Is it LEGALLY treason? There would be a little hoop-jumping on the part of the govt. They have to overcome the ‘two witness’ clause. Was the treason downloading it? Was it giving it to Wikileaks?
Does he have to know it would be used to give comfort to an enemy? I would say the question would be “Would a reasonable person think it would be used to aid, abet and give comfort to an enemy.”
And then we have to identify WHO that enemy is, and should that enemy be found to have received aid from the USA after the fact…seems that would be a little embarrassing for the US Govt. to have to explain in court.
OR the govt can just skip all that and go with espionage.
I get the impression that Assange didn’t really believe that Obama would actually release Manning. I do understand Assange’s reluctance to follow through on his pledge. If the US did bring charges against him he’d be facing some pretty serious time. Although he would have a friend in the White House.
Chelsea Manning seems to me to be a scary little crazy person. (Or, maybe that’s me.) But she’s been imprisoned for several years at this point. If you’ve never been locked up yourself, you may underestimate how intense that is. You may think about Chelsea Manning maybe a few minutes a month. She has had to be there all the time.
Commutation, at nearly the last possible moment, is a reasonable move for Obama here. It’s not a pardon, she’s still guilty, she’s just out a little earlier than the nominal eight-year minimum.
Well, she may manage to alienate her supporters, and I wouldn’t be surprised.
She’s not a celebrity on my left, and she also seems like the type to screw up whatever celebrity she does get. I predict she’ll be in the tabloids more that Washington Post.
Actually, that section reads “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (my bolding). “Adhering to their enemies” means joining an enemy force, and “enemy” means “nation the US is at war with”.
The US was not at war at the time of the leaks. Even if she were, Manning didn’t “adhere to the enemies” of the US. Under your rather loose definition of treason, doing anything which aided people the US were bombing, even indirectly or unintentionally (say, making a film critical of US policy in Iraq, or buying Afghani heroin) could be called treason.
Wikileaks received classified materials from Manning.
Manning had no authorization to give classified materials to Wikileaks.
Manning admitted that he stole, and released, classified material.
Manning was tried, and was convicted.
You are saying that it was Wikileaks who “actually” revealed the contents.
That’s an interesting distinction. The asshole Assange wouldn’t have had classified documents to release if it weren’t for the criminal actions the asshole Manning.
When Manning sent the documents to Wikileaks, Assange (or whoever) was the only one who knew the content. He’s the one who released the materials to the world.
If a friend tells you a secret, are you blameless if you spread it around?
If a friend tells you a secret that is not their secret, but someone else’s secret, a secret that they have sworn an oath not to divulge, are you blameless for spreading it around? No, you are not blameless.
Manning released classified documents. Manning is an asshole.
I have no idea why Obama would commute the sentence of Manning. Maybe the friends of Manning have pictures of Obama with naked farm animals? Maybe the FOM threatened to release more pictures of Obama wearing mom jeans?
I’ve always considered the asshole, and rapist, Assange to be an asshole. There are still two women in Sweden who are still waiting for justice. The asshole Assange fled Sweden to avoid arrest, and trial. The asshole Assange then fled Britain to avoid extradition to Sweden. If the asshole Assange stays in the Ecuadorian embassy long enough, the Swedish statute of limitations for rape will run out, and the asshole Assange will then be free to prey on women, worldwide.
Assange’s whole promise just looks like a lame publicity stunt. There is no American extradition request for him to agree to, so the offer is incoherent at a base level. While I’m sure the DOJ would like to get their hands on him, it’s pretty clear that Obama doesn’t consider him a priority since there’s a lot more the US could do to get ahold of him or kill him if it was a priority. So he’s offering up a deal that doesn’t actually make sense, and even if it did that clearly isn’t worth enough to the President to affect policy decisions.
Back on the thread topic, I agree with the decisions, Manning should have been convicted because what she did was clearly criminal, but the sentence was also absurdly excessive.
Oh please. This idiocy has become the Democrats’ equivalent of the birther lunacy. In both cases there is no hard evidence at all to substantiate the wildest of rumors. Still, whatever works to sully Trump, eh?
Oh please yourself. Learn to recognize tongue in cheek hyperbole. Even if Trump was that beholden to Putin, Putin wouldn’t waste that power on Assange.
Yeah, it’s interesting that he’s claiming he’ll surrender to an extradition request that doesn’t exist, but still refusing to surrender to the legitimate and existing one from Sweeden.
The Express chose to publish an interview from Russia Today/RT where Melinda Taylor, Assange’s Lawyer, says blah, blah, blah.
Given that the NSA, CIA, and FBI (why weren’t the other members of the Whitehouse claimed 17 agencies included?) have recently released a 25 page report stating that Russia Today/RT is a leading purveyor of misleading and fake news, I wonder why the Express would chose to help Russia Today/RT spread propaganda and horseshit? I would hope that there are other, more trustworthy, news organizations available?
