President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @10:00AM from the it's-about-time dept.

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.

47 of 798 comments (clear)

Not sure what to think.... by beheaderaswp · 2017-01-17 10:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it was my estimation that the two political parties were more interested in what is best for America, rather than just winning their ideological war, this would hold more weight for me.
Snowdon seems the logical "other pardon". Not sure I'd like that to happen. Would prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
Neither case is at the instigation of a foreign government. So the issues need to be gone through in an open court so the country can understand the issues. And legally decide whether a crime was committed, or these were justified acts done by patriots.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
1. Re:Not sure what to think.... by DickBreath · 2017-01-17 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Snowden should also be pardoned.
  
  As for being able to make their case so the country can understand the issues, I suppose they could appear on talk shows. Write a book. Which then becomes a movie, er . . . oh, wait.
  
  Even better would be if there had been legitimate channels where whistle blowers could have reported problems without fear of reprisals.
  
  A pardon may not completely say that their acts were justified, but it at least gets them out of trouble.
  
  The problem with a court proceeding is that it puts them back in jeopardy of whatever way the winds may blow in court.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
2. Re:Not sure what to think.... by quantaman · 2017-01-17 10:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it was my estimation that the two political parties were more interested in what is best for America, rather than just winning their ideological war, this would hold more weight for me.
  Snowdon seems the logical "other pardon". Not sure I'd like that to happen. Would prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.
  Neither case is at the instigation of a foreign government. So the issues need to be gone through in an open court so the country can understand the issues. And legally decide whether a crime was committed, or these were justified acts done by patriots.
  I wouldn't be shocked if Trump pardoned Snowden, it would make Russia look good by justifying their harbouring of Snowden and it's just the sort of PR splash/distraction that Trump loves.
  Not sure about Assange though, Trump's lovefest with Wikileaks will come to a very quick end if they ever dump something that he wants hidden. In fact, aiding the election of someone who's campaigned on the vilification of the press may be one of the more short-sighted things that Assange has done.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
3. Re:Not sure what to think.... by DickBreath · 2017-01-17 10:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I believe Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
4. Re:Not sure what to think.... by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-01-17 10:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Snowden should also be pardoned.
  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"
5. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2017-01-17 10:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Thelasko · 2017-01-17 10:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I believe Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
  I believe you are correct.
  
  ...the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
7. Re:Not sure what to think.... by sexconker · 2017-01-17 10:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
8. Re:Not sure what to think.... by JustNiz · 2017-01-17 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sure it is. What Snowden did was altruistic and for the good of the people. What Nixon did was abuses of power designed to line his own pockets.
9. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Uberbah · 2017-01-17 11:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Stephan+Schulz · 2017-01-17 11:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Stephan
11. Re:Not sure what to think.... by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-17 11:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Does any of it matter? She wants to be referred to as "she", so unless you have some particular reason to be a asshat towards her why not just do it?
  Some posters keep complaining about the lack of respect people have these days, while refusing to show the most basic level towards transgender people.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Not sure what to think.... by tlhIngan · 2017-01-17 11:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
13. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Stephan+Schulz · 2017-01-17 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  manning is a traitor. HE will always be viewed as such.
  Snowden too.
  By stupid rednecks, sure. The type of people who think (ok, that's a legal fiction) that they are right not because of their actions, but by default. The type who "thinks" that there is a finite supply of bad people in the world, and that we can solve all our problems by killing or incarcerating them, never mind the collateral damage. The type who may have heard of human rights, but does not understand that they apply to all humans, even those that disagree with them.
  I'm not a big fan of Assange, but he wrote an excellent statement on the Manning case, quoting John Adams: "“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know.” He does not quote the second part, but I find it just as applicable: "...but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
  If you look at how Manning was treated both pre- and post-trial, its "as incontrovertible as geometry to any enlightened community of minds" that the people responsible for that treatment are guilty of severe crimes under both national and international laws - regardless of what Manning had done. But, as the presidential election has shown, "this community is an insult to the world" (to steal from Henry Drummond/Spencer Tracy), and so the chance for actual justice is remote.
  
  --
  Stephan
14. Re:Not sure what to think.... by WillAffleckUW · 2017-01-17 11:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  technically, Obama can pardon him for certain crimes. But is unlikely to if he doesn't make a deal in 3 days. He'll still serve time in jail for any crimes not listed, but it's better than what Putin will eventually do to Snowden.
  His best offer is likely to be a few years in federal jail in the US proper. He'd better reach out now. The door will close soon.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
15. Re:Not sure what to think.... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-01-17 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?
  She pled guilty, so there was no trial. She was not allowed to use the defense that her actions were justified, and in the best interests of her country. That is/was not a permissible defense, and the jury would not have been allowed to hear it. So she had no choice but to plead guilty and go to jail. So much for a "fair trial".
16. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-01-17 11:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What special privilege is Chelsea asking for? She wants to be called by her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things). She's not asking to go to an all-girls high school or otherwise do anything controversial. In what remote sense does her request harm you in any way?
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
17. Re:Not sure what to think.... by jonbryce · 2017-01-17 11:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
18. Re:Not sure what to think.... by amicusNYCL · 2017-01-17 11:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
19. Re:Not sure what to think.... by MightyMartian · 2017-01-17 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So decorum and manners are of no value at all to you? You basically feel entitled to be as rude and awful as you please? Well go for it. Yes, the government won't haul your ass into court for being an asshole, but I think you'll find your life will be worse for it. Because of course even someone like you knows there are social rules.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
20. Re:Not sure what to think.... by lgw · 2017-01-17 12:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Does any of it matter? She wants to be referred to as "she", so unless you have some particular reason to be a asshat towards her why not just do it?
  When talking to him directly? Sure, it's only polite to call him "her". Heck, I've been to enough cons - if someone wants to be a Klingon ship captain, sure, I'll play along if they're there and in costume. But they still aren't Klingon, and I'm not going to think of them as Klingon, or refer to them that way in normal conversation.
  There's a quote sometimes attributed to Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four - doesn't matter what you call it, it's not a leg".
  My sympathy towards anyone with a mistake belief about reality that interferes with their daily life - psychoses suck. But I'm not going to participate in their reality.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
21. Re:Not sure what to think.... by PrimaryConsult · 2017-01-17 12:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
22. Re:Not sure what to think.... by vux984 · 2017-01-17 12:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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/...
23. Re:Not sure what to think.... by j-beda · 2017-01-17 12:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Felons by default do not have full rights as citizens, including RKBA and Voting. That is what happens when you commit a felony. Sucks to be a felon, so don't commit felonies.
  It depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  If we are interested in curtailing re-offense and encouraging re-integration after prison, I don't think that disenfranchisement is particularly productive. There is considerable doubt over deterrent effect of the death penalty - I suspect that the deterrenc effect of disenfranchisement is pretty small.
24. Re:Not sure what to think.... by ZipK · 2017-01-17 12:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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).
25. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-01-17 12:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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?
26. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-17 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's no known relationship between transgenderism, and delusions or psychoses. People with delusions tend to have a history of psychological problems and a spread of issues. Trans-folks, once you get over any bumps caused by repression or rejection, don't really have any of that. They have a straight-line, sometimes very strongly felt dysphoria. Calling it a delusion is to ignore all the detail of the phenomenon, which make you a bad nerd!
  It's perfectly plausible that hormonal variations during development could cause this stuff - gendered body parts are month 2+, brain is month 6. If your testosterone levels fall off, or your mother is feeding anti-androgens in, etc, then you'll get male body, female brain.
  It surprises me that people find this hard to get, when such hormonal variations cause plenty of other conditions. And it's not like "I think I'm female" is an unusual feeling - it's common to over half the world's population, and in the absence of foetal androgens, everyone would say it.
27. Re:Not sure what to think.... by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-01-17 13:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm genuinely curious as to how it damages / inconveniences / hurts you to just call her a her?
  HE committed a crime. SHE is getting her sentence commuted.
  If the sex change had happened before the crime, I wouldn't be using he/she at all. If it had not happened before the commutation, likewise....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
28. Re:Not sure what to think.... by Troy+Roberts · 2017-01-17 13:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
29. Re:Not sure what to think.... by swillden · 2017-01-17 15:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
30. Re:Not sure what to think.... by liquidsin · 2017-01-17 15:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  jesus, i always just thought that was a dark line; now you're telling me it's the scar from that time when my vagina healed?
  
  --
  do not read this line twice.
31. Re:Not sure what to think.... by guises · 2017-01-17 16:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  her gender (not biological sex; those are medically and legally different things)
  What? This is the first time I've heard that claim, and I find it hard to believe. I can buy it for a medical definition (though I expect that it must be a recent change), those people mostly only care about what's best for the patient, but legally? In this political climate? In what state? In what country?
  
  My understanding is this: Robert Stoller started distinguishing between the words sex and gender back in the sixties because he found it convenient for his research on transexuality. Some feminists starting picking up the idea in the seventies, when Gail Ruben argued that gender was a social imposition rather than anything tied to biology, and she used the two words separately in her argument. Since then the sex/gender distinction has become common jargon in feminist literature... And that's it. That's as far as it goes. The two words are distinguished in certain academic jargon, but they are synonyms outside of that.
  
  Is there more to this that I'm unaware of? I ask because I've seen this declaration that gender means one thing and sex means something else a lot lately, and it seems so... dumb. It's like that guy who declares that green beans aren't vegetables because they're actually fruits. And technically it's true that green beans are fruits in the jargon of certain academic fields, but this fact doesn't make that guy right. That guy is still dumb. Outside of a textbook: green beans are vegetables.
  
  Or, for that matter, sex and gender have different meanings in linguistic jargon than they do in feminist jargon. Saying that one definition is "correct" is just myopic.
32. Re:Not sure what to think.... by silentcoder · 2017-01-17 22:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There are numerous other variations. Some biological women have abnormally high testosterone levels - for a long time they were barred from competing in the olympics. Then there is a condition where the body is incapable of absorbing testosterone. And sometimes these can occur in the same person. For a long time women barred from the olympics due to high testosterone levels were allowed back in if they also had that condition.
  Human bodies are extremely complex machines and come in many varieties - and most of them are harmless variation. There is nothing harmful about transgender genetics - the only harm they suffer is from the way people treat them, it's not their genes causing that, it's a flawed culture. One of the greatest Winter Olympians of all time had a rare genetic trait that made his body produce far higher than average red blood cells (Polycythemia). What some sportsman try to achieve with drugs like EPO - he had by nature of his genes.
  When she was 3 months old my daugher swallowed a peanut which went down the wrong hole and got inhaled. She needed an endoscope to remove it. While doing the endoscope we learned that she had only one tube connecting her airways to her left lung. Generally there are two. I asked the doctor if this was anything to be concerned about and she said "Absolutely not, it's entirely harmless and will have no impact on her life whatsoever. It's a known and perfectly natural genetic variation and it's quite likely either you or your wife also has it. The only reason I pointed it out is because I found it personally interesting because though I knew about it, I hadn't seen it myself before".
  Humans are not simple and don't fit into such super-simplistic categories as "male/female" very well and never really have. Just like anybody who says "people have two passages connecting the left lung to the airway" would be saying something that looks extremely obvious on the surface but simply isn't TRUE of all people.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
33. Re:Not sure what to think.... by dcw3 · 2017-01-18 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.
  I think that pretty much covers it.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Your move, Assange.... by nbannerman · 2017-01-17 10:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

So then, any response from Wikileaks / Assange? Will he now give himself up, as per this tweet - https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... ? (Note - not a troll response, genuinely interested to hear what folks think happens on that front now... )
1. Re:Your move, Assange.... by KiloByte · 2017-01-17 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:Your move, Assange.... by Motherfucking+Shit · 2017-01-17 10:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:Your move, Assange.... by Just+Some+Guy · 2017-01-17 10:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A definition of "clemency" says:
  
  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.
  Clemency is considered to be an act of grace. It is based on the policy of fairness, justice, and forgiveness. It is not a right but rather a privilege, and one who is granted clemency does not have the crime forgotten, as in Amnesty, but is forgiven and treated more leniently for the criminal acts. Clemency is similar to pardon inasmuch as it is an act of grace exempting someone from punishment.
  
  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?
Best fucking part by ZiakII · 2017-01-17 10:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Best fucking part...

"Earlier this month, WikiLeaks said it would agree to a US extradition request for the site's founder, Julian Assange, if Obama granted clemency to Manning. It was not immediately clear if WikiLeaks would make good on its promise."

I'm sure Julian will honor this....
Re:Treason ain't what it used to be by DickBreath · 2017-01-17 10:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whistle blowing should not be considered treason. After seeing how other whistleblowers were treated, by the Obama administration, I can see why Snowden chose the actions he took. He was willing to give up his comfortable life to alert us all to a gigantic problem. One which has generated a huge amount of public debate. And has led to some actual reforms.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
For all those calling for Snowden's pardon by Lucas123 · 2017-01-17 10:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

President Obama noted stark differences between Manning's and Snowden's cases.
From the New York Times article: “Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” Pres. Obama said. “Mr. 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.”
He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were “damaging to national security,” the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were “far more serious and far more dangerous.” (None of the documents Ms. Manning disclosed were classified above the merely “secret” level.)
So, the president isn't about to pardon someone who hasn't even been tried for his crimes.
1. Re:For all those calling for Snowden's pardon by Uberbah · 2017-01-17 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  From the New York Times article: âoeChelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,â
  
  Reality: Chelsea Manning wasn't allowed to defend her actions under the Espionage Act, was tortured for over a year with solitary confinement, was constantly subjected to humiliation, was threatened with a longer sentence over trumped up BS, and should have been released after Obama committed Unlawful Command Influence and pronounced Manning guilty before the trial was over, while promoting the judge overseeing the hearing.
  Snowden would expect to fare as well.
  
  He also noted that while the documents Ms. Manning provided to WikiLeaks were âoedamaging to national security,â the ones Mr. Snowden disclosed were âoefar more serious and far more dangerous.â
  
  The USA spies on the entire planet, including the personal communications of allied heads of state. That is unjustifiable.
  
  So, the president isn't about to pardon someone who hasn't even been tried for his crimes.
  coughNixoncough
Bigoted transophobes. by Uberbah · 2017-01-17 10:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Still, you might get a few years left where your prejudice may be voiced in polite company, as trans rights are 20-30 years behind gay rights in this country.
Re:Ben Carson was right by Pascoea · 2017-01-17 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as they go to prison, sure, they can get a gender reassignment.
And I think you're off by a hair on your "millions" estimate. Male to female ranges from $7-$24,000. (source)
For reference, a new knee will cost about $50k. Technically a knee replacement is an elective surgery. How many of those were done to inmates last year? Should they be denied therapy as well? Or does gender reassignment bother you because it doesn't match your world view?
Re:Ben Carson was right by ckatko · 2017-01-17 11:14 · Score: 5, Funny

What's the $7 route? A pair of scissors and a bottle of robitussin?
Re:Woohoo! by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-01-17 11:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can you point to an American who was killed due to the leak? No? Then STFU.
Re:Varied opinions by Sabriel · 2017-01-17 16:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Regardless of what they did or didn't do, what message does it send to the rest of the military that those imprisoned by the US are tortured with official sanction even up to and including the POTUS?
"Because our enemies are worse" is not a position of respect.