Chelsea Manning commutation

[ShockRef]

Quite Simply...

The...
Worst
President
Ever.

He made Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln.

That is all.

[WuDrWu]

Serious question.....does anyone know why he did it?

I don't think he gave a reason, but my speculation is that he didn't think the punishment fit the crime, that it uncovered some bad things (he likes whisteblowers) and he's pandering to the leftist LGTBQ crowd.

That's fine, it's all wrong but whatever.

If he likes whistleblowing so much, shouldn't he be a tad more sympathetic to Russia? Or am I missing something?

[ShockerPrez]

Serious question.....does anyone know why he did it?

I don't think he gave a reason, but my speculation is that he didn't think the punishment fit the crime, that it uncovered some bad things (he likes whisteblowers) and he's pandering to the leftist LGTBQ crowd.

That's fine, it's all wrong but whatever.

If he likes whistleblowing so much, shouldn't he be a tad more sympathetic to Russia? Or am I missing something?

He did it to piss off a good portion of the American people that dont like him. Mainly the military.

[SHOCKvalue]

Aren't there a lot of correlaries between what Manning, Snowden, and Assange have done? But yet two are in the cross-hairs, and the other gets a pass?

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

[jdshock]

Aren't there a lot of correlaries between what Manning, Snowden, and Assange have done? But yet two are in the cross-hairs, and the other gets a pass?

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

There are definitely similarities. I think there's a decent argument to be made that Snowden was more careful in his leaks, attempting to ensure national security wasn't risked. Or, at least, maybe more so than Manning.

I think the official statement I saw said there were a couple differences favoring Manning: she pleaded guilty, she went through the military process, and she didn't appear to be working with a foreign country opposed to US interests. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought it was a statement from Obama regarding the differences.

I think Assange seems like the worst of the bunch. To me, he appears only interested in publicity and he doesn't seem very trustworthy.

Intelligence leaks are something I still haven't really come to terms with. I'm all for government transparency, but I also get the fact that leaks can have major negative effects on our country.

Edit: Just looked up the statements. The White House spokesperson said the difference is that she was found guilty and afforded due process through the military judicial system. Snowden "fled into the arms of an adversary and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy."

[ShockerPrez]

It's easy to draw a line.

Leak classified? If yes it's treason. If not it's transparency.

I don't think it's that difficult.

[jdshock]

It's easy to draw a line.

Leak classified? If yes it's treason. If not it's transparency.

I don't think it's that difficult.

What's to prevent a corrupt government from classifying all sort of things? I'm pretty trusting of the government, but it just seems we would have many non-elected people making the decision about whether or not something is classified, and thereby determining if the leak is treasonous.

I'm also open to the idea that the officials tasked with determining if something is classified are better at that job than Manning or Snowden might be.

I just can't think it's as simple as you make it out to be.

[MoValley John]

Intelligence leaks are something I still haven't really come to terms with. I'm all for government transparency, but I also get the fact that leaks can have major negative effects on our country.

I think lots of people feel the same way. I feel that way, too. Nobody wants security compromised, but we all want to know whats going on. That said, when I was in the military, there was zero confusion on the punishment for what Manning did. I can't imagine anyone not knowing that leaking classicied information was basically a life sentence. I don't know the extent of information leaked and I don't know the damage done. I certainly hope the commutation had everything to do with justification and none based on politics.

[ShockerPrez]

What's to prevent a corrupt government from classifying all sort of things? I'm pretty trusting of the government, but it just seems we would have many non-elected people making the decision about whether or not something is classified, and thereby determining if the leak is treasonous.

I'm also open to the idea that the officials tasked with determining if something is classified are better at that job than Manning or Snowden might be.

I just can't think it's as simple as you make it out to be.

Do you have an example of something that was classified for purely political reasons? Im sure it has happened, but at the same time, if our government has become so corrupt, then we will have some pretty problems in our democracy. And my remedy would be to keep the government as small as possible to limit the damage of any corruption. The less power you give the government, the less reward for being corrupt.

[jdshock]

Do you have an example of something that was classified for purely political reasons? Im sure it has happened, but at the same time, if our government has become so corrupt, then we will have some pretty problems in our democracy. And my remedy would be to keep the government as small as possible to limit the damage of any corruption. The less power you give the government, the less reward for being corrupt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

Unfortunately, overclassification continues to be rampant. In fiscal year 2010, officials made 77 million decisions to classify information. Even the most security-minded government officials — including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, and Porter J. Goss, the former director of national intelligence — have said that far too much information is classified. Defense Department and National Security Council experts have estimated that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.

Why is there so much overclassification? Because there are so many incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. Classifying documents indiscriminately is easier than giving each decision careful time and thought. Officials fear sanctions for mistakenly releasing sensitive information. It is easier to get things done in government when there are fewer people involved. Information is a key weapon in turf wars between agencies, and hoarding information increases officials’ sense of importance. Finally, officials who are involved in government misconduct have a powerful incentive to hide the evidence.

[ShockerPrez]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

I think that the steps in the article make sense. And dont dispute it. But the point is, that you work to change the rules of classification if there is misuse. You dont forgive the breaking of existing rules to prompt change. Especially if breaking the rules puts lives at risk.

I dont condone breaking laws because one person believes its wrong. You work to change the law.

[double dribble]

The stuff that Manning leaked ended up getting some of our people killed in Afghanistan. He wants to be a chic? Hang him by his wiener, give him a dull knife, and tell him this is the self service lane.
Oh and before he has them removed, someone needs to kick him square in the grapes one last time (That can be very painful)

[jdshock]

The stuff that Manning leaked ended up getting some of our people killed in Afghanistan.

This is not accurate: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aring-pentagon

The US government's own witness testified that they found no evidence that a single person lost their life because of the leaks.

[DwShock]

Private Bradley

[pinstripers]

http://opslens.com/2017/01/18/army-veterans-open-letter-president-obama-regarding-pfc-manning/