It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama commutes much of Chelsea Manning's sentence

page: 8
50
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

This keeps getting more interesting...

Wikileaks from 3Hours ago on twitter


WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks · 3h3 hours ago

Assange is still happy to come to the US provided all his rights are guaranteed despite White House now saying Manning was not quid-quo-pro.



SO...Even with Obama shrugging his shoulders and saying he doesn't hold Assange to his offer...Assange still WANTS to come?

Something has gone sideways in Assanges world IMO..This looks like he no longer feels secure in the Ecuadorian Embassy and it is not the USA he is worried about. He is now practically asking for shelter in the US.




posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
OR...Perhaps he has something to trade?

Guarantees of no jail-time in trade for some piece of information he knows the US wants?



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Either that or he's sick of being locked up in a single room for years and is willing to roll the dice with Trump. It wouldn't surprise me to hear they are deliberately saying this just to gauge Trumps reaction and Assanges future prospects of getting out of there.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

That's not the point. By his action he made a decision to put more life in risk without regards to these life's. He rated those life's at a lower value since he knew exposing this information would put them in additional risk. So to speak he was ok with murdering more innocent people. This was not his decision to made.

There was nothing illegal in this documents from a "legal" standpoint. Those documents showed the most nasty business in the world at it's worse time. That's about it. It's nasty, bad, disgusting but doesn't make it illegal. You want to talk about justification of war and killing people - than this is the wrong discussion.

And if you have noticed there was no true repercussions for any player in this game except him/her. So the detail of the information was mostly used as personal gain of individual journalists and news organizations to boost their public portfolio.

But his action lead to another situation: Information is now much tighter handled which makes corruption much more prevalent and if there are true forces working against the american people than we will never know. There will be no more Snowden like scenario.

So in the end he created a loss-loss situation for us.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Assange did it right - in the first. He exposed Government secret that showed a side to citizen that was usually not accessible. He was very broad - got secrets about every country and posted them.

But his problem was that he had a taste of international fame and like a drug addict he had to get more and more of it.

Eventually he turned Wikileaks into an exclusive portal that dealt only with US documents.. because he knew that those would have the highest impact and give him the status that he believed he deserved.

Assange didn't do this for anyone of you but for himself. If leaks didn't had a good impact, he started editing it for "maximum political impact" (quoting his own words).



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Good. Manning is a hero. There are only a few people, like Manning and Snowden, stopping this country from becoming a full on Russian Cold war Communism. We already have the KGB (NSA-FBI) and we already have state conrolled media and controlled elections. Trump was the anomaly, I think.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The Only reason is to make him look good.
and Take it from trump!
as Trump would have done it.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
"Tranny" is a slur?

Pretty much right up there with calling a gay man a faggot or a black person a n-word. Let's just say that unless you are transgender, it's really not a cool way to refer to someone. Sure, it's just a word that some have reclaimed as a way of diffusing the negativity and derogatory connotations but it is generally considered a pejorative when a non-trans person uses it. Now you know.


I would have thought a word is only a slur if it is intended as such.

Yeah, just like nigga, spic, kike, wetback, etc., are only slurs if you mean them to be. Come on, you're smarter than that. I'm not the PC Police but there is really no reason to be rude. Just because your golden hair boy talks like an ignorant chav, it doesn't give license for you or anyone to do the same.

 



originally posted by: tweetie
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'm not so in agreement with your idea of a "spiritual healer" only because that sounds a lot like trying to pray it away which has been proven only to be detrimental. I do give you credit for recognizing gender dysphoria is on a spiritual/soul/karmic level and not some fun thing to do because of feelings which is more than most people seem to grasp.


I think Manning has been politically used in this regard. That bothers me.

It bothers me too. Wikileaks, Obama, Trump and Assange and what she did all off the table, there's still the LGBT folks that are going to and already have waved her as a flag for the cause. While there is the need to bring visibility to the issues of incarcerated transgender people and trans issues in general, it's those same people that decry "bathroom bills" are using trans people as a political football/wedge that are going to do the same thing with Manning.

 



originally posted by: pteridine
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.

I fully agree with this sentiment but you know it simply isn't going to happen. Manning has unwittingly become a tool of several factions which I highly doubt she's ready to deal with all at once.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Freija

By spiritual healer I mean there are plenty of practiced people who are healers who can help to source whatever might be going on with a person no matter what it is. It has nothing to do with praying anything away or even trying to turn someone into something else. It has to do with understanding from a spiritual level by tapping higher consciousness what the root cause is of something (whatever) made manifest in a person's life. From that level there isn't any judgement, only truth. I'm the type of person who would approach it from that perspective first but that's me.

I hope that clarifies.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
[tinhat]

What if Assange is dead and they're wanting to send in a look alike?

[/tinhat]

Of course, that goes back to them having to have found a way around the dead man switch set to release the decryption keys of the insurance files.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tweetie
I hope that clarifies.


Yes, somewhat and thank you for your follow-up comments. It all sounds a bit too woo and new-agey for me though. Perhaps you didn't know that in many historical cultures and native populations, "two-spirit" and cross gender people were the spiritual healers and shamans.

I'll stick with the preponderance of scientific evidence that gender dysphoria has neurobiological origins. I also haven't really heard many trans people express some deep seated need to find out why they are the way they are, only what can be done about it and how to live with it.



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

It has been proven multiple times that no one was harmed as a result of Wikileaks, Snowden OR Mannings releases.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Learningmanall i see is a dude who tried to klinger his was out of a jam and it worked




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate



President Barack Obama has shortened the prison sentence of former Army private and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, She will be released on May 17, instead of remaining in military custody until 2045 as originally sentenced.
Sentenced under US Army Court Martial to 35 years' imprisonment in August 2013, Manning had leaked to WikiLeaks thousands of documents that came to be known as the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary.


Seems a little strange given Obama's stance on whistleblowers. However, I personally feel he did the right thing.

After all the terrible things he's done the past couple weeks, this is a big plus.



www.rt.com...


To fluf up his farce of a legacy.

There is nothing he can do that will change what he did to whistleblowers. And did it to him while shouting from his ivory tower they would be better protected under his administration with a lot of blah blah about transparency that never happened.

But, we can keep our plan if we like it. At least we still got that. No, wait.. he says he never said that...



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

He's used to it. It's kind of his thing.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: neo96
Obama commutes much of Chelsea Manning's sentence

Hot damn!

Free sex change.

Free room and board.

Sentence commuted!

Not surprising in the least.

Back to calling Trump a traitor, and commutation of a TRAITORS SENTENCE.


The traitors were the people Chelsea Manning exposed.

You're on the wrong side of history, Neo.


False.

If Manning had RESERVATIONS about keeping his commitments then he should have never taken on those commitments.

Sort of like conscientious objectors who let their opposition to fighting be known in advance because it opposes their faith requirements.
edit on 19-1-2017 by Miracula2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Miracula2

Serving your country doesn't mean you have to participate in covering up it's wrong doings.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
January 20, 2017

Chelsea Manning's dishonorable discharge could strip her of Transgender benefits.

Source - www.foxnews.com...

Well, she could sign up for OBAMACARE.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Miracula2

Serving your country doesn't mean you have to participate in covering up it's wrong doings.


Yes it does.

ISIS does not have a counterpart to Manning to uncover ISIS crimes.

The US military holds its own people accountable for things like Abu-Ghraib.

But....

BUT......

Those were Iraqi uniformed soldiers guaranteed rights by the Geneva Conventions.

ISIS is not guaranteed ANYTHING under the Geneva Conventions.

Manning was an idiot. But I like Obama's reasoning for setting him free in that the other guy revealed far worse and got off scott free by fleeing to Russia.

Here is the proper course of action if you feel you made improper commitments. Fulfill your obligation then resign.




top topics



 
50
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join