Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the she's-not-out-yet dept.

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 #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:46PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:46PM (#455458) Journal

    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]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:16PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:16PM (#455476) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:54PM (#455502)

      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

      by butthurt (6141) on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:08AM (#455816) Journal

      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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:28AM (#455850) Journal

        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.