351–360 of 797 posts
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 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…
Whistleblowing is the powerless and disconnected eroding the power of the powerful and well connected.
They don't appreciate that.
As a result, nearly every whistleblower will suffer greatly for their actions no matter how they do it - unless they can curry favor of the powerful somehow. Public perception can be purchased.
For further enlightenment I recommend the 20 minute youtube video Rules for Rulers by CGP, as well as the followup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no record of any individual being physically harmed, but the leaked diplomatic cables were highly embarrassing, hurt the interests of the US, and were completely unjustified. They weren't exposing malfeasance or war crimes. They should not have been released. Manning did it wrong, Snowden did it right.
Snowden also had hindsight of sorts, "don't release it to Assange" was probably pretty obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She can't be tried again though, so how would they undo it?
Just order the prison not to release them. That's what Bush did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chelsea has publicly identified the preferred pronouns as "she/her/hers". [1] [1] http://www.glaad.org/blog/chelsea-mannings-name-and-pronouns...
So what? You can't expect people to know that, this whole preferred pronoun issue is nonsense; you do not have a right to tell other people which words they should use.
You can't expect people to know that
this whole preferred pronoun issue is nonsense;
you do not have a right to tell other people which words they should use.
But I do respect the choices that people make. If someone would prefer that I refer to them as "she" or "her", or "him" or "he", I will use that pronoun. And I would question: why would someone use an alternative pronoun, knowing that the person would prefer an alternative? Why would anyone choose to knowingly attack and hurt someone, purely for sake of labeling them with a pronoun that the person has identified as inappropriate?
When someone has identified their preferred pronouns, it is entirely appropriate to use those pronouns, and it is inappropriate - even abusive - to deliberately choose to use an incorrect pronoun. I do state "deliberately choose to use", because there will inevitably be people who mistakenly use an incorrect pronoun, for lack of knowledge, but people who are aware of the correct pronouns and deliberately choose an incorrect pronoun are conducting a bullying, abusive attack, and should be stopped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some…
>Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. This is a poor defense of Snowden's actions. If it was given to a journalist who wasn't authorized to have that inform…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some…
>Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. This is a poor defense of Snowden's actions. If it was given to a journalist who wasn't authorized to have that inform…
The second half of your post seems to be arguing about the word "release" versus "leak". The former is a superset of the latter, both are accurate. Certainly nobody's saying what he did was legal.
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…
> It is without contention that the vast majority of the leaked cables revealed nothing that anyone considers wrongdoing. 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 wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can they unpardon them? The conviction has been undone, and we don't permit double jeopardy (constitutionally prohibited) so a second charge for the same crime can't be filed. From my brief google searches, it seems that it cannot be undone, by the Congress, by the Courts, nor by the President.
It can and has been undone before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie
> “Mr. Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary, and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.” What an amazingly loaded statement that is. Russia is just a straight up "adversary" now? Infuriating.
...in this context, when were they not an adversary?