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

91–100 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#91

Post by at-fates-hands »

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 covered pretty well in depth here:

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7674/why-is-the-...

Some of the finer points:

- 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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#92

Post by cm2187 »

djsumdog wrote: post #32

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…

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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#93

Post by cc_wk »

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…

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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#94

Post by [deleted] »

akjainaj wrote: post #69
hsod wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#95

Post by mhurron »

rthomas6 wrote: post #72
djsumdog wrote: post #32

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…

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 pu…

Classifying material should not be a way for the Government to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Whistle blowing is the only way that prevents that.

Chelsea Manning acted on her conscience, which is the best we can expect anyone to do. The governments punishment was to prevent that happening again.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#96

Post by noobermin »

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…

Okay, so there is punishment say, as some others have said here. Is 7 years enough? She was sentenced to rot in jail till 2045, how can that be just?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#97

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

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?

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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#98

Post by zepto »

bishnu wrote: post #66
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.

How do you know?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#99

Post by [deleted] »

hackuser wrote: post #67
notpc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN