Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

Post by the_duke » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #125

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…

That's understandable, but Manning's sentence has been unusually cruel in its execution, and unjust when compared to other people who did without being punished at all. See, e.g. the conduct that Colin Powell described in this email: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 [EDIT: click to view the PDF to find the actual content.]

Post by grzm » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #246

bmuon wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, non-native speaker here. But wouldn't "they" apply when you don't know when the gender of the person? In this case you do know.

From a grammatical perspective it should be noted that "they" is plural. It is gender-neutral, but should only be used when referring to multiple people. The correct gender-neutral singular pronoun is "he or she".

Post by manarth » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #202

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.

> "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution" The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.

Post by adrienne » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

rthomas6 wrote: post #180

arbitrage wrote: post #109

She. Not they. Chelsea Manning identifies as female.

Sorry. I didn't know which pronoun to use because I didn't know if gender changes apply retroactively, grammatically speaking. I'm having trouble knowing which one to use to write this post, too. At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male. Is it politically correct to use 'she' for all past references, including the times where Chelsea Manning identified as male? Or would it make more sens…

Post by rbanffy » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #222

mhurron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classifying material should not be a way for the Government to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Whistle blowing is the only way that prevents that. Chelsea Manning acted on her conscience, which is the best we can expect anyone to do. The governments punishment was to prevent that happening again.

Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some…