Chelsea Manning's sentence for giving secret documents to WikiLeaks commuted by Obama

[JJ Husker]

 

An interesting developement?Can somebody explain why Obama is not being crucified for this in this forum?Didn't she leak important secrets that compromised our national security and put American lives at risk? Why would Obama pick her for a presidential pardon?I'll be honest, I don't know know much about it but it seems pretty I'll advised, or maybe worse, on the part of Obama.

Sounds like Manning will end up having served about the same amount of time as others convicted of similar crimes. The initial sentence was, apparently, unusually long.

Or perhaps Obama decided seven years in prison was punishment enough for embarrassing him and the United States, scrambling America's diplomatic ties, endangering foreign collaborators, exposing war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, and raising the profile of WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. Manning's lawyers, human rights groups, and even senior White House officials note that 35 years is a much more severe sentence that those doled out in comparable cases. "Manning's sentence was orders of magnitude greater than any sentence previously imposed for leaking classified information to the media," said Elizabeth Goitein at the Brennan Center for Justice.

If ~7 years is what people who do what Manning did typically get, doesn't this commutation make more sense?

I guess it makes some sense if 7+/- years is the going rate and 35 years was overly harsh. But I guess my common sense tells me that 7 years is not enough for treason and leaking information like this. Seems like a pretty serious crime to me, from a person in a position of public trust and national security, that could have very dire consequences for American lives. But what do I know? Admittedly I am not familiar with this case, Snowden, etc., just seems like the type of thing we don't want happening for any reason.

 

I think it's immaterial if she will suffer from her actions once released. That's like letting somebody like Manson out and saying, oh well, his life won't be all sunshine and roses so it's okay.

[JJ Husker]

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

And this doesn't cut both ways?

[GM_Tood]

 

 

 

So why, if they're OK with that kind of leak, are they not OK with Manning's kind? What's the difference here?

I can't believe this question was actually typed out. smh

 

 

This is the kind of response you get when someone A) Doesn't understand the question, B) Doesn't understand the answer, C) Can't explain it if neither A nor B are true.

 

Do you know the difference between the type of information that was leaked? I assumed you did.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

So why, if they're OK with that kind of leak, are they not OK with Manning's kind? What's the difference here?

I can't believe this question was actually typed out. smh

 

 

This is the kind of response you get when someone A) Doesn't understand the question, B) Doesn't understand the answer, C) Can't explain it if neither A nor B are true.

 

Do you know the difference between the type of information that was leaked? I assumed you did.

 

You could explain it to the rest of the class so we all know, rather than shaking your head at the question.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Because they have absolutely no shame with no aversion for rampant hypocrisy. That makes you effective at accomplishing your goals, even if tarnishes you among us common folk.

And this doesn't cut both ways?

 

 

It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this -->

[GM_Tood]

Hillary/DNC - e-mails about media interactions, financial contributions, personal info on donors, campaign info. More than likely done by the Russians.

 

Manning - Downloaded ~500000 documents related to the Iraq and Afgan engagements and over 250000 diplomatic pages. Within the pages of the diplomatic pages were names of foreign nationals that assisted in Military operations. I can only assume that since this information was made public, ISIS/bad guys/etc would use this info and take retribution on these individuals (though I do not believe that anyone has confirmed that any deaths were associated with his/her leaks) Some have also stated that these leaks were the catalyst behind the 'Arab Spring' in 2010.

 

Yes, some of the information that was leaked showed some situations that many, including me, found rather disturbing done by US Military personnel. But a US citizen acquiring classified information and leaking it would be detrimental to the country, its military operations, and the forces used in those operations. What's the worst that could come out of the Hillary/DNC hack...maybe identity fraud?

 

That's my two cents. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it, but I really don't see how these two situations are related unless a US citizen was found to be behind the DNC hacks.

[knapplc]

The relationship is that both involved illicitly acquired intelligence. Manning has been condemned by Republicans, whereas Assange/WikiLeaks/Russia have been praised by Republicans.

[GM_Tood]

I agree with you that both did involve the illicit acquisition of information.

 

The decision to commute Manning is being denounced/criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, including current Sec of Def Carter.

[NUance]

I wonder if the decision to set Manning free was at all affected by her lobbying to get the gov't to fund her transgender operation? Commuting her sentence certainly *skirts* the issue.

[knapplc]

Boo NUance! Boo this man!

[knapplc]

I agree with you that both did involve the illicit acquisition of information.

 

The decision to commute Manning is being denounced/criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, including current Sec of Def Carter.

 

And at times WikiLeaks has been praised by Democrats, so don't think the irony of that is lost on me.

 

It's just a weird thing to me that anyone in America would praise a foreign agent, power or source over American interests, even if those interests are on the opposite side of the political aisle.

[NUance]

Sorry! (Not really though.)

[knapplc]

I am still mystified why Obama commuted Manning's sentence. Even though the original sentence was (apparently) overly long, this isn't a person that most people are going to be sympathetic toward. Ignoring the whole transgender issue, divulging state secrets, even if they're not much of a secret, is still exceedingly bad form. I don't think a person deserves 35 years for that, but I don't know that this was the right move, either.

 

I wonder if commuting the sentence does have anything to do with the gender transition. I would think not, but maybe this is some precedent they don't want to deal with. Is dodging that precedent a big enough deal to commute a sentence for someone so universally disliked?

[ZRod]

I am still mystified why Obama commuted Manning's sentence. Even though the original sentence was (apparently) overly long, this isn't a person that most people are going to be sympathetic toward. Ignoring the whole transgender issue, divulging state secrets, even if they're not much of a secret, is still exceedingly bad form. I don't think a person deserves 35 years for that, but I don't know that this was the right move, either.

 

I wonder if commuting the sentence does have anything to do with the gender transition. I would think not, but maybe this is some precedent they don't want to deal with. Is dodging that precedent a big enough deal to commute a sentence for someone so universally disliked?

Or something to do with extradition?

[Lil' Red]

I am still mystified why Obama commuted Manning's sentence. Even though the original sentence was (apparently) overly long, this isn't a person that most people are going to be sympathetic toward. Ignoring the whole transgender issue, divulging state secrets, even if they're not much of a secret, is still exceedingly bad form. I don't think a person deserves 35 years for that, but I don't know that this was the right move, either.

 

I wonder if commuting the sentence does have anything to do with the gender transition. I would think not, but maybe this is some precedent they don't want to deal with. Is dodging that precedent a big enough deal to commute a sentence for someone so universally disliked?

I think it will ultimately be beneficial to his legacy. He has been heavily criticized for his treatment of whistleblowers. This one small act will do quite a bit to counter that narrative.