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: 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.