Slashdot Mirror
Chelsea Manning Set To Be Released From Prison, 28 Years Early (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning is set to walk out of prison Wednesday -- but she won't be entirely free. Manning's 35-year sentence for leaking an enormous trove of military intelligence records was commuted by President Barack Obama in January. But Manning is still appealing her conviction in a case that could take years, and the government has yet to respond to the appeal. And all the while, Private First Class Manning, 29, will remain an active duty soldier in the U.S. Army. She won't be paid a salary, and it's highly unlikely that she will be called to serve. But being placed on voluntary excess leave rather than discharged, says one of her attorneys, makes her vulnerable to new military punishment or charges if she steps out of line. Such an offense could be anything from getting into a fistfight to revealing previously unreleased classified information. Manning could even get into trouble with the military for speaking and writing. The Army private then known as Bradley Manning was just 22-year-old when she leaked nearly 750,000 military files and cables to WikiLeaks. Manning was court-martialed and sentenced in 2013 to 35 years in prison, with opportunity for parole after seven years served. n a statement given to the TODAY show the day after sentencing, Manning came out as a transgender woman. Last Tuesday, in Manning's first official statement about her plans after prison, she said, "I can see a future for myself as Chelsea."
Don't be ridiculous. Trump isn't suicidal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No she didn't. Wikileaks did. She just dumped a whole load of files on them with no way of knowing if there was anything that exposed criminal actions, or how responsible wikileaks would be.
There was no deeply unethical behaviour 99% of what was given to wikileaks.
Snowden - leaked sensitive information to demonstrate government abuse. He conducted the leaks in a way that limited damage and avoided the public release of information that could put agents in danger. Information was leaked with good intentions in order to benefit society, and as such Snowden should be hailed as a hero.
Manning - leaked sensitive information because he wanted to take revenge on the army. He was pissed off about losing his day off per week because he was persistently late. He went nuts and smashed up the office and then leaked information. He leaked the information in the most damaging way possible with and did so purely out of malice. All actions were taken with the intention of doing as much harm as possible, and as such Manning should be in prison very a very long time.
Incidentally, I use he because at the time of the events he was still a guy.
What did he actually expose?
All he did was download a bunch of diplomatic cables and release them without having any idea what was in them.
The guy is a moron.
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births, with outright ambiguous genitalia in 1 in 5000. Estimates of rates of intersex conditions including non-visible traits are as high as 1-2% of the global population - about the same rate as red hair. Some conditions are rare in the general population but high in specific groups - for example, 0.3% of Yupik children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while 5-ARD (a curious condition where children are born seemingly as female but develop a penis and descended testes at puberty) is very rare globally but higher in the Dominican Republic - in one village 12 of the 13 families there had at least one child with the condition.
Males with XX and females with XY are just another in a long line of sex chromosomal abnormalities including XXY females, XXXX females, XXYY males (1 in 18-40k),XXXXX females, XXXXY males (1 in 85-100k), XXY males (1 in 500-1000), XXX females (1 in 1000), and XO females (1 in 2-5k). And it's not just changes in numbers or selections of chromosomes; the SRY gene (which is really the virilization cascade trigger, not the whole Y chromosome) seems unusually prone to migration.
So again: if you want to assert that Manning is XY: show us the lab results. You can say it's most probable that Manning is XY and get no contest from me. But chromosomal abnormalities are common enough to make arbitrary assertion of the claim as fact indefensible.
FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
No.
United States Senator
from Illinois
In office
January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
Member of the Illinois Senate
from the 13th district
In office
January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens? Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's
So, that's a no. Thanks for clearing that up.
Also, you really need to review your history of the Civil Rights movement. It included quite a bit of lawbreaking which was necessary to raise awareness and move the issue forward. I'd say it constitutes a pretty decent counterexample to your claim, actually. But even if it didn't, the fact that you had to reach back almost 60 years to find an example of someone allegedly fixing a governmental problem through official channels is telling enough.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Nonsense. You should read about John Crane, Thomas Drake and the others who were persecuted (and prosecuted) for trying to reveal what Snowden did, but to do it "the right way". The evidence is abundant and well-documented by serious journalists. This isn't some conspiracy theory crap, and if you're unaware of it it's because your own confirmation bias has led you to avoid it. Here's an article to get you started: https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens?
Good intentions are not a defense against bad actions. I sincerely believe that the members of the intelligence community are trying to protect the country, but that doesn't mean they can just do anything they want. There is tremendous potential for abuse, which is why we need laws that strictly circumscribe what the intelligence community can do, and real oversight -- with teeth -- to verify that the laws are being followed. We manifestly lack real oversight, and as a result the intelligence community regularly breaks the law, which itself is dangerously permissive.
Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.
You have a very simplistic view of the world. There is more than one issue at stake. Classified information can be integral to maintaining safety, and yet it can still be necessary to reveal classified information in order to preserve freedom. In most cases this can be done without actually endangering anyone... but sometimes it can't, and that's just too damned bad. Freedom isn't free, and part of the cost
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.