Chelsea Manning on Shortlist for commutation by Obama

[Zstream]

If the mind doesn't fit the body then make the body fit the mind.

With you, is there ever a right and a wrong? There are never mental issues with people, just normal people regardless of how far outside the zone they're at.

Mental health is a major issue, and needs to be taken seriously outside of your ideology.

Take religion, politics away from you're argument and see what you're proposing, and where this is headed.

 

[Zstream]

Yet the medical community disagrees with you-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy

And, as I offered, it doesn't amount to much money at all in the greater scheme of things.

I figure it's just a different kind of reconstructive surgery.

Please read my posts again. It comes down to defining healthcare. Insurance regulations is not healthcare. Your insurance could cover a broken phone, doesn't mean it's healthcare. However, letting private institutions dictate policy and making the taxpayer pay for these decisions is ludicrous.

 

[werepossum]

If the mind doesn't fit the body then make the body fit the mind.

I think it's much healthier to make the mind fit the body. However, once an individual has been determined to be of sound mind, that choice should be hers, not society's. This is the essence of Western civilization's push for individual liberty.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Manning is now free.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/chelsea-manning-release/index.html

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I know this is highly speculative but I do wonder if it was Obama's final Trump trolling. Read here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cas-vendetta-against-wikileaks-julian-assange

Earlier Assange said once Bradley is released he will no longer fight extradition. Bradley should be released in a few months to my understanding. So in a few months Assange should leave that embassy, what would Trumps next move be?
Ignore Assange while his conservative base has called for execution
Or
Reduce the charges, see above
Or
Direct the AG not to prosecute
Or
Prosecute a friend of Vladimir's

Sorry for the self quote.

When can we expect Asange to leave the embassy?

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry for the self quote.

When can we expect Asange to leave the embassy?

I seem to recall some fairly recent (~months) news that Equador was kicking him out of their embassy? ...or was that a promise of a candidate for president in their recent election, and I guess that person lost the election?

 

[Blackjack200]

I seem to recall some fairly recent (~months) news that Equador was kicking him out of their embassy? ...or was that a promise of a candidate for president in their recent election, and I guess that person lost the election?

That's what happened.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I seem to recall some fairly recent (~months) news that Equador was kicking him out of their embassy? ...or was that a promise of a candidate for president in their recent election, and I guess that person lost the election?

Equador seemed to get a little sick of him so like a Child that doesn't do their chores the embassy changed their wifi password but I don't think they said Assange has to go yet.

 

[dud]

So Manning is now free. Anyone care to forward a guess as to his/hers/its future?

 

[zinfamous]

So Manning is now free. Anyone care to forward a guess as to his/hers/its future?

Dealing with bullshit from ignorant idiots like this for the rest of her life?

 

[Sea Ray]

So Manning is now free. Anyone care to forward a guess as to his/hers/its future?

What I don't get if why does this "it" qualify for unpaid leave and gov't benefits such as healthcare? I would think commiting this crime would at the very least result in a firing with cause.

 

[Blackjack200]

Dealing with bullshit from ignorant idiots like this for the rest of her life?

It's all that economic insecurity.

 

[Blackjack200]

So Manning is now free. Anyone care to forward a guess as to his/hers/its future?

No guesses from me, but we helped raise $150k to get her off to a good start. Really the least we can do for an American hero that helped end the war in Iraq.

Manning’s 35-year sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, who concluded that seven years in federal custody was enough for her crimes. She now heads to Maryland, according to supporters who set up an online fundraising site that collected more than $150,000 for housing and other essentials as she re-enters society.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...dbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.f76ed0fad639

 

[jackstar7]

So Manning is now free. Anyone care to forward a guess as to his/hers/its future?

Her future should be fine.

 

[pcgeek11]

Since when did traitor = whistle blower?

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah, I don't buy Manning as a whistle blower. Whistle blowers might leak highly selective documents which show wrongdoing because it's in the public interest to know. They don't indiscriminately dump over 100,000 pages of classified documents on the internet, undoubtedly without even reading them all, and not knowing if they're endangering lives.

I'm not OK with this commutation.

 

[edcoolio]

He is not a whistleblower, fighting for the good of the nation, or any such nonsense.

This is an traitorous individual, by logic, and by law.

 

[mikeymikec]

To those who don't think she's a whistle-blower, what do you suppose her intentions were then? Because the intention is a pretty integral component to defining a whistle-blower.

I agree that it's a misguided thing to do to dump a load of sensitive documents in an outsider's hands (by outsider I mean someone who isn't sworn to do a particular job such as upholding the law, or say a reputable press outlet, but apparently he went to the Washington Post first), however, let's say you're a whistleblower and you know that the bit of information you need is somewhere in a subset of a pretty large source of data, don't you think it's reasonable to be worried that you're going to get caught before you can achieve the task you set out to do, and therefore not bring to light the crimes committed by your employer? Who is going to sit on >100,000 pages of data and review them while also doing their full-time job in the hope that they can a) find the specific bits needed for whistle-blowing and b) don't take too long about it so as to avoid getting caught therefore achieving nothing in the process, and worse have one's intentions represented as less than noble by those with the power?

Furthermore, from what I understand it wasn't a specific incident she was hoping to bring to light, but many, and the more the better is a pretty plausible guess for her intentions, therefore if she knew (and let's say had verified) that one particular incident was in that data, and due to the source of data she was confident that more relevant incidents would be catalogued as well, then surely that's a pretty reasonable additional argument for not reviewing every last bit first?

I just wonder whether people are buying into an idea that if one can't whistle-blow in the most ideal manner possible (only the most specific and relevant data and only to the most appropriate people), then one should not whistle-blow at all. To me that's asking for absolute idealism in a situation that's largely devoid of it; it makes no sense.

 

[Blackjack200]

Since when did traitor = whistle blower?

He suddenly wondered at 1:17 AM.

 

[woolfe9998]

To those who don't think she's a whistle-blower, what do you suppose her intentions were then? Because the intention is a pretty integral component to defining a whistle-blower.

I agree that it's a misguided thing to do to dump a load of sensitive documents in an outsider's hands (by outsider I mean someone who isn't sworn to do a particular job such as upholding the law, or say a reputable press outlet, but apparently he went to the Washington Post first), however, let's say you're a whistleblower and you know that the bit of information you need is somewhere in a subset of a pretty large source of data, don't you think it's reasonable to be worried that you're going to get caught before you can achieve the task you set out to do, and therefore not bring to light the crimes committed by your employer? Who is going to sit on >100,000 pages of data and review them while also doing their full-time job in the hope that they can a) find the specific bits needed for whistle-blowing and b) don't take too long about it so as to avoid getting caught therefore achieving nothing in the process, and worse have one's intentions represented as less than noble by those with the power?

Furthermore, from what I understand it wasn't a specific incident she was hoping to bring to light, but many, and the more the better is a pretty plausible guess for her intentions, therefore if she knew (and let's say had verified) that one particular incident was in that data, and due to the source of data she was confident that more relevant incidents would be catalogued as well, then surely that's a pretty reasonable additional argument for not reviewing every last bit first?

I just wonder whether people are buying into an idea that if one can't whistle-blow in the most ideal manner possible (only the most specific and relevant data and only to the most appropriate people), then one should not whistle-blow at all. To me that's asking for absolute idealism in a situation that's largely devoid of it; it makes no sense.

You're asking us to psycho-analyze Manning. Fine. Manning was alienated and alone in the military, probably in all phases of her life. One of the most common reasons people leak is because they want to feel important. That, rather than legitimate whistle blowing, would be my best guess as to her motives.

If Manning didn't read all those pages, she couldn't have known what in them was legitimate as whistle blowing, what was irrelevant to anything at all (most of it, actually), and what might actually have been dangerous to people's lives. That was reckless. I can support the idea of whistle blowing even when it's technically illegal, but I don't think we can give people who disclose classified information a wide berth to do so negligently. If you're going to blow the whistle, do it right, meaning make sure you aren't endangering someone's life, or don't do it at all.

 

[JSt0rm]

Since when did traitor = whistle blower?

'murica ponders this question

 

[jackstar7]

You're asking us to psycho-analyze Manning. Fine. Manning was alienated and alone in the military, probably in all phases of her life. One of the most common reasons people leak is because they want to feel important. That, rather than legitimate whistle blowing, would be my best guess as to her motives.

If Manning didn't read all those pages, she couldn't have known what in them was legitimate as whistle blowing, what was irrelevant to anything at all (most of it, actually), and what might actually have been dangerous to people's lives. That was reckless. I can support the idea of whistle blowing even when it's technically illegal, but I don't think we can give people who disclose classified information a wide berth to do so negligently. If you're going to blow the whistle, do it right, meaning make sure you aren't endangering someone's life, or don't do it at all.

That's a very difficult math. What if you're sure that endangering some saves many more...?

I'm not saying Manning was right, but just that the ways and means of whistle-blowing is not something that can be so cut and dry being in that deep.

I'm hopeful there will be real interviews and investigation into the motives of it all though. I'm sure many more (since many already have) will be painting varying pictures of Manning's actions.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's a very difficult math. What if you're sure that endangering some saves many more...?

I'm not saying Manning was right, but just that the ways and means of whistle-blowing is not something that can be so cut and dry being in that deep.

I'm hopeful there will be real interviews and investigation into the motives of it all though. I'm sure many more (since many already have) will be painting varying pictures of Manning's actions.

You make a fair point, that in theory, a disclosure could endanger some lives but save more. Here, however, I'm not buying what someone said earlier in the thread, that what Manning did ended the war there. Manning did this in 2010 when we had already agreed to withdraw and were, in fact, in the process of withdrawing. I doubt those disclosures had any influence on a process that was already in motion.

 

[Blackjack200]

You're wrong.

A diplomatic cable released this week by WikiLeaks revealed that a United Nations official, Philip Alston, told the US in 2006 he had received information that all the residents of the house had been shot in the head. His intervention was not made public at the time.

The letter has inflamed opinion in Iraq at a sensitive time in US-Iraq relations, amid difficult negotiations over retention of US bases in Iraq after the scheduled departure of US troops in December.

Iraqi officials said the new information was sufficient cause to deny the Americans any bases and demand all troops leave.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-iraq-massacre-inquiry

So you're angry at Chelsea Manning, the traitor who exposed atrocities in Iraq, what about these soldiers that handcuffed women and children and shot them in the head?