Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence (theverge.com)
The New York Times is reporting that President Obama has commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence. What this translates to is a reduced sentence for Manning, from 35 years to just over seven years. Since Manning has already served a majority of those years, she is due to be released from federal custody on May 17th. The Verge reports: While serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, Manning leaked more than 700,000 documents to Wikileaks, including video of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad that killed two Reuters employees. In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for her role in the leak and has been held at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth for the past three years. Julian Assange, who has long been sought by U.S. and EU authorities for extradition on Swedish rape charges, had previously pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Born Bradley Manning, Chelsea announced her gender transition the day after the verdict was handed down. "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female," she said in a statement. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible." Obtaining the resulting medical treatments was extremely difficult for Manning, and was the subject of significant and sustained activism. After a lawsuit, Manning was approved for hormone therapy in 2015. In September 2016, she launched a hunger strike, demanding access to gender reassignment surgery; the military complied five days later.
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Assange's offer was for "clemency," which does not necessarily mean a full pardon, and could include commutation depending upon whom you ask. So it's muddy, of course, and easy for him to weasel out of if he has to. In any case, was Assange ever actually facing US prison? It would be like me offering to turn myself in to the Canadian authorities in exchange for Snowden being granted clemency; I haven't even been to Canada, and I'm certainly not wanted for anything there. It's an empty offer, there's nothing for him to make good on.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
Actually, the tweet said clemency, not pardon; which commutation certainly is based on the definition of clemency: Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. Will be interesting to see what Assange does now that Obama has granted clemency.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
A definition of "clemency" says:
Barring contrary definitions, the President granted her clemency. I strongly suspect Assange is far too little to live up to his promise, but this is exactly the situation the Wikileaks tweet described.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Note that Manning was NOT pardoned. His (her?) sentence was commuted. So, he/she still has a criminal record, can't exercise his/her full rights as a citizen (RKBA is gone, for instance, in spite of firearms being completely irrelevant to his crime).
A sentence commutation just means he/she gets out of jail sooner. Not at all the same as a pardon.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.
Not true, the President's pardon power is pretty broad; specifically, the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no mention of conviction or even a trial, merely that an offense be committed "against the United States." The only limit would be in case of impeachment which is not germane to Snowden. As long as someone committed an act against the US a pardon may be issued by the President. Of note is that doesn't prevent state charges, stemming from the same act, from being brought as the President's power only extends to "Offences against the United States." In Snowden's case I have no idea if a state could decide to charge him or even what the charge could be, but someone could very well commit a Federal and state crime in the same act and thus a Presidential pardon would have no impact in the state's case.
I take Obama's comment as meaning his standard for considering a pardon includes having been tried for the act before he will consider issuing one; a standard Snowden has not met.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I believe Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
I believe you are correct.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I'm genuinely curious as to how it damages / inconveniences / hurts you to just call her a her?
You don't need to be convicted or even charged with any crime or act to be pardoned. A pardon is essentially the head of the executive branch saying the executive branch will not execute laws in regards to a specific person, situation, etc.
Or the boy-fucking in Afghanistan as revealed in the Wikileaks cables. For authoritarians, the fainting couches get brought out for whistleblowers, but they don't care about children getting their assholes reamed by warlords on their tax dollar.
Try citing the actual case. While Ford believed that Burdick implied that preemptive pardons were allowed, the Court specifically said: "In our view of the case it is not material to decide whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction." Therefore, they directly avoided saying what you quoted them as saying.
The funny part is that there has been no US extradition request for Julian Assange. So basically, he didn't offer anything. It was just a way to keep his name in the news.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There are people whose chromosomes are of one gender but whose external genitalia are of another, as a matter of fetal development. Sexuality is more than genitals and chromosomes, even without the involvement of surgery.
There's a good reason for this. At conception, we are all female. For the first few weeks, we will have estrogen, ovaries and vaginas. This is because of genetics. You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY. But the X chromosome details female characteristics. The Y details male characteristics. But that means if you have an XY pair, the Y chromosome needs to deactivate genes in the X chromosome. But that takes a few weeks to happen, so in the meantime, the fetus develops as if they're a female. When the Y chromosome 6takes over, then the adaptations begin. The ovaries shrivel and descent, becoming the testes, and the vagina "pops out" becoming the penis. Likewise, estrogen levels go down, testosterone levels rise.
Most of the time the transformation is complete, but since it's genetics and subject to random variation, it's entirely possible the genetic suppression isn't complete, leading to homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.
Maleness is simply a genetic patch on females. As everyone knows, sometimes patches don't apply cleanly.
Actually, the Y chromosome only contains the code for the testes, which, if they work correctly, will produce testosterone, and testosterone, will, if other parts of the body work correctly, make them develop as male rather than female. Around 1.7% of babies that are issued with female birth certificates actually have XY chromosomes, and a condition that means the testosterone isn't produced, or doesn't work. They have testes where you would normally expect to find ovaries, but other than that, look exactly like girls.
There are other conditions that cause the kidneys to produce testosterone, so around 1 in 20000 babies that are issued with male birth certificates actually have XX chromosomes.
Another thing, thanks to microchimerism, around 22% of women have cells in their bodies with XY chromosomes. Being pregnant with a son increases the chance of this happening, 10% of women who have never been pregnant have cells with XY chromosomes, and many of them have an older brother.
You almost certainly have cells in your body that 100% match your mother's DNA, in addition to the majority that match 50% plus whatever your mother and father have in common.
and the vagina "pops out" becoming the penis
Listen, I'm not a meteorologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that a penis is not an inside-out vagina. I'm pretty sure it's more analogous to the clitoris, and that the little seam that runs down the nutsack and taint (excuse the medical terminology) is the result of the labia closing and sealing.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
In Snowden's case he wasn't even in a state when he released the documents. In trying to research whether a crime committed in a federal building could be prosecuted at the state level (for the taking of the documents in the first place), I essentially came to the conclusion of "it depends on the property". Meaning if the government simply owns the land in the same manner as a regular private entity would, or it is of "concurrent legislative jurisdiction", the state and city still have law enforcement responsibility. But if it owns the land via "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" you're effectively not in a state while on the property. If you break the equivalent of a state law while in such a location, the feds can "assimilate" the appropriate state law and prosecute it as a federal crime.
Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...
You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.
Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And some females only have a single X...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Try citing the actual case.
The relevant case is Ex parte Garland (1867), in which Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the court in a 5-4 decision, wrote that a president's pardon power ''extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.'' This precedent was reaffirmed in Murphy v. Ford (1975).
They are not medically or legally different things.
I grew up in a medical family and I've worked in healthcare in various capacities for a couple of decades now. In any organization I've dealt with, "sex" or "biological" sex explicitly refers to your anatomy. That's important because biological males can't get cervical cancer and biological females can't get testicular cancer, for instance. They're the words used on the occasions when anatomy are relevant. Most medical organizations I've been around in the last decade or so distinguish between "sex" and "gender", which is what the patient presents themselves as. Sure, they're most commonly the same value, but they are separate database fields referring to different concepts.
But what you and other extreme liberals
LOL. You presume much, and wrongly. But con/lib aside, I've never encountered a single problem with referring to someone by their gender. The people who care to distinguish between sex and gender appreciate the respect, and understand when medical decisions require healthcare providers to discuss their sex instead. It's easy to be nice to people, so why not do so? It doesn't cost us anything.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Really, So have you looked the term up in a legal dictionary?
From Black's Law Dictionary:
What is GENDER?
Defined difference between men and women based on culturally and socially constructed mores, politics, and affairs. Time and location give rise to a variety of local definitions. Contrasts to what is defined as the biological sex of a living creature.
Seems like you may be full of shit.
IWould prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?
Well for one it would be a trial against Snowden, not against Manning. And the request was for "a trial where [the defendant] would be allowed to make his case", not a secret trial by a Mickey Mouse court with a pre-determined outcome.
Under the offense Snowden has been charged with, they could have a fully public and perfectly fair trial but the outcome would be completely known in advance. The Espionage Act includes no provision for justification as a defense, so the only question to be tried is whether or not Snowden stole secrets, and there's absolutely no question that he did. Snowden's only hopes if he were to be tried are (a) that the trial judge would hand down a very light sentence, (b) to have his conviction appealed to the Supreme Court who might find that the Espionage Act's lack of a public interest defense constitutes an unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech or (c) a presidential pardon. (a) is unlikely because you can be sure the government would pick a "good" judge, and (b) is a crapshoot, and one that would leave him rotting in jail for years until SCOTUS ruled, assuming they ruled in his favor.
Snowden's best move is exactly what he's doing, staying away until some president decides to pre-emptively do (c). His current status likely also positions him better to generate ongoing publicity in opposition to government spying since it makes him a more controversial and/or tragic figure.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Err... No. Catch up. Sweden's own prosecutor's are going to wind up in trouble in Sweden for breaking Sweden's laws.
There was no 'misconduct' in Sweden and neither of the supposed victims feel that there was anything seriously wrong. They both deny there was any rape. It is the prosecutor (with US connections) that laid the rape charges not the supposed victims. The same prosecutor who agreed to let him leave and then charged him as a fugitive.