covered by the US constitution, thus avoiding the whole "court of law" problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:00PM
angry with the Army
Where's Old Man Runaway to defend the Army's honor?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:03PM
There are few, if any, who understand honor, who are pleased with Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:46PM
> As I understand it Manning did what he (or she) did because he was angry with the Army. Not to be some kind of whistleblower hero.
You understand poorly.
Manning was stressed by problems in her life.
But discontent is an essential element of becoming a whistleblower - it is all downside for you personally, if you are ever treated as a 'hero' its only decades later after all the offended people have moved on
Manning believed so much in the legitimacy of her whistleblowing that she plead guilty and trusted the military justice system to treat her fairly. Instead they fucked her with everything they possibly could, giving her the maximum penalty of 35 years. That was completely unprecedented, no leaker had ever received anything even remotely like that. Bill Clinton even pardoned a reagan era leaker who sent satellite photos to Janes - that guy only got 2 years.
Manning was earnest in her beliefs. cooperated with the prosecution and was remorseful.
Seven years was already more than proportional to the offense.
(Score: 4, Informative) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:02PM
She released the video of the Reuters photographer being gunned down by an Army Apache in Baghdad. The Army had claimed they weren't responsible for the death. She exposed the lie, she made the Army look bad. That is why she was so harshly punished.
The chilling video is at https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:28PM
Please watch the entire video without the prompts provided by wikileaks. Those journalists embedded themselves with armed insurgents, informed no one, and proceeded to hide around corners and point cameras at an attack helicopter. The "ambulance" was an unmarked van attempting to remove bodies and weapons.
It also shows that the crew requested and was given permission to engage every step of the way, and even held fire against a wounded insurgent. ROE was followed at all times.
If after watching the whole, unedited version, you still believe it showed any sort of war crime, then I have to ask - have you ever served in a combat zone?
Nothing in that video is out of the ordinary for a combat zone. It is absolutely a tragedy that two civilian journalists were killed, but to fault the crew for it is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the rules, laws, and reality of war.
(Score: 2) by Username on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:03PM
It was not just one video. He copied a military database onto a CDRW, then posted it online. None of info was redacted and had troop movements, names and locations. The Army wasn’t responsible, video proved it. If I point a black bb gun at a police officer and he shoots me; is it my fault, or the police officers?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:05PM
With spin like that, you could be reincarnated as a carnival ride.
Manning had no beliefs, beyond the belief that his superiors were unfair, and that they deserved to be betrayed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:46PM
Manning had no beliefs, beyond the belief that his superiors were unfair, and that they deserved to be betrayed.
Citation, please? During the trial, a psychiatrist testified:
Well, Pfc Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if … through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good … that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it … that really no wars are worth it.
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/ethical-consistency-bradley-manning-apology [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:16PM
Yeah - evidence for and against Manning was submitted at the trial. Defense painted a pretty picture, while the prosecution painted a much different picture.
The fact is, Manning was a discipline problem, who was removed from duty for those problems, and was reinstated under the mistaken impression that his problems were solved. Manning struck an NCO, among other things, because he didn't think he should have to perform some duties assigned to him. Manning was a misfit, and a problem child.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wikileaks-manning-idUSBRE97B0VF20130812 [reuters.com]
a psychological assessment report that described him as having "regressed stages of development" and "narcissistic personality traits."
Manning's lawyer David Coombs said the report was important to explain the motivation
The court heard how Manning had been referred for counseling in December 2009 and during a session, he flipped a table. In another outburst during counseling, he tried to grab a gun but was restrained by another soldier.
Defense lawyers have portrayed Manning, who is gay, as naive but well-intentioned and struggling with his sexual identity
_______________________________________________
Those damning insights into Manning's head, or heart, or soul, come from his own defense team. He was unfit, unreliable, uncooperative, spiteful, narcissistic - and so much more. Manning had no agenda, other than to get back at the people and the service that he hated.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:54PM
Nothing you've cited proves your claim that "Manning had no beliefs, beyond the belief that his superiors were unfair, and that they deserved to be betrayed."
All you've done is show what nobody disputes, that Manning had issues.
But the connection from having issues to having no legitimate motivation is completely lacking from your post.
That should be no surprise. You are the biggest tribalist on this site.
You hate teh gays. You especially hate teh trans.
And you hate that 'your' military was "attacked."
Your accusations about manning are really just revelations of your own character: YOU have no beliefs, beyond the belief that manning was unfair and that manning deserves to be betrayed by her country.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:08AM
Thanks for the response. Someone with a principled motivation might be called "well-intentioned," I would say. Manning's decision to leak the video of the helicopter attack might indicate such motivation: Reuters had requested the video the day after the July 2007 attack, because two of its employees were killed by shots from the helicopters; as of April 2010, when the video was published by Wikileaks, the U.S. government had not released the video.
Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in an off-the-record briefing in Baghdad on July 25, 2007.
U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.
-- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 [reuters.com]
As AC #455502 wrote:
Nothing you've cited proves your claim that "Manning had no beliefs, beyond the belief that his superiors were unfair, and that they deserved to be betrayed."
Certainly you've supported the notion that Manning was childish and showed a lack of restraint (I didn't see in the article you linked anything about how "Manning struck an NCO"). Someone can have those personality flaws, yet take principled actions.
Even if Manning was motivated by, as you say, mere spite, the punishment given, which has included a long period of solitary confinement, has in my opinion been more than might have been called for.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:28AM
http://www.ucmj.us/ [www.ucmj.us]
Manning was subject to the uniform code of military justice. He could have been charged with multiple articles that carry the death sentence. Spin the whole story one way, and he was a spy. spin it slightly differently, and he is guilty of espionage. Mutiny and sedition would have been more difficult to spin, but it could be done. Long story short - Manning could have been executed for his actions. Your opinion of the punishments that might have been called for is noted, but his punishment could have been far worse than he recieved.
Punching his superior is covered in this article - you may of course search for more references to it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075943/Bradley-Manning-trial-Wikileaks-suspect-punched-female-superior.html [dailymail.co.uk]
I will never have anything "good" to say about Manning - but you want to know what I think of his superiors? I think they were all less than competent. I can't help asking, "WTF was Manning anywhere near sensitive material?" Manning had a long history demonstrating that he was unfit for duty. Just plain un-fucking-fit. He shouldn't have been anywhere near classified material. He shouldn't have been close to weapons. He should have been discharged with a BCD, or at least a general discharge, long before he stole all that data. (Note, he did not qualify for a dishonorable discharge, until he stole all the information)
I certainly couldn't have worked with him aboard ship when I was in. I would have gone to my department head, and explained that I couldn't use him. If that didn't work, I would have been in the executive officers office soon after. Then, I would have gone to the Captain, and explained why I couldn't use him.
The most sensitive job aboard ship that Manning might have been qualified, was chipping paint, and repainting that same surface, over and over again. Except - Manning couldn't have been trusted to set watertight integrity in his assigned spaces during General Quarters - someone would have to double check whatever fittings he was responsible for.
Everyone around him knew that he was a liability - and he was kept on.
That is the ONLY defense possible for Manning - his superiors were incompetent. And, that is precisely the defense that his attorneys used.
And, seriously - being unfit for duty is hardly a defense.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:40PM
Manning believed so much in the legitimacy of her whistleblowing that she plead[ed] guilty and trusted the military justice system to treat her fairly.
Before the trial Manning admitted to 10 lesser charges that could have given him a 20-year sentence on their own. He also pleaded guilty to a minor charge relating to one diplomatic cable, and the government accepted the plea. But military prosecutors pushed ahead with trying to prove his guilt on 21 other charges, including aiding the enemy.
-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-sentenced_n_3787492.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Instead they fucked her with everything they possibly could, giving her the maximum penalty of 35 years.
The charges carried a maximum sentence of 90 years, and the prosecution had requested Manning serve 60.
-- ibid.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:53PM
You understand poorly.
Manning was stressed by problems in her life.
But discontent is an essential element of becoming a whistleblower - it is all downside for you personally, if you are ever treated as a 'hero' its only decades later after all the offended people have moved on
Manning believed so much in the legitimacy of her whistleblowing that she plead guilty and trusted the military justice system to treat her fairly. Instead they fucked her with everything they possibly could, giving her the maximum penalty of 35 years. That was completely unprecedented, no leaker had ever received anything even remotely like that. Bill Clinton even pardoned a reagan era leaker who sent satellite photos to Janes - that guy only got 2 years.
Manning was earnest in her beliefs. cooperated with the prosecution and was remorseful.
Seven years was already more than proportional to the offense.
I'm fairly sure that I'm understanding it correctly. That you probably see Manning, Snowden and Assange as some kind of heroes against the system is not an idea you and I share. The only thing you mention that we are probably in agreement about is that it takes discontent to become a "whistleblower". That said I don't think Manning deserves that title. He was a revenge filled little man with an axe to grind and what he did was the best way he could come up with to get even with the Army. It was clearly the wrong way and if he was so unhappy he should have just gotten discharged -- it's not like he couldn't have come up with a reason for that. But instead he wanted vengeance, he got it. Then the Army got theirs.
Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time. Someone has to be the trailblazer in that regard. As you note previously people had leaked a few documents, files or photos but now with the digital age you can leak so much information without much actual work involved. It's not like a leaker these days have to stand around with some little hidden camera or make photocopies of an archive anymore - it is insert memory stick (or some other form of storage) and then copy as much data as you can ever possibly get away with. Quantity matters and it's now the age of indiscriminate leaking. The more you steal the harsher the sentence.
Perhaps he should have just been glad that he wasn't executed as a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by comparison 35 years might not have been that bad then.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:09AM
That you probably see Manning, Snowden and Assange as some kind of heroes against the system is not an idea you and I share.
Because apparently you think that security is more important than freedom and having an accountable government. Is that it? Is it something else? Thinking that they are not heroes is not really a problem, but pretending that they are somehow bad guys is a problem.
I don't care to speculate about motivations, since I can't read minds, but it's perfect for smear tactics.
Quantity matters and it's now the age of indiscriminate leaking.
It's also the age of indiscriminate war crimes, constitutional violations, mass surveillance, and generally just committing acts of evil against innocent people. Or maybe it isn't even that these things are more common, but that getting this information in order to blow the whistle is easier in some cases. Regardless, our government is completely untrustworthy and should stop violating people's rights if it doesn't want people to blow the whistle. But authoritarians will always find fault with the messengers themselves.
The more you steal the harsher the sentence.
Unless they actually take physical objects, it's not even stealing; it's just copying.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM
Because apparently you think that security is more important than freedom ...
I don't see them, freedom and security, being mutually exclusive. I don't see how what any of them did made us more free or secure. In all likelihood they made us both less free and less secure thru their actions, and their consequences.
It's also the age of indiscriminate war crimes, constitutional violations, mass surveillance, and generally just committing acts of evil against innocent people. Or maybe it isn't even that these things are more common ...
Like those things somehow never happened before. The world today is somehow more violent and evil then ever before?
Unless they actually take physical objects, it's not even stealing; it's just copying.
Semantics. But then it doesn't really matter all that much cause none of them were allowed to make copies of the information, and disseminate it, either.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:01PM
I don't see them, freedom and security, being mutually exclusive.
Neither do I, for most matters. But I still believe freedom is more important, and I also believe that people who think otherwise are temporary allies at best.
I don't see how what any of them did made us more free or secure.
And how could they? Whistleblowers do not have supreme power over government policy. If the general public squanders the opportunities that the whistleblowers create, that's on them.
In all likelihood they made us both less free and less secure thru their actions, and their consequences.
How, specifically? How could making it common knowledge that the government is conducting unconstitutional, unethical, democracy-destroying mass surveillance (as an example) on the populace make us less free? If we are less free, it is only because we didn't take the opportunity to reign in on the government, which isn't the fault of the ones who blew the whistle.
I don't care much about security, but I wouldn't even trust that we're less secure, since that information likely comes from completely untrustworthy intelligence agencies. Even assuming we are less secure, that's a small price to pay for having this information out there.
Like those things somehow never happened before.
It's like you didn't even read beyond the first sentence.
Well, mass surveillance--to the extent that it even existed--certainly wasn't as sophisticated in the past as it is now, at least.
Semantics.
No, I feel it is important. Stealing is widely regarded as wrong, so accusing someone of stealing when they did not steal is just unnecessarily inflammatory and perhaps an attempted smear.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:00PM
You, Sir, deserve some kind of award for your powers of observation. Often times, the difference between a felony, and some simple misdemeanor, is motivation.
And, motivation separates Manning from Snowden by galaxies. Snowden sacrificed a promising, lucrative career, to inform the public how they were being raped. And, Manning, if a spiteful fit, was trying to "get even" with his comrades and superiors.
Manning didn't give two shits about some ragheads being blown away, however rightly or wrongly they might be blown away. His motivation was to hurt his comrades, and to hurt the Army he hated.
But, liberal/left/progressives who hate the US and the army anyway will never understand that distinction. They are far more focused on Manning gender bender drama, than they are on motivation.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:55PM
Mr. Trump has said of Wikileaks "[...] I think it's disgraceful. [unintelligible] I think there should be, like, death penalty or something."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDEDQFj9sFk [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:23PM
> I didn't expect Obama to do this.
> There's some hidden agenda here, and one wonders just what it is...
You receive new information that contradicts your understanding of the world.
But instead of re-evaluating your understanding, you decide that there must be a secret explanation for why you are not wrong.
That's textbook conspiracy fantasy.
Let me guess, you are also a climate change denier, an anti-vaxxer, oppose water fluoridation, worry about chem-trails, think 911 was an inside job and have your doubts about the moon landings too?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:33PM
You misunderstand my question. The clemency is not what I fail to understand. What I do not understand - and where I suspect a hidden agenda - is Obama making the commutation take effect four months later. Why would he do that? If he's going to be merciful, why not commute the sentence effective immediately?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:58PM
A senior administration official said the 120-day delay was part of a standard transition period for commutations to time served, and was designed to allow for such steps as finding a place for Ms. Manning to live after her release.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html [nytimes.com]
It literally took me 30 seconds to figure it out with google.
What's your excuse for spending more time than that dreaming up a conspiracy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:19AM
Consider, chastisement.
Obama has said, "Hey. Hey you. We're not going to keep you in jail _forever_ like we said we would. But! Don't get ahead of yourself. You're not going home today. You're going to sit there for four more months and think about exactly what you did." It feels like a way to shame him and make him consider a crime, rather than "Yeah yeah we've had our fun with you and you were right the whole time, go home."
"(Oh, and we're not paying for your damn gender surgery.)"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:55PM
EVUULLLL gay libertarian Glenn Greenwald laid out a convincing case for Manning on BBC News Hour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:02PM
It's primarily legacy polishing for the history books. The White House press secretary is putting out stories about the most benevolent president in history, and so on. I guess he forget the bit about most and harshest prosecutions for whistleblowing, but so it goes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:53PM
So will Assange plan to step out of the embassy in May or does this not count?
Everyone who was calling him out as bullshitting will get a chance to be proven right or wrong. What should the odds be (e.g. 5:1 against him leaving)?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:06PM
Here's the tweet in question:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713 [twitter.com]
Commutation is a form of clemency, so the ball is in Assange's court.
However, it is not clear that the U.S. will seek extradition of Assange. He might just get arrested by the Brits and serve a sentence for skipping bail. What's the normal punishment for that, anyway?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:16PM
There was a very similar, earlier, Twitter message:
If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness
-- https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/776437869376262144 [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:16PM
NPR sez (minutes ago) there's no word from Assange or his lawyer(s) regarding that offer.
I started looking at the Wikileaks twitter and found this [twitter.com] from about 12 hours ago:
OMFG Fake news!!!!!111!1
I also found this fun perspective [twitter.com]:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:55PM
How much you wanna bet that Bradley's gender identity issues and sudden psychological issues magically clear up when his term is finished? I guess it depends upon how much he gets lionized. He could very well make a living on the SJW speaker circuit for years to come.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:22PM
Count me in for 500 internets on a side bet. Here's my wager. Manning won't be able to afford bottom surgery any time soon, and we'll see many people proclaiming that her failure to immediately get on a waiting list for surgery is confirmation that the “issues” were fake to begin with. Ways I can lose the bet: Manning sets up a Patreon and gets surgery in short order (SJW assistance, thinking odds are 1:8 against) or else stops HRT in short order (thus confirming that it was an act, thinking odds are 1:50 against).
I can't think of any guys off the top of my head regardless of assigned gender at birth that after comfortable with any amount of estrogen in their systems, but I only went with 1:50 odds because there's nothing really that we can put past the lizard people. That'd actually be a pretty good ploy. Install a lizard person in the army who does something controversial then claims to be a mammal with a gender mismatch. Cause an uproar when he gets treatment normally meant for people with a female body part between the ears but male body parts between the legs. Then have him mysteriously discontinue treatment and, with the full attention of the moon matrix media on him, declare that it was all just a phase.
Fuck. Maybe I should downgrade the odds to 1:5. Damn it, that's probably what's going to happen. I retract my bet and instead wager 1,000 internets that Manning is a lizard person operative who will go through with that, much to the determent of people with the birth defect in question and also human sympathizers in the Fifth Column.
No turquoise required. Just a large amount of cynicism. :(
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:14PM
people with a female body part between the ears but male body parts between the legs.
Are you saying only women have brains?
Not sure what you mean by "lizard people" or "moon matrix media" either. At least I'm familiar with "fifth column."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday January 18 2017, @09:48PM
Are you saying only women have brains?
Sane section: I'm implying that the brain is a gendered organ. More research is needed however. Guys have a male body part between the ears.
Insane section below.
Lizard people: a technologically advanced and highly evolved race from the Thuban system aka Alpha Draconis. It's difficult to be certain why they're interfering here in the Sol system. According to David Icke, they feed on human emotions, particularly negative ones, but I get the sense that must be an oversimplification. I've also noted that Thuban (the star) is presently (303 ly away/ago) dying so perhaps their goals also include colonization of Earth.
Moon matrix: David Icke's interpretation is that this is a kind of mind control field that creates an illusory world that humans live in. This would put the lizard people in the role of the demiurge, deceiving humans as to the true nature of reality, not unlike the machines from The Matrix, the movie. Icke also theorizes that this field is projected from Saturn and rebroadcast from within the moon. I think that part is much simpler and has a much more practical explanation. Instead of being some mystical virtual reality thing, it's instead a fatline datafeed containing expertly computed narratives for the mainstream media to parrot.
(The subspace relay/fatline transmitter in Saturn's northern atmosphere causes that hexagon-like feature.)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:31PM
You actually take Icke seriously about that? I wouldn't be surprised if there were intelligent life out there, or even if we've been visited, but that whole thing smells like one too many acid trips. You should think about what you post; unfair as it is, as the only (?) out transwoman on the site, you're making the entire group look questionably stable. Yes, that's bullshit, but minorities have always had that "one of them speaks for the whole group" stigma.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:34PM
I've tried to listen to some of Icke's videos on YouTube, and I simply can't.
I'll tone it down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:25AM
wheres the batshit crazy mod
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:07PM
Surprise, surprise.
Bluff called, Assange chickens out.
This past year has really changed my opinion on that guy. He needs to relinguish control of wikileaks to somebody with more integrity.
Assange lawyer: Manning commutation doesn't meet extradition offer's conditions
The attorney for Julian Assange said President Obama's commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence does not meet the conditions of the WikiLeaks head's offer to be extradited to the United States if Manning were pardoned.
Obama on Tuesday commuted Manning’s sentence for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks, leading many to wonder whether that meant Assange was ready to surrender to the Department of Justice.
“Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning's sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought,” said Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S.-based attorney, via email.
“Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately.”
Assange has not been publicly charged with a crime in the United States, but his legal team believes he may be charged “under seal,” where charges are kept secret to prevent a suspect from preparing an escape.
Assange first offered in September to trade extradition to the U.S. for a pardon for Manning. He reiterated the claim as recently as last week on Twitter.
“If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case,” tweeted WikiLeaks's official account on Thursday.
On Tuesday, the White House denied that tweet had anything to do with commuting Manning’s sentence.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawyer-conditions-not-met-for-assange-manning-extradition-offer [thehill.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:22PM
When the PROMISED -action- actually happens on May 17, **then** start your bitching about the lack of an -exchange- that was offered.
Currently, this offer from the gov't reminds me of J. Wellington Wimpy who has been known to say, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:28AM
Grow up child.
It is not an offer, its a done deal.
Assange himself isn't treating it as anything other than a done deal himself, he's just adding new terms after the fact.
He has no intention of keeping his promise now or 4 months from now.
If he did, he would have said "I'll do it in 4 months."
Instead, he said "it's not an immediate release" so it doesn't count.
He'd rather Manning be dumped at the prison gate with nowhere to go and no plans for reintegration. Yet again Assange proves its all about himself.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:46AM
Pardon, Clemency: a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted.
Commutation: substituting the penalty for a crime with the penalty for another, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime (e.g., in the USA, someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence commuted to life imprisonment rather than death)
These are pretty fucking different, but go ahead, keep twisting Assange's words, he's used to it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by wisnoskij on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:57PM
The far bigger story is that Obama just pardoned a multiple murderer, terrorist, and real to god dyed in the wool traitor who carried out a war against America. And who continued his obstructive and criminal acts in prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:13PM
For those of us who don't care to follow Pravda any more, who was it?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:26PM
Hello, obviously its Hillary.
That traitorous bitch!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:10PM
Never indicted, no pardon necessary. Surely you can do better than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:28PM
No pardon *necessary* at this point, but it's entirely possible for the President to pardon someone for potential crimes "just in case".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon [wikipedia.org]