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

381–390 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#381

Post by 3pt14159 »

afterburner wrote: post #172
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…

"the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them" What chilled you, specifically?

Yeah, I read them and I came away liking her more.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#382

Post by pvg »

manarth wrote: post #371
pvg wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source?

No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#384

Post by jacobush »

sureshn wrote: post #366

In the last 4 years of Obama presidency the clout America had abroad has considerably reduced. Especially after the whistle blowing incident , the ruling dispensation came across as corrupt and unethical. The bargaining power was compromised greatly because of this and the whole world now knows about spying , prism , NSA etc. A Greek philosopher Diogenes I think it was or Socrates dont remember had said this awesome…

Wait what? Pardoning treason is Standard Operating Procedure and I mean all the war mongers, Halliburtons and manufacturers of evidence of weapons of mass destruction... these treasons get automatic pardon, in fact no trial.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#385

Post by hackinthebochs »

etjossem wrote: post #376
hackinthebochs wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 y…

> post-hoc fallacy.

You're just misquoting me.

>If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower."

If you rely on dictionaries written at a third grade reading level as your source of meaning, you're doing it wrong.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#386

Post by thrill »

acalderaro wrote: post #188
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…

Yea, from the POV of the government having the public realize all the illegal, unethical and irresponsible things you've been doing with their tax dollars would be absolutely terrible. Someone may end up getting jail time - or even worse - lose their reelection! /s Anyone who is able to condemn Manning would also condemn the soldiers of Hitler's army who chose to disobey orders to kill Jews because it would have been…

You sure jumped to Nazi comparisons rather quickly.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#387

Post by austincheney »

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…

It's not really whistle blowing though if you find evidence of 1 crime and then then choose to release 700,000 unrelated other documents with it. It is just a crime. During the trial the defense didn't even pretend that this was whistle blowing.

Also, intention is relevant in criminal law. Was the intention to right a wrong or to throw a depression induced tantrum? There was a substantial amount of evidence on this matter.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#388

Post by knodi123 »

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…

> Chelsea will still have this conviction

As if anybody will ever do a background check and say "gasp, you have a conviction".

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#389

Post by manarth »

pvg wrote: post #382
manarth wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.

  As to the page, the page about the incident.
For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#390

Post by brainfire »

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.

It's interesting that your example is someone working for the Washington Post- that's enough for certain people to dismiss it out of hand as "fake news."
Post reply on HN