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 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.
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.
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.
I believe Ford pre-emptively pardoned Nixon before any charges were filed.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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".
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?
What's the $7 route? A pair of scissors and a bottle of robitussin?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.