SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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]