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

371–380 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#371

Post by manarth »

pvg wrote: post #330
manarth wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new bit was the video itself. Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.

Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.

  You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page.
Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link?

  a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the
  incident and write a book about it without seeing the video.
Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#372

Post by greedo »

Shivetya wrote: post #260
_delirium wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama doesn't seem to completely disagree, since he didn't pardon her. He instead commuted the sentence from 35 years to 7 years' imprisonment. In my personal opinion that's still too long for the crime, but it's at least less completely insane than 35 years.

he did pardon Marine General James Cartwright who released details about the cyber attacks on Iran. That one is was a surprise

He didn't release details. He lied to investigators to deflect their attention from the real leaker. Sort of like how Martha Stewart was convicted of making false statements to Federal agents.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#373

Post by na85 »

adrienne wrote: post #278
na85 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "they" has more than one meaning. One of those is for a person of indeterminate or unknown gender. For example I can and routinely do say things like "If that person wishes to do XYZ, then they must first do ABCD"

Yes, but Ms. Manning's gender is neither indeterminate nor unknown. Ms. Manning is a woman, and she has publicly stated that her pronouns are she/her. This is not difficult information to find.

Guess what? Ms. Manning doesn't get to dictate how the English language works.

"They" works just as well for her as it does for me or you. If Chelsea doesn't like it, well, she can take it up with the dictionary. A person can express a preference but their choice (oops, I used "they" again! be sure to downvote!) has no bearing on my choice of words.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#374

Post by DonHopkins »

hendersoon wrote: post #308
rbanffy wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse No. She leaked the documents to Wikileaks, who decided to publish them uncensored. She had no control over what Wikileaks would do. Other media outlets opted not to release information they considered dangerous. And, as @mhurron pointed out, there is no record of someone who was harmed by that information being released.

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.

The fact that the US murdered innocent civilians was highly embarrassing and hurt the interests of the US, not the fact that Manning leaked that information itself. Punish the murderers, not the messengers. The only people were actually harmed were the innocent children and journalists on the receiving end of US machine guns.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#375

Post by jacobush »

Analemma_ wrote: post #345
zepto wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be changed

I know these days we're all treating it as an established fact that Sweden's extradition request for Assange is actually a cover for him to be further extradited to the United States, but it has never actually been proven.

Given how Swedish ministers dirtied their hands when the MPAA wanted them to interfere in Pirate Bay investigations... I will require proof they WOULD NOT say "how high?" if the Dept of Justice of the USA asked them to jump.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#376

Post by etjossem »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #367
etjossem wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operations if it were completely transparent. Sources who want to ethically be whistleblowers need to work with reputable press outlets, releasing only what is necessary to people they know will further trim the leak - until the final product does only good for the pub…

>Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. >Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. Which is fair, a lot of that going around lately.

> This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing.

> Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy.

If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#377

Post by harry8 »

hendersoon wrote: post #308
rbanffy wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse No. She leaked the documents to Wikileaks, who decided to publish them uncensored. She had no control over what Wikileaks would do. Other media outlets opted not to release information they considered dangerous. And, as @mhurron pointed out, there is no record of someone who was harmed by that information being released.

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.

Manning intended to remain anonymous. Snowden always intended to take personal public responsibility for his whistleblowing.

They did it different, different tools for different purposes. Comparing them like for like is not a good comparison.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#379

Post by notpc »

kidcoach wrote: post #287
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…

HN is one of the few places left for open political discourse with little partisanship or blundering hostility. Your comment/account suggests that you have no intention of continuing that trend. Down-votes represent a reaction to that, not your particular pov.

You have it backwards. I have this account because HN is not very open to political discourse unless you toe a very specific line. The Overton Window around here is very small.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#380

Post by nerfhammer »

SCHiM wrote: post #286
colechristensen wrote: post #222

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…

Also the article states tat manning tried to approach the NYT and washington post, but was refused/ignored.

Manning made some very haphazard attempts to contact journalists within the span of a day or two, seemed highly frustrated when she didn't get a response right away, and declared the matter impossible and gave up.
Post reply on HN