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

211–220 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#211

Post by manarth »

and0 wrote: post #131

Off-topic but.. "they"? Manning isn't a group of people. Just say "she", it's really easy.

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.

[1] http://www.glaad.org/blog/chelsea-mannings-name-and-pronouns...

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#212

Post by grzm »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #198
grzm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not atypical for a president to wait until the end of their term to issue pardons and commutations, for legacy, or any other consideration.

That's true. 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) successo…

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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#213

Post by mod »

and0 wrote: post #186
ForrestN wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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?

The comment was on-topic and interesting. That's two reasons I can think of.

Also, this is not a new story, so frankly it's easy to have relevant opinions on the topic while perhaps just doing a skim of the story.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#214

Post by sp332 »

TheGirondin wrote: post #161
noobermin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For a soldier committing this level of deliberately treasonous crime, Manning is lucky there was no execution.

Which leaked documents would have warranted a harsher sentence?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#215

Post by hawkice »

hackuser wrote: post #82
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…

> 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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#216

Post by hackinthebochs »

etjossem wrote: post #207
notpc wrote: post #18

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…

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 u…

>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.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#218

Post by manarth »

ForrestN wrote: post #156
and0 wrote: post #131

Off-topic but.. "they"? Manning isn't a group of people. Just say "she", it's really easy.

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."

Chelsea has publicly identified the preferred pronouns as "she/her/hers". [1]

[1] http://www.glaad.org/blog/chelsea-mannings-name-and-pronouns...

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#219

Post by GVIrish »

mhurron wrote: post #95
rthomas6 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The ends don't always justify the means.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#220

Post by ishields »

bmuon wrote: post #171
ishields wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on now, "They" does not imply any gender and is appropriate to describe any person

Sorry, non-native speaker here. But wouldn't "they" apply when you don't know when the gender of the person? In this case you do know.

"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
Post reply on HN