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

[Danny Bateman]

 

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

Ya. Exactly. Manning put us in harms way.

 

WikiLeaks exposed a fraud/corrupt campaign/candidate.

 

You realize how they stay on the same side with their support, right? The side that would be doing right.

 

 

The head of their party encouraged an enemy to hack an American and quite possibly paid them to do it.

 

That seems pretty damn wrong to me.

[knapplc]

Even if he didn't pay them to do it, he openly asked them to do it.

 

Imagine the sh!tstorm on this board if Obama had said that.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

I will probably regret asking...

 

The military oath of enlistment specifies protecting the US Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic as the first & foremost responsibility. For 60 years or so it has been established there is such a thing as an unlawful military order/action. Manning shed light on some activities that in my mind could fall into being against the spirit of our Constitution and be deemed unlawful order based on WWII, Korea, and Vietnam military precedent. Manning did not profit personally AND she has been in jail; even on release she will find it very difficult to find employment.

 

As dudeguyy & knapplc indicated, Trump asked a foreign power to hack/attack the US solely for Trumps personal gain. This act could easily be considered treason as defined/worded in the US Constitution. I am trying to understand how Manning's action is to be so vilified and Trump's is to be lauded??? A road map would be nice (seriously)...

[RedDenver]

 

 

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

Ya. Exactly. Manning put us in harms way.

 

WikiLeaks exposed a fraud/corrupt campaign/candidate.

 

You realize how they stay on the same side with their support, right? The side that would be doing right.

You realize Manning exposed the US killing civilians and journalist too right?

 

 

 

I will probably regret asking...

 

The military oath of enlistment specifies protecting the US Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic as the first & foremost responsibility. For 60 years or so it has been established there is such a thing as an unlawful military order/action. Manning shed light on some activities that in my mind could fall into being against the spirit of our Constitution and be deemed unlawful order based on WWII, Korea, and Vietnam military precedent. Manning did not profit personally AND she has been in jail; even on release she will find it very difficult to find employment.

 

As dudeguyy & knapplc indicated, Trump asked a foreign power to hack/attack the US solely for Trumps personal gain. This act could easily be considered treason as defined/worded in the US Constitution. I am trying to understand how Manning's action is to be so vilified and Trump's is to be lauded??? A road map would be nice (seriously)...

If you haven't actually looked at the wrongs that Manning exposed, you should go investigate it. The most damning is a video showing US forces knowingly (the audio makes it clear that they knew) killing innocent people including journalists and even first responders. You know, the kind of actions we decry terrorists for perpetrating.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

 

 

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

Ya. Exactly. Manning put us in harms way.

 

WikiLeaks exposed a fraud/corrupt campaign/candidate.

 

You realize how they stay on the same side with their support, right? The side that would be doing right.

You realize Manning exposed the US killing civilians and journalist too right?

 

 

 

I will probably regret asking...

 

The military oath of enlistment specifies protecting the US Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic as the first & foremost responsibility. For 60 years or so it has been established there is such a thing as an unlawful military order/action. Manning shed light on some activities that in my mind could fall into being against the spirit of our Constitution and be deemed unlawful order based on WWII, Korea, and Vietnam military precedent. Manning did not profit personally AND she has been in jail; even on release she will find it very difficult to find employment.

 

As dudeguyy & knapplc indicated, Trump asked a foreign power to hack/attack the US solely for Trumps personal gain. This act could easily be considered treason as defined/worded in the US Constitution. I am trying to understand how Manning's action is to be so vilified and Trump's is to be lauded??? A road map would be nice (seriously)...

If you haven't actually looked at the wrongs that Manning exposed, you should go investigate it. The most damning is a video showing US forces knowingly (the audio makes it clear that they knew) killing innocent people including journalists and even first responders. You know, the kind of actions we decry terrorists for perpetrating.

 

 

I have at length and you have misread my question...

 

Manning uncovered acts that could be considered unconstitutional and definitely would fall into unlawful orders/military conduct. She had been jailed for doing this. She has not benefited at all. Folks are saying she is evil. She did what she believed to be right AND has paid a heavy price for doing so.

 

Trump requested for a foreign entity to hack/cyber-attack a government official/agency. This request was made for personal gain. This request could be interpreted as treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Trump is not decried for this and his request is to be celebrated as bringing light to bear on an injustice by those (some?) who vilify Manning.

 

Explain how what Manning did was so evil and what Trump did was to be celebrated. I truly would like to understand the thought process here.

[RedDenver]

I have at length and you have misread my question...

 

Manning uncovered acts that could be considered unconstitutional and definitely would fall into unlawful orders/military conduct. She had been jailed for doing this. She has not benefited at all. Folks are saying she is evil.

 

Trump requested for a foreign entity to hack/cyber-attack a government official/agency. This request was made for personal gain. This request could be interpreted as treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Trump is not decried for this and this is different to those who vilify Manning.

 

Explain how what Manning did was so evil and what Trump was to be celebrated. I truly would like to understand the thought process here.

Sorry, I meant to expand on the discussion and not necessarily agree/disagree with either of the quoted posts. That wasn't clear in my post.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

I have at length and you have misread my question...

 

Manning uncovered acts that could be considered unconstitutional and definitely would fall into unlawful orders/military conduct. She had been jailed for doing this. She has not benefited at all. Folks are saying she is evil.

 

Trump requested for a foreign entity to hack/cyber-attack a government official/agency. This request was made for personal gain. This request could be interpreted as treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Trump is not decried for this and this is different to those who vilify Manning.

 

Explain how what Manning did was so evil and what Trump was to be celebrated. I truly would like to understand the thought process here.

Sorry, I meant to expand on the discussion and not necessarily agree/disagree with either of the quoted posts. That wasn't clear in my post.

 

 

Ah yes, the good ol' "royal you" issue ;-) No worries, lol

[Landlord]

Nope. Because dems are better than reps. Duh! We're nuthin but a bunch of Gall Darned Rednecks from the midwest! We don't even have electricity yet!

"EQUALITY EQUALITY!!!!"

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't have any opinion on individual people compared to each other, but look at the party platforms:

 

 

Republican Platform

• Wants to take away rights from the LGBTQ+ community to marry

• Is in opposition to consensus about climate change and efforts to treat the planet better

• Wants to make abortion an illegal, criminal act

• Continuously tries gutting the Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering/redrawing district lines to game the system and discriminate

• Wants to destroy Obamacare, leave 30 million without insurance, without any kind of plan in place to take over

• Shut out any outsiders because they're probably dangerous or terrorists or stealing our jobs

 

 

Democratic Platform

• Celebrated gay marriage legality as a huge victory

• Wants to fight climate change as a real threat towards a healthy planet for our children's health and futures

• All women should have access to quality health care including their own right to choose to carry pregnancies to term

• Fights laws that are in contrast to an easy ability to exercise people's fundamental right to vote

• Has been trying to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans

• Fix our broken immigration system, provide a pathway to citizenship, and embrace the diversity of America

 

 

 

 

I'm not a democrat, but it's not very hard to see why people think one party is more for the people than the other

[Danny Bateman]

Even if he didn't pay them to do it, he openly asked them to do it.

 

Imagine the sh!tstorm on this board if Obama had said that.

 

Shoot, take Obama out of the equation.

 

Imagine if the roles were reversed and Clinton had just won an election under the shroud of possible Russian cooperation.

 

What would be happening right now?

[Scratchtown]

I've been a right leaning independent for almost 10 years now, and regardless of the party viewpoints it still doesn't take away the smugness of the left. The "holier than thou" approach toward those on the right.

It's particularly bad on this board. In my opinion.

[Lil' Red]

I've been a right leaning independent for almost 10 years now, and regardless of the party viewpoints it still doesn't take away the smugness of the left. The "holier than thou" approach toward those on the right.

 

It's particularly bad on this board. In my opinion.

 

Smugness can go either way. In other political forums I've visited, the smugness of some of the conservative members completely drives away anyone with moderate to liberal views.

[zoogs]

"Smugness" is a convenient way to dismiss a set of views against which you aren't prepared to argue.

 

I'm not presuming that describes you, Coach, just characterizing how it's so often used. Please feel completely invited to argue your points in any of the quality discussions that go on here.

[ZRod]

I've been a right leaning independent for almost 10 years now, and regardless of the party viewpoints it still doesn't take away the smugness of the left. The "holier than thou" approach toward those on the right.

It's particularly bad on this board. In my opinion.

 

Care to elaborate with any examples?

[Danny Bateman]

I've been a right leaning independent for almost 10 years now, and regardless of the party viewpoints it still doesn't take away the smugness of the left. The "holier than thou" approach toward those on the right.

 

It's particularly bad on this board. In my opinion.

 

 

I feel the same exact way about the condescension that oozes from most of our elected officials on the right.

 

Most of the folks I interact with that lean right seem like decent people to me.

[Landlord]

Smugness is not exclusive to a particular side or party or perspective - it permeates every camp of humanity, as does humility. I had a good handful of "f#*k you!"'s and "jesus christ wake up you damn liberal"'s and the like when I was back in Columbus over Christmas, patiently trying to engage in conversation with people using terms like 'towelheads', 'African-Americans', 'muslim terrorists', 'evil bitch hillary', and the like.

 

Even referring to more progressive or liberal leaning people as snowflakes, the liberal elite, millenials, etc., is meant to be just as condescending and dismissive as redneck/hillbilly/out of touch/white racists/etc.