Seven years is still a long time for whistle blowing. I'm glad to see she is still getting released though. It's important to note commuting the sentence is not a pardon. Chelsea will still have this conviction for the rest of her life.
I know there is a lot of controversy with Manning compared to Wikileaks et. al. as far as not redacting documents or using a discriminating news source to filter them. Still, I oppose state secrets and the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them. I still side with Manning. Too many of the Snowden documents were redacted with critical information (like which hardware encryption chips were compromised by the US government). No one has the actual Pentagon Papers outside of very specific news agencies. Manning gave the entire story to the people .. and I find it more sad that we didn't see more outrage and change from that release.
I also see another message here. Obama is trying to leave a positive view of the Democratic legacy with this lasting memory. It helps people forget about the predator drones, secret kill lists, continuation of torture, NSA spying and the expansion of war, military and the American hegemony throughout the world. I wish people would see this manipulation; this handout to the left to keep them angry at the incoming administration and not at the government that continues to spy on them and kill people without trial in and endless sea of never ending conflict.
I have mixed feelings on this. Manning did commit a crime. They were entrusted with classified information and they released it on purpose. For all of the corruption and wrongdoing the release of those cables uncovered, didn't it also do things like give away the positions of some undercover agents? And harm US diplomatic relations with other countries? Look at it from the POV of the government: How could they not punish Manning? It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info. Which would be bad.
Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released.
Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some of that information was dangerous and harmful.
Manning's battering ram is much different than Snowden's scalpel, even though their base motivations had a lot in common. Snowden knew what he was doing and did it with great care and consideration. Manning was suffering from some serious mental health issues and did something foolish with questionable value at best.
> Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse
No. She leaked the documents to Wikileaks, who decided to publish them uncensored. She had no control over what Wikileaks would do. Other media outlets opted not to release information they considered dangerous.
And, as @mhurron pointed out, there is no record of someone who was harmed by that information being released.
There is no record of any individual being physically harmed, but the leaked diplomatic cables were highly embarrassing, hurt the interests of the US, and were completely unjustified. They weren't exposing malfeasance or war crimes. They should not have been released.
The fact that the US murdered innocent civilians was highly embarrassing and hurt the interests of the US, not the fact that Manning leaked that information itself. Punish the murderers, not the messengers. The only people were actually harmed were the innocent children and journalists on the receiving end of US machine guns.
This exactly. Governments do need to be held accountable for secret crimes, secrecy should not be allowed to enable continuing those crimes. Exposing them was necessary, even if it was illegal.
I do think Manning was naive and sloppy for handing the whole thing over to Assange, though in her defense, Assange seemed fairly reasonable and responsible at the time. It's only after this enormous leak that he seems to have gone mad with power.
I can sleep a lot better tonight having read this thread of thoughts after some of the awfulness I just read over at reddit.
With this issue there is a remarkable degree of misinformation, as well as fascist ideology supporting the the surveillance state. These neverending, unechecked powers undermine civil rights and allow human rights abuses to go continue. And it's all wrapped in this package of 'a good liberal just supporting the good guys like Obama and Hillary that evil Assange is trying to destroy.' Assange is far from perfect, but I cannot understand how people do not fight back in solidarity with outrage against human and civil rights abuses.
It's called mortality :) people have X years to live and try to make the best of it and not everyone is ready to sacrifice that time for doing the right thing.
The simple fact that other people are unjustly suffering means that my mortality of x years is not the best. I think this alone should make everyone want to help make the world the best it can be. But empathy and love loses to selfishness and greed.
Thank you for your comments. You have it exactly right, re-affirming my hope that the world is not doomed. Another example in line with what you said, having secret prisons that we kidnapped people and took them to and tortured them during the second bush war in Iraq hurt the US. It hurt because because we had secret prisons.
In my opinion the solution to not being embarrassed is to not do embarrassing things. The person exposeing those things isn't in the wrong, you are.
Keep in mind all of the recent leaks have been from individuals and organizations that have supported domestic spying under the rationale "if you've got nothing to hide". Yet they hide in shadows and evidently misbehave when the public isn't looking.
"In my opinion the solution to not being embarrassed is to not do embarrassing things. "
That was the government's position against Snowden, Wikileaks, etc. Also called the "Safe if Nothing to Hide" fallacy. What secrets can cause damage in what ways is pretty broad and arbitrary. Interestingly, it applies to the government's schemes much like people's, private lives. We have to keep them in check more but that should be done by citizens leaning on various branches of government. Including groups doing something about problems in GAO reports.
Really easy to say, though, to never piss off any important person in any foreign country or company with one's private decisions or actions. Really hard to do, too.
I see what you're saying here but it might not be so simple. These types of countries are all competing doing all kinds of evil stuff to do so. All or most would have to be hit with whistleblowing & often for what you say to matter. What we've seen is large scale whistleblowing in some countries but not others. A few of those crying "Foul!" are almost certainly doing equivalent or worse but benefit from being the moral, high ground.
The result: a whistleblower for one just gives a competitive advantage to the others. So, both the country's policy and the whistleblower shifting people or investments to other scheming countries or companies are each causing damage.
A country is hit by whistleblowers when these people find their government doing things that are against their principles. That's much harder to happen when the people employed has no such thing.
The country is hit by "leakers" when arbitrary people on inside leak secrets for arbitrary reasons. Even the leakers themselves disagreed on morality of various things at various points. The problem is much broader and more subjective than you're hinting at if we adopted a policy of letting anyone leak anything they personally thought was bad. Especially if only one country in a world of nations competing was doing it.
The people of any country where would-be leakers are summarily executed for treason will not know what its government is hiding from them. Sometimes governments hide things for good reasons but, sometimes, the very crimes the government commits in order to protect the country's principles end up undermining those.
I dont disagree. Im pro leaking of evidence of crimes. That's whistleblowing. Manning did a lot more than that, though. So, your point is a strawman better suited for someone like Binney who only discussed corruption instead of huge, raw dump.
The more important question is: did the US murder innocent civilians? It's not about the cables or the messenger or the medium or the style and presentation, it's about the murdered innocent civilians.
The debt we owe Manning for exposing the fact that the US murdered innocent civilians far outweighs the damage she did by releasing the cables. The prosecution couldn't identify anyone who was harmed, beyond those innocents harmed by the US government machine guns, which wasn't Manning's fault.
When I was a kid, they were never innocent. They were all Russian agents and the puppet dictators put in place by the US were protecting their countries from communism.
A people deserves to know what their government did on their behalf.
AFAIK, both Manning and Snowden released large quantities of information without reviewing all of it in detail for public interest vs. potential harm, and released it not to the public but to third parties that managed public release. The difference is that Manning released it to Assange and Snowden released it to more responsible journalists.
Snowden released his information to journalists who carefully vetted each item for newsworthiness with the participation of the US government. Then that data was parceled out over many months, so it would remain in daily news cycles and continue to generate commentary over that time, staying in the public's mind.
Manning gave her data to Wikileaks, who posted it online in its entirety.
The Guardian ran everything by the US government first before publishing. Every responsible journalist does. They're looking for a response or comment to the story, to make sure they didn't get anything wrong, and to see if there's a any reason to withhold details (a reason beyond "It's classified so don't").
In fact, in Greenwald's book No Place to Hide, he describes how they held off publishing for several days while waiting for a response from the government. Greenwald was so frustrated with the delays that he considered quitting the Guardian and going on his own. I think that's the idea that eventually turned into The Intercept.
If that's the case, how did they get almost everything wrong? Reading the original stories on The Guardian, I couldn't find any response from the US government.
"The difference is that Manning released it to Assange and Snowden released it to more responsible journalists."
Sort of. They're more responsible in the general sense but also foreign journalists receiving U.S.'s spying capabilities on foreign persons. The aiding and abetting concept is quite appropriate given they published all kinds of NSA attack strategies & subverted companies while the foreign attacks & companies... including in their own countries... didn't get the same treatment. Both attack and defense on the other side got a great boost while U.S. companies simultaneously lost market share.
Quite a bit of damage giving stuff foreigners shouldn't know to foreign journalists. I might be happier if there was a Snowden in all 20+ countries involved in economic and industrial espionage. Instead, it was just what mainly two (U.S. and U.K.) were doing outside the many eyes partnership that extends to Europe. Quite asymmetrical.
Your comment is simple trolling. Most nations in the Snowden leaks spy on each other with humans and hacking. Only a few had their tools leaked by Snowden. Others, with spy & surveillance programs still running. immediately used that as political and economic leverage. That leaks damaged one set of countries while giving others benefits is a fact.
The real question is whether there is a greater good to that damage justifying it. I think there was for the domestic leaks but not the foreign ones outside a few. Far as that few, the Belgacom attack is a good example where taking down allies' telecoms over bullshit could have consequences for America past the usual info collection the spies do. Americans should have a conversation about that kind of thing before those acting on our behalf do such acts.
Absolutely. Whether you attribute his superior strategy to learning from Manning's mistake or his own native intelligence, there's simply no doubt that Snowden leaked his data in a more effective and less damaging way.
Snowden took personal responsibility for a single reason-- so the news would talk about the leaks, rather than the effort to find the leaker. He didn't want the conversation to be about Edward Snowden. He was largely successful.
When you go around doing reprehensible things, you deserve humiliation and embarrasment.
More over, if some of those reprehensible things you did, you happen to have done to your own allies, it means they are entitled to have second thoughts about whether they will want to continue aligning their interest to yours, or if they should be more assertive in the future to compensate for the cost of doing business with you.
So, you can keep shooting at the messanger all you want, but any bad outcomes comming out of this, you brought to yourselves.
> How much time do you think someone on active duty in Iraq has to sort through data?
You've clearly never been deployed. You have more free time than you know what to do with.
Think about what you do when you get off shift at your job. Now remember that you have no family or friends that aren't also co-workers to hang out with. No alcohol, limited access to new movies and video games. You are also stuck within the confines of whatever base you're assigned to. If you're lucky there might be a one-screen movie theater or an internet café. You might even be able to get severely bandwidth-capped satellite internet in your tent/third-of-a-trailer-shared-with-a-roommate that you call your room.
Despite what you want to believe about Manning, lack of time was no excuse for indiscriminate leaking of sensitive information that honestly and truly put lives at risk.
And you think you could use that free time to sort through thousands of pages of classified documents without your fellow soldiers or your superiors knowing? Time isn't the only relevant resource.
Maybe I'm an asshole, but the "put lives at risk" line seems like nationalistic swill. Even if it risked American combatants, why should that justify hiding the deaths of possibly fifteen thousand Iraqi civilians?
> And you think you could use that free time to sort through thousands of pages of classified documents without your fellow soldiers or your superiors knowing?
Most of the military intelligence Soldiers I deployed with brought their own personal laptops.
You really underestimate how much free alone time is available to you when you are deployed. Remember that Manning was also kind of a black sheep at the time. Spending hours alone on a laptop would not have been seen as out of the ordinary at all.
I don't question the free time, I doubt the ability for someone already under a fair amount of emotional distress to be able to hide reading thousands of pages of classified data.
Even with the route she took, it was only a matter of months for her to make a mistake that got her arrested. Giving it to wikileaks reduced her anxiety, going through it likely would have ramped it up. Additionally, needing to keep a local copy of the data is a huge risk.
This is exactly the sort of thing intellos do all day if they are good. The only covert part was the exfil.
I don't think the war diary stuff made much of an impact, or the apache video. The diplomatic traffic OTOH was the spark into the tinder of the middle east autocracies that set off the so-called Arab Spring.
It isn't "quite real damage," it's potential damage. Without revealing and adressing the past deaths, you can expect there to be future deaths. The point of revealing isn't to say "hey we did awful shit," it's to say "we're doing awful shit and it needs to stop."
I'd call the cops on bank robbers even knowing they may get "damaged" during capture because I think the benefits to society outweighs the harm.
Besides, we saw ~10 people blown away in that one video. That's a fair number of eggs you'd get to break by leaking before even being at parity with that one instance, let alone all the others.
Repeating a discussion that is being mad in a neoghbour thread, I don't see any criminal or even incorrecr decisions by US military in that video. Making decisions based on incomplete information, with certain risk of bad outcomes abd collateral damage is a part of war.
> I don't see any criminal or even incorrecr decisions by US military in that video. Making decisions based on incomplete information, with certain risk of bad outcomes abd collateral damage is a part of war.
So to paraphrase "they did nothing wrong and even if they did it would have been okay".
First, they clearly shot civilians trying to take other civilians to the hospital by essentially inventing weapons they didn't and couldn't have seen. Secondly, in most countries when you get the responsibility to fly something like an attack helicopter, which takes a fairly long time to learn, you tend to have to be better than some random soldier. The "war is hell" excuse isn't really viable with the attitudes displayed in the video. But if you're trying to say that these are the kind of actions we should expect when the US invades a country then I guess we are in agreement.
How exactly could've you made out these figures as civilians and not enemy combatants? From POV of the camera, you already have seen one of them with an RPG, and the opposing force doesn't really use uniforms either.
Don't fall for a logical fallacy, and try to view the situatiom from the lens of the information that they actually had, not the hindsight.
International law and the rules of engagement requires you to positively identify enemy combatant as well as not engage enemy combatant that are incapacitated. There's nothing in the video indicating that they person getting picked up by the van or that the people picking him up has weapons.
(from the transcript [0])
05:30 There's one guy moving down there but he's uh, he's wounded.
...
06:01 He's getting up.
06:02 Maybe he has a weapon down in his hand?
06:04 No, I haven't seen one yet.
...
06:33 Come on, buddy.
06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.
...
06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares]. We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage.
...
07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
....
07:36 Picking up the wounded?
07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
...
07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
There's nothing unclear here or anything to be misunderstood. If they had seen weapons they would have engaged already instead of asking for permission. It's just that the crew of the helicopter really wants to shoot them and that they, the US military nor the US public don't really give a shit if they are civilian as long as they can get away with it, which they can.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, not necessarily earned as the other poster points out but let's roll with it. You have successfully defended between two and eleven civilian deaths that were not hidden before the leaks. That leaves you merely with the task of explaining the around twelve thousand that were hidden prior to the leaks.
Let's even pretend that the pilots are totally blameless. The military covered this up. They don't get to cover things up, because that's how we get war crimes.
Had this been reviewed properly, yes. A "Mistakes Happen" stamp could probably be used. But by hiding it and lying about it, they turned it into something we can't ignore.
Also, I don't think the pilots are blameless. If they ever hit civilian court that transcript would hang them.
"She leaked the documents to Wikileaks, who decided to publish them uncensored. She had no control over what Wikileaks would do."
The first part of your sentence shows why the second part is nonsense. Manning dumped a bunch of classified information on a third party. Manning left the ethical decisions to that third party. That is certainly preventable as many others have prevented it. I've done so many times with confidential information that I make public in a selective way in my writing that protects sources or just details that must be private.
Truth is Manning's mind was messed up due to internal struggles, she also saw messed up stuff in military, and simultaneously was blindly trusting third parties to make the right decisions. The combination led to a damaging, criminal decision to turn all of that over to Wikileaks rather than pure whistleblowing of combing for corruption to selectively leak and/or redact. This is what she was rightly punished for although how the punishment was delivered was cruel and should've been illegal.
Glad Manning is to be released soon but she set it in motion with foolish decisions that had alternatives. It certainly wasn't an inevitable set of cause and effect.
None of this matters. What matters is the crimes committed by US officials when they illegally classified much of the information in the first place.
Of course Manning (or anyone who leaks) is likely to be an imperfect messenger. It's silly to focus on those details when there is a much bigger issue at stake.
FWIW I wish all of the Snowden data would have been given to Wikileaks. I have great respect for Glenn Greenwald, but the government has utterly failed to respond to the leaks in an appropriate way, which suggests a great lack of respect for the rule of law and the American people.
Instead, they pretended it hadn't happened and that no excesses occurred. I think several top level officials should have been removed and imprisoned and we should have seen footage of all the computers being carted out and put up for sale so that the money stolen to build the apparatus could be reimbursed to taxpayers.
Too much talk about motivations and conscience. Great evils are perpetrated through good intentions and lofty ideals.
But it's clear to me that actions of both Snowden and Manning were moral but illegal.
Regardless of motivation, they both exposed serious crimes. We are all better off because of the risks they took, and there was very little damage to offset the obvious benefits.
The moral yet illegal is exactly what commutation is for. Kudos to Obama for exposing himself to vicious criticism to do the right thing.
Manning made some very haphazard attempts to contact journalists within the span of a day or two, seemed highly frustrated when she didn't get a response right away, and declared the matter impossible and gave up.
It's morally-consent now to offer Snowden an immunity deal in exchange for inventorying what was taken. Without meaningful whistleblower protections, the deep state remains deeply corrupted.
I completely agree, but Snowden won't get a pardon for one simple reason-- it would look weak to do so.
Commuting Manning's sentence is magnaminous. She endured 7 years of torture in solitary confinement, tried to suicide several times, and plead guilty in a court of law.
Snowden GOT AWAY. And he went to Russia, where Putin granted asylum as a giant "screw you" to the US.
So yes-- we do have a moral imperative to pardon Snowden, just as much as Manning. But we won't do it.
> Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released.
This is not true. Aside from the domestic surveillance disclosures which lead to reform in that area, most of the Snowden leaks do not appear to have any sort of whistleblowing value.
I agree that Snowden did it about as well as you could possibly hope for a whistleblower exposing classified information. Manning meant well, but was naive and sloppy. Assange started out with good ideas, but seems to have gone mad with power after the Manning leaks. Still, some of the stuff that Manning and Assange leaked, did need to be exposed. It should have been handled more responsibly, but it still needed to be done.
>Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data
Snowden stole a huge amount of highly classified information and gave a tiny amount to journalists to comb through. Now we only have his word that none of it went to Russian intelligence though all signs point to the contrary.
We have "only the word" of everyone with security clearance that they are not leaking secrets to foreign agents.
You don't have to be physically present in Russia to provide the Russians with intelligence.
I don't know why it makes any sense to assume that Snowden is leaking any more than what he gave to the journalists. His entire mission was out of loyalty to the American public, he did not intend to end up in Russia, and he wants to return to the US. America is keeping him out because they will not guarantee him a trial that meets his criteria of fairness/openness.
>We have "only the word" of everyone with security clearance that they are not leaking secrets to foreign agents.
Don't be dense. Those other agents didn't make off with 1.7 million highly classified files, flee to China and then arrange a defection to Russia with Russian officials.
>I don't know why it makes any sense to assume that Snowden is leaking any more than what he gave to the journalists.
Because he has stolen much much more than he gave to the journalists and the stolen data was much more extensive than domestic surveillance programs.
>America is keeping him out because they will not guarantee him a trial that meets his criteria of fairness/openness.
There is still only one reason to say he went to China instead of simply mentioning he went to Hong Kong: to deliberately inaccurately describe and deceive what happened ie. a political reason. Don't resort to such lame rhetoric. It won't fly here.
Oh brother. Neither Hong Kong, nor China is the principal actor in this story. Their role consist of letting him leave despite a passport revocation and an arrest warrant.
Who is trying to muddle the point with irrelevant detail? It won't fly here!!
//
Also, I'm glad there were witnesses of some SD card being destroyed. Good thing we can trust the word of someone who at that point has already stolen deep operational intelligence in the first place (we're not even talking about information on mass domestic intelligence - just typical intelligence data), that this was the only copy he held or wasn't already compromised. A person who then fled to Russia by way of China. Unbelievable.
Which part? That he stole a massive amount of Intelligence .. not just pertaining to any domestic surveillance program, but deep organizational and operational intelligence? That he defected to Russia? That he met Russian officials in Honk Kong before leaving? That his passport was revoked and arrest warrant was issued before he left Hong Kong, completly invalidating his claim that he ended up in Russia by happenstance? That his defection was sanctioned by Putin and orchestrated by WikiLeaks, both actors now embroiled in an attempt to corrupt American elections?? Those publicaly acknowledged'conspiracy' claims?
Or is it that I just refuse to take his unsubstantiated claims at face value, and that makes me a conspiracy nut?
The guy is the definition of a traitor to his country.
>Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released.
This is a poor defense of Snowden's actions.
If it was given to a journalist who wasn't authorized to have that information, it was "released" in the only sense that is legally relevant, even if the general public doesn't have that information. Imagine saying what you just did, but replacing "journalist" with "KGB agent".
It's also untrue. Snowden leaked huge masses of data to those journalists. He didn't pick and choose what to give them beyond the most cursory of glances.
The second half of your post seems to be arguing about the word "release" versus "leak". The former is a superset of the latter, both are accurate. Certainly nobody's saying what he did was legal.
Little unethical behavior was actually leaked, though. The killing of the Reuters journalists probably should've been leaked since there was a sort of cover-up (government refused to give Reuters the video or concrete details), so I'll give her that.
But the rest was basically just normal communications.
I think she's served more than enough jail time, but this didn't really seem like a conscience-driven whistleblowing to me.
Snowden, on the other hand, leaked some seriously shady and unconstitutional activity (along with other things that IMO did not need to be released publicly). That very much did seem like he leaked it due to his conscience.
Could you please elaborate on this? I recently had dinner with a friend in intelligence, who was trying to convince me that Snowden was in bed with Russia from the get-go, and that the 90% of the leak had nothing to do with privacy concerns.
I took his opinions with a grain of salt given his background, but also couldn't refute due to being relatively unfamiliar with the Snowden saga.
Every bit of the leak was about mass surveillance--how could it not have to do with privacy concerns?
The "in bed with Russia" thing is just a smear. No one has produced any evidence of this, and it's really hard to make it match up with how everything unfolded.
And if someone did produce such evidence, they would be obligated to ask for that very same person's arrest for the breach of trust involved in such wistleblowing!
Russia was one of his last choices as a refuge; they were just one of the only countries to accept him.
I doubt he's fond of Russia, either, and he's made some passive-aggressive jabs at them on his Twitter.
That said, it can't be ruled out that he divulged even more secret information to Russia's intelligence services as a condition for asylum, but I don't think there's any evidence it was one of his motives when leaking.
He wasn't even trying to stay in Russia. He was just traveling through on his way to Ecuador but he got stuck there because the US revoked his passport.
Some serious amnesia in this thread. But the reaction is all too common, people who just go "we knew all of that already" and switch back to sports while others out there risk their life to produce the documents that can bring about actual change.
Even if you don't care for the content of the cables, the fact that an estimated 3 million people have access to them with nothing worth mentioning in the form of access control should give you serious pause. The 1% are real, they are just not all billionaires.
> the fact that an estimated 3 million people have access to them with nothing worth mentioning in the form of access control should give you serious pause. The 1% are real, they are just not all billionaires.
Ok... there are probably far, far worse hidden scandals in terms of access control/data security in the US government. I don't see your point. I don't think that's the point anyone was trying to make. It's bad, for sure, but it doesn't warrant leaking all of the documents.
>while others out there risk their life to produce the documents that can bring about actual change.
What in the diplomatic cables brought, or could have brought, actual change?
NSA surveillance leaks could (and, to a small extent, did) bring about actual change. The cables accomplished nothing positive for anyone.
What part of it can be attributed to Manning..? And what part of it can be contributed to food insecurity, economic downturns, the despots running those countries tightening the screws, the CIA's involvement, a civil war in Iraq, the Department of State jumping on the opportunity to stick it to Putin by destabilizing Assad?
Are any other architects of these disasters serving 35 years?
That's impossible to measure quantitatively. It's very clear that the leaks contributed to some degree, much like the email leaks and FBI notes to congress contributed to the election results, but how much? Nobody will ever know.
My point is that if you want to crucify Manning for starting the Arab Spring, there's a long, long line of people, who were actually responsible for the problems she exposed.
It was catastrophic because despotism fought back and (mostly) won. But that doesn't mean the uprisings or the actions leading to it were wrong or futile. It's a long road.
Where Manning went wrong was the indiscriminate nature of the leaking. Had Manning just divulged only the information regarding specific acts of wrongdoing, she would have had a much stronger case as a whistleblower. Dumping troves of classified material without regard to their contents is not the same thing.
If someone working in medical records uncovered insurance fraud, but put thousands of people's full records out on the internet (instead of a targeted disclosure), they would absolutely civil lawsuits and criminal penalties. Even if their original intent was noble, their actions would be subject to punishment.
Manning was in the military regardless of what and how it was released there is no possibility for "public interest" defense in this case.
Neither does Snowden since he will be charged with espionage.
Manning dumped a whole slew of stuff without any checking or vetting or anything else. Some of the stuff I saw in relationship to Italy, for instance, was just diplomatic personnel airing "what they really thought" about Silvio Berlusconi. These comments are the kind of thing that didn't do anyone any good to have dumped in public.
Others would say -- and I would say also -- that in general, the public has benefited greatly from the disclosures in the more pertinent cable leaks.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that Manning didn't simply dump these to "the public"; she gave them to Assange and his people, who (after some falling out with each other, and a lapse in some basic security practices) managed to leak the passphrase to one of their private keys.
Which isn't to say she's not responsible for the consequences of her actions; in any case, she's already very much paid the price for the decision she made. But still, it was not her intent that the cables be simply "dumped in public".
I'm not upset about the commutation of the sentence, but I do think that some punishment was just. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to argue how much might be appropriate, and I think we can all be pretty sure that she's not going to be in a position to dump that kind of data again, so there's not a risk of recidivism.
All kinds of stuff. Disclosure about what the U.S. diplomatic staff knew about corruption and torture in various countries -- and what they really thought about the ruling elites of these places, despite public statements to the contrary; attempts by companies such as Chevron, Lockheed-Martin, and Coca-Cola sought influence in certain countries; how the U.S. arranged to spy on UN officials, etc.
Here's one of my personal favorites (summarized by Reuters):
"You know the movie 'The Godfather'? We've been living it for the last few months," a businessman involved in the dispute was quoted in the cable as telling an official from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Tripoli.
The cable, which was made available to Reuters by a third party, centers on a bottling plant in Tripoli that was shut down for three months. It had been seized by troops loyal to Mutassim Gaddafi, a son of Muammar, who at the time was feuding with one of his brothers, Mohammed. (Another State Department cable suggests a third Gaddafi son, Saadi -- better known as the family's professional soccer player -- may also have been involved in the squabble, though no details of his role are given.)
Eventually, the American diplomatic mission in Tripoli, known then as the U.S. Liaison Office, sent a firm protest to the Libyan government. The document states that around the same time, Mohammed Gaddafi, possibly under pressure from his sister Aisha, a family peacemaker, apparently agreed that shares owned by the Libyan Olympic Committee, which he led, would be sold to a third party.
Shortly afterward, the cable says, Mutassim's men left the Coke plant, ending the family standoff, but not before employees of the plant received threats of bodily harm and a Gaddafi cousin was stuffed in the trunk of a car.
Really, it shouldn't be hard to satisfy your own curiosity on this topic. Unless you think we're better off not knowing about this stuff, that is.
How has the public benefitted from any of that? It sounds like your morbid curiosity has been satisfied, but who didn't know Libya under Gaddafi was a cesspit?
> Unless you think we're better off
> not knowing about this stuff, that is.
Who didn't already know all of that in broad strokes?
Who didn't already know all of that in broad strokes?
I guess that argument could be applied to high crimes and corruption of all sorts, just about anywhere: "We already know about that in broad strokes. What good does it do to air all that dirty laundry before the general public?"
Which these weren't. There's about as much public benefit in knowing how exactly Gaddafi was corrupt as there is in known just how many women Tom Cruise has slept with. cf: Public Interest
Then maybe you shouldn't (repeatedly, incessantly, decade after decade) engage so shamelessly with forces of corruption and darkness such it that inspires people to take great personal risk to expose that information.
This has nothing to do with corruption. People talk even without getting paid. Not everyone realizes what they're saying is important or will become important in the future. Most of the time it's just background information.
Also, there's not necessarily an element of "great personal risk". It may just be social or embarrassment or minor damage to a career. If some flunky at a Peruvian consulate has a bit too much to drink and says his boss is an asshole, it gets written down and goes into a file somewhere. When people see that on the internet they think "Man, I really need to watch what I say to the Americans."
Everybody knows what you say to a diplomat from any country is going to get written down. But there's always been a tacit agreement that not everything gets shared with the world.
And I think you're mostly jumping at shadows here. Diplomacy is a lot less interesting and less nefarious than you seem to believe.
Diplomacy is a lot less interesting and less nefarious than you seem to believe.
About 95% of it, yes. But if the other 5% were so profoundly uninteresting then people wouldn't be talking about how "embarrassing" and "damaging" it was to have it released.
This is a business about people. You can have information that's not "embarrassing" or "damaging" to the US that's both embarrassing and damaging to individuals in other countries.
Again, there's a practical side here. As I asked in another post, just how much would you share with a friend or family member that was going to immediately run to publish what you said in a Facebook post? Because that's essentially what Manning did.
No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
>No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Yes it is. Once it's there on the internet, people are linking to it, and it's a topic of discussion, anything that gets you into any kind of trouble is out there for people to see.
>Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
If you're really intent on ending a conversation, try not attempting to slip in the last word.
Diplomats need to engage with other countries, no matter how they're run. They also need to be able to talk clearly with one another about what they think things are like without it getting dumped all over the internet.
Manning certainly has already paid a harsh price for her decisions. I think reasonable people would say that it was "enough" at this point. What good does it do to keep Manning in prison for the full 35 years?
As for outing what people "really think" of Berlusconi... I suspect that no one was surprised (including the clown himself, Silvio).
You can spin any type of classified material as "corruption" and "wrongdoing". Who draws the line?
What if someone indiscriminately leaked everything on the Manhattan project during WW2? Would they be a hero because they "acted on their conscience" and showed the world that the big bad USA was secretly developing WMDs? Or would they be a villain because they just taught other countries how to do the same? To the peace loving left he would be a hero, to the nationalist right he would be an enemy.
Do you really believe that the government should be able to do whatever it wants in any area with no transparency or oversight? That's what you're saying — that nobody should be allowed to disclose something that government officials don't want them to, without any further consideration — but I have trouble believing that's what you mean to say.
As I said, I have a hard time believing that is what's meant, but I think that is a pretty fair summary of the big-picture implications of that proposal. If you don't think so, please explain how rather than throwing out the word "strawmen" and pretending you've debunked something.
Obama doesn't seem to completely disagree, since he didn't pardon her. He instead commuted the sentence from 35 years to 7 years' imprisonment. In my personal opinion that's still too long for the crime, but it's at least less completely insane than 35 years.
also being tortured in custody and put into solitary is much for the crime. I don't understand why Obama had to wait so long (couldn't he have, at least done it two or three months ago?) and why he's letting Chelsea stay in the pen till summer? Why not let her out more or less now?
Likely in the hopes that the story won't be as big a deal when she's actually released, and won't receive as much attention from potentially dangerous people.
Or, as they say in the article, that's 4 months from now, a somewhat reasonable time (considering it could have been 28 years and 4 months) to finish everything up, get her affairs on the outside settled, and all the bureaucracy done.
the commutation could have been done 2 months ago to allow for reasonable time. Also, it's not like the president doesn't have the resources or authority to accelerate it. Pardon my cynicism, but (not that I have any sympathy for the incoming president) it seems more like a political ploy to put the incoming president in a conflict where the president is tempted to do something deeply unethical to be politically consistent.
It's a bit of a stretch to assume the timing of this massive batch of pardons and commutes was predicated on making her release (which includes a mandatory grace period) line up with that holiday.
The military justice has a possibility for parole release before the term, unlike U.S. federal civil justice. So there was always the possibility of a such release.
Thanks, I didn't realize the military had retained parole after the rest of the federal government abolished it. If I'm reading the link correctly, 10 years would have been the minimum time served in this case. If it were likely that parole would be granted at the earliest point of eligibility (would it be? I have no idea), this commutation then amounts to knocking 3 years off the minimum sentence. Which is not nothing, but less dramatic than the headline 28 years.
He didn't release details. He lied to investigators to deflect their attention from the real leaker. Sort of like how Martha Stewart was convicted of making false statements to Federal agents.
Is that the conventional wisdom? I thought the consensus was that he probably was the source for David Sanger's book, but that the federal government didn't want the exposure of litigating the case, so it was resolved in the end by him agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of, roughly, "lying under oath about not being the leaker", without being actually charged with the leak itself.
Yea, from the POV of the government having the public realize all the illegal, unethical and irresponsible things you've been doing with their tax dollars would be absolutely terrible. Someone may end up getting jail time - or even worse - lose their reelection!
/s
Anyone who is able to condemn Manning would also condemn the soldiers of Hitler's army who chose to disobey orders to kill Jews because it would have been against the law.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. And if our government didn't engage in illegal activity (like torture, political uprisings, wire tapping) then perhaps people like Manning wouldn't have to leak information that could compromise a few undercover agents.
In this case, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Find me a politician or soldier who got jail time for committing acts of torture in Baghdad and then we can talk about penalizing Manning.
Rather than being an example of Godwin's law, though, this is a historically analogous comparison of US war crimes justifications in Iraq to the Nuremberg defense and doesn't suggest impending ethnic genocide where there is none.
That's understandable, but Manning's sentence has been unusually cruel in its execution, and unjust when compared to other people who did without being punished at all.
See, e.g. the conduct that Colin Powell described in this email:
For example, #6 claims that 'Hillary's campaign' wants an 'unaware and compliant citizenry,' on the basis of an unsolicited email to Podesta using that phrase to describe Trump's campaign strategy!
It's oversold, yes, but as far as I can tell, it's this Bill Ivey (NEA chairman under Clinton, Obama transition team member) and not some random spammer -
But she was punished. With 7 years that she already spent in jail. I don't think that reducing her sentence from 35 years to 7 years "encourage others to leak".
The book, "The Spy Who Couldn't Spell: A Dyslexic Traitor, an Unbreakable Code, and the FBI's Hunt for America's Stolen Secrets" by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee tells the story of an American intelligence worker who tried to pass off information to other governments just prior to Sept. 11th.
His motivation was money (selling his secrets for millions of dollars) and when he was caught, he was hoping to have his sentence reduced to 8 years so he may be with his family.
I think it would be encouraging to others to leak if the risk of making millions for their families to getting caught still allows them to live life if the punishment is anything less than life.
According to this article, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone was killed due to the leaks. I don't know if anyone was harmed, but it really doesn't seem like it.
> It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info
A one-time presidential commute or pardon would do no such thing. Saying that "this specific case has been looked at and deemed to be okay" doesn't automatically equate to "everyone can do this and they won't get in trouble." There's a huge difference between whistleblowing and treason
We live within a rules-based system. For Manning the rule was "We'll give you this security clearance, here are 100 classes about not spilling the things you know to anyone else."
I too am troubled by the decision, but it does seem a bit out of whack with the total lack of punishment for the higher echelons of government. Lately it seems like the rules-based system we have been living under is cracking.
There really wasn't much in the way of corruption and wrongdoing in the diplomatic cables. If anything they showed that the mundane private details of US diplomacy match US public diplomatic stances quite closely.
Regarding the harm it did to US relations with other countries...I think long term it would be more positive for relations with all countries if there's decent treatment of whistle blowers. Sure short term it sucks to have info along the lines of "we did X to harm your country" leaked but let's face it most sane governments assume that the U.S. is doing some very shady things and has a huge budget to execute that fairly "well". At the end of the day I'd much rather have a U.S. doing shady things and some people shining a light on it every now and then than just the U.S. doing shady things.
There is no POV of "the people". A bunch of individuals comprise the people, and some of those individuals also comprise the government. But "the people" as a group do not have a POV.
That's a shay position given how wrong a majority of the country has been at various times in history. Forced school desegregation was wildly unpopular in a lot of the country (even the north) but it was the right thing to do, some issues shouldn't be left to the whims of a populace. It also treats the view of the people as a singular entity when it's vastly fractured and multifaceted.
Forced school desegregation is not active for most kids. Many people buy into expensive school districts. Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and other fine cities are not exactly desegregated. Even in more mixed areas, the school zones are seldom mixed. Then, for those without the money to isolate themselves by zip code, there is homeschooling. Kids do not get bused from one homeschooling family to another.
Personally I think esoteric pronouns like "ve" are a silly idea that won't catch on, but I like the idea of using "they" as a gender neutral way to refer to one or more people.
It's a straightforward expansion of the current usage: as a gender neutral way to refer to two or more people.
My problem with "they" is that it's overloading the plural pronoun and using it like a singular. This can cause confusion, for example, it makes the comment we're discussing a bit hard to read when in one sentence "they" means Manning and in the next sentence "they" means the government.
"He" is the pronoun that was used in their past, "she" is the pronoun for the present. When we're talking about the past+present for this person, I think "they" is not unreasonable. At least, it's more reasonable than trying to call someone out for their pronoun usage when the discussion is about a much more serious topic.
No, the correct way to do this is to use the individual's pronouns. Please note that the AP and the NYT have basically adopted the GLAAD style guide on this issue: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
The NYT correctly stated in the parent article, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009." See how that works? She was always a she, even though she was presenting as a man at the time.
Really, it's ok, you can call her "she"! It's not going to hurt you, and it'll help trans people everywhere feel a little less shitty reading this website.
It can imply a number of things, from agender people to people like me who can't really be bothered to explain it.
Trans binary people enforce their gender identity quite strongly because they get so much "pushback" (a polite way of saying harassment and threats) from people. In this case "they" is tapping into that.
If you think this is complicated, try calling a baptist a catholic and see what happens.
Not actually. Manning was required by law to refuse and report illegal orders. And not just make a show of reporting it and then back to business as usual.
> didn't it also do things like give away the positions of some undercover agents?
No, but that'd be our fault anyways, for mixing legal and illegal.
> And harm US diplomatic relations with other countries?
The truth didn't harm relations, doing the things that the allies found out about in the first place was the problem.
> Look at it from the POV of the government: How could they not punish Manning?
Um, admitting fault and correcting it. But yeah, we know that'd never happen so what could they do but shoot the messenger?
> It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info.
Doubtful. The motivator in Manning's case wasn't the ease or difficulty of leaking, but the crimes that needed exposing.
> I oppose state secrets and the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them.
Weren't they from the DNC leak? The DNC is not affiliated with the US state. I read some of the mails, and I found nothing chilling so I'm curious to know what chilling mails you found.
I think what's chilling is the inconsistent application of the law regarding sensitive information (for example, emails).
Secretary of State Clinton, who deletes government emails and communicates state secrets through her own private email server, receives no punishment, while people who blow the whistle on questionable government behavior receive maximum punishment.
That lack of consistency in applying the law is what makes it unfair...for everybody.
You're on a different subject. What was chilling according to the parent was the contents of the leaked emails. The private email server controversy had nothing to do with that.
> Obama is trying to leave a positive view of the Democratic legacy with this lasting memory. It helps people forget
How do you know what Obama's motive is? Were you at the meetings? Did you read the memos? Do you have a brain-to-brain interface or have you hacked his Blackberry?
Should he do nothing good or positive, so that you don't suspect him of manipulating people?
> Should he do nothing good or positive, so that you don't suspect him of manipulating people?
I mean, the crime, conviction, sentencing, and multiple suicide attempts all happened while Obama had the power to commute the sentence. If there was a principle at play here, if Obama thought it was a moral good to have this person avoid a prison sentence, I'm having a hard time imagining what the roadblock was. Was it that the massive leak and subsequent prosecution didn't get enough media coverage, so he was unaware of the situation? No, that doesn't sound right, it was widely known at every stage in the process.
If commuting someone sends a message, the delay sends a message too. Perhaps he's just trying to do the right thing when the consequences won't hurt him. Perhaps it's all for show. But I think it's fair to conclusively rule out the theory about this decision being made in order to maximize the welfare of Manning. Something else was in the calculus here.
> if Obama thought it was a moral good to have this person avoid a prison sentence
What if he thought it was good to avoid too long of a sentence? One possible interpretation is that he wanted punishment because it was against the law and as a deterrence, but didn't want to be too harsh. Sentencing isn't within his control, but commuting a sentence is.
> If commuting someone sends a message, the delay sends a message too.
Sure, everything sends a message, but not every message is intentional. It's undisputable that these actions send messages, but impossible to know for sure what the reasoning was and what messages were intentional and what were byproducts. The traditional time for a president to commute and pardon is at the end of their presidency, so reading a purposeful message into the delay may or may not be useful.
Obama has done very little (anything?) to support whistleblowers or an open and transparent government in the eight years he has been President. It's hard not to be skeptical of such an uncharacteristic move days before he's set to leave office.
This is the time for doing these things... things like this that have the potential to upset a lot of people you rely on... but he wont be relying on them anytime soon... thats kinda where the "tradition" of pardons, etc at the last few days of term comes from.. there is next to no backlash for the president if hes only in office for a few more days
Irritating that this is getting downvoted. I too felt the same way -- the "revelation" that she's a pragmatist acting in good faith did nothing to make me dislike her.
Collusion with the media and a debate moderator should chill anyone. Add to that the fact that the DNC basically anointed her by not giving Sanders a fair shake... democrats were told who to vote for using the media to give them the illusion of free choice.
Put another way, the emails revealed that it's very possibly that Trump will be President because Clinton had corrupted the DNC.
Have you read the leaks? What parts do you think are overblown?
From what I've read, it appears the DNC directly violated their own bylaws by (strongly) preferring one candidate before the primary. Repeatedly and flagrantly.
If the DNC isn't even accountable to itself, how should American voters feel about them having control over the duopoly of private parties which are allowed to select presidential candidates? At best, their actions were revealed to be grossly unethical. At worst, criminal.
How could a private organization violating their charter extend to criminality?
Most of the leaks showing the DNC "favoring" Clinton came after it was clear she was going to win the primary, and most of DNC wanted to focus on the general election. On top of that, individual staffers having a preference for the person they are very close to over the guy who joined the party just to run shouldn't be that surprising, but I haven't seen any evidence that it translated in substantial action to tilt the field in favor of Hillary. I'll concede the debate question issue was a bad look, but again, what advantage was conferred by telling the HRC team that a debate in Flint would feature a question about the Flint Water Crisis?
The debate question was given to the Clinton camp by Brazile when Brazile wasn't working for the DNC. The closer you look at the emails, the more you realize that there's no there there.
The issue is it was clear Clinton was winning before the race was over based on polling, superdelegates, and what states were remaining. The DNC wanted to discuss (privately) how to limit damage to HRC from Sanders attacks before the general.
These sort of private discussion are totally reasonable for an organization like the DNC to have before the primary was 100% over cause they could see the writing on the wall. I didn't read every leak or anything like that but what I did see was mostly of this nature. This of course pissed off Sanders supporters (the point of the leak in the first place) but it really wasn't that bad imo.
The Brazile thing was though and I'm amazed she's not hiding in a cave somewhere in disgrace.
> The issue is it was clear Clinton was winning before the race was over based on polling, superdelegates, and what states were remaining.
And the reason for that was because she was heavily pushed as the candidate by CNN, MSNBC, etc while the same media ignored Sanders. That it only became clear later that this media had relations with the Clinton campaign and DNC beyond just the personal biases of pundits is cause for concern IMO.
Is everyone here forgetting the millions given by foreign nations?? The outright collusion with media? The lack of sensitivity to LGBT rights? The fact that they never discussed how to actually solve the Nation's problems, only worked on crafting a message to the public, and having "public and private" policies? The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately? Or most chilling of all, the cryptic codespeak used in several emails?
> Is everyone here forgetting the millions given by foreign nations??
Not terribly, since we can see where a lot of it went and we're not terribly upset with the outcomes?
> The outright collusion with media?
Yeah emails that emails went emails really emails well emails, right emails?
> The lack of sensitivity to LGBT rights?
Clinton has a mixed track record on LGBT rights, but I trust her infinitely more than I do Trump, because her recent track record is much better. If you think she'd get a free pass for screwing over the community, you're dead wrong.
> The fact that they never discussed how to actually solve the Nation's problems, only worked on crafting a message to the public, and having "public and private" policies?
It.. uh... was an election campaign, dude. They're talking about being elected. But also, there ARE a ton of emails in there talking about the policy messaging. Mostly how to frame it to different people, as framing matters.
> The family connections to Russia that everyone conveniently ignores lately?
If Russian connections were a problem Trump would be forced to step down in favor of Pence, now wouldn't he?
> Or most chilling of all, the cryptic codespeak used in several emails?
Did you use your pizzagate decoder ring to figure out where they hid the girls yet?
At this point, I'd only like to know why you're making personal attacks on someone you've never met in order to support and defend a politician who's committed federal crimes -- one who you've likely also never met.
Might be time to step back and take a deep breath, my friend.
Have you actually read the emails in question? I've referenced them elsewhere in this thread.
I've read most of the Wikileaks materials. I've taken them with a grain of salt because there is strong evidence that Assange does not have control of Wikileaks, and therefore it's very difficult to trust the entirely of the corpus.
Even if I take all of them as 100% verified, I am certainly not "chilled" the way you are. Nor do I think having IT fuckups should be a federal crime. Given how shit both R and D party security is, I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure.
And the only aspersion I've thrown your way is that this allegation of "codespeak" is rubbish and lead people to dangerous actions on the grounds of "PizzaGate". I don't agree with your picture of reality, but I think you're an adult capable of recognizing this and therefore should be responsible for your viewpoints in a public discussion forum you choose to engage in.
If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't reply. You wouldn't be responsible for your actions.
> Given how shit both R and D party security is...
Ummm, since we're now talking about the private email server (still absolutely illegal, regardless of justification), we're not talking about DNC leaks here, so this has nothing to do with "D" and "R".
That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division.
> I suspect the private email servers are actually afforded a bit of security by being obscure.
WOW!!! Are you listening to yourself?! That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt:
> Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that.
But, "you suspect".
How about this: I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed. Those emails are out there, many of them possibly on the Weiner laptop or elsewhere, and time will tell if there will ever be any justice served for these Federal crimes.
> That ClintonEmail.com server should have been in the STATE DEPARTMENT behind government firewalls, heavily monitored by our government's cybersecurity division.
Which is a token gesture and we all know it. Most private companies have better cybersecurity than the "STATE DEPARTMENT."
> That's demonstrably been proven to be completely false (ClintonEmail.com is not exactly a "obscure" domain, BTW) -- and by her team's own admission, as there was hack attempt after hack attempt:
Email servers ... seeing hack attempts via direct and content-driven means? WOW. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO STATE OFFICIALS! MY EMAILS CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER SEEN MALICIOUS LINKS.
> I suspect that they setup a private email server to keep out of the reach of FOIA attempts, because of Lord knows what scandals would have been unearthed.
I hope that you extend this righteous anger to Pence and the Trump campaign for doing everything they can to keep campaign planning materials hidden by (curiously) successfully invoking attorney-client privilege.
The vast majority of stories that ban filtered were about proposed human rights abuses by Trump's advisory board, and subsequent details about how foreign intelligence agencies helped the conservative candidate without the hobble of campaign finance laws or ethical considerations.
Or are you mad I'm here, being pugnacious and irreverent about the more absurd allegations leveled against various candidates (which I have done on behalf of Trump as well, if you check my post history far enough).
What, exactly, do you miss? And if so, why then did you click into this thread and read into something nested 3 deep?
I submit if you cast a vote in this country you should not be afforded the luxury of looking away from the results of that vote.
No, I am not mad you are criticizing conservatives, nor do I think we should be ignorant of politics. I was struck by the nastiness of that part of your comment, that it was a personal, dismissive insult.
So was implying that arbitrarily assigned "code words" were evidence of a child abuse ring which was so hyped to a group of people that it lead to a physical confrontation with an armed individual in public.
"Code words" is pizzagate talk, even if you're not aware of that. It's the literal phrasing echoed throughout twitter and gab used to justify arbitrary accusations.
I'm not sure how you can treat that kind of nasty and totally senseless fear mongering with anything but irreverence.
All that tells me is she was a politician playing the political game. Or do you think it is mutually exclusive to play politics and caring about doing good things with power? Do you think emails between Sanders campaign staff would not be discussing talking points and tactics if their campaign emails were leaked?
I'm upset enough that our politicians take monstrous amounts of money from corporate lobbyists... let alone foreign nations in questionable areas!! That part is unforgivable.
Justify it however you want, there was some very chilling revelations in those emails. I want politicians solving problems, not building press angles.
I keep hearing vague mentions of corruption and chilling revelations from these email leaks, but i have never once been given a link to a particular email thread demonstrating this. Care to share a link?
What millions? The same collusion that had all media screaming about emails all the time? The default support for LGBT rights? What family connections to Russia?; were they in the same league as with Putin is doing with Trump? What codespeak are you talking about? You mean policies you don't personally like?
The Clinton Foundation donations were shown to be benign and not give any additional access to the Clintons. The Clinton foundation is a reputable charity that actually does good.
Or do you think that anytime money is mentioned bad things are happening? So then how do you feel about Trump?
Does simply having 'Russia' show up in a word search mean something sinister?
If you're like this about Clinton (much ado about nothing, exaggeration of any tiny mention of anything), why aren't you absolutely nuclear about Trump, who has actual solid links to actual corruption and potential treasonous behaviour?
The Clinton Foundation does good? Like they did in Haiti, right??
It's okay, you just haven't dug deep enough. The key is understanding where the proposed pipelines are located. Hint: they're in line with various overthrown governments; not coincidental.
Note that I'm not saying you should dig any deeper, as it's not exactly productive time and this is the job of the investigators, but it's interesting to watch play out.
Best question lately is "Where is Eric Braverman?"...
First off, arguing "against the other side" has nothing to do with these emails and is offtopic. We're referencing what was discovered in the leaked emails. And inside, you can find documented proof of the Uranium One thing and their concerns over it.
You may consider it a fallacy, but I am making the point that Trump supporters attacking Hillary over Russia policy smells of the old "attack your own weakness" strategy of American politics, often attributed to Karl Rove and the like.
There are very good arguments made elsewhere in this thread about releasing in full vs. releasing to a group that has the ability and willingness to appropriately vet documents before release. Certainly Wikileaks' blanket release caused a large amount of unnecessary controversy that could have been strategically avoided, and would have served as less distraction from the issues presented in them.
yeah, maybe, but I guess I would also say that maybe he did the decent thing when he judged it would no longer bear a political cost to do so - because I bet being a politician means you have to take those political costs into consideration. (certain exceptions do spring to mind)
Dumping tons of classified documents in the way that she did is not whistleblowing. I think Obama did the right thing here but not because she was a whistleblower (she's not).
It's not really whistle blowing though if you find evidence of 1 crime and then then choose to release 700,000 unrelated other documents with it. It is just a crime. During the trial the defense didn't even pretend that this was whistle blowing.
Also, intention is relevant in criminal law. Was the intention to right a wrong or to throw a depression induced tantrum? There was a substantial amount of evidence on this matter.
By definition, a whistle blower must reveal evidence of the commission of a crime. The term does not extend to "actions by the government that I disagree with" or "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution"
If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.
> "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution"
The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.
Yes, sometimes government actions are illegal, but a random individual can't know that unless they A) see a court case actually happen or B) interpret the law themselves and determine that the actions are illegal. Option A doesn't help whistleblowers, since the whole point of whistleblowing is to cause a court case to occur.
You're right that individuals do have to interpret the law, and choose their behaviour accordingly. AFAIK, it's only in the last hundred years or so that we've started to recognise human rights having precedence over a single nation's law, which makes it "legal" for individuals to act contrary to their nation's laws.
That recognition does make it easier (than it was) to counter, but there are still challenges, and they're unlikely to disappear soon.
Murder, torture, blanket domestic spying etc., are not (or have not recently been) considered crimes when the federal government is the actor. The line isn't so clear.
When they're given those labels, they are. The question is whether the actions are accurately described by those particular words. That's why phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques" are employed, to make a distinction between that and torture, for example.
(Note, I'm not arguing that I think any particular actions are or are not criminal. I'm too ignorant of the details to meaningfully speak one way or the other.)
In the spirit of Pascal, I apologize in advance for not having a more eloquent, concise reply, though on my part its more exhaustion and laziness rather than lack of time.
People have different definitions of what constitutes torture. There is also a legal definition of torture (which may be vague, but will be determined judicially if it comes to that). By definition, torture is against the law. As people have different definitions of what constitutes torture, some acts will meet the legal definition, while others will not even though they meets the definition held by someone else.
I happen to agree with you that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. By defining certain acts as such, it gives proponents of using such acts a legal basis of arguing that they're not torture, whether it's ultimately justified or not.
Does that make sense? I'm not asking whether or not you agree with the distinction (which would be hard to do as I haven't defined which acts fall under either). I'm just asking whether the argument follows, that you understand why the language matters.
A similar distinction is made for killing in war and murder. Some people believe all killing is wrong and murder. That said, there's a legal distinction between the two. Which term is applied is legally important.
But what we have seen is that the govt violated the rules that were supposed to constrain them, hiding the illegal acts they committed. They fight to avoid having court cases address the true legality.
I believe they wanted to keep this secret not because it hurt us to leak some secret, it was to hide the fact that every president from Truman on had lied about their actions to get us more involved in vietnam. It's still pretty shocking today. Read the wikipedia page for more info.
I don't think it will happen, but I'd be happy if Obama were somehow able to legally forgive Snowden for his whistle blowing also.
"Just in: President Barack Obama has largely commuted Chelsea Manning's remaining prison sentence. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction."
Is it really manipulation? Most/all world leaders have done a lot of good and a lot of bad. You can be angry at both the outgoing and incoming administration. There is no need to pick sides. Hopefully commuting this sentence will decrease any deterrence the administration has given to whistleblowers, because we need them to hold our governments accountable more than ever. Any checks and balances we think we have don't seem to be working.
President Obama inherited all of those "bad" things you mention.
The real problem with all of those things is that they are politically impossible to roll back, unless the perceived cost exceeds the perceived benefit. Until your best friend ends up on a kill list, that isn't going to happen.
Imagine the following scenario: President Obama ends NSA spying, kills the drone problem, gets rid of kill lists (and presumably also killing), and stops torture (the one and only useless thing on this list). Following that, any terrorism-related incident occurs. The right destroys him for weakening our country (as they are already doing regardless). The left destroys him for weakening our country. And the trick is, predator drones, kill lists, and presumably NSA spying (which will be even more useful with the newly announced inter-agency collaboration) all do help achieve our foreign policy goals (mostly dead terrorists). They also help achieve our domestic policy goals, which partially include not having lots of deployed soldiers dying.
We can't even roll back the TSA, which is widely known to be useless, despite long waits, missed flights, thefts, bizarre restrictions, and all the other things people love about post-9/11 air travel.
For better or worse (mostly for worse), "the American voter" does not care in the slightest about scary brown people being killed (usually deservedly) in a desert half a world away.
President Obama is doing what the American people want, and right now that means commuting sentences, spying, and killing people in the desert.
Whistle blowing requires the knowledge of wrong doing, and exposing these wrong doings.
As far as I am aware that guy leaked the data in bulk without looking at it, and without any knowledge of the US diplomacy, and the leaks didn't expose any major wrongdoing. Only some gory videos, that don't really teach us anything (everyone knows bombs make "collateral damages", the US army even maintains statistics on them). And everything I read from people who reviewed the diplomatic cables suggest that US diplomats are doing rather well their jobs.
I am a libertarian, pro-pardoning Snowden, who did expose deliberately major wrong doings. But I am struggling to call Manning a whistleblower.
The "collateral murder" video, which was based on Manning's leaks, is really quite chilling and definitely shows wrong doings that were then covered up by the government. There was more, but this was the most visual/memorable.
Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.
Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.
You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page.
Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link?
a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the
incident and write a book about it without seeing the video.
Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.
Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source?
No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to.
You've posted:
The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was
no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.
You've then stated:
you can just read the wikipedia page
You've gone on to say:
As to the page, the page about the incident.
You've then stated:
You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself
At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources.
It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.
You should read the beginning of the thread.
Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google.
The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page".
Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion.
It's important for honest, rational discussion, to cite sources - especially those sources you depend upon. Unless you specifically state your sources, it's hard to understand the argument you're presenting, and the basis for your argument. Without a citation, it's essentially arguing that the Emperor's new clothes really are golden, and we have to believe that, because they really are golden.
I typed "collateral murder incident" into google and it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return.
Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video.
Just what are you trying to pull here?
which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one
that has been referenced in this discussion.
It has been referenced multiple times in this thread by pvg. For someone who purportedly puts so much stock in honesty, this is incredibly dishonest of you.
It's interesting that your example is someone working for the Washington Post- that's enough for certain people to dismiss it out of hand as "fake news."
And right after watching this video, I understood that Manning really deserved the sentence.
This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake. They have to make this kind of decisions all the time - and I fail to see how anyone can say, from information that was available to them, that the decision was in any way wrong.
The fact that this story had to be covered up says more about idiocy of public and the media that would've (and did) make a baseless witchhunt. I finally 'got it' after watching "Eye in the sky" (spoilers!): if hollywood screenwriters and moviegoers really think that killing one innocent girl to prevent two suicide bombings is some kind of a complicated moral dilemma that's worth more than three seconds of deliberating, then may be this kind of public really shouldn't be trusted with classified information.
>>This is war. The video clearly shows that soldiers made a decision made on an honest, although tragic, mistake.
Um, they fired on a van despite realizing that it had come to pick up the wounded. Geneva Conventions clearly state that hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon.
(You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)
> hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel are not to be fired upon
This van didn't have any markings to indicate that it was a dedicated medical unit. What about enemy combatants that are performing medical tasks at the moment? As far as I understand, they're fair game.
> (You'll also note the trigger-happy attitude of the gunner. He kept begging for permission to engage, and at one point got pretty frustrated that he was having to wait. Like the OP said: chilling.)
He was looking at people, that (in his view, conceived by a completely honest mistake) were there to kill his comrades in arms. His attitude, being eager to kill them, is completely reasonable — war is a constant kill or be killed situation, and allowing your enemy to evacuate the wounded combatants mean that they will later come back and kill you or your comrades in arms.
Once again, your reaction confirms my main point: the general public doesn't bother to think the situation through and judges actions made in war without the necessary context. Which just confirms that this kind of transparency is just as good as determining whether or not climate change is real (or if vaccination is harmful) through general election without any minimal education requirements.
We see a guy carrying what looks like a rocket launcher. (it's a really really long telephoto lens) He is sneaking around with the enemy (sort of an embedded journalist) and peaking out from around corners, appearing to point a rocket launcher at the US military. Unsurprisingly, he gets blown to bits.
We see an enemy hop over a wall while getting shot at. A minivan stops to get him. Note that it was common for the enemy to transport people and weapons in similar vehicles. People who are not involved in the conflict would be nuts to be driving around in the battlefield. The minivan is thus also shot up. It happens to contain kids... so some child abuser brought kids to a battlefield, WTF.
Note that the unedited (long) version of the video shows some of the "victims" carrying weapons. This wasn't an intentional slaughter of innocents, even if a few innocents did stupidly wander into a battlefield and get killed.
If you call this "murder", you might as well call all war murder. That's a very political position to be taking. War sucks; this shouldn't be news to anybody.
> Only some gory videos, that don't really teach us anything (everyone knows bombs make "collateral damages"
So you've never actually watched (or read about) the Collateral Murder video, huh? It's a helicopter crew killing people with guns, not bombs. And they kill exactly who they intend to.
Maybe don't form strong opinions when you don't have the slightest clue what the facts are.
As far as I know they have mistaken a TV crew for some armed people. Big deal. This sort of fuckups happen all the time in any war. That's called "collateral damage". If you don't want any you can't shoot on people from a helicopter 300m away from your target, through a low res B&W video. In fact there are very few things any army could do if we wanted to have zero collateral damage. When congress authorizes a war, the reality is that they authorize the fact that these things may happen.
I'm not pro-Irak war, quite the contrary. But the fact that civilians have been killed isn't exactly a hidden secret that was uncovered by the leaks
> Maybe don't form strong opinions when you don't have the slightest clue what the facts are.
It's been said that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
> The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad in two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.
Has there been any sort of "ethical" system designed to show a person how they are supposed to whistle blow? I'm only familiar with the SEC's guidance, on what they expect you to do and going public isn't one of their main points.
How should a person become a whistle blower like Manning or Snowden while making sure there is no collateral damage to people in the field?
I mean, the main point against Snowden and Manning seems to be that they released way too much information to the public that could be seen as doing more harm than good depending on your point of view.
If you're knowledgable enough to censor the documents yourself before release, that's the way to go. Not everyone has perfect knowledge. Releasing only to journalists and stuff is a fairly good method too, but maybe create unnecessary exposure.
Manning also went for a bulk dump strategy rather than being selective. Ultimately when you're dealing with a lot of data, that might be the only reasonable way to get it, but leaking unnecessary data where no incriminating evidence is present certainly detracts from the legitimacy of whistleblowing claims. If you can afford the time to be selective in your dumping or at least in your releasing, take it.
Unfortunately some of Manning's stuff got leaked in full, I believe not due to anything of Manning or Wikileaks' fault, but because an uninformed or careless journalist published an insurance key he shouldn't have.
Oh yeah, for sure. You aren't getting around the nasty governmental environment towards whistleblowsers. Just improving your image in the eye of some people and your odds if it does come down to a legal matter, really.
Running, like Snowden did is really your best bet there I think. He's pretty much the textbook example of how to do this in the most correct way possible and still keep some degree of freedom for yourself. If you're willing to be a martyr, then you can stand up for that. Some people insist you must.
But I'm more than willing to accept both that someone finds something egregiously offensive that needs to be publicized, but also wants to keep their freedom.
The press was selective in what Snowden released. As far as we know, Snowden wasn't selective in what he obtained, or in what he then provided to adversary intelligence services in China and Russia.
I don't like what Snowden did, but I would respect the hell out of him if he had decided to stand up for his convictions and face the music. He'd have had a far better case, and would have had incredible EFF and ACLU lawyers on his side, and a ton of public sympathy. Instead, he turned an act of patriotism into an act of espionage and treason.
> Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him...
Snowden leaked to people who were more selective than Manning, at least. And we don't actually know where it would have gotten him with the legal syste, since as well as learning "how to leak" from Manning's negative example, he also seems to have learned "where to be when the leaks become public" by the same method.
He wasn't very selective. If he were being selective he would only have released information that had constitutional issues. Most of his documents were regarding foreign spying.
Irrelevant when it comes to whistleblowing and legality. The government could not function if people were justified in releasing all information they disagreed with. Surely the set of information related to actions that no one disagrees with is empty or nearly so.
I don't think it's as black and white as that. Maybe the NSA spying on some overseas entities isn't strictly illegal. But to understand the bigger picture of their all-encompassing reach and sheer pervasiveness better emphasises their wrongdoings on US soil because it helps explain why the NSA's general mentalities of 'we have the right to collect ALL of the information' and 'we are above the law' exist.
Am I saying I think it's outright justified? No, because I'm honestly not sure. I am however sure that it's not as black and white as 'legal' vs 'illegal' when it comes to whistleblowing because the extra infromation helps us establish a context and understand a sense of scale of the wrongdoing, for example.
edit: Here's an example: It's probably not illegal that the 'official' estimates of civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely far lower than the reality. Assume for the sake of discussion that this was intentional. Having a better understanding the more realistic magnitude of civilian deaths helps the public understand the realities of such wars and helps them make more informed decisions on whether they're comfortable with the actions of their government. It changes the context of the Iraq war and may go from 'we were justified in doing it' to 'it wasn't worth it' for some of the voting public.
I agree with you. I don't have a clear opinion of Snowden. The point was just that those who try to claim he was just blowing the whistle and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted or pardoned are missing the point of whistleblowing with respect to legal protections.
From prior discussions, both the DOD[0] and intelligence communities[1] have whistleblower programs. This inevitably leads to questions of whether the DOD/IC IGs can be trusted to investigate the DOD/IC without the forcing function of a public release, but the programs are in place.
I'm not sure what argument you think I was making other than 'yes, whistleblower programs exist' in response to the parent's question of
> Has there been any sort of "ethical" system designed to show a person how they are supposed to whistle blow?
As you helpfully exemplified, many people dismiss the IG's programs due to the potential for (or reality of) retaliation (which I mentioned), but I specifically wanted to avoid that whole set of arguments because there's only so many times I can read through all that.
Also, the first line in the DNI whistleblower program mentions "An IC employee, assignee, detailee, or contractor" so unless that means something other than the plain reading, it would apply to someone today who is similarly situated.
I read your post as saying they should have followed the chain of command rather than leaking data. I apologize for not catching the nuance in your response.
The WaPo covered Snowden's claims in great detail. Reading it, I certainly would not have felt protected against retaliation myself.
Snowden claimed he raised his concerns internally before coming out publicly, but the government denies that. I can't say who is correct, but I don't really trust government agencies to investigate themselves.
But whistle blowing on what? That the US diplomacy has secret conversations with every one, negiciates deals, and collect information locally in confidence? That's pretty much their job description. What did Manning whistlebow on?
Leaking confidential information isn't whistleblowing.
She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely much higher than official estimates.
Nothing in particular. That's where Manning went wrong. There was no malfeasance or injustice exposed in the cables. They embarrassed the US and caused diplomatic difficulty for no public gain.
It has been argued that the diplomatic cables had a strong influence on the uprising in Tunisia after they spread on Facebook and when Bouazizi lit himself on fire the stage was set for their revolution, which was the first domino of what we later called the Arab Spring, which Syria became a part of, but has not resolved for six years.
One of the largest takeaways that I had from most history classes that I took is that events rarely have a single cause--and complex events such as the Arab Spring and Syrian civil war typically have many, many layers of causes (even if they aren't all clear at the time). Insinuating that all of that happened because Pvt. Manning released secret documents does a disservice to any attempt to understand the complex events that we see in the world today.
"The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of the leaks."
So no one was killed, but it does seem to have put people at risk.
That's what they _said_, yes. Remember the rhetoric of the time-- distinguished government officials said both Manning and Snowden had "blood on their hands". Manning was in custody, but multiple senators and representatives called for Snowden to be assassinated.
In summary, I'm gonna need to see some actual proof.
Even assuming anyone could actually know this, the real damage is going forward. FSOs gather a lot of information just by talking to people, and people are going to be very circumspect if they think what they say will be repeated to the world with attribution. How much would you say to a friend or relative if you knew the first thing they'd do is put up a Facebook post with whatever you told them?
I agree. It will make it seriously difficult for anyone to discuss with a US diplomat in confidence given that the guy will log it in his little secure system and that the transcript will be on the web within 5 years. Not really worth risking your life.
I think it is safe to assume this leak will have seriously affected the US diplomacy.
Whistleblowing is the powerless and disconnected eroding the power of the powerful and well connected.
They don't appreciate that.
As a result, nearly every whistleblower will suffer greatly for their actions no matter how they do it - unless they can curry favor of the powerful somehow. Public perception can be purchased.
For further enlightenment I recommend the 20 minute youtube video Rules for Rulers by CGP, as well as the followup.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fascinating piece for the New Yorker last month that reviews the "etiquette" (for want of a better word here - maybe "procedure"?) of government leaks and whistleblowing.
Long story short - leaks are a desirable thing for the executive branch, but there is a "right" way to do them. Snowden and Manning did them the "wrong" way, and it's implied that that is one of the reasons they both had the book thrown at them.
Judging by the sensitivity of the documents is not how you judge the ethics of it. That by chance the damage from the leak wasn't a lot worse does not count in Manning's favor.
But the crime should be determined the action, not the chance outcome. The alternative is that the same exact action result in wildly different punishments due only to chance. This is unjust. People who have the same exact mental state and perform the same action should have the same punishment. If I punch someone in a fight and that person hits their head on the ground and dies, I should not get 10 years in prison simply due to the chance occurrence of him dying, while everyone else gets probation for getting in a fist fight where everyone walks away. The punishments should be exactly the same. The sentencing just should take into consideration the chance that someone dies and be applied evenly.
(To the whistleblowers,
in hope that they stay alive.)
Thanks for systemic corruption
and disregard for the rule of law.
Thanks for the transparent lies and
carefully framed talking points.
Thanks for the profitable arms sales
to be used against us in next year's war.
Thanks for manufactured consent.
"You all saw him. He had a gun."
Thanks for the American dream,
placing profit first until
the bare greed shines through.
Thanks for always shooting the messenger.
Thanks for hate peddling politicians,
that fear anything they don't understand.
Thanks for the surveillance state
and the war against privacy.
Thanks for another Crypto War,
while the real war criminals walk free.
Thanks for presidential pardons,
given only when politically convenient.
Thanks for defending title and flag,
betraying the oath to the Constitution.
Thanks for always taking special care
to make sure no good deed goes unpunished.
Thank you, Pres. Obama, for finally doing the bare minimum and
eventually freeing Chelsea Manning. As a long-time believer in
"better late than never", my thanks really is sincere.
I'm always torn on these things. Chelsea Manning did break the law. If she hadn't at least spent some time in jail, it could have potentially turned into a much larger political nightmare.
"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ (US Department of Justice) case," WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.
I know these days we're all treating it as an established fact that Sweden's extradition request for Assange is actually a cover for him to be further extradited to the United States, but it has never actually been proven.
Which means Assange knew it was a double bind when he said what he said. They never tried to extradite him, even if it was implied. This now means that everyone expects the US to extradite him, which is what they were trying to avoid to begin with by extraditing him to Sweden. And, if they do extradite him, the US will have to come up with a reason why they didn't to begin with.
Brilliant move and interesting timing. This chess match is just getting going.
Why would the US show the slightest inclination to change to its longstanding policy of not showing any interest in extraditing Assange based on a tweet?
What happens if the US accepts his offer, extradites him to the US, and then immediately extradites him to Sweden at their request? It would effectively blow up his continual insistence that the Swedish extradition is nothing more than a smokescreen to get him to the US.
Given how Swedish ministers dirtied their hands when the MPAA wanted them to interfere in Pirate Bay investigations... I will require proof they WOULD NOT say "how high?" if the Dept of Justice of the USA asked them to jump.
No, the case was originally reopened at the request of their lawyer, and we have relatively recent statements from them insisting they want the case to proceed
I have heard that it's impossible to prove. Sweden cannot say "this will not happen" as they cannot see the future and the US cannot say "we will not issue a request" as they cannot issue one until he is Sweden. The US could say what their intentions are though.
the clemency is also 6 months into the future. presumably, at that time, things will in a slightly less absurdist position for someone like him. I cannot imagine him getting anything resembling a fair trial right now. In 6 months? sure.
I would not be surprised if he does not honor that as the incoming president will likely be even harsher on an Assange trial then an Obama presidency would be.
Forget what? There was no pardon by Obama, so that agreement does not apply.
Why would you want to detract from the good news of Chelsea having a release date in the very near future and conflate that with a different issue regarding Assange?
"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ (US Department of Justice) case," WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.
What is the difference between a commutation of sentence and a pardon?
In the federal system, commutation of sentence and pardon are different forms of executive clemency, which is a broad term that applies to the President’s constitutional power to exercise leniency toward persons who have committed federal crimes.
Then Obama's action would be the letter of clemency but not the spirit, and there would be room for disagreement about whether Assange should keep his word.
But since that's not what happened and Obama's actual action honors both the letter and the spirit of clemency, there's nothing worth debating here.
It wouldn't be the same thing. But that didn't happen, her sentence was reduced by 2-3 decades and she'll be out in a few months. It's clearly clemency.
>> "More than a million supporters of Edward Snowden have petitioned President Barack Obama to pardon him, but the former National Security Agency contractor hasn't submitted the required documents for clemency, according to the White House."
I agree with the Manning pardon, I don't think Snowden deserves a pardon. Manning's motives and understanding of what she was doing is worlds different than Snowden's.
Snowden sought a position to access more information for his leaks and he leaked information on valid espionage programs along side the unconstitutional ones.
Let him live out his days in Russia, he paid for it with intelligence.
To play devil's advocate: Snowden took documents for a specific reason (to reveal US surveillance), and turned it over to legitimate journalists to decide what to release. Manning grabbed anything she could get her hands on, and uploaded it all to the world.
> “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary, and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.”
What an amazingly loaded statement that is. Russia is just a straight up "adversary" now? Infuriating.
It's also worth noting that the only reason Snowden is currently in Russia is due to actions by the US State Department. Snowden left Hong Kong with a plane ticket to Cuba by way of Moscow. While he was on the plane, the US State Department revoked his passport, forcing him to miss his connecting flight. To make it seem like it was in any way a deliberate choice on his part is rewriting history.
Passport was obtained illegally or fraudulently
Non-Payment of child support
Passport was misused or changed/altered
Passport holder’s Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship is cancelled
Certain drug trafficking convictions
Those convicted of sex tourism
"As is routine and consistent with US regulations, persons with felony arrest warrants are subject to having their passport revoked," said Psaki. "Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status."
The Americans put pressure on Cuba to not admit Snowden:
"Snowden failed to board an onward flight to Cuba the next day, the paper says, again citing Russian officials, because the US put intense pressure on Cuba, warning of "adverse consequences" if Snowden were allowed to board the plane. The Cubans subsequently informed Moscow that the regular Aeroflot flight would not be permitted to land in Havana if Snowden was aboard."
If the OP is in his/her mid 20's, then "during their entire lifetime".
Not to be all "kids these days" about it, but millions of people read about the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire in their World History class, instead of living through it.
Just last week on HN I saw a comment to the effect of "I trust China over the US when it comes to political protest". That's the kind of thing people say when Tiananmen Square happened before they were born.
> If the OP is in his/her mid 20's, then "during their entire lifetime".
If they think so, then they haven't been following news too much. Russia has been invading its neighbouring countries (friendly to the USA) and organising unrest in some of them for a decade.
there is no obvious reason for russia to be considered an "adversary" versus merely a competing regional power in the absence of the ideological conflict of the cold war
Tell that to the Ukranians, Georgians, Poles, Balts...
Russia may have an economy the size of Italy's, but geopolitically they are still the bear, a gangster state that seeks to disrupt all order so that they can bully on a one-to-one basis.
emphasis on regional power in my prior comment. my heart goes out to the ukrainian people but the actions of russia are not worth escalating over with a nuclear state on the part of the american people.
Obama has said that the two cases are different in that Manning has gone through the legal system, sentenced, and serving time, whereas Snowden is in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US and hasn't been tried under the US legal system.
Specifically, one cannot be pardoned or have a sentence commuted of a crime one has not been convicted of. Snowden has not been convicted nor even tried for any crime. It's impossible for Obama to do anything about his situation.
This is not true. The courts found that a president can pardon a supposed crime before charges have even been filed, as well as any time before or after trial/conviction.
This was the case with Ford's pardoning of Nixon, as well as Carter's pardoning of all those who avoided the draft during the Vietnam war.
"There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,[..]"
You can only be pardoned if you have committed a crime. You have to either confess or admit your crime, or be tried, or at least be charged with a crime.
Nixon confessed and admitted that he was guilty. We wasn't tried, maybe not even charged, but he admitted wrongdoing.
As far as I know, Snowden has not admitted that he's guilty of a crime, he hasn't been tried, and he hasn't been charged. So from a legal point of view, he hasn't committed any crime and cannot be pardoned.
Good point! I was under the impression that he had admitted that he was guilty in some form. It's unclear to me now if he did. I don't know if anything he's said and done in the aftermath may be considered an admission of guilt. So my previous comment might be incorrect.
It's also unclear if a pending impeachment might be considered a "conviction" if it's just a likely outcome and not an actual impeachment.
There's also the small matter of Snowden currently being holed up in Russia, even if it probably wasn't his intended destination and he hasn't actually provided them with any useful information.
I disagree. Manning's intent and actions are far short of those of Snowden.
Snowden leaked information on valid espionage programs and possibly gave Russia the keys to the castle when he fled the country. I used to think Snowden deserved a pardon, and had it only been about the warrantless wiretapping I would still feel that way, but he leaked a number of things that damaged US relations in ways that have been highly beneficial to Russia.
I think Snowden is both a patriot and a traitor for what he did.
For one, I don't appreciate your reductio ad absurdum[1] approach to discussion. Snowden would also have to be "secretly really old" to coordinate the 9/11 attacks and even then the claim is patently absurd.
Snowden had a cache of encrypted intelligence data. Intelligence agencies are fully capable of cracking encryption when properly motivated (in some cases they've backdoored them preemptively).
Ewen MacAskill, living in Europe and possessing the cache, would make a prime target for Russian intelligence. There is no proof that the Russians have his cache, but it's asinine to think that they don't given their overall espionage efforts.
He handed off his entire cache of documents to journalists while he was in Hong Kong and before he reached Russia. He also didn't read every single one, the journalists were responsible for combing through most of the data to determine what to release and what to redact.
So knowing those two things, you can't credibly claim he handed Russia anything. Whatever Russia has, they obtained from the newspapers just like the rest of us.
Yes, but politically, "we dropped her sentence to seven years in jail" is more tenable than "we pardoned someone who never stood trial nor served a day in jail".
So don't pardon Snowden. Commute the charges against him. Like 97% of the cases that go to prosecution in this country, let him plea to a lesser crime and serve a 10 year sentence, minus time served in Russia.
Edit: Sorry, this was rubbish, I was thinking of Assange not Snowden.
--
Note that charges (technically, a European Arrest Warrant in order to get him for questioning) against Snowden have not been made by the U.S. but by Sweden, for a suspected rape. So Obama definitely cannot commute them in any way.
There is no extradition request to the U.S., so when fighting an extradition to U.S., Snowden is beating a straw man.
It is not a prerequisite for a pardon, but it does serve the government's interests.
Pre-emptively pardoning Snowden before he spends a day in prison sends the signal that the government isn't going to punish people for leaking, so go right ahead.
Commuting Manning's sentence after seven years still leaves a pretty harsh warning for future leakers (is leaking that information worth seven years of your life?) while showing a degree of mercy to the individual (I mean, not the degree of mercy that commuting after 2 or 3 or 6 years would be...).
Regardless of what you think Obama's secret inner beliefs and motivations are, I think it is reasonable to assume that as Commander in Chief and President of the United States he wants the people he entrusts with secrets to keep keeping them.
Manning was also being mistreated in prison, and that mistreatment would be very likely to get worse under a Trump administration. If Clinton won, a commutation would have been much less likely.
It's worth repeating that while Obama commuted her sentence, he didn't pardon her. What he did was say "she's been punished enough", and it's entirely consistent to say that Manning has been punished enough but Snowden hasn't.
Legally they wouldn't be able to convict Manning of the same crime again. The state can do what they do with every dissident; surveil her in the extreme and then prosecute her for some trivial offense.
Law is extremely complex and dense. You have certainly broken laws but haven't been punished for them sole reason that you haven't drawn the ire of the political class.
Do you think it's just mere coincidence that anytime a citizen embarrasses the police they end up being busted for some trivial offense? The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent the state from harassing citizens and to rate limit the states ability to execute revenge convictions. With everyone having a dossier on them now, the state implicitly chills citizens from pushing back against the government.
My understanding is that President Bush was able to revoke the pardon because it hadn't been executed yet. This won't be the case with Manning's commutation.
Midnight assassination squads? They could start digging through laws looking for anything they can make stick (parking violations, jaywalking, etc...), but IMHO the most likely scenario is that nothing further happens to Chelsea Manning. She is yesterday's news. She is never going to work in a government position again, but somehow I don't think that's going to be relevant to her future plans.
Well, that's why I said "outrageously." It's a lot more clear when there's an obvious wronged party and the outcome is an American in prison when they shouldn't be. It would surely be challenged in court, and won.
While the right loves WikiLeaks now, that's all because of Assange's more recent tactions that don't involve Manning; at the time, they wanted Manning and Assange treated as enemy combatants, while that's changed for Assange because he has now served their political interests, I don't see any indication that it has for Manning.
Yes, it seems very cowardly and very much passing the buck and doesn't acknowledge that what she did was justified at all, just that mercy was granted.
Isn't that exactly what Obama was trying for? I've never read any statements from the Obama administration that makes it seem like they find anything about this case justified or acceptable.
This quote by a spokesperson in the article supports that:
“Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,”
A criminal that's being granted a shorter sentence, not the "support" for someones actions a pardon would be.
What exactly did Manning blow the whistle on? While Snowden exposed what he believed was illegal spying on Americans, Manning just leaked a bunch of classified information about war that he/she believed was immoral .
Doubt it, he'd need to persuade the US government to seek his extradition first then convince the UK government that the US has preference over the existing EAW.
That's quite a lot of persuading to get done just to ensure that a tweet comes to fruition. My guess is that he'll either keep schtum or come up with a narrative about how US Government still cares enough about the Manning leak to want to extradite him.
I'm glad that Obama has done this but I don't think this is great for Assange. His argument is quite a bit weaker now I think.
This is great and I think pretty easy to see as a good thing by all sides (I hope). I never understand why pardons and this type of thing always seem to have a waiting period though; just being grateful the right thing (As I see it) is being done.
Political cowardice, mostly. It's something you can only safely do once you're a lame duck. Not sure why they don't typically do it in December, though.
Ironically, Snowden likely skipped the country as part of his leak precisely because of what had happened to Manning. Claiming that there's mercy for him if he comes back for a last minute commute by an outgoing President after 7 years... I mean, who do they think they're fooling?
Manning will be released in May this year, just after Trump's first 100 days in office. It's almost like Obama is timing this as a reminder of himself at a point in the future where it's bound to provide maximum irritation to his successor. (I don't think that's the actual intention, but we can definitely look forward to some interesting tweetstorms from Trump in May.)
I sort of wonder if it would matter. Whether they should or not, I really doubt the parts of the government he pissed off will forgive him just because they are told to.
A pardon would allow him a valid passport to travel to a different country that would be willing to house him without having to ignore extradition requests. He would not need to return to the US if he felt endangered there.
Seriously. This is such terrible backroom political manipulation. The real thing that worries me is what exactly are we using to leverage sweden to go after assange this hard. What damage has obama done to our relationship with them?
Users tend to flag purely political stories and moderators add downweights to them. That's part of keeping the balance on HN, which is not a primarily political site: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It's being flagged by people who are also users of the site, and is right at the center of a category defined as likely off-topic by the site guidelines.
While I certainly find it an interesting topic worth discussing, I think the rules and community moderation is working as advertised and as designed here.
This is good news. Manning committed a crime (giving away info from the government which she was thought to protect), but it does not justify destroying a life. She served well beyond enough time behind bars, too many years for my taste, so my soul says is great she is released. If now the prison time for more ordinary people could be reduced to more European-human lenghts.
Not arbitrarily. If it's a conditional commutation, then there would need to be hearings to document and assert the violations of those conditions first.
Subsequent presidents can "un-pardon" people pardoned by previous presidents, so I have a hard time imagining that a commutation is somehow immune to that kind of thing.
EDIT: See follow-ups. I may be mistaken here, and need to run to a meeting, so I can't dig any more now.
Relevant quote, "Ulysses S. Grant’s first clemency decision, on his third day in office, was to revoke two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. Both men challenged Grant’s power to do so, and lost their case in federal court."
EDIT 3: Here's the link to the blog post linked from the Time article, in edit 2, from the Wayback Machine, for sake of completeness.
> Subsequent presidents can "un-pardon" people pardoned by previous presidents
I've never heard that, never heard of it happening, and don't believe it's true. However, I've never researched it. Can you cite an example or a source?
IN RE DE PUY, the court found that a prisoner pardoned by the previous administration could have his pardon revoked by the following administration so long as the pardon had not yet been delivered and accepted by the prisoner.
I remember reading something some time ago about Grant having reversed some of Johnson's pardons, but I'm not finding a reference to specifics, so I may be mistaken.
How can they unpardon them? The conviction has been undone, and we don't permit double jeopardy (constitutionally prohibited) so a second charge for the same crime can't be filed.
From my brief google searches, it seems that it cannot be undone, by the Congress, by the Courts, nor by the President.
The President doesn't have the power to unilaterally reimpose criminal consequences, which is what an unpardon would amount to. Instead, subsequent Presidents would have to argue the person was never really pardoned in the first place. George W. Bush did this with Isaac Toussie.
Also I haven't heard anyone talk about how the UN and outside observers stated that Manning was tortured during her (not sure of the right pronoun, for pre-operative) prison time before the trial. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-mannin.... That should never happen, even if you are guilty. This happened with Obama was president. I know he has a mixed record, but I have never understood his aspect of not being able to change the military-spy-industrial complex more. I don't believe he's afraid of them. I just think he has so much stuff to do, to face up to, one person can't change it all.
Well, we can work toward changing it, if we elect people who want to change.
> Speaker Paul D. Ryan called it “outrageous.” “President Obama now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes,” he said in a statement.
Didn't GWB pardon Karl Rove for blowing the cover of a CIA agent? I feel like I'm not making that up.
And it's likely tripped the "overheated discussion detector" algorithm. I don't know the details, but nearly 400 comments in 2 hours seems likely to have crossed a threshold.
> “Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process,
it was torture. you can give it names but it was torture. your criminal justice process involves torture.
> was exposed to due process
naked torture
> was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” he said. “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.”
I am so disgusted right now. Why do they even pretend.
I was always missing a single website dedicated to the outcome of Manning's leaks. Listing cause by cause in a clear design that can be posted as a reply to all that say what Manning did was wrong. Maybe one day I will build such website and I will start with this list: https://www.thenation.com/article/long-list-what-we-know-tha...
the white house comment about snowden is incredible. Snowden basically released evidence of wrong doing on the part of the US agencies and he is made a scapegoat while the agencies continue business as usual. Oh and tough luck he happens to be in Russia which is now on the official enemys list, while it is completely irrelevant for snowden's actions.
The extensive, reasoned, considerate discussion in HN on this complex topic makes me happy and gives me hope. HN is a modern iteration of the traditional literary salon.
Freedom is not free. Whistle-blowers pay a heavy price individually for the freedom of others. And Whistle-blower cases are rarely clear-cut.
Having already attempted suicide twice, I don't think she would have lived through 4 years of the Trump administration. Obama literally saved her life.
In the last 4 years of Obama presidency the clout America had abroad has considerably reduced. Especially after the whistle blowing incident , the ruling dispensation came across as corrupt and unethical. The bargaining power was compromised greatly because of this and the whole world now knows about spying , prism , NSA etc. A Greek philosopher Diogenes I think it was or Socrates dont remember had said this awesome quote , " Pardoning treason will lead to self destruction" . This decision seems to have a strong left liberal bias unfortunately
Wait what? Pardoning treason is Standard Operating Procedure and I mean all the war mongers, Halliburtons and manufacturers of evidence of weapons of mass destruction... these treasons get automatic pardon, in fact no trial.
It's too bad it took a presidential order to commute her sentence to 8 years, when it probably should've been the longest sentence she should've gotten by default, if not much less, if she even had to be jailed in the first place. I think she only got imprisoned for so long because that's how the military operates. Right or wrong, they want to set an example of soldiers that something like this, so that others aren't encouraged to do the same.
Also, too bad Obama didn't pardon Snowden. He should have.
Coward? He threw away a cush job, a home and relationship in Hawaii, and the ability to ever set foot in America again, for something that he did for others' benefit, and didn't stand to make any gains from.
Sounds pretty brave to me, even if you disagree with his actions.
Huh who had a better quality of life? The guy living decently and freely in Russia with tons of admiration and fans or the guy no one knows that's locked up in solitary confinement???
I think the answer is an easy one and thus fleeing was a cowards move compared to the life Manning has led.
> I think having your mind fractured and been forcibly turned into a 'woman' as a deterrent to future whistleblowers is a living hell
Manning's gender dysphoria is not a product of punishment for the leaks, it was a condition which existed earlier (and for which the response in the Army environment was part of the source of general alienation that Manning was experiencing at the time of the leaks.)
Chelsea Manning is a woman, and suffers from gender dysphoria. The Army has made quite a few mistakes in the aftermath of the leak, but "turning him into a 'woman'" is not one of them. If anything, they have no idea how to cope with someone who needs hormone replacement therapy or SRS.
Manning has felt female since 2009 and possibly earlier. While on leave, she was incredibly comfortable with this gender identity, "trying to blend in as a bored woman looking for something interesting to do even though I was actually exhilarated." After the leaks (but before going to prison), she wrote: "I wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life [for leaking information], or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as [a] boy... [...] the CPU is not made for this motherboard..."
The absolute worst disservice we - as random onlookers - can do to people with gender dysphoria is to deny their sense of self.
In this case, it's simply a quote from a counselor Manning spoke with, describing the moment when Manning first identified herself as female. [1]
This situation is typically referred to as gender dysphoria - the mismatch of sex assigned at birth with gender identity. For some trans people (Manning included) the most effective ways to resolve gender dysphoria may include hormone replacement therapy or surgery. There are lots of good articles on this if you want to read more about it, including a very good piece by a clinical psychiatrist for the NYT. [2]
Sorry. I didn't know which pronoun to use because I didn't know if gender changes apply retroactively, grammatically speaking. I'm having trouble knowing which one to use to write this post, too. At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male. Is it politically correct to use 'she' for all past references, including the times where Chelsea Manning identified as male? Or would it make more sense to use 'he' when Chelsea Manning identified as male, and 'she' when Chelsea Manning identifies as female?
There's obviously no objective truth to whether pronouns apply retroactively; it's just social convention.
Clearly, it's polite to respect someone's wishes when talking to or about them, whether it's pronouns, nicknames, personal space, or umpteen other things. If you're introducing Chelsea to another friend, it seems only civil and natural to say "she [not he] was stationed at Fort Drum!"
However, I don't think a person can unilaterally require that the world around them retroactively change all references to a historical event, particularly when it renders some of those details nonsensical or wrong. History is written: documents were released by a person calling himself "Bradley Manning" and identifying as (and meeting biological criteria of) a male. Other aspects of the story -- from Manning's all-male combat team to his quarters in the USDB -- hinge on that fact. Manning's presence doesn't imply that the military unit was mixed-gender. One version reports the story as it was known to everyone involved; the other modifies it after the fact according to the unilateral wishes of the subject being reported on. That's not a good pattern, I don't think.
As an outsize example, if George W. Bush transitions to a female this year, the US will not celebrate that we've had our first female president.
I'm completely sympathetic to interpersonal civility, but empathy goes both ways; I think it's beyond the pale to expect society writ large to scramble, under penalty of being called bigots, to conform to what's frankly an unverifiable declaration of internal personal change on the order of a religious awakening (which oddly doesn't enjoy the same umbrella of unquestioned sanctimony).
The most accepted usage among those sensitive at all to gender identity (since the person is the same) seems to be to use the current pronouns for all references to the person, even if they are to times before their current gender identity was generally recognized by others (or even formed clearly, though only the former is arguably relevant in this discussion of Manning.)
> At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male.
Manning's first discussion with a gender counselor about identifying as a woman was a couple months before her first contact with WikiLeaks; presumably there was some time lapse between recognizing the identity and talking to a counselor. So, from the evidence available, I don't think it's correct that Manning identified as male at the time of the leaks.
She was always a woman; she just presented as a man for many years. The NYT presented the information quite well when they said, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009."
Traditionally in US schools you were taught that applying "they" to a non-plural was outright incorrect—as in, a student would lose points if used that way on homework growing up.
When you don't know the gender, however, it is really convenient to use "they", so albeit the incorrect form, with time it started to take hold. Lately gender politics have acted as a catalyst as some people outright tell you they prefer that you use the "they/them" pronouns. Since a lot of folks are already comfortable using they/them, it works.
A different tactic is to just substitute something else entirely. Books like On Writing encourage young writers to avoid the situation and try to substitute other words rather than use "they" or just default to "he." An example might be using the word "writer". For example the books recommends instead of using "He should learn to use semicolons only when absolutely necessary" use "The writer should learn to use..." instead.
I think the latter method is harder in non-formal threads like this. "The imprisoned already has served 7 years" works, but comes across as really impersonal.
"They" is the only option when you don't know the gender of the person but it is still valid even if you do know the gender, though less commonly used in that situation
From a grammatical perspective it should be noted that "they" is plural. It is gender-neutral, but should only be used when referring to multiple people. The correct gender-neutral singular pronoun is "he or she".
I thought the same thing but there's no way a native English speaker would use "they" in that context otherwise. It made me have to go back and see if Wikileaks in general was being referenced.
It also reads as someone who understands the pronoun issue, but doesn't understand the temporal rules around pronouns. Instead, just opting for the traditional gender-neutral pronoun.
There's a lot of different perspectives and opinions, and honestly the rules aren't clear cut yet. At this point I pretty much always refer to people as "them" online.
That's a valid interpretation, but it's based on assumptions. Personally I didn't even notice the use of "they" vs "he" or "she" since it's not really relevant to the discussion. In fact, OP has clarified that he/she used "they" only because they were unsure if gender changes apply retroactively since at the time of the leaks, manning identified as a "he"
It is not other people's responsibility to know what your preferred pronoun is; you don't have a right to a preferred pronoun; you don't get to tell other people how they should speak. They is perfectly appropriate in all situations as it is gender neutral.
The singular "they" has been used for centuries and is currently somewhat socially acceptable, especially when the gender of the person in question is unknown or disputed.
I agree. I would like to see people addressed by the pronoun that they prefer. For most people, their presentation gives a strong enough suggestion that I would generally use the "expected" pronouns, for their apparent presentation.
In the absence of a preference (or with people who have presented ambiguity) and no apparent expected default, I tend to use "they" (as it's as neutral a pronoun as I know how to use).
In the case of Chelsea, she has demonstrated a clear preference [1], so we should all be using the pronouns that she has chosen.
Pronouns are interesting. I have transgender friends who prefer "they". I like to use it as a gender-neutral pronoun when I can get away with it, and hope that usage becomes more acceptable as time passes.
I don't know what Chelsea Manning's pronoun preferences are, but I have plenty of friends who prefer "they," which also happens to be the gender-neutral singular pronoun in English.
For example: "Someone came by asking for me earlier? Did they give you a name?"
Many people who do not identify as male or female prefer "they."
So what? You can't expect people to know that, this whole preferred pronoun issue is nonsense; you do not have a right to tell other people which words they should use.
I shared the link, so that people who weren't aware of Chelsea's preferred pronouns, could learn which pronouns she preferred.
this whole preferred pronoun issue is nonsense;
you do not have a right to tell other people which words they should use.
You're right to say that in general, I cannot control the words that people use, about me, or about others.
But I do respect the choices that people make. If someone would prefer that I refer to them as "she" or "her", or "him" or "he", I will use that pronoun. And I would question: why would someone use an alternative pronoun, knowing that the person would prefer an alternative? Why would anyone choose to knowingly attack and hurt someone, purely for sake of labeling them with a pronoun that the person has identified as inappropriate?
When someone has identified their preferred pronouns, it is entirely appropriate to use those pronouns, and it is inappropriate - even abusive - to deliberately choose to use an incorrect pronoun. I do state "deliberately choose to use", because there will inevitably be people who mistakenly use an incorrect pronoun, for lack of knowledge, but people who are aware of the correct pronouns and deliberately choose an incorrect pronoun are conducting a bullying, abusive attack, and should be stopped.
Yes. I would add that, at least in present cultural conditions, most people who are not cisgendered men or women are not treated well, are chronically misunderstood, and experience traumatic alienation from their surrounding culture, and even violence. Generally speaking we're not yet able to protect non-cis people nearly as well as we should. So in addition to the parent's clear and solid advice, please have some empathy. Respecting a person's wishes about referring to their identity can go a long way toward making them feel safe, and refusing to do so can add to a tremendous burden of pain.
> And I would question: why would someone use an alternative pronoun, knowing that the person would prefer an alternative?
The answer is quite simple, we don't always keep track of other people's preferences even when we've been told them.
> Why would anyone choose to knowingly attack and hurt someone, purely for sake of labeling them with a pronoun that the person has identified as inappropriate?
Again, just because you had a piece of information, doesn't mean it immediately comes forth in your mind at the necessary time. It's hard enough remembering the preferences of your friends, let alone public figures who you've never met. No one here likely personally knows Manning, to expect people to remember the preferences of public figures they don't know is expecting too much.
> When someone has identified their preferred pronouns, it is entirely appropriate to use those pronouns, and it is inappropriate - even abusive - to deliberately choose to use an incorrect pronoun.
No, it is not. You are placing an unjustified exception on another persons memory of your preferences, this is never appropriate.
> I do state "deliberately choose to use", because there will inevitably be people who mistakenly use an incorrect pronoun, for lack of knowledge, but people who are aware of the correct pronouns and deliberately choose an incorrect pronoun are conducting a bullying, abusive attack, and should be stopped.
This is a false dichotomy that presumes perfect memory; just because you've been told something doesn't mean you're deliberately ignoring that information when you later use the incorrect pronoun. Some people don't know, but knowing doesn't mean you deliberately intended insult when you still use it wrong. We all know lots of things that don't come to us in the necessary moments, brains aren't computers, they're fuzzy.
If your ability to cope depends on another persons choice of vocabulary, you're depending on the wrong things.
Anyone who claims to be offended by "they" is someone playing victim, they're looking for reasons to be insulted. They/them is always appropriate in all cases for all genders, it's how we avoid having to remember everyone's personal preferences.
That's a valid point, but if you don't know enough about Chelsea Manning's recent history or prison sentence to know her preferred pronoun (or even read the article where it's made very clear) why even comment?
You've assumed the person using "they" did know enough about Chelsea Manning's recent history and chose to use they as some kind of statement.
You should probably be talking the the person who called her "guy", or the person who said she was forced to change gender as a punishment, (both in this thread) rather than the person who politely used "they" because they weren't sure whether to apply she to the time she was identified as male.
Some of my trans/genderqueer friends go through long periods wherein they change their preferred pronouns, so when I don't know someone personally I try use "they" whenever I can in deference to the complexity of trans/queer experiences. My husband identifies as a man, but sometimes prefers to be referred to as "they," for example in all professional contexts. (They're an artist).
Since I don't know Chelsea personally, and because they're also in what must be a deeply traumatic and confusing situation, replete with pressure to conform to newly acceptable narratives of transition like "man becomes woman," I think I instinctively wanted to use "they" in acknowledgment that we probably can't know for sure what would make them comfortable and happy from our present vantage, news reports aside. If I for some reason meet them one day, I'll be sure to confirm with them what they prefer.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments like these. We're all here to have a civil conversation in which we can hope to learn something, and this kind of participation gets in the way of that.
I think in this case, it's raised that we know the subject's gender identity, so the use of gender-ambiguous "they" isn't necessary. Not out of any sense of pronoun policing or bullying - I suspect more because it scans weirdly when you have the information that it would normally abstract.
Being correct cuts both ways, I'm afraid. If you'd like to offer an opinion on the matter we have to ask that it have some basis in reality. (This is not satisfied by uttering "Science.")
> The reality is that Mr. Manning possesses an X and a Y chromosome, that he has male genitalia, that he is at risk for prostate cancer, that he will never have ovarian cancer, that he was able to father children but was never able and will never be able to bear them: the reality is that he is a man, regardless of what he thinks.
See, the problem with this completely absurd argument is that for any given item on this list, I can find someone you'd happily agree is "a biological woman" who meets or has met these criterion at some point in their lives, including that "male genitalia" bit.
> I'm not saying that rudely, or cruelly.
You can assert this, but it is both rude and cruel to those who receive it. Communication is a two way street but you're taking your half of the road out of the middle and asking why everyone is so mad.
> But the objective reality is misaligned with his perception.
Would that the western world viewed gender objectively. Sadly, we do not. If we did, the concept of a strict gender binary would be laughed out of the room.
Yes, but Ms. Manning's gender is neither indeterminate nor unknown. Ms. Manning is a woman, and she has publicly stated that her pronouns are she/her. This is not difficult information to find.
The only correct use of the singular-they is as "a pronoun of choice for someone who doesn’t identify as either male or female." You could use singular-they for "a person whose gender isn’t known or isn’t important in the context," but strictly speaking that would be grammatically incorrect.
If - as you claim - you're eager to abide by prescriptive conventions of the English language, feel free to start using "she" when referring to Chelsea Manning.
Dictionaries are reflections of usage rather than arbiters of it -- but yes, generally speaking, singular "they" is for use in situations where people's gender is ambiguous or unknown. And in particular, calling trans people "they" is often a tactic that is used to implicitly deny that they are "really" their gender.
I'm well aware, which is why it's totally inappropriate usage here.
Chelsea Manning's gender and pronoun are arguably among the most well-known in the world, since she has very publicly made them explicit! The only reason anyone in this situation is using "they" is because of a desire to avoid saying the correct pronoun "she."
I just took that part out, after thinking about it for a little bit. Our default pattern of speech is to choose "he" or "she" if we know one of these pronouns is correct, so the use of singular-they is nearly always deliberate.
Yeah, exactly. In my observation, even when people are trying to use "they" - like if they're telling someone a story where they're deliberately obfuscating someone's gender - folks often slip up midway through.
The volume of downvotes and hate comments you are getting for standing up on this issue is disturbing. I hope some of those commenters eventually reconsider whether the acceptance of disrespectful pronouns on HN is truly the cause they want to be known for.
I honestly believe the majority of the downvotes are because of tone, not position.
As for hate comments in response to any of 'adrienne's in this thread, I see three that are very uncivil and have been flagged dead (and won't appear unless you have showdead on). Another is arguably uncivil and has also received a net negative votes. If you have a separate tally, please point it out.
That's not to say all of the downvotes are purely for tone. There are people who will downvote out of spite or disagreement. One issue I do think a majority of HN members agree on is the value of civil, substantive discussion, regardless of topic. As a result, HN members do overwhelmingly downvote incivility, including incivility directed at 'adrienne's comments. Please note that multiple commenters have mentioned exactly this. If you contend that they're being insincere in doing so, you of course are free to do so, but it's unlikely that you're going to be able to constructively engage with them from a position of bad faith.
I want people to be able to discuss these types of things. Regardless of what people think should be, it remains a fact that not everyone agrees on a whole host of issues. Changing one's mind is hard; changing someone else's even harder. If I can't approach the discussion with the perspective that there's hope of some sort of understanding (if not yet agreement), I'll refrain from saying anything. It's not useful—and very likely counterproductive—to do otherwise.
I am not on board with categorically downvoting incivility, even on that last bastion of civil discourse we call HN. While we may feel uncomfortable hearing from someone who is upset, it's hard to deny that we notice them more - and that can be very important for those whose voice isn't very loud in the community otherwise. To the empathetic, an uncivil outcry can serve as a stinging reminder that their behavior has deeply offended someone else.
I'm reminded of an MLK Jr. quote about the tendency of moderates to oppose the loudness of minorities whose views aren't yet well-accepted.
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
We should strive to be an orderly community, but we should also strive to be an accepting one.
Thanks for the MLK quote! I agree with the spirit of it, and personally struggle to understand where the balance is between order and justice. though I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between "set a timetable for another man's freedom" and trying to figure out what ways are effective in making change. I'm not encouraging anyone to wait. I'm encouraging people to do what's effective. MLK was also very good at figuring out effective methods of promoting change, and is well known for non-violent civil disobedience. He's also well known for his eloquence. I'm not a scholar of his speeches and writings, but I'm not aware of cases where he was uncivil in his language. Happy to be educated otherwise.
And with respect to uncivil outcry, there may indeed be a place for it. If it's repeated to the point where it ends up being effectively ignored and dismissed, does it still serve the purpose of reminding people that there are those who are offended? I personally don't think so.
A downvote, whether it's because of tone or message, is a way to say "this comment has no place here." Enough of them concentrated on one message will censor it from everyone else's view.
All I ask is that we be careful about using that tool, particularly against a "freedom from" position that has historically been given few venues.
I believe trans people should have freedom from misgendering, because being in an environment in which you are constantly humiliated and disrespected can have negative psychological effects. As a white guy who doesn't suffer through this, I can afford to play it safe when I talk about it, because I am not directly impacted by how well my message is heard.
There are also some people who can't afford to play it safe. They need to talk about this, even if it is emotional or tough for them. If anything, they deserve to be heard more than I do. I want to make HN a place where they feel like they have a seat at the table, so I don't mind it when they meet what they perceive as incivility with a fire of their own.
I understand where you're coming from. I likewise want people to feel like they can discuss issues that are important to them. And I can also understand why people often respond passionately and possibly uncivilly in response to what they perceive (and sometimes objectively is) incivility. That said, I don't agree with it. It's just not effective in the vast majority of cases, and I see the severe polarization in the US as partly due to this lack of civil, charitable discourse.
Would you and I be able to have continued this discussion (which I feel is civil and constructive, and I thank you for that) if we weren't taking care with how we express ourselves? I personally doubt it. For my part, I haven't felt that I've gotten heated or needed to restrain myself or rephrase for tone (as opposed to clarity), which I most definitely have in other discussions on divisive issues (in this case the role of civility in discussion of contentious issues). I sincerely hope you feel similarly, even if you ultimately disagree with what I've said.
Regarding downvoting: I believe it's off-topic here to discuss the proper use of downvoting. There's plenty of that to be found on HN already. In my comment above I'm describing the behavior I see: the positive as opposed to the normative. I do have opinions on the matter, but they're similarly off-topic.
I'm not sure what else I have to add on the topic of civility and discussion. I often reference the Principle of Charity[0] and Rapoport's Rules[1] as I personally find them useful in guiding my approach to discussion. Thanks again for your thoughtful discussion. I appreciate it.
If people are downvoting me for incivilty, they should also be downvoting all the misgendering, which is fundamentally uncivil no matter how calm and even the tone in which it is done.
I skimmed the comments in this thread, searching for references to "he" or "they" (and the instance of "guy" I found) in reference to Manning. I found 3 "he", 1 "guy", and one "they". All were downvoted, two of them flagged dead. Admittedly this isn't comprehensive: there are currently over 500 comments. This doesn't include discussion of the use of "they" in general, or reflection on the use of "they" when the gender is unknown. Given that people regardless of whether you think it's reasonable or not have not come to a universal consensus on this issue, I think it's understandable to have civil discussion on this, which it nearly wholly has been.
User 'wtbob has posted three comments in this thread full of really appalling transphobia and they don't seem to be getting downvoted. Meanwhile i'm down 30+ points.
All of 'wtbob's comments have been posted within the past hour, well after I skimmed the comments two hours ago, and while HN is not nearly as active as it was earlier in the day. I've sincerely tried to engage you fairly and charitably, and in the case of looking at behavior, as objectively as I can, 'adrienne. I wish you the best.
Edit to add: Within the time it took me to compose this comment, at least two of their comments have been downvoted.
I just sent an email to the mods about those comments. And yes, i acknowledge that they are newer than your last post to me. I see how my comment implied otherwise, and i apologize for that. I am really, really appalled at those comments and i was uncareful in writing about it.
Yes, the President can only pardon/commute federal offenses. (That's what 'Offences Against the United States' means here). The President cannot pardon/commute prisoners who have been convicted of state crimes - only the relevant state governors can do that. Manning was convicted of federal crimes.
'Against the US' is broad and imprecise. From the DOJ's web page on executive clemency.
> “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.
Right, which means federal crimes, not state crimes. The President won't be granting pardons to ordinary murderers, unless the murder took place on federal lands.
> Isn't it a risk, that the president can pardon whoever he wants?
You're probably too young to remember the kerfuffle when Ford pardoned Nixon. Lots of allegations that it had been planned in advance. And it is likely a big reason why Ford lost his election campaign in 1976.
The interesting thing in that article is that a pardon carries an implication of guilt, and accepting a pardon carries a confession of guilt (Burdick v. United States). So if Chelsea had offered and accepted a pardon, her reputation would have been negatively affected, unlike if she had been found innocent at the courts martial.
It is viewed as a measure of last resort to rectify an injustice. Reigning monarchs had this power throughout most of Western history; and the tradition was carried on to modern heads of state.
- A presidential pardon is for federal crimes. The president cannot pardon someone for a state crime (or a crime committed subject to a local jurisdiction whose power is derived from a state).
- Presidential pardons are reinforced by the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws. Once a person has been pardoned for a federal crime, the federal government (and any territories or districts that derive their power from the federal government) cannot re-try the pardonee for that crime.
As pointed by another person in the same thread which really answers your question:
- Fourth major benefit of pardons: Presidential pardons are about checks and balances. The legislative system has determined a law, the judicial system has determined an infraction of that law, and with a pardon the presidential system can react to a mistake made by either the legislative or judicial branch.
Well the executive branch (which the President heads) is responsible for "[executing and enforcing] orders of the court through federal law enforcement" (wikipedia). So, the courts decide how the law is applied, but the executive branch enacts the orders as given by the judicial branch, and is thus also responsible for determining when exceptions are to be made to the enactment of those orders.
This is an issue you (along with many others) are very passionate about. An earlier comment you made I think describes this particularly eloquently and civilly.
She was always a woman; she just presented as a man for many years. The NYT presented the information quite well when they said, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009."
You're also very aware that a lot of people are not on the same page with you. Some are trying to figure it out for themselves, some have made up their mind. I think it's commendable that they're willing to do so in a public forum and for the most part civilly, particularly on an issue that has been historically as divisive as this. Let's encourage this discussion in a constructive manner and leave strong, insulting language out of it, regardless of how strongly we may feel about the issue. I completely understand how frustrating it can be when you feel like you're constantly repeating yourself and no one's listening. It would be great if people could be convinced over the course of 30 minutes, but I doubt that's realistically going to happen.
Please note I never claimed it was. I believe as you do that language is important. That includes choosing language I think will accomplish my goals, which is to encourage people to reflect and think about the issue. I don't think using language like "fucking disgusting" and "transphobic" are likely to convince the people you hope to reach to do anything other than get defensive and dig in. Do you?
And Hacker News will downvote tone and civility, regardless of the opinion. It's very easy to see that as an attack when it's happening to you. I see the same behavior on all sides of issues. When I find myself getting particularly heated, I find it better to refrain from commenting at all, not because I'm afraid of getting downvoted, but because I know it's not going to lead to any useful discussion.
Gosh! If only Adrienne had tapped into an infinite well of patience and politeness maybe some of the folks here who very literally equate trans people with dangerous mental instability will come around.
Civility is content, language itself is arbitrary. Pretend I were to say, "Sir, the fact that you're a cishet man makes you incapable of rational thought on this matter. I hope that the new administration gives you the electroshock therapy you need to normalize to a rational being and not a dangerous predator."
That is a civil set of words, but a profoundly uncivil and dangerous tone. And that's being repeated over and over in this forum and NOT being rated down.
Further, it's absolutely hypocritical that we cheerfully upvote the most uncivil of emails by Linus Torvalds and banal screeds about "Getting Shit Done" but the instant someone uses energized language when talking about racism or sexism, then suddenly a completely different set of standards apply because this is politics and that's different.
Civility is entirely removed from the playing field when someone's human rights and dignity are in question. That is a final line before we convert someone into something akin to an animal. And that is a very real line that Manning has faced throughout this entire ordeal. In the same sense that were you to try and stab someone, they should not apologize if they hurt you while defending themselves.
Yet you continue to post. In all honesty, why do so? This is not meant in any way as a criticism. You've expressed this opinion of the HN community many times, so I'm genuinely interested why you continue to do so.
As I pointed out in my initial comment, I personally value your comments when you're civil. I think they add to the overall discussion. I don't think anyone on Hacker News needs a "particularly disapproving Greek chorus" of any particular opinion. Less charitable people might argue it's indistinguishable from trolling. It's distracting and leads to bad faith and flamewar discussions, and is explicitly against community guidelines. I sincerely wish you the best and hope that you continue to engage constructively and positively, even when you disagree or believe people to be unreasonable. Best wishes.
From what I've seen, you're the sort of person who "values" the input of marginalized opinion so long as you're firmly in control of the conversation and are allowed to shout them down at any time.
Examine who and what you are defending here. You've desperate clung to this driftwood of a "rational" debate, which is of course a complete charade. What "constructive" and "positive" debate can be had here?
I have prepared a nice play which sums up the transphobic part of this thread. Forgive me the formatting, HN is a bit difficult to coerce. Please do consider auditioning for the part modeled after your actions.
C: "Hello. I am attempting to live my life as a woman. To live any other way is unbearable."
HNA: "You are a man and a bad one at that!"
HNB: "Your particular brand of mental illness must be painful."
HNC: "The objective reality is that you have a penis therefore are a man."
HND: "Can you even have a period? Everyone knows all women can have periods. HA!"
HNE: "These snowflakes, we should round them all up."
Someone Sane: "This is vile. This is totally wrong. You are fucking monsters."
You: "Now now, watch your language."
Someone Sane: "Really? My language."
You: "One cannot hope to have a civil discourse with one so emotional and foulmouthed. How can you hope to debate your betters with such language? Tut tut."
Someone Sane: "I wasn't planning on debating them. Their points are beneath contempt, unscientific, and dehumanizing."
You: sighs smugly "That, my little snowflake, is the problem. They've already won by logic, all you bring to the table is curse words. Why can't you be more fair?" sips box wine "Now run along and play."
I ask this seriously and not cynically: What are you trying to achieve with these comments? Are you hoping to educate people? Are you trying to scold people for not knowing better? The content of the article isn't about Manning's gender association, but your comments are only about that. I would suspect any downvotes are simply because it is off-topic..?
"Even if you assume my comments are pointless pedantry..."
Where did I use those words?
Responses like this make it hard for me to learn from the other person. Maybe you feel like we should all already know these things, but that simply is not reality. It is not always because the person is "transphobic", as you put it, but simply uneducated on a particular topic.
And yet I see multiple HN commenters discussing this topic. It may not be how you would prefer it be discussed; however, this is how people become educated. I think the mistake here is to reply to civil comments in an uncivil way because you don't feel that they are appropriately aware of trans issues.
I would think anyone who wants to help educate others on these issues would welcome such a discussion.
Misgendering people is uncivil. It is insulting and dehumanizing. Why don't you start requiring civilty from your fellow HN commenters, rather than just me?
No offence, but you really sound angered and I feel somehow responsible--different people have different political views about all issues (everything is politics, after all) and we have to live with that fact. You are not going to convince others by insulting them. Also, HN is not the place to try and convince anybody to think the way you do, because that leads to flamewars (if you have an opinion, you'll stick to it, no?), and guys here detest flamewars. Just my two cents, greetings.
Yes, it's true that everything is politics! Misgendering people is transphobic politics! It shows a tremendous lack of respect for people and it's deeply offensive; that doesn't change because it's done in a "civil" tone.
While guys can sometimes be understood to refer to a group of either sex, it's best not to generalize like this. I don't think that's a particularly political opinion.
Actually, Chelsea may indeed have considered herself a he during the epoch of Bradley(we don't know and shouldn't proclaim) so by you in proclaiming that you can't use he for referring to bradley, may in fact be misgendering in of itself as you're proclaiming bradley should be referred to as "she" when for all we know Chelsea could rightfully so refer to Bradley epoch as "he". This would be misgendering.
I would like to think that in ten years the overwhelming weight of opinion will be respectful of gender identity. At the moment that definitely isn't the case.
The consistent use of quotes around pronouns, as in "'she'", and use of 'they', as if there is confusion, is a subtle but deliberate way to indicate that the author thinks gender identity is all a bit fake. Its puerile behaviour from people who should know better.
Or it's Obama recognizing that someone with mental health issues the military is ill-equipped to address who has been in custody for seven years has been punished enough. Lawfare is not a bastion of liberalism, but has suggested enough is enough. Let's save the life sentences for the Walkers.
"Or it's Obama recognizing that someone with mental health issues the military is ill-equipped to address who has been in custody for seven years has been punished enough."
Playing Devil's Advocate: if this is the case, why did it take until the last week of his tenure as President for him to do this?
No, this smells of "legacy". Obama could have done this years ago.
> Playing Devil's Advocate: if this is the case, why did it take until the last week of his tenure as President for him to do this?
Because the petition on which action was taken was filed by Manning in November, and the review that goes into making the determination takes nonzero staff and Presidential time, and wasn't the sole thing the White House was doing.
However, if the supposed motivation is because somebody is suffering...why wait another day, another week, another month, another year?
If this took place before the election, you could call it a principled decision.
If this took place immediately after the election, you could call it a cautious-but-nevertheless-sound decision that might have otherwise been passed on to a (presumably friendly) successor.
Instead, this has taken place three days before he leaves office.
Manning hasn't gone anywhere in seven years. This was not based on a long bout of soul-searching or a sudden new development.
This was a move to either bolster Obama's legacy, or grease the wheels for a post-Presidential opportunity.
I'm not privy to the internal motivations of the President (or anyone else for that matter), though I can think of at least one reason besides the two that you've listed: doing so earlier would have made the issue that much more of a political football, principles aside (which is one reason why pardons and commutations are left for the end). I fight against being cynical as a rule. I'm not going to go out of my way to argue that this decision was made purely on principle. That said, it doesn't need to be purely craven posturing either.
It's been reported in the news for the last month that Obama has no intention of retiring from public life. He's going to be a major spokesman and "spiritual leader" of sorts for the Democrats going forward. The reason is that the Democrats don't have a good "bench." Most of the Democrats remaining in positions of power are creatures of big-city machine politics, not exactly likable populists who can counter Trump.
> The reason is that the Democrats don't have a good "bench."
Obama led the Democrats to political disaster; I wonder if any party since WWII has been in as bad a political position. Why would they want his continued leadership after he leaves office?
I won't wade into the debate about Obama's future, and will point out that I think the USA's effective two-party system is pretty busted, but yeah -- the USA has a pretty polar political past.
> the Democrats has a supermajority across all three houses
In 2008 they did not have a 'supermajority', usually interpreted to mean a veto-proof or filibuster-proof majority, in any house of Congress.
Also, today Republicans control both houses and the Governer's seat in approx. 33% of states.
Finally, the Dems can't win in some states due to gerrymandering and voting laws that prevent even a majority of Democratic votes from winning the election.
Sorry -- I'm not an American, I misunderstood what "supermajority" meant (I took it to mean a majority in each of the houses). My bad :).
I'm not saying the Democrats weren't roundly drubbed in the last election, just refuting the belief that this might be the worst position a political party has been in since WW2. I hadn't thought of the state legislature, however! That's a good point.
No, the DNC led the Democrats to political disaster by discouraging anyone other than HRC from running, and running an atrociously hubris-filled campaign
Because the elections are a show that are only designed to keep the plebs angry at each other. 2016 was a great season of American Next Great President .. except Americas forgot it's just a TV show and not real. This intensifies that effect and makes the left forget about all the war, drones, spying and everything that will not change under this or any other administration.
The "pandering to the left" comment is in my opinion a bad political assumption.
If you look at previous opinion polls on Manning (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/manning-sentence-po...), the opinion seems less to fall on traditional "left / right" lines. If anything, there is some bias towards younger people being more approving of Chelsea Manning compared to older people.
The demographics in the Manning polls actually are very similar to other tangentially related topics in United States polls, eg how people feel about Snowden and how people feel about (edit for clarity) massive government cyber surveillance.
I personally think the decision is more than just pandering, but if Obama is pandering to someone, he is pandering to the youth.
HN is one of the few places left for open political discourse with little partisanship or blundering hostility. Your comment/account suggests that you have no intention of continuing that trend. Down-votes represent a reaction to that, not your particular pov.
You have it backwards. I have this account because HN is not very open to political discourse unless you toe a very specific line. The Overton Window around here is very small.
It's troubling that calling for witch hunts and firings over political opinions is okay, but a direct tone is a problem. Maybe our society would be better if that was flipped around.
Society already is that "flipped around" scenario, there are thousands of places on the web where you can yell and call people idiots/fascists/libtards/whatever. Have you ever seen it be productive ? Change people's minds on important issues ? No. To effect change you have to have respect and compassion for the person who's mind you are trying to change.
Chelsea Manning brought us video footage of Baghdad airstrikes with civilian and press casualties. The motive was clear-cut: she wanted to expose hidden truths about the war in Iraq that might convince the American people it was no longer worth the cost. That's the definition of a whistleblower.
"[She] didn’t like that people were being killed, particularly the citizens, innocent people," Campbell said. "I remember us specifically talking about how we were having a hard time getting information on how many people were being killed."
"On one of [her] last visits to Boston, Manning told Keith Rose, a friend [she] had met at Brandeis, of [her] misgivings about Iraq because of what [she] was learning as an intelligence analyst. "[She] expressed a feeling to me like how messed up the situation is," Rose said. "[She] said things like, 'If more people knew what was going on over there, they would not support the war.'"
Manning: “The thing that got me most was discovering that 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing ‘anti-Iraqi’ literature” had in truth printed a “benign political critique” against the corruption in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s cabinet.
Her conscience could not bear to keep these human rights abuses secret, and she revealed them to a world that needed to know about them. I am getting very tired of a narrative in which Manning's actions are mischaracterized as a "vendetta against the US Army" and a "cowardly act." It's an insidious and despicable way to shift attention away from civilian deaths in war and the mistreatment of detainees, the latter of which Manning continues to experience even today.
>Her conscience could not bear to keep these human rights abuses secret
Manning had no idea what was in any of the information being leaked. This is not the actions of a conscientious objector. The amount of re-writing history going on here is absurd.
So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved? If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester?
> If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester?
You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question.
> So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved?
In short, yes. Her 7-year sentence has already been quite enough.
I will concede that the outlet through which the leaks were published didn't meet the standards to which we usually hold investigative reporting. Manning chose to disclose all cables in confidence to a team she felt could sift through them for evidence of wrongdoing. That team then proved themselves irresponsible by publishing everything. They should have been far more selective about what they disclosed to the public.
I don't blame the source here. I absolutely do blame the coverage.
>You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question.
It's not ridiculous, its a reductio ad absurdum of the principle you seem to be employing, that a chance positive result of an action justifies the original action. Or are you just making things up as you go along to reach the conclusion you prefer?
>In short, yes.
OK, here's a more down to earth scenario. Say I'm a high level administration official and I have access to all classified information. Should I release literally all of it because surely somewhere in the dump will be some wrongdoing by somebody? Surely your answer to this must be no?
That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operations if it were completely transparent. Sources who want to ethically be whistleblowers need to work with reputable press outlets, releasing only what is necessary to people they know will further trim the leak - until the final product does only good for the public.
Here's a quote from Snowden on just that:
"I never published a single document on my own because I believe that the model, the ideal of American government is actually quite a shrewd one,” he said. “I tried to emulate the model of checks and balance. Instead of making a unilateral decision, that ‘The world must know,’ I worked with the free press, institutions that we trust, American journalists.”
Could Chelsea Manning have chosen a better way to release the documents than WikiLeaks? Absolutely. Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes - though I would never claim she was as responsible about it as someone like Snowden.
> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing.
> Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy.
If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.
When it comes to prescriptive definitions for words in the English language, I trust the concurrence of Merriam-Webster and Collins a bit more than I'm willing to trust your word. You won't convince me otherwise. If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count," you are welcome to take that point of view up with the publishers. Have a great day!
>If you feel a whistleblower who also causes unrelated data to be leaked "doesn't count,"
Again with the mischaracterizations! You should stop that.
I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple.
That is a fair way of looking at it (and consistent with prevailing definitions). However, Manning strongly suspected wrongdoing, made herself aware of it, and leaked a video in which it was blindingly obvious. She doesn't fall under your exclusion at all.
From "Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video", a statement by Manning to the US Army:
The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.
As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.
Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.
Well I read his statement and its definitely interesting. It doesn't really help his case though. Some of his actions he was acting as a whistleblower (releasing videos of civilian deaths), other actions he was acting as someone who simply felt information should be leaked (diplomatic cables and such). The problem is that these were separate acts and so while he may have been a whistleblower for some of the releases, the others were plain leaking classified info. One doesn't absolve the other.
I can accept that the whistleblower label isn't completely incorrect, but the problem is that people use it in place of leaker in an effort to establish moral justification for all his leaks. He wasn't kept in prison for 7 years because he was a whistleblower, it was because he was a leaker. But he was also a whistleblower.
I would argue Snowden's approach - working with the most reputable news outlets in the US to release only what was necessary - serves as a good example of ethical whistleblowing. Nonetheless, the intelligence community wanted him arrested after the NSA slides went public, and he will still be arrested if he sets foot back in the United States.
Whistleblowers in the US government can and do go to prison, regardless of whether they're responsible about it or not. I think clemency in this case (shortening the sentence for disclosure of the cables to 7 years) is the least the President could have done.
Please use "she," by the way. Chelsea's gender and correct pronoun are some of the most well-known in the world by now. Nobody can claim ignorance anymore.
I think 7 years is plenty although I don't think anyone should have to suffer solitary for any reason.
And yeah I generally just avoid using the pronoun or use she when forced to. But the article you linked had pictures of "him" at the bottom and so using he was unconscious.
>I feel someone who had no knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing and no intention to just reveal wrongdoing does not count as a whistleblower. Pretty simple.
Intelligence analyst, no knowledge or suspicion... uhhhh what?
Well "wrongdoing" is a little bit too generic. What I meant was breaking the law (or some severely immoral acts). His opinion regarding the diplomatic cable doesn't justify releasing it and claiming he's a whistleblower.
although this does heavily resemble a troll account so perhaps the downvotes are because this account is trying to stir up trouble instead of engage in civil discourse as opposed to downvoting to disagree with you.
Anyone else notice how "pandering to X" is the last argument of someone who refuses to think critically?
Political pandering is intended to help you buy favor. The President of the United States does not need to pander to the people who elected him. It would be more like pandering if he did this some time before the final days of his term. And typically, pandering happens to gain the favor of the other side, which this will certainly not do.
Therefore it's much less likely to be pandering than, say, commuting the sentence of a mentally unstable person who's been in jail for 7 years, attempted suicide twice, and needs medical assistance they can't get in jail.
Indiscriminately leaking thousands of diplomatic cables is the kind of thing that can change the world forever. It can cause major treaties to fall through, wars to start, etc.
Just as an example, Manning's leaks have been cited as a major contributor to the Arab Spring that has left thousands of people dead, thrown Europe into turmoil, and is in the process of potentially ending the EU due to backlash against migration.
In honesty, the punishment should be death, but given that Manning was a deeply troubled young man, 35 years with the possibility of parole in 10 years is fine with me.
So what is the logic of 35 years? The way you describe it, it should be a life sentence. What is the purpose of prison in this case? And why not 15 years, or 50?
The purpose of prison is to strike fear deep into the hearts of those who would follow in Private Manning's footsteps. And actually, the sentence was 35 years with eligibility for parole in 8 years. There is always a certain arbitrariness to choosing sentences.
> It is without contention that the vast majority of the leaked cables revealed nothing that anyone considers wrongdoing.
Right, and nobody is contending that. Rather, the act of commuting her sentence is contending that 8 years is a sufficient punishment for a leak which hasn't caused any concrete harm to US citizens or interests. 35 years is more than most rapists and many murderers serve, do you really think it was a just sentence?
It is unjust to measure a sentence by the chance outcome (this would mean one person ends up with a light sentence and the other ends up with the book thrown at them for the same action due solely to chance). The evaluation must be in the action, not whether luck was or wasn't on your side. The fact that releasing so much classified information indiscriminately could have been very damaging to real people is the problem. Furthermore, simply saying no one was directly harmed is an incredibly low bar. The ability for diplomats to do their job has been significantly harmed by such a release. This does have real consequences for real people.
I'm not referencing any fleshed out theory that I'm aware of.
>Why are assault and murder treated differently then?
Well, assault covers a wide range of violent actions, some of which are very unlikely to cause death and others that are highly likely to cause death. Thus it makes sense to treat the actions differently because the likely outcome is different.
This is great ... his life compared to Snowden has been horrid!
On a different note I never bought he wants to be a woman just a PR thing to keep his name, plight and fight in the public eye. Maybe in five years or so his story will be told and we will see him as a him not a woman.
*This is getting downvoted? I'm sure your now aware of fake news which is created to push agendas and or make money. Thus, I don't believe much of what I see and read and this always seemed far-fetch to me and that it was so out there at the time that it was made up by those helping him. It allowed him to fight for transgender rights and remain in the public eye ... what other way could Manning in solitary confinement have maintained his visibility in the public and coral as much help to free him? This was great PR ... from someone who has created fake news and such to benefit their start up!
> On a different note I never bought he wants to be a woman just a PR thing to keep his name, plight and fight in the public eye.
Once again, the information that became public from the military through the trial was that Manning met with a gender counselor about gender dysphoria before collecting and leaking information, much less being in the public eye. This is a fact that is not in dispute.
> This is getting downvoted?
Yes, when you try to spin a completely unsupported fantasy that is inconsistent with the well-documented historical sequence of events to justify misgendering someone, that's not really a valuable contribution to the discussion.
There is literally no reason to believe Chelsea lied about being transgender.
When you consider the current extremely negative views that the U.S military and the average Americans have against transgender people then it would be a terrible strategy to make up such a story.
While he isn't blameless, the ACA helped a lot of people, the economy recovered greatly (admittedly all he had to do was not fuck it up), permitted states to legalize weed. For me I have to say the ACA is probably the biggest reason why I liked him well enough. I was able to stay on my parents insurance until I was 26, and then since I was self-employed I was able to easily get insurance through the marketplace. Now that process I'll admit hasn't been as smooth for everyone, but for me it worked okay.
There as been more marijuana prosecution under Obama than under Bush. The idea they have been less hostile is a myth. States have simply been doing better at fighting back.
> At the same time, arrests for the sale and manufacture of marijuana also continued to decrease in 2014. These arrests reached an all-time high of 103,247 in 2010, but they’ve since been falling, reaching a nearly 20-year low of 81,184 last year.
That's overly simplistic, usage would naturally initially rise due to legalization so naturally so have busts, and prosecution has been more targeted to those who aren't following the state laws and took legalization to mean no rules. In a sense you can look at the DOJ actions as hammering those who thought they could just openly deal drugs without paying attention to the minutia of actually being legally allowed to and following all the necessary rules.
He really does. Regardless of whether you like his politics or not he really seems like a genuine, down to Earth person. He always seems professional and articulate. I will miss that aspect of a president.
Sadly, this act was just another political tool to contrast with Snowden.
Quote from the article:
the White House spokesman, Joshua Earnest, discussed the "pretty stark difference" between Ms. Manning's case for mercy with Mr. Snowden's. While their offenses were similar, he said, there were "some important differences."
"Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing," he said. "Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary, and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy."
He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were "damaging to national security," the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were "far more serious and far more dangerous." (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely "secret" level.)
I know there is a lot of controversy with Manning compared to Wikileaks et. al. as far as not redacting documents or using a discriminating news source to filter them. Still, I oppose state secrets and the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them. I still side with Manning. Too many of the Snowden documents were redacted with critical information (like which hardware encryption chips were compromised by the US government). No one has the actual Pentagon Papers outside of very specific news agencies. Manning gave the entire story to the people .. and I find it more sad that we didn't see more outrage and change from that release.
I also see another message here. Obama is trying to leave a positive view of the Democratic legacy with this lasting memory. It helps people forget about the predator drones, secret kill lists, continuation of torture, NSA spying and the expansion of war, military and the American hegemony throughout the world. I wish people would see this manipulation; this handout to the left to keep them angry at the incoming administration and not at the government that continues to spy on them and kill people without trial in and endless sea of never ending conflict.