Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's prison sentence

[Carter]

 

Quote

Chelsea Manning, the US army soldier who became one of the most prominent whistleblowers of modern times when she exposed the nature of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who then went on to pay the price with a 35-year military prison sentence, is to be freed in May as a gift of outgoing president Barack Obama.

In the most audacious – and contentious – commutation decision to come from Obama yet, the sitting president used his constitutional power just three days before he leaves the White House to give Manning her freedom.

Manning, a transgender woman, will walk from a male military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on 17 May, almost seven years to the day since she was arrested at a base outside Baghdad for offenses relating to the leaking of a vast trove of US state secrets to the website WikiLeaks.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/17/chelsea-manning-sentence-commuted-barack-obama

[Carter]

There was this, several days prior to Obama commuting Manning's sentence:

The White House also announced that more commutations would be coming on Thursday.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

Assange is a weiner. 

And FTR, if one were confident that the DOJ's case were "unconstitutional," one would have more incentive to come to the US. I suppose there's some gamble to it but the analysis in this case is relatively straightforward given WL's role.  

[Leon Troutsky]

Just now, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Assange is a weiner. 

And FTR, if one were confident that the DOJ's case were "unconstitutional," one would have more incentive to come to the US. I suppose there's some gamble to it but the analysis in this case is relatively straightforward given WL's role.  

I was saying all summer that Assange and Wikileaks are bad actors and people shouldn't be cheerleading them.  

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

I was saying all summer that Assange and Wikileaks are bad actors and people shouldn't be cheerleading them.  

What's unfortunate IMO, is that there is absolutely a role for an actor like Wikileaks in the modern world. There's value in genuine watch-dogging. 

But two very specific things finally turned me off to WL for good. 

1) The weird "Picture of Health" post they made about Assange - WL in general has done everyone a grave disservice by exposing itself to the cult of celebrity the way that Assange has. EVEN IF his intentions are pure and noble, he's created the impression that they are anything but self-service narcissism stuff. And I think the pointed political focus of the last 18 months is just another example of that. 

2) The "Call For Leaks" post seeking information about the UK political systems. IMO, there is a massive distinction between receiving and publishing whistleblower content (ie Snowden stuff) and ACTIVELY SEEKING the compromise of information from a specific target source. The former is a public service in some ways....the latter is a remarkable attack on privacy and should be viewed as a crime. 

[Leon Troutsky]

1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

What's unfortunate IMO, is that there is absolutely a role for an actor like Wikileaks in the modern world. There's value in genuine watch-dogging. 

But two very specific things finally turned me off to WL for good. 

1) The weird "Picture of Health" post they made about Assange - WL in general has done everyone a grave disservice by exposing itself to the cult of celebrity the way that Assange has. EVEN IF his intentions are pure and noble, he's created the impression that they are anything but self-service narcissism stuff. And I think the pointed political focus of the last 18 months is just another example of that. 

2) The "Call For Leaks" post seeking information about the UK political systems. IMO, there is a massive distinction between receiving and publishing whistleblower content (ie Snowden stuff) and ACTIVELY SEEKING the compromise of information from a specific target source. The former is a public service in some ways....the latter is a remarkable attack on privacy and should be viewed as a crime. 

What turned me off from WL was the irresponsible manner in which they published leaked information.  Stuff like posting blueprints for nuclear weapons and posting names/SSN's for donors in some of their documents are two good examples.  

I don't mind transparency groups and watchdogs...you're right that they are needed.  But they have to be responsible.  I think that Edward Snowden comes closest to the whistleblower and transparancy than WL.

[dozer]

Wiki Leaks is relevant because the msm & the press have no idea what objective reporting  & ethical journalism are. 

[Leon Troutsky]

41 minutes ago, dozer said:

Wiki Leaks is relevant because the msm & the press have no idea what objective reporting  & ethical journalism are. 

Wikileaks is objective and ethical journalism?

Which other sources do you think are more credible and objective than the MSM?

[Statick]

That's a big FU to Assange.

[WOR]

2 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

What's unfortunate IMO, is that there is absolutely a role for an actor like Wikileaks in the modern world. There's value in genuine watch-dogging. 

But two very specific things finally turned me off to WL for good. 

1) The weird "Picture of Health" post they made about Assange - WL in general has done everyone a grave disservice by exposing itself to the cult of celebrity the way that Assange has. EVEN IF his intentions are pure and noble, he's created the impression that they are anything but self-service narcissism stuff. And I think the pointed political focus of the last 18 months is just another example of that. 

2) The "Call For Leaks" post seeking information about the UK political systems. IMO, there is a massive distinction between receiving and publishing whistleblower content (ie Snowden stuff) and ACTIVELY SEEKING the compromise of information from a specific target source. The former is a public service in some ways....the latter is a remarkable attack on privacy and should be viewed as a crime. 

They're all so trying to make a database of verified twitter accounts that includes address, family, financials, etc. 

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

8 minutes ago, WORilla said:

They're all so trying to make a database of verified twitter accounts that includes address, family, financials, etc. 

Yeah I saw that. Pretty alarming. There's enough "guilt by association" analysis going on already. We don't need it institutionalized...especially by an organization with its own shadows. 

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

2 hours ago, dozer said:

Wiki Leaks is relevant because the msm & the press have no idea what objective reporting  & ethical journalism are. 

Wikileaks' content distribution can hardly be called journalism or reporting. At best, it's information sharing. Potentially in violation of expectations of privacy. 

As Trout asked, I'd like to know what you consider to be examples of objective and ethical journalism. 

[Dago 3.0]

11 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Wikileaks' content distribution can hardly be called journalism or reporting. At best, it's information sharing. Potentially in violation of expectations of privacy. 

As Trout asked, I'd like to know what you consider to be examples of objective and ethical journalism. 

there is some truth to that

I would have certainly liked to see some emails from the RNC

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

5 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

there is some truth to that

I would have certainly liked to see some emails from the RNC

Would be incredible reading material, imo. In the context of an RNC that was struggling to agree on a strategy re: Trump's candidacy/success? I bet there's FIRE in those emails. 

I guess that's my biggest issue with the whole personal email leak....it allowed people to frame basic strategic discussions in whichever way they'd like. Which is odd when you really look at. 

I mean...is there any situation where the back and forth email exchanges of a large organization of advocacy (which the DNC/RNC both are) WOULDNT be able to shaped and fit into a narrative? 

That's one of the distinctions between these leaks and prior leaks of more general information/video from The Government. And as much weight as it carried for a lot of people, it should still be terrifying how it could be weaponized. But everyone is so far down this Red Sox-Yankees nonsense that few seem to give a hoot. 

[dozer]

55 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Wikileaks' content distribution can hardly be called journalism or reporting. At best, it's information sharing. Potentially in violation of expectations of privacy. 

As Trout asked, I'd like to know what you consider to be examples of objective and ethical journalism. 

I am not endorsing hacking personal email accounts of anyone. Obviously that is unethical  

The point I am making is that if the msm & the press were doing their job & reporting objectively then odds are that all of the dirt in Podesta's emails (which no one in the DNC is denying) would have been reported on & been brought to the public by a legit press & a legit msm. But they are too busy bashing Trump for tweeting, etc, etc. it's a tired old act. Everyone knows that the msm have been bought by the DNC & now especially since the election results shattered their psyches & have exposed their bias they & hollywood have been doubling down on stupid since the election.

They are still in denial & have been trying their best to fight Trump, our 45th president tooth & nail...& it's not even inauguration day yet. & of course George Soros has his own plans for destabilizing our country as well. 

The most powerful weapon the dems have left (since they lost the House, the Senate & now the Presidency) is the msm. So by their own pretzel logic I guess their other losses are all Russia's fault too. 

[Dago 3.0]

1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Would be incredible reading material, imo. In the context of an RNC that was struggling to agree on a strategy re: Trump's candidacy/success? I bet there's FIRE in those emails. 

I guess that's my biggest issue with the whole personal email leak....it allowed people to frame basic strategic discussions in whichever way they'd like. Which is odd when you really look at. 

I mean...is there any situation where the back and forth email exchanges of a large organization of advocacy (which the DNC/RNC both are) WOULDNT be able to shaped and fit into a narrative? 

That's one of the distinctions between these leaks and prior leaks of more general information/video from The Government. And as much weight as it carried for a lot of people, it should still be terrifying how it could be weaponized. But everyone is so far down this Red Sox-Yankees nonsense that few seem to give a hoot. 

I just want everyone to see that both sides are scum

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

47 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

I just want everyone to see that both sides are scum

I guess I get that but I think that short changes the complexity of the issue. That's the only reason I'm hesitant to lash out. 

I'd also draw a distinction between ideology and the party structure. 

[Leon Troutsky]

54 minutes ago, dozer said:

I am not endorsing hacking personal email accounts of anyone. Obviously that is unethical  

The point I am making is that if the msm & the press were doing their job & reporting objectively then odds are that all of the dirt in Podesta's emails (which no one in the DNC is denying) would have been reported on & been brought to the public by a legit press & a legit msm. But they are too busy bashing Trump for tweeting, etc, etc. it's a tired old act. Everyone knows that the msm have been bought by the DNC & now especially since the election results shattered their psyches & have exposed their bias they & hollywood have been doubling down on stupid since the election.

They are still in denial & have been trying their best to fight Trump, our 45th president tooth & nail...& it's not even inauguration day yet. & of course George Soros has his own plans for destabilizing our country as well. 

The most powerful weapon the dems have left (since they lost the House, the Senate & now the Presidency) is the msm. So by their own pretzel logic I guess their other losses are all Russia's fault too. 

A lot of whining about the "the left" and the "MSM", but still not a single media source that you think is more objective and accurate than the MSM.  

C'mon man, how hard can it be?  Where do YOU get your news info from?

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

51 minutes ago, dozer said:

I am not endorsing hacking personal email accounts of anyone. Obviously that is unethical  

The point I am making is that if the msm & the press were doing their job & reporting objectively then odds are that all of the dirt in Podesta's emails (which no one in the DNC is denying) would have been reported on & been brought to the public by a legit press & a legit msm. But they are too busy bashing Trump for tweeting, etc, etc. it's a tired old act. Everyone knows that the msm have been bought by the DNC & now especially since the election results shattered their psyches & have exposed their bias they & hollywood have been doubling down on stupid since the election.

They are still in denial & have been trying their best to fight Trump, our 45th president tooth & nail...& it's not even inauguration day yet. & of course George Soros has his own plans for destabilizing our country as well. 

The most powerful weapon the dems have left (since they lost the House, the Senate & now the Presidency) is the msm. So by their own pretzel logic I guess their other losses are all Russia's fault too. 

Here's the problem though.....the "dirt" in Podesta's email is exactly the type of conjecture-narrative that I'm talking about. 

Honestly, this entire narrative is so myopic it's tough to take seriously. You charge the MSM (whatever the hell that means) with being in the pocket of the Democrats. Presumably you'd point to things like question-vetting ahead of time, etc. But it's pretty clear we know the exact same types of things happen with republicans as well. We know that question vetting is a normal part of TV/radio appearances. We know that there's an essential element of dog and pony to ANY media. 

I also have serious concerns with people who are upset about the "MSM" advocating for news sources that are staunchly (and in some cases deceptively) conservative. So we can talk about the history of alleged liberal media bias and the foundation of that but in what world is it consistent to say "the MSM leans left, so I'm going to read only things that fly right"? 

And people have got to stop with the Soros boogie man thing. My god. If you have a problem with "blame Bush" or "blame the Kochs" how can you possibly lay everything at the feet of George Soros? Come on, man.

[Leon Troutsky]

What are George Soro's plans for destabilizing our country, specifically?  Please link to credible and objective sources, please.

[Carter]

1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What are George Soro's plans for destabilizing our country, specifically?  Please link to credible and objective sources, please.

I think you will be waiting a while for credible and objective on that one.

Although Soros had a pretty interesting interview on 60 minutes back in 1998.

 

[silentbob1272]

4 hours ago, Statick said:

That's a big FU to Assange.

It's a bigger FU to all the people he betrayed and thereby killed.

[silentbob1272]

3 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

there is some truth to that

I would have certainly liked to see some emails from the RNC

but you didn't. Why?

 

not really calling you a *****, I just thought the meme fit. If you don't like it, delete my account. My password is P@ssword, but don't tell anyone. 

[Dago 3.0]

3 minutes ago, silentbob1272 said:

but you didn't. Why?

 

not really calling you a *****, I just thought the meme fit. If you don't like it, delete my account. My password is P@ssword, but don't tell anyone. 

I laughed

[dozer]

2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What are George Soro's plans for destabilizing our country, specifically?  Please link to credible and objective sources, please.

 

George Soros runs the Open Society Institute and the Soros.org website; and he contributes heavily to many organizations that ideologically are aligned with leftist causes, including Moveon.org. He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, and he’s invested over $400 million in institutions of higher education to promulgate and teach his extremist ideology.

In short, the Kochs and Soros are heavily invested in politics and are, by all standards, prototypical “one percenters” in income, net worth, and political influence. And it would appear, at least ostensibly, that all three are playing the influence-for-money game according to the rules established by Congress. There is near universal contempt for the crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism that has tainted our political institutions and politicians (and adulterated our free-market system). But Congress has created the rules these players play by. Blaming the Kochs and Soros for using their resources to buy influence is like blaming collegiate athletes for the rules established by the NCAA.

Since most of the Koch’s political money goes into lobbying, their funds are well documented, as required by congressional accounting rules. With most of Soros’ political “investments” going into 527s, the funds are less traceable and has earned Soros the dubious honor of being dubbed the “Godfather to the left.”

The classical-liberal principles of individual freedom and free markets that are so fully embraced and advanced by Charles and David Koch are the very principles the nation was founded upon. They are the principles that made America great. The progressive socialistic agenda advanced by Soros is antithetical to America’s founding precepts; and it is heavily invested in the failure of not only the U.S. dollar, but the collapse of the U.S. economic system.

LINK