Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#11

Post by sparky_z »

harry8 wrote: post #10

Presidential pardons are corrupt by definition. They transgress the rule of law and equality before it. If you think someone needs a presidential pardon, just back up and think "which law is horrible and unjust and must be reformed." If not the law maybe the courts. Pardon at best is a fig leaf over a gaping wound. At worst, well pick them out yourself - the best you can say about it is that it looks really, really b…

Pardons can certainly be corrupt, but I don't think they're corrupt by definition. I think of them as a last line of defense-in-depth against unjust convictions. After all, no organization made up of humans can be perfect, and the court system (of any nation) is no exception.

Of course, pardons are misusable. I would support, for example, disallowing presidential pardons in the last year of a presidential term, so that Presidents can't cut and run from the political consequences of their last minute pardons. That could cut down on egregious abuses like Clinton's.

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#12

Post by harry8 »

sparky_z wrote: post #11
harry8 wrote: post #10

Presidential pardons are corrupt by definition. They transgress the rule of law and equality before it. If you think someone needs a presidential pardon, just back up and think "which law is horrible and unjust and must be reformed." If not the law maybe the courts. Pardon at best is a fig leaf over a gaping wound. At worst, well pick them out yourself - the best you can say about it is that it looks really, really b…

Pardons can certainly be corrupt, but I don't think they're corrupt by definition. I think of them as a last line of defense-in-depth against unjust convictions. After all, no organization made up of humans can be perfect, and the court system (of any nation) is no exception. Of course, pardons are misusable . I would support, for example, disallowing presidential pardons in the last year of a presidential term, so t…

If the conviction is unjust either the law is unjust and should be reformed or the system is unjust in not providing a reasonable, equitable and useful avenue of appeal to overturn the injustice.

Corrupt by definition because it is always a corruption of "equality before the law"

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#13

Post by sparky_z »

harry8 wrote: post #12
sparky_z wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardons can certainly be corrupt, but I don't think they're corrupt by definition. I think of them as a last line of defense-in-depth against unjust convictions. After all, no organization made up of humans can be perfect, and the court system (of any nation) is no exception. Of course, pardons are misusable . I would support, for example, disallowing presidential pardons in the last year of a presidential term, so t…

If the conviction is unjust either the law is unjust and should be reformed or the system is unjust in not providing a reasonable, equitable and useful avenue of appeal to overturn the injustice. Corrupt by definition because it is always a corruption of "equality before the law"

Suppose we abolished presidential pardons. Now, couldn't the exact same argument be used in favor of abolishing the final layer of appeals courts? And then the layer below that?

Keep in mind that many (most?) people consider interrelated checks and balances between the different branches of government to be a good thing. And the system was designed to be biased in favor of false negatives in order to reduce as much as possible the incidents of false positives (wrongful convictions). I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#14

Post by frozenport »

totalZero wrote: post #5
frozenport wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I think you can draw a straight line from him to the election of Donald Trump. The one sided, anti-us nature of WikiLeaks, including perhaps incomplete content, hint at editorial digression with a clear motivation. I can't come up with a single way this helped America, but it certainly hurt our prestige around the world.

The US wasn't founded to serve as a beacon of prestige. The point of the government has more to do with its obligations to, and relationship with, its people.

But I don't see anything in the documents that showed a government working against its own people. The content of the documents is mostly matter-of-fact (or even sarcastic) analysis of other countries. In a few cases it reveled intelligence sources, for example Lebanese politicians politicians working against the destructive foreign influence in their country - more controversially, I think, there was a US "spy" in the German government. I'm not German, so I have no problem with this. In other cases, for example in South Sudan, it shows the US government working, perhaps clandestinely, to uphold justice and help the people avoid ethnic cleansing.

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#15

Post by namlem »

harry8 wrote: post #12
sparky_z wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardons can certainly be corrupt, but I don't think they're corrupt by definition. I think of them as a last line of defense-in-depth against unjust convictions. After all, no organization made up of humans can be perfect, and the court system (of any nation) is no exception. Of course, pardons are misusable . I would support, for example, disallowing presidential pardons in the last year of a presidential term, so t…

If the conviction is unjust either the law is unjust and should be reformed or the system is unjust in not providing a reasonable, equitable and useful avenue of appeal to overturn the injustice. Corrupt by definition because it is always a corruption of "equality before the law"

It's some of A and some of B. Sometimes unjust laws stick around even if the majority of the population thinks they're unjust. Courts are also overburdened with cases and as a result operate very inefficiently. Both of these are caused by our broken political system.

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#16

Post by pera »

harry8 wrote: post #10

Presidential pardons are corrupt by definition. They transgress the rule of law and equality before it. If you think someone needs a presidential pardon, just back up and think "which law is horrible and unjust and must be reformed." If not the law maybe the courts. Pardon at best is a fig leaf over a gaping wound. At worst, well pick them out yourself - the best you can say about it is that it looks really, really b…

The presidential pardon is defined by the constitution, therefore it can't be "corrupt by definition".

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#17

Post by frozenport »

interNeds wrote: post #9
frozenport wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I think you can draw a straight line from him to the election of Donald Trump. The one sided, anti-us nature of WikiLeaks, including perhaps incomplete content, hint at editorial digression with a clear motivation. I can't come up with a single way this helped America, but it certainly hurt our prestige around the world.

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in your claims. America's prestige was destroyed by none other than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Bremmer, Rupert Murdoch, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and several others, for a number of reasons, but most of all the 2003 invasion of Iraq, from which you can draw a straight line to ISIS. How you "connect the dots" and manage to wander your way from Manning a…

I agree with most of your post, certainly the ideological bankruptcy of the GOP left trump the best candidate, and no doubt America's "good guy" image was harmed by Bush. Although as satire of the time ("Team America: World Police"), the USA was certainly not seen as impotent. Just dumb, maybe evil.

>>How you digress from WikiLeaks to Trump is curious.

I think Wikileaks has become the avenue for unilateral anti-US sentiment. For example,. Recent leaks like the DNC emails reinforced a sense of political disenfranchisement that leading to shockingly poor voter turnout. Perhaps most misleading was that the DNC emails were selective, possibly edited for maximum impact. For a similar opinion see Edward Snowden's(!) comments:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/edward...

There is an information/spin war going on, with the military agencies of countries such as Russia directly participating. Wikileaks was the first shot at the USA, and Manning was a traitor who gave the ammo.

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#18

Post by harry8 »

sparky_z wrote: post #13
harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the conviction is unjust either the law is unjust and should be reformed or the system is unjust in not providing a reasonable, equitable and useful avenue of appeal to overturn the injustice. Corrupt by definition because it is always a corruption of "equality before the law"

Suppose we abolished presidential pardons. Now, couldn't the exact same argument be used in favor of abolishing the final layer of appeals courts? And then the layer below that? Keep in mind that many (most?) people consider interrelated checks and balances between the different branches of government to be a good thing. And the system was designed to be biased in favor of false negatives in order to reduce as much a…

No, emphatically not.

Appeal courts rule on law. You see the difference?

Re: Obama is seriously considering a pardon for Chelsea Manning

#19

Post by harry8 »

pera wrote: post #16
harry8 wrote: post #10

Presidential pardons are corrupt by definition. They transgress the rule of law and equality before it. If you think someone needs a presidential pardon, just back up and think "which law is horrible and unjust and must be reformed." If not the law maybe the courts. Pardon at best is a fig leaf over a gaping wound. At worst, well pick them out yourself - the best you can say about it is that it looks really, really b…

The presidential pardon is defined by the constitution, therefore it can't be "corrupt by definition".

Your understanding of what corruption is and mine are different.
Post reply on HN