Live data from Hacker News

Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

courtlistener.com

111–120 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#111
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important: That link is _not_ intended for donations towards paying the fine, but rather Ms. Manning's legal defense!

Do you have more information about this? I saw this link posted a lot in response to this question, but no actual details.

Just follow the link... it says:

> What will funds go toward specifically?

> We will need legal funds for Chelsea’s legal fees, and legal costs such as court transcripts and travel, and commissary.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#112

It's a shame lamo didn't make it to see this. I know it really fucked him up to out her. That would be such a nightmare situation to be in.

>I know it really fucked him up to out her

Did it really? Lamo was a person who’d go out of his way to seek out kids to snitch on just to amuse himself.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning tl;dr she was a whistleblower facing the wrath of the people she outed

A more precise term would be leaker , as somebody who commits a data breach or spillage (military term). Manning did release evidence that appears to constitute a potentially criminal act, however the quantity and material subject of information leaked greatly exceeded any single, or collection of, criminal acts at 750,000 unrelated items. A whistleblower is a subset of leaking with the limited intention of exposing…

She leaked after she followed the correct whistleblowing channels.

Whistleblowing only works if the people significantly higher up aren't supportive or complicit with the illegal actions.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#114
post #105
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)

> Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week This is untrue: As we’ve repeatedly stated, we stand by the findings and analysis of our investigation, and, as detailed in our company statement, we’ve provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI as requested. Additionally, our findings have been supported by the U.S. intelligence community and other cybersecurity companies. h…

I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references)

Re: Assange - yes - he is quite circumspect.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#115
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)

1. Please don't use the term "The Russians". That could mean any Russian national, or Russian corporation, or the Russian government. Conflating all of those is a mechanism for smearing all of "The Russians" for actions not by all of "The Russians". 2. Even if Russia had provided Wikileaks with the Democratic Party emails (which it probably didn't), that wouldn't matter, i.e. Wikileaks was still quite justified in pu…

1) Please don't read too much into that. I meant it as an umbrella term. When I say "it wasn't", I'm sort of un-smearing all of them, as an umbrella. I have no problem with Russians (I actually like them - fun people - except in winter). I have problems with American disinformation.

2) Agreed. That was not a point of contention.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's going to be hard for her to find employment, and if she doesn't pay those fines she'll eventually end up in custody with even more fines.

It's generally hard for trans people to find employment, period -- and I doubt she has meaningful job skills given her extended imprisonment. That said, trans people rally around our own so she shouldn't have trouble surviving; but whether or not that life is existentially fulfilling is another question... Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt (though many states will certainly try). They ca…

> Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt

It frequently is, IF the debt is to the legal system.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#118

The judge assumes without comment that it was justified to hold Manning in the first place, and finds that she must now pay $256,000 for refusing to collaborate with the government anti-freedom-of-the-press campaign against Julian Assange. Shameful.

Shameful? Yes.

Freedom of the press for trying to persecute a Russian agent? Well...

Sources:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-de...

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t...

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia...

And so on.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#119
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her lawyer ( https://twitter.com/chasestrangio ) retweeted a link to https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...

Important: That link is _not_ intended for donations towards paying the fine, but rather Ms. Manning's legal defense!

Whats the difference? She needs x amounts of money.
Post reply on HN