Obama commutes much of Chelsea Manning's sentence

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: pteridine

Been thinking about this off and on for a few hours, and she'll be fine, if people will leave her alone to get on with her life. Perusing some of the opinions posted on line, not just here, but elsewhere as well, that seems unlikely, for the nonce, to happen.

The caveat "if people will leave her alone to get on with her life" is what likely won't happen. She is too famous to be left alone and no matter where she goes, someone will take umbrage. She needs a new identity, much like the witness protection program provides, to have any chance at a "normal" life.

DP.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The release was great news.

But, I don't trust Obama.
Considering all of the other things he has been doing to make things hard for Trump, there has to be some ulterior motive here.
Maybe he is getting ready to pardon Clinton, and thought that starting with Manning would make it easier for people to accept.

What pardon does she or he need, when they haven't been charged with anything?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Does this mean Assange will be giving himself up?

That was the deal after all.

No it wasn't. No official "deal" was made. Assange simply said he'd be willing to be extradited if Obama pardoned Manning.

By the way, Obama COMMUTED Mannings sentence, not pardoned - so any "deal" wouldn't have stood anyway.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Tempter
This is about encouraging soldiers to disobey

Where Manning went too far was the diplomatic cables. Snowden in contrast never went too far, but he made himself look like a questionable source by running.

I disagree on Snowden.

You are correct that he exposed unconstitutional domestic surveillance by the NSA. I give him credit and grace for that.

BUT...perhaps in trade for shelter by Russia...he went further and exposed our international spying/surveillance program, which all countries engage in, but by which our capabilities were significantly weakened. That was Russian agenda, both a blow to our surveillance capabilities in having them exposed, plus fostering divisions by publicly exposing our monitoring of European allies.

There was no constitutional or moral drive to lay bare the NSA's foreign surveillance program and technical capabilities.

On a side note of interest: Snowden did not submit an application for clemency with the Obama administration AND Russia announced it was extending his Asylum for several years...both in the news in the past 24 hours.

Conflicted on Snowden..No one is all bad or all good...IMO he is guilty of both an act of patriotism and betrayal.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Does this mean Assange will be giving himself up?

That was the deal after all.

No it wasn't. No official "deal" was made. Assange simply said he'd be willing to be extradited if Obama pardoned Manning.

By the way, Obama COMMUTED Mannings sentence, not pardoned - so any "deal" wouldn't have stood anyway.

INCORRECT...and people keep repeating that BS

You can check twitter. Assange promised to submit to US extradition if Manning received "CLEMENCEY"...He DID NOT say pardon.

And commuting a sentence IS CLEMENCEY by any and every definition there is.

ALSO: Tweeted by Assange's lawyer.
WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks · 14h14 hours ago

Assange lawyer @themtchair on Assange-Manning extradition 'deal': "Everything that he has said he's standing by."

Now...what is interesting is that the USA has not filed for extradition of Assange...
What are the odds a Trump Administration will do so?

I hardly disagree with the notion that Chelsea is a "hero". Sure he exposed some stuff that is highly questionable but in perspective were "committed" mostly by a foreign power and during active war times - more or less with the blessing of the United States - but the Iraqi forces would have committed those crimes either way. It still was military secret and tactical information that was not be supposed to hand over to the enemy.

What people go off on is the whole "Colleteral Murder Video" not understanding that this was filmed from a war machine during war times. There are military rules of engagement and those have been uphold during that battle.

Snowden in contrast exposed a system that was working against the American people. Whole different context. His exposure didn't cost lives but questioned an entire government practice that was not in favor of the American People.

For me Chelsea is still a traitor who exposed information without regards that fell into the hands of our enemies.

originally posted by: Indigo5


INCORRECT...and people keep repeating that BS

You can check twitter. Assange promised to submit to US extradition if Manning received "CLEMENCEY"...He DID NOT say pardon.

And commuting a sentence IS CLEMENCEY by any and every definition there is.

ALSO: Tweeted by Assange's lawyer.
WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks · 14h14 hours ago

Assange lawyer @themtchair on Assange-Manning extradition 'deal': "Everything that he has said he's standing by."

Now...what is interesting is that the USA has not filed for extradition of Assange...
What are the odds a Trump Administration will do so?

Show me the signed deal where Obama and Assange formally agreed to his extradition in return for Mannings release.

Go on, show me.

You cannot. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Indigo5


INCORRECT...and people keep repeating that BS

You can check twitter. Assange promised to submit to US extradition if Manning received "CLEMENCEY"...He DID NOT say pardon.

And commuting a sentence IS CLEMENCEY by any and every definition there is.

ALSO: Tweeted by Assange's lawyer.
WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks · 14h14 hours ago

Assange lawyer @themtchair on Assange-Manning extradition 'deal': "Everything that he has said he's standing by."

Now...what is interesting is that the USA has not filed for extradition of Assange...
What are the odds a Trump Administration will do so?

Show me the signed deal where Obama and Assange formally agreed to his extradition in return for Mannings release.

Go on, show me.

You cannot. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

You said...

originally posted by: [post=21771476]Kryties

Assange simply said he'd be willing to be extradited if Obama pardoned Manning.

By the way, Obama COMMUTED Mannings sentence, not pardoned - so any "deal" wouldn't have stood anyway.

THAT was FACTUALLY INCORRECT:



You can check twitter and confirm...He didn't say "pardon" like you claimed. He said "Clemency" and by every definition known that is what Obama gave Manning.

I afford for people getting something wrong...But doubling down means a BSer, not a mistake.

a reply to: Indigo5

You can quibble over the use of the words all you like, it still doesn't change the fact that there was NO FORMAL AGREEMENT between the Whitehouse and Assange.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Indigo5

You can quibble over the use of the words all you like, it still doesn't change the fact that there was NO FORMAL AGREEMENT between the Whitehouse and Assange.

Don't get weird ...YOU quibbled over the use of words.

I only pointed out your false claim in the quibble

originally posted by: Kryties


Assange simply said he'd be willing to be extradited if Obama pardoned Manning.

By the way, Obama COMMUTED Mannings sentence, not pardoned - so any "deal" wouldn't have stood anyway.

As for the rest..I never said there was some formal contract?

And as long as we are getting facts straight...Assange's lawer has tweeted "he will stand by his words"..

a reply to: Indigo5

Assange and his lawyer can say what they want - no formal agreement exists. Simple.

BTW we are on the same side here mate, I think. I just don't think Assange should risk allowing extradition and possible jail time. Not unless he had absolute assurance that he would not face any charges - and even then I don't know that I'd risk it personally.

This has been a very interesting discussion so far and I want to say thank you to the contributors for that.

It was reported by posters that CNN and FOX came out against the commutation for Manning which I find to be bizarre. I would've figured they'd have supported Obama's decision.

The bottom line for me is the fact so much whistle blowing has been going on over the last several years which is a blatant symptom of the rampant corruption going on in the upper levels. WikiLeaks never would have formed if this was not true. Snowden never would have done what he did if this was not true. The DNC leaks never would've happened if this was not true, etc..

I've made comments in the past about how the so-called elite put themselves above the law yet the rest of us are bound by it. Some of the people in the military and intelligence communities apply the same standard to Manning as far as taking the stance Manning should serve the full sentence for crimes committed and should not have her sentence reduced. They have their reasons from their viewpoint.

On a personal level for Manning, I hope her friends and family will surround her and give her respite when she is released. I don't want to know about her personal life and I certainly hope she does not become a public icon for others with a cause. That doesn't sit well in my mind.

On a personal level for me, if I was experiencing what could be defined as gender dysphoria on an unremitting basis the first thing I'd do is contact an expert spiritual healer and find out what is going on with me on a spiritual/soul/karmic level to be causing the condition and to give me greater understanding as to why.

I don't have a strong conviction about this matter but me being me, I do think Manning has suffered enough which has been greatly compounded by undergoing the sex change and being in an all male prison. I think Manning has been politically used in this regard. That bothers me.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are correct. I mistyped.
I was thinking of Assange but my fingers typed Snowden

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Indigo5

You are correct. I mistyped.
I was thinking of Assange but my fingers typed Snowden

No worries..lots of moving parts and various leakers to keep track of.

Wikileaks tweets that their was no quid-quo-pro according to the White House.

Assange is willing to come to US as long as his rights are guaranteed.

Strange that he wants to come to US. There must be things going on behind the scenes that's making him hopeful.
Perhaps there have been talks with the Trump Administration. He did help Trump and destroy Clinton.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Indigo5

BTW we are on the same side here mate, I think. I just don't think Assange should risk allowing extradition and possible jail time. Not unless he had absolute assurance that he would not face any charges - and even then I don't know that I'd risk it personally.

(A) Assange has "offered" to be extradited to the USA.
(B) The USA has not filed yet for extradition of Assange

So the questions are:
(A) Would a Trump administration request extradition of Assange (Unlikely)
(B) Would a Trump administration prosecute Assange if they extradited him?

I think Assange made an offer that he knows he doesn't have to worry about.

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Wikileaks tweets that their was no quid-quo-pro according to the White House.

Assange is willing to come to US as long as his rights are guaranteed.

Strange that he wants to come to US. There must be things going on behind the scenes that's making him hopeful.
Perhaps there have been talks with the Trump Administration. He did help Trump and destroy Clinton.

Ahem...Some unknown correspondence with the Trump administration over the past few months?

Alas...I suspect you are right.

I respectfully 100% disagree with Obama's decision to commute Manning's sentence.


100% disagree. Nothing else to say.

Everyone who signs their clearance paperwork fully understands that the Whistle Blower Act DOES NOT apply and can not be used as a defense to leaking classified information:

Question 16: Does the SF 312 conflict with the "whistleblower" statute?

Answer: The SF 312 does not conflict with the "whistleblower" statute (5 U.S.C. sec. 2302). The statute does not protect employees who disclose classified information without authority. If an employee knows or reasonably should know that information is classified, provisions of the "whistleblower statutes" should not protect that employee from the consequences of an unauthorized disclosure. In addition, Executive Order 12958, Sec. 1.8(a), specifically prohibits classification "in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) to restrain competition; or (4) to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security." This provision was included in the Order to help prevent the classification of information that would most likely be the concern of whistleblowers. Finally, there are remedies available to whistleblowers that don't require the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There are officials within the Government who are both authorized access to classified information and who are responsible for investigating instances of reported waste, fraud, and abuse. Further, each agency must establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures must ensure that: (1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions; (2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and (3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established by section 5.4 of Executive Order 12958.

a reply to: RickinVa

So you would prefer that the secrets Manning leaked, which helped expose war atrocities and other nasty acts by the US, remained secret?