121–130 of 797 posts
Commuting Manning's sentence without pardoning Snowden feels like politics to me. Manning's actions embarrassed the Bush administration so Obama will commute. Snowden's actions embarrassed the Obama administration so Obama won't pardon.
Chelsea Manning stood trial. Edward Snowden did not.
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?
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…
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
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…
See, e.g. the conduct that Colin Powell described in this email:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
[EDIT: click to view the PDF to find the actual content.]
Good. I wish that he would just pardon her, though. I don't want the next administration to somehow undo this.
Wouldn't it be outrageously unconstitutional to undo this?
It's been a grey area with NSA spying and many other federal overreaches for a while, but with Trump it's official.
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.
Manning indiscriminately leaked tons of diplomatic cables, as part of a personal vendetta against the US Army. It is without contention that the vast majority of the leaked cables revealed nothing that anyone considers wrongdoing. This wasn't the act of a whistle blower. It was the cowardly act of someone who put their own petty fantasies ahead of their solemn duty to protect the information they were entrusted with…
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?
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?
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.