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

Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

chelseamanning.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#41

Post by exolymph »

gozur88 wrote: post #34
rhizome wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting plenty of feedback here, but you might want to read up on "category error" as to your sense of the privacy concepts you use.

The problem with this is that Manning released, along with some things you could argue the public has a right to know, all the other data diplomats and spies had collected. Did we all need to know salacious details about Muammar Gaddafi's "voluptuous" Ukrainian nurse? That seems very much the same kind of data to me.

Public figures, especially those with substantial power, have less of a right to privacy in general than random citizens.

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#42

Post by zackelan »

andrewchambers wrote: post #9
themartorana wrote: post #8

Is anyone surprised she's suicidal? Locked in solitary confinement, for a minimum of 8 years (probably a lot more), at the hands of an obviously vindictive government - I imagine that by now I would have tried to kill myself too.

It makes me wonder if the will of the people who want her pardoned could help her, or if it is actually hopeless.

Her best hope for a pardon will come at the end of President Obama's term. Legally, presidents can issue these at any time, but because of the possible political fallout the majority of them come during the "lame duck" period after an election.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/gwbush-pardons#nov24-08

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/gwbush-commutations#novone

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton-pardons#november21200...

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton-commutations#novtwo

If you want to encourage Obama to do this, contact information for the White House can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#43

Post by tunesmith »

zackelan wrote: post #36
thomasruns wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 important clarifications: 1) Clinton did not "leak" anything, 2) Her emails did not contain anything that was classified at the time it was sent. I'm not defending her decisions to use private email servers, but using the phrase "leak classified data" when speaking of her is not accurate.

You're right about the "leak" distinction, but the "classified at the time it was sent" question is stickier: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classi... > More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most email…

Comey also admitted under questioning that the emails with "classified markings" were not marked classified as specified in the manual (with headers etc), and given that, it would be a reasonable for someone to not consider them marked classified.

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#44

Post by ricksplat »

gozur88 wrote: post #32
grizzles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Petraeus did it for sex. He got a fine, and no prison time.

He also leaked far less data and had an idea of what he was leaking. Manning did far, far more damage to national security interests the law was designed to protect.

He was also in the military, which carries different expectations of behaviour, and a tougher system of account.

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#45

Post by DanielBMarkham »

ricksplat wrote: post #44
gozur88 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also leaked far less data and had an idea of what he was leaking. Manning did far, far more damage to national security interests the law was designed to protect.

He was also in the military, which carries different expectations of behaviour, and a tougher system of account.

The system of account should be stricter the higher you go up, no?

Otherwise you seem to be making the case for civilian leaders to not have access at all to sensitive information.

(Sidebar: Because of the way this played out, this is probably going to be an impossible topic to talk about for many years. And the system is going to suffer for it.)

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#46

Post by ricksplat »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #45
ricksplat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was also in the military, which carries different expectations of behaviour, and a tougher system of account.

The system of account should be stricter the higher you go up, no? Otherwise you seem to be making the case for civilian leaders to not have access at all to sensitive information. (Sidebar: Because of the way this played out, this is probably going to be an impossible topic to talk about for many years. And the system is going to suffer for it.)

Yeah but Hillary and the Petraeus are civilians no? Or at the very least not subject to military jurisdiction and standards.

Re: Chelsea Manning confirms health status with attorneys

#47

Post by gozur88 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #45
ricksplat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was also in the military, which carries different expectations of behaviour, and a tougher system of account.

The system of account should be stricter the higher you go up, no? Otherwise you seem to be making the case for civilian leaders to not have access at all to sensitive information. (Sidebar: Because of the way this played out, this is probably going to be an impossible topic to talk about for many years. And the system is going to suffer for it.)

>The system of account should be stricter the higher you go up, no?

There's more than one dimension here. The "system of account", as you call it, should be stricter the higher up you go, and it should also be stricter if you're uniformed military.

Post reply on HN