Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#61

Post by hsod »

akjainaj wrote: post #53

Why can the US president meddle with the sentence of a convict? Isn't that against the separation of powers? Not that I have anything against this guy Manning in particular, just asking why is this "tolerable" in a democracy. Isn't it a risk, that the president can pardon whoever he wants?

It's actually explicitly in the Constitution:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article II, Section 2

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#62

Post by mschuster91 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #50
godzillabrennus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has a likable personality.

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.

> He always seems professional and articulate.

Yes, especially in comparison to you-know-who got elected... what a massive contrast.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#64

Post by djsumdog »

vorotato wrote: post #33
d33 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

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…

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.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/47303/why-barack-obamas-marij...

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#65

Post by 464192002d7fe1c »

notpc wrote: post #40
gipp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What need does Obama have to pander to anyone right now?

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.

I hope Obama stays around. He's done so well at building up the Democratic party in the past 8 years, here's hoping he stays around and does the same thing for the next 8!

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#66

Post by bishnu »

chollida1 wrote: post #11

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 othe…

There was no collateral damage to people in the field due to the Manning leaks, so I guess she figured it out.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#67

Post by hackuser »

notpc wrote: post #40
gipp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What need does Obama have to pander to anyone right now?

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?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#68

Post by rosser »

hackuser wrote: post #49
rosser wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. EDIT 2: http://swampland.time.com/2008/12/25/more-on-pardons/ Relevant quote, "Ulysses S. Grant’s first clemency decision, on his third day in of…

> 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?

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.

EDIT: Found it. See my post up-thread for a link.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#69

Post by akjainaj »

hsod wrote: post #61
akjainaj wrote: post #53

Why can the US president meddle with the sentence of a convict? Isn't that against the separation of powers? Not that I have anything against this guy Manning in particular, just asking why is this "tolerable" in a democracy. Isn't it a risk, that the president can pardon whoever he wants?

It's actually explicitly in the Constitution: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Article II, Section 2

So it's only possible if it was something that was done against the US?
Post reply on HN