Absolutely not. Manning did not act as a whistle blower. There was no controlled leak of information to expose any governmental wrongdoing. It was a data dump of as much classified information as possible with no regard for if it put the lives of soldiers or allies in danger. Manning was pissed at being deployed and decided to throw a big temper tantrum. Rot in jail.
The difference is that there is no reason to expect that firing a gun into the air will result in someone being shot in the head. When Manning released state secrets there was 100% chance that our enemies would find out those secrets. It is like walking up to someone and shooting them in the head. A totally foreseeable result of the act.
Manning got off light and should not get out early.
I’d say that gender identification and any consequences of that are immaterial to the question of whether or not Manning should be pardoned/sentence commuted.
Ultimately from what I can tell, the trial was conducted within accepted legal procedures, and the sentence is appropriate for the conviction.
Not sure why there’s any debate here; this person basically leaked sensitive/classified information when they were in a position of trust and charged with not doing so.
Wh… why?
Channing is not a PFC. The correct rank is now Private (E-1).
Pardon? No, no way. She did wrong. Now, commuting her sentence, that should be considered. She’s also not asking for a pardon, she is asking for her sentence to be commuted.
A pardon means she did nothing wrong, she commited no crime, it’s wiped away.
Commutation means her sentence is ended now.
It should be considered. I am torn.
(1) It’s not an original though: read some philosophy, or ask a priest.
(2) It’s the military. Manning is a serving member. People in the military sometimes die doing the right thing. I think we need to acknowledge that and respect it.
Jonathan Pollard was convicted in 1987 for selling state secrets to Israel. Pollard was, himself, a Jew. Given that he was, also, a traitor, would you object to someone referring to Pollard as a kike? If you would object, why does common decency still apply when it comes to using racial slurs to describe a traitor?
Maybe President Obama can get to it before she leaves office in 2045.
We were talking about pronouns. Calling a male “he” is not analogous to calling a Jew “kike”.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re right. It’s worse. (And you misspelled “female” in Chelsea’s case.) In the one case you recognize a person’s identity and simply display your disdain for it. In the other you don’t even acknowledge basic facts about who they are because you refuse to consider them a real person. I’ll bet you use the correct pronouns for Hitler and Charles Manson.
No, “traitor with a penis and XY chromosomes” is spelled M-A-L-E. And you are right - I do use the correct pronouns for Hitler, Manson, and Manning.
Regards,
Shodan
The entire ‘pronoun’ issue is for another thread. I’m declaring it out of bounds for this one. Feel free to start a thread on that topic if you wish.
No pardon or commutation. She could be out in 8-10 years, and I said back when the sentence came down that “felt about right” to me, serving the full 35 would be probably more than is deserved considering I don’t believe she acted malicious, but stupidly. But make no mistake–as an enlisted member of the military who had access to data that absolutely included names and locations of Afghans who were working with us, things that could be used operationally against the United States military, she was committing a gravely terrible act in violation of every oath she had sworn.
Manning’s leaks were a lot worse than Snowden’s, both because they served no great policy purpose, put real people’s actual lives at risk, and because as a member of the military she had a higher level of conduct to be held to than Snowden did as a civilian contractor for the NSA.
The argument that what she did was somehow noble is like arguing a guy who has some scoop for a newspaper, so drives his semi-truck through town drunk to get it to the newspaper office is a hero. Most of the stuff Manning leaked were things like internal diplomatic comments/notes, that embarrassed us in front of our allies and strained relationships (because like anyone, you speak more harshly privately than publicly), and that video of some insurgents being shot in Iraq. Said video pertained to an incident that was already a matter of public record–I don’t want to get into an argument about that incident, but members of the press had questioned three years prior the official Pentagon statement that two Iraqi journalists were killed as collateral damage when they targeted nine militants. The video and the ensuing investigation have never conclusively resolved whether or not there were militants in the group, the military was effectively working to insure the video wasn’t released but the video is a limited perspective on that incident and didn’t alter anything we knew or suspected about it.
In addition to the above, the Obama administration has taken a position that it wants to avoid the political pardons/commutations that often come at the end of Presidential administrations. Instead it’s been proactively working to use the pardon/clemency power more to effect policy and reverse some of the overzealous consequences of mandatory minimums. It has said part of the process of not issuing political reprieves is that it’s not going to pardon/commute anyone’s sentence who hasn’t formally filed for one with the office of the pardon attorney. Last I heard (a few days ago), while Manning has made public/politicized appeals to Obama, she hasn’t actually filed for a pardon, and even if she did, the administration has shown that a proper review by the pardon attorney (as opposed to a political hack job) will take months, and wouldn’t be complete while Obama is still in office.
(omitted in light of mod guidance)
A question for all of you who think it’s somewhat of a no brainer to pardon Manning.
Do you think we should allow every junior enlisted person in the military, with two or three years or less to determine what sensitive or classified material should be released to the world? So the roughly 400,000 E-3 and below military members (not to mention those more senior and experienced) should be able to decide for themselves what should be released to the media and what should not?
How is THAT going to work??
Well, it will flood Wikileaks with so much information that nobody will ever be able to find what they’re looking for.
Troop movements, battle plans, undercover operations, information that actually puts US citizens in danger? Yes, keep that shit classified. Video evidence of the US perpetrating war crimes? Fuck that.
95% of “classified” information is only classified to avoid embarrassing or implicating in a crime taxpayer-funded government officials. And as taxpayers, we deserve to know ALL of that information. Our government, who works for us and is paid by us, should not get to hide their crimes and mistakes from their employer, the US citizen.
So yes, if their superiors won’t be honest with us, I am 100% for PFCs pulling back the curtain.
Do you have a cite for that statistic?
Regards,
Shodan
No. But you don’t have one that contradicts it. Go ahead and make your case.
I know what Wikileaks releases, and none of it should have been classified in the first place. Same with Snowden’s leaks. So, until we have anyone at all leak classified information that should have remained classified, I’m going to assume the vast majority of it should never have been classified to begin with.