Slashdot Mirror
Assange Agrees to US Prison If Obama Pardons Chelsea Manning (theverge.com)
"If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to U.S. prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness," Wikileaks announced on Twitter Thursday. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Verge:
WikiLeaks' statement was released one day before a Swedish appeals court decided to maintain a warrant for Assange's arrest over a 2010 rape charge. Assange has said that extradition to Sweden would lead to his eventual extradition to the US, where he could face charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of secret government documents... Assange has been living in political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012...
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
minutes! Assange suffers attention deficient!
Assange knows that will never happen. Obama has trouble even treating Manning like a normal human being.
-- Cheers!
Not.
WikiLeaks' statement was released one day before a Swedish appeals court decided to maintain a warrant for Assange's arrest over a 2010 rape charge
Typical rape culture.
I don't think the US even wants Assange? Or am I wrong? It seems the only place where this notion comes from is Assange himself.
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Assange would do well to stay where he is, even if it feels confining. Because he would be disappeared like Chelsea They would bury him so deep in the system that death would be preferable.
--
BMOME-163B
I'm surprised that he chose Manning and not Snowden.
(2) Snowden will go to prison.
(3) Manning will commit suicide.
(4) Twilight Zone ending.
He is a fugitive from raping two women in Sweden, volunteering to go to jail in the US as long as the US lets go of someone who was in the military and admits releasing lots of military secrets?
Is this offer serious? To me it comes off as laughably weird. Why not volunteer to go to French jail if they pardon Carlos the Jackal?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
I think the only reason Ellsberg didn't go to jail is because the government completely bungled the investigation and engaged in clearly illegal actions while investigating the case. Had they been more restrained they might very well have gotten a conviction.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Sadly you might be correct.
It does not matter where I personally stand on any of this politically. That is torture and the authorities backing and authorizing it know it.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This is completely bizarre. Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition. I'm not sure how he can "agree to go to prison" when he hasn't been charged with a crime. The U.S. doesn't actually let people go to prison just because they want to; they have to be found guilty of a crime.
Assange is wanted in Sweden (although so far he's only wanted for questioning.)
Assange is wanted in Britain-- for jumping bail.
But he's not wanted for a crime in the U.S. He could agree to go to prison in Sweden or Britain-- why doesn't he volunteer to do that?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Please don't make comments on without having a CLUE what you're talking about.
He is not accused of raping anyone. Duh. He is accused of having sex without a condom.
a. alex trebek just go away forever
b. alex trebek get head transplant
c. alex trebek spontaneous combust from public
any of these and I go away to putin prison.
alex trebek my friend along with misery
Manning made his bed; let him sleep in it.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Do you fuckers think he'd have turned into a "woman" if he wasn't being abused and tortured in prison? Think about it.
Everything done for show.
Who cares about that tranny Manning. What a piece of shit.
As if... Asswage thinks he can dictate terms to the US Government? Snowbuddy also thinks the same.
Asswage can just head over to Moscow and play ball with Putin if he wants something different than facing justice.
Not only is he an alleged rapist but also should be charged with espionage and locked up for the rest of his life.
And Snowbuddy can come back and face justice. His current tactic of negotiating with release of state secrets to the public isn't going to work. He's already traded his cache to Putin and may look forward to a long, snowy future in lovely Russia. It's really a shame US Government snipers haven't got him yet, but he's making it very difficult to to stay alive.
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
He's trying to get himself attention, and succeeding it would seem as here's a story on it.
Assange has acted rather oddly throughout this whole thing, at least if you take his rhetoric at face value. He happily went to Sweden and spent time there until these allegation came up, at which time he went to the UK. He then claimed that the reason was that the charges were BS and Sweden would just hand him over to the US because they were after him as soon as he went back. That of course makes one questions:
1) Why would he go to Sweden in the first place, if he knew it was a country that would hand him over to the US extra judicially?
2) Why would he flee to the UK and feel safe there, a country with such a special relationship with the US it is literally called the "special relationship"?
He then fought the extradition to Sweden in the UK courts and lost. They were ruling just on the validity of the extradition request, not on the validity of the charge behind it. He then fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, claiming that he'd be handed over to the US if he went to Sweden.
So there we are today. Now near as I know, the US has not sought his arrest. While they don't like him, it doesn't look like he's broken US law. Publishing classified US information isn't a crime if you weren't the one who had access to it. So a guy who has a security clearance and gets information and gives it to a paper, he's breaking the law. However the paper that then publishes it is not.
Now maybe he really does know something most don't, but it seems more likely this is just him trying to get in the news. He knows this is an empty offer since the US wouldn't agree to it as they don't have a valid charge to bring against him. This is all between him and Sweden and now him and the UK (even if Sweden dropped the charges, he still broke UK law be fleeing his bail). The US isn't involved.
Making himself the hero, while deflecting from the fact that he is holed up in the embassy because he is wanted for sexual misconduct in Sweden.
He is not a fugitive from rape, he is "wanted" for questioning regarding allegations of rape which were answered long ago. Read the case and it becomes clear that the case most likely a setup for what Assange claims. "To give the US the ability to extradite him for charges of espionage, and dozens of other charges that will land him in jail for life." You should really either find facts before speaking or be more cautious with your words. He was never put on trial, never convicted of a crime, and to give you a shortcut both women are ex-girlfriends who had consensual sex with him frequently long before any allegation. Allegations came out much later. Assange has offered to answer questions and face inquiry in safe space and that has been refused. Sweden has refused to guarantee him amnesty from extradition if he came in for questioning. You can dislike him for a whole lot of reasons, but making false accusations makes you worse than him releasing too much information.
There is a history here in the US of false rape allegations for political agendas. Duke got us Title 9, UNLV and at least a dozen other high profile allegations were completely fabricated yet hyped to continue to divide the country and used for political gain by our Progressive left. You don't have to like facts, but don't ignore the facts. There are plenty of articles and legal experts who defend Assange, and if you understand the media collusion with politics you will see why they are hidden from public view on your favorite TV show.
Your question can simply be answered as "no", but I think it's a good bluff. If the US accepts it pretty much demonstrates that the charges were fabricated and Sweden was colluding with the US to arrest someone they dislike.
Your second question demonstrates complete ignorance, or perhaps it was just buffoonery. France is not in the legal equation, at all.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As far as I'm aware, SRS means sex reassignment surgery and GRS is GENITAL assignment surgery. Gender (at least in relation to the discussion) is a psychological construct. In order for a gender assignment you would need a lobotomy.
Minor nit-pick.
is as far as the government is concerned; Manning already got off light. There were many that wanted it executed; the same way the people "in power" don't want Snowden in jail; but want him dead on a slab.
Snowden will never come home, Assange will have to either stay where he is or face prison elsewhere, and Manning will likely never see the outside of a prison cell. As far as a lot of people are concerned; they want all three dead.
And that's not just within the US.
Did he *actually* rape in Sweden?
Or was this some tarnishing manipulation created to destroy his credibility and/or extradite him by any cost ?
> Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent
And THIS is what happens when the law is bent for the worst lawbreakers. Despite the law clearly stating "criminal intent" was NOT required to be shown by the prosecution, having made one public exception to the law now other people convicted under the ORIGINAL standard now have grounds for negotiation or appeal. And since these people have outed Obama in an embarrassing manner several times, show of hands: which way will Obama rule? I bet all of a sudden the ORIGINAL wording of the statute will suddenly become critical to the WikiLeaks case. 'Cause, that's the kind of law-rewriting bastard that he is..
Give Manning a rusty spoon as the promise of a pardon if 'her' DIY sex change is successful.
That's what is really going on. When Obama ends his term - unless a state of emergency is called - he will have a pardon list.
The pardon list often makes the press, but often not major news. This time a lot of people will be looking at who gets pardoned, and it is the hypocrisy that will be analysed.
So, it will be much harder for Obama to make his pardon list, which in a way weakens the establishment's power.
It is harder to get people to do dirty jobs, when the pardon list goes under scrutiny.
Actually Obama illegally traded terrorists to get Manning returned to the US and free of his fellow terrorists. I see no reason to think that Obama wouldn't also pardon Manning for his high crimes, including desertion and possibly treason. It is the rest of America that don't want to see this traitor pardoned, so it seems likely that Obama would do it even without an Asange incentive. Obama might even give it a metal.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Assange, the citizens of this country don't even want Manning pardoned. Many of us want Snowden pardoned, but other than transgender freaks no one seems to have sympathy for Manning. On the other hand, you've been promising to release important information about Clinton. Why distract attention from that with this stunt?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
And Manning should have got sentenced to death for treason.
There is no Chelsea Manning. There is a gay male named Bradley Manning and he was born with a penis. Assange is a lying megalomaniacal rapist who is in collusion with the Russians. He's made his bed. Now he can lay in it with Bradley and the two can spoon each other while yanking it to thoughts of Edward Snowden in a drag.
Assange has lost any credibility he might have once had. Its all about his little ego now. From his personal war on Clinton to his working hand in hand with the Russian banana republic thugs. He publishes social security numbers, cc numbers and anything that will get his name in the medial. He's a disgusting troll.
Manning handed out classified info while wearing the uniform of the US Military. He deserves a firing squad. He was not just an average citizen, nor a journalist, he voluntarily joined the military, took an oath, and submitted himself to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is not the same as civilian law.
Assange is a foreign national civilian, and arguably a journalist. I'm not happy that he published the material, but I'm not aware that he violated any US laws while in US jurisdiction. His actions put him on par with the newspapers that published the Pentagon Papers, and indeed even the newspapers that have reported on the materials he posted.
Oh, and Manning is a MALE. News outlets that report on people identifying them by a gender they do not actually have are proving they cannot be trusted to honestly report on even the most basic facts. Manning is genetically and physically male. He can have a surgeon mangle his private parts and shove silicon bags into his chest, and pump himself full of the wrong hormones, but he will still be genetically male and will NEVER be fully functionally female. If HE thinks HE is anything else then HE has a mental issue similar to that of a skinny teenage girl who is convinced she is fat. If you think you are something other than what you physically are, society has always held that you have a mental disorder. This has only recently been abandoned, but only for sex. Society is abusing you if it coddles you in your delusion. We do not do this great harm to skinny teenage girls who are dismorphic and believe themselves fat, encouraging them to give-in to their delusions and starve themselves. We do not do that to people we care about. Why do some do it to the gender confused? Is it possible the ones who claim to care the most are actually the ones encouraging them to harm themselves? The stats are not good for the long-term results of encouraging this stuff, and it's not "hateful" to point out this truth.
Bartering one criminal for another is wrong. Both deserve to be punished with prison sentences. Assange needs to face a court hearing to determine his crimes.
You assert the laugably idiotic claim that people who oppose homosexuality are probably closeted gays, or that people who are opposed to the culture embracing the delusions of the "trans community" are latent homosexuals. It's stupid, dishonest, old, and at its base it expresses the self-hatred of the accuser. It seems to never enter your pea-sized brain that people could possibly just believe that these things are wrong, are unhealthy for individuals, and are corrosive to the culture. You're so stuck on sexual deviancy that you cannot see people who disagree with you in other than sexually deviant terms. That's very sad.
If YOU are asserting that a critic of "trans-people" is bad and probably a latent homosexual, then you are BY DEFINITION asserting that you also believe homosexuality to be a bad thing. You clearly do not see homosexuality as a good thing, or you would not fling the accusation at your opponent. Think about it you self-denying homophobe.
Perhaps YOU oppose people opposed to the coddling of sexual confusion because you too are secretly opposed to the coddling of sexual confusion?
You see? It's a stupid brain-dead deflection tactic that can go both ways and to an infinite depth. Have you ever seen The Pricess Bride and the "Iocane powder" scene?
She will send to Obama the dead meat of Chelsea Manning.
Obama will dine on the meat of Chelsea Manning, pausing to take a flank steak and wrap it around his penis and masturbate, then eat the flank with his sperm as sauce.
Eat Well Hillery and Obama
I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So now the military puts suicide attempt people in isolation. I am absolutely certain that that will ensure that such a person will not commit suicide in the future. It must follow the logic that a boring dingy cell can somehow make a violator a better citizen.
Why are you referring to her as "him"?
Oh dear Goddess, you're not a man-hating lesbian separatist radfem are you? ... No of course not, it's just the horseshoe effect.
Manning's reason for leaking things was literally "muh dysphoria made me do it". Assange did it because the public had the right to know. Lock up Manning, pardon Assange.
If your identity problems are so severe you leak state secrets in a fit of triggering, you need to be put in a mental asylum for your own safety. It sets a bad precedent and a bad example. Do you really want employers thinking "Well if Chelsea Manning leaks state secrets because she's a transwoman, we better not hire transpeople altogether", because they think similar things about ethnic minorities even if the guy is cleaner than bleach.
It is a man. If it doesn't want to be a he, and doesn't qualify as a she (born with penis), it is an it.
He has committed no crime in the US, and so the US cannot imprison him - not even on behalf of Sweden should he be convicted there. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property in the United States without having done something under the jurisdiction of her laws to deserve it.
Wow the CIA has really screwed up that privates mind. Wow, just wow, what are they doing to that guy to make him (supposedly)demand a sex change with 35 years in prison ahead of him? hmm.... it all smells
So a mediocre coder and [alleged] rapist can sit at the bargaining table with the president of the United States over a military matter which involving a service woman (who swore an oath of allegiance to the USA) compromising and/or providing potential intelligence to global adversaries and terrorists? Perhaps Assange is nerding out with too many role playing games during his isolation.
If YOU are asserting that a critic of "trans-people" is bad and probably a latent homosexual, then you are BY DEFINITION asserting that you also believe homosexuality to be a bad thing.
Non sequitur.
Barbara is alluding to the fact that folks who are suppressing something as fundamental as their sexuality tend to act out on it in other ways--generally, by attacking anyone displaying the trait they're denying in themselves.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And how do you know it was really a suicide attempt?
There are plenty of "suicides" which were really not suicides but murders.
Not at all - I'm asserting that it's the people who virulently oppose homosexuality / lesbianism /transsexuality who believe it's a bad thing that they secretly have similar yearnings. If they weren't so hung up about their own inner sexuality, they wouldn't be so eager to show the world that they aren't by attacking others. "He can't be gay. Look at how much he hates gays." Psychiatrists have testified to this as part of the motivation in killings of gays and trans.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Searched for this comment specifically. Was not disappointed.
That is all.
I would be sympathetic with Manning except instead of releasing only evidence of military wrong doing, Manning released everything possible knowing what the consequences would be.
The outcome and Manning's position are exactly as expected no matter who is in the Oval Office.
Manning was serving in a war zone and lying about the prosecution of a war is an important part of waging war. Secrets, even dirty secrets, are a part of war. Killing civilians (accidentally) and covering it up are part of war... which is one of the reasons war is hell. Controlling the flow of information is part of war. The truth is the first casualty of war. That people were being killed and someone sitting back at camp got upset about it doesn't give them reason to betray their fellow soldiers.
That is far different than revelations about a dragnet spying program targeted at every single civilian here in the US and abroad. That is a clear and present danger to the US constitution. That is raising an alarm about an enemy within. If the programs had targeted just the terrorists or the enemy or even just foreign militaries and governments that would be different. But the way the spying program was constructed it had pretty much nothing to do with the war and everything to do with just about everything and every one and was a clear violation of our constitution. The people perpetrating those programs made themselves the enemy.
Even looking at Daniel Ellsberg. What he did was to release his classified report on the war efforts in Vietnam during the war. It was in opposition to the war. During the war. There was a clear case to be made that it provided aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war and it provided nothing more than a further demoralizing effect without any public interest that could have been derived from already open source information.
Assange is wrong to even offer this. State justice usually doesn't like dealing one charge or accused/convicted against another. This is mostly done in international espionage with countries so diametrically opposed, there is no other way of getting what each side wants.
And that's the other problem. An accused making such an offer, would probably offend a prosecutor for treading on their turf. Not to mention that there would be suspicion that the accused would somehow benefit from the offer. And even if there was no clear benefit to the accused, there would be a huge image problem for the justice system, in that it could be represented as corruption, stupidity, or manipulation of the justice system. The justice system could deny this of course but official denials simply feed the conspiracy theorists, trolls and those opposed to the system for any reason.
Manning was enlisted in the military and falls under the rulings of the UCMJ, period. How that sentence is carried out is up to the military. And changing ones gender is not a necessary medical procedure and never should have happened while incarcerated.
I respect what Snowden did, though I do not agree on a pardon for him either. I'm a purist, you do something for a cause you stand your ground and take what is coming to you. You do not run if you want your act to mean anything other than looking like you want the attention.
Assange is a child having a tantrum, always has been. He seeks only fame and his cause is hollow. He cherry picks the releases to smear governments that he does not agree with.
The current US presidential candidates clearly demonstrate that the US government has zero concern for its citizens and will cater to industry over citizenry, so getting anyone in government to agree on pardoning anyone is a moot point. Yes the US government is corrupt, but unless you were living under a rock you already knew this. Sometimes doing things in a perceived illegal manner is how one gets change, but there are more constructive ways to get things done. In another 50-100 years these people won't be remembered. Stand on soap boxes preaching about the evils of torture all you want, the simple fact is, it is going to happen and solitary is not torture. If the jailers didn't put someone in solitary that attempted suicide you shout about the lack of compassion there as well.
Again, if you want to effect change, stand by your conviction and take the punishment otherwise your crusade is a pointless endeavor.
Are you arguing that Manning is already naturally physically female but missing ovaries? If so, why does he need a taxpayer-provided sex change op?
Are you arguing that there has suddenly been a huge uptick in rare genetic disorders that accounts for all the modern gender-confused?
The condition clearly does not apply to Manning, he has male parts and male genetics and wants theparts replaced with phoney female parts - in effect turing himself INTO a victim of a man-made form of Swyer.
There are several problems with your approach:
1. The condition you are referring to is a very rare condition DEFECT. Society should not be defining normality based on rare defects. Should we define murder as a normal and acceptable thing becase there are a few defective people who feel compelled to murder?
2. People born with medical defects deserve the sympathy of all and should be helped to minimize the defect if they choose. Most people with Swyer Syndrome are totally structurally female except for the missing ovaries and non-functional testes, and the best correction is generally hormones. They can live normal lives as females with mis-matched chromosomes and can even be pregnant and give birth using donated embryos. There are people born with worse sex/gender related defects for whom far less happy outcomes are possible. Many humans have severe non-sex defects which also cannot be properly solved with a surgeon's tools. To always be wrapping people like Manning in the cloak of people with actual medical problems does a great disservice to the actual victims of actual genetic abnormalities. You are using decent people born with genetic abnormalities as camouflage for kinky or disturbed people. Rather than supporting those who suffer from the real defects, you taint them by equating their actual conditions with people who are just plain warped. Stop doing it.
3. This is just as twisted as equating sexual orientation with race. You people may THINK you are lifting-up people with sexual issues by trying to gang them onto the long-overdue destruction of racism. You are using decent people born with various skin shades/colors as camouflage for kinky or disturbed people. You have actually reinforced a vile old racist stereotype that being black has something to do with sexual misconduct. Stop doing it.
So it would be rather late to go "Damn, I shouldn't have gone to the UK" when the prosecutor who is married to a US bigwig issued an illegal arrest warrant (because he's not wanted for arrest) AFTER he'd gone to the UK.
And, no, not even the women themselves think it was rape. One retracted her complaint entirely, but women aren't allowed to know if they've been raped. Someone else has to confirm it and insist that it happened.
And why Snowden doesn't want to go to Sweden is that if they're under suspicion, BUT NOT ARRESTED, they can be evicted from Sweden, and anyone making a request for his transfer to their jurisdiction to answer to a criminal matter (without any evidence being necessary) can get him. This is why they won't arrest him before he goes to Sweden. And in the UK, he's only allowed to be extradited under arrest and has the right to appeal in the UK, and the USA refuse to make a claim to arrest him yet, so the UK can't extradite him.
Manning's releases were suspect in motivation and intent and has some interesting legal issues. Snowden lacks most of those and to be honest, created the greatest value to Americans as opposed to hoping to aid other countries.