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

481–490 of 797 posts

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#481

Post by saalweachter »

LordKano wrote: post #121
arbitrage wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chelsea Manning stood trial. Edward Snowden did not.

Standing trial isn't a prerequisite for a pardon. Nixon never stood trial either.

It is not a prerequisite for a pardon, but it does serve the government's interests.

Pre-emptively pardoning Snowden before he spends a day in prison sends the signal that the government isn't going to punish people for leaking, so go right ahead.

Commuting Manning's sentence after seven years still leaves a pretty harsh warning for future leakers (is leaking that information worth seven years of your life?) while showing a degree of mercy to the individual (I mean, not the degree of mercy that commuting after 2 or 3 or 6 years would be...).

Regardless of what you think Obama's secret inner beliefs and motivations are, I think it is reasonable to assume that as Commander in Chief and President of the United States he wants the people he entrusts with secrets to keep keeping them.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#482

Post by meowface »

revelation wrote: post #369
rudolf0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little unethical behavior was actually leaked, though. The killing of the Reuters journalists probably should've been leaked since there was a sort of cover-up (government refused to give Reuters the video or concrete details), so I'll give her that. But the rest was basically just normal communications. I think she's served more than enough jail time, but this didn't really seem like a conscience-driven whistleblowi…

Some serious amnesia in this thread. But the reaction is all too common, people who just go "we knew all of that already" and switch back to sports while others out there risk their life to produce the documents that can bring about actual change. Even if you don't care for the content of the cables, the fact that an estimated 3 million people have access to them with nothing worth mentioning in the form of access co…

> the fact that an estimated 3 million people have access to them with nothing worth mentioning in the form of access control should give you serious pause. The 1% are real, they are just not all billionaires.

Ok... there are probably far, far worse hidden scandals in terms of access control/data security in the US government. I don't see your point. I don't think that's the point anyone was trying to make. It's bad, for sure, but it doesn't warrant leaking all of the documents.

>while others out there risk their life to produce the documents that can bring about actual change.

What in the diplomatic cables brought, or could have brought, actual change?

NSA surveillance leaks could (and, to a small extent, did) bring about actual change. The cables accomplished nothing positive for anyone.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#483

Post by kbenson »

hawkice wrote: post #215
hackuser wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

> if Obama thought it was a moral good to have this person avoid a prison sentence

What if he thought it was good to avoid too long of a sentence? One possible interpretation is that he wanted punishment because it was against the law and as a deterrence, but didn't want to be too harsh. Sentencing isn't within his control, but commuting a sentence is.

> If commuting someone sends a message, the delay sends a message too.

Sure, everything sends a message, but not every message is intentional. It's undisputable that these actions send messages, but impossible to know for sure what the reasoning was and what messages were intentional and what were byproducts. The traditional time for a president to commute and pardon is at the end of their presidency, so reading a purposeful message into the delay may or may not be useful.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#484

Post by NamTaf »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #282
teddyh wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is constitutional does not make it ethical.

Irrelevant when it comes to whistleblowing and legality. The government could not function if people were justified in releasing all information they disagreed with. Surely the set of information related to actions that no one disagrees with is empty or nearly so.

I don't think it's as black and white as that. Maybe the NSA spying on some overseas entities isn't strictly illegal. But to understand the bigger picture of their all-encompassing reach and sheer pervasiveness better emphasises their wrongdoings on US soil because it helps explain why the NSA's general mentalities of 'we have the right to collect ALL of the information' and 'we are above the law' exist.

Am I saying I think it's outright justified? No, because I'm honestly not sure. I am however sure that it's not as black and white as 'legal' vs 'illegal' when it comes to whistleblowing because the extra infromation helps us establish a context and understand a sense of scale of the wrongdoing, for example.

edit: Here's an example: It's probably not illegal that the 'official' estimates of civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely far lower than the reality. Assume for the sake of discussion that this was intentional. Having a better understanding the more realistic magnitude of civilian deaths helps the public understand the realities of such wars and helps them make more informed decisions on whether they're comfortable with the actions of their government. It changes the context of the Iraq war and may go from 'we were justified in doing it' to 'it wasn't worth it' for some of the voting public.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#485

Post by albedoa »

manarth wrote: post #457
pvg wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.

You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page" . Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's no…

I typed "collateral murder incident" into google and it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return.

Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video.

Just what are you trying to pull here?

    which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one
    that has been referenced in this discussion.
It has been referenced multiple times in this thread by pvg. For someone who purportedly puts so much stock in honesty, this is incredibly dishonest of you.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#486

Post by kbenson »

the_duke wrote: post #277
karmacondon wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, a whistle blower must reveal evidence of the commission of a crime. The term does not extend to "actions by the government that I disagree with" or "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution" If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.

By whose definition? Since you went there: Oxford dictionary says: "A person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity." What is illicit? : "Forbidden by law, rules, or custom." Is what the cables actually revealed customary? Probably.

> By whose definition?

By the definition set forth in the law[1][2], but it's not just crimes. There is a list of specifically acceptably things.

1: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg...

2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#487

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

stvswn wrote: post #400
dnautics wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also being tortured in custody and put into solitary is much for the crime. I don't understand why Obama had to wait so long (couldn't he have, at least done it two or three months ago?) and why he's letting Chelsea stay in the pen till summer? Why not let her out more or less now?

Because the date of Manning's release (May 17th) is international LGBT day

It's a bit of a stretch to assume the timing of this massive batch of pardons and commutes was predicated on making her release (which includes a mandatory grace period) line up with that holiday.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#488

Post by grzm »

serge2k wrote: post #458
grzm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they're given those labels, they are. The question is whether the actions are accurately described by those particular words. That's why phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques" are employed, to make a distinction between that and torture, for example. (Note, I'm not arguing that I think any particular actions are or are not criminal. I'm too ignorant of the details to meaningfully speak one way or the o…

> That's why phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques" are employed, to make a distinction between that and torture, for example. I'm not sure what you are saying here. Using a euphemism doesn't make torture any better.

In the spirit of Pascal, I apologize in advance for not having a more eloquent, concise reply, though on my part its more exhaustion and laziness rather than lack of time.

People have different definitions of what constitutes torture. There is also a legal definition of torture (which may be vague, but will be determined judicially if it comes to that). By definition, torture is against the law. As people have different definitions of what constitutes torture, some acts will meet the legal definition, while others will not even though they meets the definition held by someone else.

I happen to agree with you that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. By defining certain acts as such, it gives proponents of using such acts a legal basis of arguing that they're not torture, whether it's ultimately justified or not.

Does that make sense? I'm not asking whether or not you agree with the distinction (which would be hard to do as I haven't defined which acts fall under either). I'm just asking whether the argument follows, that you understand why the language matters.

A similar distinction is made for killing in war and murder. Some people believe all killing is wrong and murder. That said, there's a legal distinction between the two. Which term is applied is legally important.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#489

Post by chriscappuccio »

mikeash wrote: post #81
akjainaj wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's only possible if it was something that was done against the US?

Right, which means federal crimes, not state crimes. The President won't be granting pardons to ordinary murderers, unless the murder took place on federal lands.

Actually, murder isn't a federal crime.

Re: Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

#490

Post by [deleted] »

manarth wrote: post #457
pvg wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.

You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page" . Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's no…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN