61–70 of 175 posts
I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose. There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despit…
To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person - where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies.
I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the difference in our (moral?) thinking lies.
Isn't it close to the idea that the state should provide a humane living standard for those who can't provide for themselves. Such as not starving, basic healthcare etc - but anything beyond that is something that every person has to earn themselves. This seems like something close to a moral conviction to liberal-minded people, sometimes. "If you can afford it, you deserve it."
I'm wondering if it's the same thinking that guides you here. A basic "throw them in jail if they did it" law that doesn't allow for complicated cases, and a deluxe version that takes into account other things than "straightforward factual events", for those who can afford it?
I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm just not getting your point.
He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence…
He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. He is a traitor who has endangered lives. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?
Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence…
>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose. There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despit…
She :-)
Chelsea Manning is no more a woman than I am a cocker spaniel. He may believe, completely and truly, with ever last fibre of his being, that he's a woman—but that doesn't make it so. A woman is a homo sapiens sapiens possessing two X chromosomes, born with a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes &c.; Manning doesn't fit that description any more than I fit the description 'a canis lupus familiaris specialised for hunting woodcock.'
(I understand he legally changed his name from Bradley to Chelsea, which is why I use the latter; that actually is his name now)
I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose. There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despit…
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence…
>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gideon v. Wainwright established that indigent defendants are entitled to free legal representation. There's no such right for non-indigent defendants.
Not even when the price of legal representation is above my means to pay?
In this context "afford" typically means you can still keep your home/apartment and go grocery shopping.