Obama Commutes Chelsea(Bradley) Manning's Sentence

[esmith]

That's true. And as I stated, I quite agree that hacking should be illegal. It's the nearly life sentence I have a problem with. Manning already spent more time in jail than anyone ever has for committing a similar crime, whereas no one has or will ever be sentenced for the Podesta leak. So claiming legal precedent is a little weird here. It's also different in that whistleblowing, again according to legal precedent, has long been considered a special category under the law with certain, albeit inconsistently applied, protections. I know of no such precedents for clemency in matters of attempted political sabotage.

You're acting as though Manning is now "getting away scot free" rather than just having her sentence shortened. Even shortened, she's spent longer in jail than anyone ever has for a hacking case save Jeremy Hammond, and her full sentence would have trumped his too. So where is your legal precedent? I honestly think executive branch pressure had a lot to do with the unfair sentencing in the first place, so maybe Obama is trying to atone for some of his own sins in the last reel.

Manning did not hack the materials leaked. Manning copied and released materials that could and probably did cause the death of others. It could be that Manning was a mental disturbed person and didn't know what he was doing. Either that or too stupid to realize that what he was doing was placing lives in danger. Either way it should have been life in prison not 35 years and if we were at war death.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Manning did not hack the materials leaked. Manning copied and released materials that could and probably did cause the death of others.

What materials are those?

I know (in a general sense) what he released; what out of all of them caused (or could have caused) the death of others? Please be specific.

 

[esmith]

Who did Manning put in harm's way?
.

Manning's released material gave information that indirectly reviled the identity of some individuals that were helping the US in our fight against terrorist. What do you think would happen to those persons in say Afghanistan who's identity was compromised?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Manning's released material gave information that indirectly reviled the identity of some individuals that were helping the US in our fight against terrorist.

Indirectly revealed? What does that mean?

What do you think would happen to those persons in say Afghanistan who's identity was compromised?

I don't know... they get a lifetime membership in the Republican Party, maybe?

Plame affair - Wikipedia

 

[esmith]

Indirectly revealed? What does that mean?

Indirectly means that a person or persons actual names were not given. However, information gleaned from reports can and does provide fairly accurate information on the possible identity of a source. Good intelligence personal can make very good assumptions about many things, including identity, when they are provided information from their opposition and their own intelligence. In the case of many terrorist organizations suspicions is all it takes to take actions against a person, persons, or even villages if they think they are cooperating with their enemy. If they had suspicions and their suspicions were backed up by data from their enemies that is enough to confirm them.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Transgenderism/transsexualism isn't an identity disorder, just so you know. That language was removed from the DSM because it's faulty and misleading.

It was removed because it hurt many people's feelings. This is liberalism at its finest, the minute it got a hold to the most of the sciences it bombarded them with enough guilt trips it subdued them. Sciences does not cater to emotions it caters to facts regardless of society. The same way biological sciences fought to have evolution validated regardless of the feelings of the religious.
The DSM is on its way of becoming a joke, a very bad joke at that. As much as I hold love towards all people it does not stop me acknowledging their faults and incapabilities. I have them, other people have them and the world is a better place when you live to accept them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It was removed because it hurt many people's feelings. This is liberalism at its finest, the minute it got a hold to the most of the sciences it bombarded them with enough guilt trips it subdued them. Sciences does not cater to emotions it caters to facts regardless of society. The same way biological sciences fought to have evolution validated regardless of the feelings of the religious.
The DSM is on its way of becoming a joke, a very bad joke at that. As much as I hold love towards all people it does not stop me acknowledging their faults and incapabilities. I have them, other people have them and the world is a better place when you live to accept them.

That's the same stupid argument that homophobes use as to why homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Science recognizes new evidence and adjusts accordingly.

 

[Mister Emu]

Manning endangered lives and made cooperation from intelligence assets less likely. I don't like this commutation, but it is what it is, and well within the purview of the President.

 

[habiru]

The Obama has commuted the remaining sentence of Manning. The person who was convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
above partially from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html

Now with all of the uproar over the Russian's hacking a private organization the Obama seems to think that what the Manning did wasn't really bad. Does the Obama really have the US intelligence agency back? Doesn't appear so now does it.

Well, he has to convince President Trump to forgive.

 

[tytlyf]

Indirectly the Obama did give blanket approval to the idea of releasing information illegal obtained as not a big thing by commuting Manning's sentence. You do realize that the government wanted to charge him with Article 104 of the UCMJ which is equivalent to a civilian charge of treason. Now the same administration has commuted his sentence. What does that message say to anyone, civilian or military who is considering doing the same thing as Manning.

Is this new to presidents? A lot of conspiracy there.

 

[suncowiam]

The Obama has commuted the remaining sentence of Manning. The person who was convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
above partially from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html

Now with all of the uproar over the Russian's hacking a private organization the Obama seems to think that what the Manning did wasn't really bad. Does the Obama really have the US intelligence agency back? Doesn't appear so now does it.

You know... I have to agree with you on this. It is a bit hypocritical to commute someone that leaked to wikileaks and then go all gangbusters on others that have done the same thing.

I'm just a purist when it comes to rules and laws. Not that it can't be wrong and we should change it. We should just be consistent with them. This sets precedence for future whistle blowers. Either we accept them or we don't. If we need to define further categories of punishment, then let's make it specific.

In this case, if we are commuting this person, then I expect at least a change in the punishment reviews to ensure that another person similar to him gets the same form of punishment. It's ridiculous that another person could be getting max punishment while we release this one person.

I see this more of a political ploy to get at Assange, too, since he promised to extradite himself.

I actually wanted to create this thread yesterday, but my account was all wacked up.

 

[Politesse]

You know... I have to agree with you on this. It is a bit hypocritical to commute someone that leaked to wikileaks and then go all gangbusters on others that have done the same thing.

I'm just a purist when it comes to rules and laws. Not that it can't be wrong and we should change it. We should just be consistent with them. This sets precedence for future whistle blowers. Either we accept them or we don't. If we need to define further categories of punishment, then let's make it specific.

In this case, if we are commuting this person, then I expect at least a change in the punishment reviews to ensure that another person similar to him gets the same form of punishment. It's ridiculous that another person could be getting max punishment while we release this one person.

I see this more of a political ploy to get at Assange, too, since he promised to extradite himself.

I actually wanted to create this thread yesterday, but my account was all wacked up.

But the sentence wasn't consistent with legal precedent, it was a considerably longer sentence than is usually given for a crime of this nature. Championing a miscarriage of justice doesn't make you a legal "purist".

Is everyone here just confused about the difference between a commutation of sentence and a pardon? Manning hasn't been pardoned. She broke a law, was charged, and served several years in prison, none of which has changed. The law will still consider her a felon and everything that comes with that label. The only thing which has changed is length of sentence.

More:
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Executive Clemency | PARDON | Department of Justice

A commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the fact of conviction, imply innocence, or remove civil disabilities that apply to the convicted person as a result of the criminal conviction. A commutation may include remission (release) of the financial obligations that are imposed as part of a sentence, such as payment of a fine or restitution. A remission applies only to the part of the financial obligation that has not already been paid. A commutation of sentence has no effect on a person’s immigration status and will not prevent removal or deportation from the United States. To be eligible to apply for commutation of sentence, a person must have reported to prison to begin serving his sentence and may not be challenging his conviction in the courts.

 

[Politesse]

This is liberalism at its finest, the minute it got a hold to the most of the sciences it bombarded them with enough guilt trips it subdued them. Sciences does not cater to emotions it caters to facts regardless of society.

These two sentences contradict each other. Either scientists make declarations based only on emotion, or they do not.

 

[suncowiam]

But the sentence wasn't consistent with legal precedent, it was a considerably longer sentence than is usually given for a crime of this nature.

Is everyone here just confused about the difference between a commutation of sentence and a pardon? Manning hasn't been pardoned. She broke a law, was charged, and served several years in prison, none of which has changed. The law will still consider her a felon and everything that comes with that label. The only thing which has changed is length of sentence.

More:
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Executive Clemency | PARDON | Department of Justice

Did I say she was going to be pardoned. No, I specifically said commuted. So her sentence is going to be commuted to May of this year. Not a big difference between a pardon and being commuted in this case.

Read my comment again, where I said we need to change our punishment system to be more consistent.

 

[Sha'irullah]

These two sentences contradict each other. Either scientists make declarations based only on emotion, or they do not.

They do not, do not use logic if you do not know it. I specifically distinguished scientists from the field science. I can easily be a lawyer and fully understand law and purposefully do everything in my power to undermine that said legal principles I study.
Being aware of something does not make you a practitioner in it yet alone the fact you do not have to follow it to its fullest. There is no way you did not make this distinguishment if you have the notion of a contradiction.

This is just being deceptive on your part .

 

[Politesse]

Did I say she was going to be pardoned. No, I specifically said commuted. So her sentence is going to be commuted to May of this year. Not a big difference between a pardon and being commuted in this case.

Read my comment again, where I said we need to change our punishment system to be more consistent.

Change it how? The sentence itself broke with existing legal precedent. Are you saying that we should change the system to allow for unjustly long sentences in every case rather than just this one? On what grounds?

And I am accusing you of being confused about commutation, because you sound like you think she is being forgiven of the crime. She is not. Her sentence is being shortened, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, I do not see a sex change operation as necessary surgery but elective surgery

The evidence disagrees with you. In all reality all surgeries are elective, but when it comes to enhancing quality of life, there isn't much difference between a tissue transplant and sex reassignment surgery. Really, it doesn't matter how you feel or think about it because what we learned from the evidence gathered is that social adjustments and things such as mastectomies and genital surgeries improve emotional and mental well being and health, which also often leads to improvements in physical health.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sciences does not cater to emotions it caters to facts regardless of society. The same way biological sciences fought to have evolution validated regardless of the feelings of the religious.

When it comes to gender dysphoria, what science tells us (and I promise you I have studied the subject to much greater extent than you have - I am also "on path" to becoming a practitioner) is that socially adjusting to their identified role and having corrective surgeries is the best course of treatment for those who are otherwise utter void of a life with meaning and substance, often described as being hollow and empty.

 

[Sha'irullah]

When it comes to gender dysphoria, what science tells us (and I promise you I have studied the subject to much greater extent than you have - I am also "on path" to becoming a practitioner) is that socially adjusting to their identified role and having corrective surgeries is the best course of treatment for those who are otherwise utter void of a life with meaning and substance, often described as being hollow and empty.

I am aware of the "treatment" offered but to say it is the best is absurd, involving oneself into others delusions is unsafe and hazardous. To force the rest of society to acknowledge a cognitive disorder as valid and natural is absurd. People like Elagabalus could not fight this and didn't have the means to.

Should men who are under the disillusion that they're 6 year old girls be recognized and cherished, forcefully by society?

 

[suncowiam]

Change it how? The sentence itself broke with existing legal precedent. Are you saying that we should change the system to allow for unjustly long sentences in every case rather than just this one? On what grounds?

And I am accusing you of being confused about commutation, because you sound like you think she is being forgiven of the crime. She is not. Her sentence is being shortened, nothing more and nothing less.

We have a disconnect, and it's not because of the difference between a pardon and a commute.

What precedent or legal preceding are you referring to? My understanding is that she was in the military, had a military trial, found guilty and was given a 35 year sentence.