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."

20 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a happy day amidst troubled times. Thanks Chelsea, for having done the right thing, and thanks Obama.

    1. Re: Yay! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Helping to expose corruption, deeply unethical behavior and widespread human rights violations.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re: Yay! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Boston Tea Party was treason too.
      Sometimes treason is the right thing.

    3. Re: Yay! by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I took a sword to a blacksmith and he beat it into a ploughshare, would you insist on calling it a sword because it once was one?

      In short, do you make an "immutability of essence" argument with everything, or just gender?

      If you see gender as an immutable binary, I strongly recommend learning about the amazing diversity of intermediary intersex forms which occur surprisingly commonly in humans. Humanity tends toward the binary, but it's fully capable of everything in-between. I also recommend that you learn about tissue homologues.

      Lastly, how exactly does what's in one's pants affect your everyday interaction with them, and thus define how you should treat them? And should what's in their pants define your interaction with them?

      --
      FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
    4. Re: Yay! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      f you see gender as an immutable binary, I strongly recommend learning about the amazing diversity of intermediary intersex forms which occur surprisingly commonly in humans.

      ??

      What exactly is the mumbo-jumbo you're trying to express here?

      If you are XY you're male...if XX you're female. If you can't get it in your brain which one you are, then get some psychiatric help, but it doesn't change who you are.

      If you have an extra X or Y rolling around in there, ok, I'll give it to you...you are kinda fucked as to what you are, but that's definitely not the majority of cases here.

      If chelsea or whatever its name is has an extra X or Y floating around in there, please let me know...I've not heard of evidence of that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re: Yay! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What exactly is the mumbo-jumbo you're trying to express here?

      None. Your Mumbo jumbo masquerading as simple logic is still mumbo jumbo.

      If you are XY you're male...if XX you're female.

      These are the rules of biology:
      1. If you think it's simple, you're wrong
      2. If you think it's complicated, you're still wrong.
      3. If you think it's ludicrously messy and complicated, you're wrong, but getting there.

      Since you are making pseudo biological arguments, I shall respond with biological arguments.

      Go Google "androgen insensitivity syndrome".

      I'll wait.

      OK now you've read it, do you believe that someone work XY chromosomes, but entirely female anatomy since birth is male or female? And why do you choose the choice you made?

      Follow up questions: what is your definition of gender that actually matches biology I a way that's neither circular nor unique to humans?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. She did the right thing by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Manning discovered widespread corruption, deeply unethical behavior and absolutely unacceptable conduct, and she decided to let fundamental human rights and dignity overrule artificial power structures, so she exposed the lies, and of course the liars punished her.

    It must have taken immense bravery, and we should admire her, not attack her.

    --
    Eat the rich.
    1. Re:She did the right thing by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree. There's a big difference between leaking, and dumping troves of information. It could have been bad.

      Fortunately it was nowhere near as bad as people were claiming at the time. None of the revelations were really that shocking except to people who were naive about war or diplomacy.

      In a way the most shocking thing was the sheer breadth of information that was made available to a young person who was disturbed, alienated and psychologically vulnerable. Granted screening for people like that is never going to be perfect, but it's almost like they weren't even trying.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:She did the right thing by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding is that it was in fact her duty. Something in the oath she took about defending against threats to the United States, foreign and domestic.

      Yet Manning signed a non-disclosure agreement which Manning decided didn't apply. In the process Manning exposed classified information about methods and collection activities which gave the USA's adversaries the ability to avoid collection and may have cost the lives of human assets involved in the collections. Manning also caused grave damage to international relations....

      So I have a question... What was the big story yesterday about Trump and the meeting with the Russians all about? How are they similar?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:She did the right thing by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet Manning signed a non-disclosure agreement which Manning decided didn't apply.

      Oaths supersede signed agreements.

    4. Re:She did the right thing by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if one is willing to ADMIT to what they did and pay the price, but you do it within the system FIRST. Manning didn't do it the right way, he went rouge bypassed the system and broke the law AND his oath in my view. It was double bad that he was enlisted in the military at the time. You CANNOT refuse an order in the military unless it is CLEARLY unlawful, Manning disobeyed lawful orders, violated his oath, violated the law, and arguably committed treason while in uniform.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Or by SlashDread · · Score: 4, Insightful

    7 years too late.

  4. Re:When leaking national secrets was cool by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So indiscriminantly dumping thousands of classified communications in an active warzone is "OK" because you hate Bush.

    But -- and this is assuming that the "narrative" is true -- Trump giving information to Russia pertaining to known terrorist plots to place explosives on civilian airliners that would result in the murder of innocent civilians is somehow "immoral" because wanting to protect civilians is evil now because Trump?

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  5. Re:When leaking national secrets was cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...giving information to Russia pertaining to known terrorist plots to place explosives on civilian airliners that would result in the murder of innocent civilians is somehow "immoral" because wanting to protect civilians is evil now because Trump?

    No, not "because Trump." It's because he isn't Clinton. This would be exactly the same response if any other non-Clinton candidate had won and done the same thing. If a Clinton had won and done this, it would be the wisest act of diplomacy ever.

  6. Re:Transgender by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) When did you do a DNA test? Because there's plenty of people who are anatomically male who are XX, and anatomically female who are XY. Odds are high that she's XY, but there's certainly no guarantee. You cannot simply assert "she's XY" as a fact without a test.

    2) Is that how you interact with people - going around insisting on DNA tests with them before you can figure out how to proceed? And if so, do you demand DNA tests only for just sex chromosomes (or just the gene SRY), or do you insist on other DNA tests first as well?

    3) Why do you care so much what's in her pants? It's a bit creepy, as if you have some sort of sexual obsession with her. Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?

    --
    FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  7. Re:Transgender by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashdot is always flooded with teenagers who love to try to get a rise out of other people by posting racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. Plus some legitimate racists, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, etc, but a large portion are just immature kids.

    --
    FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  8. Re:Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that the treatment itself is gender reassignment, and it's effective. Example study:.

    RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

    Example:

    Results

    A difference in SCL-90 overall psychoneurotic distress was observed at the different points of assessments (P0.003), with the most prominent decrease occurring after the initiation of hormone therapy (P<0.001). Significant decreases were found in the subscales such as anxiety, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, and hostility. Furthermore, the SCL-90 scores resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated. Analysis of the psychosocial variables showed no significant differences between pre- and postoperative assessments.

    Conclusions
    A marked reduction in psychopathology occurs during the process of sex reassignment therapy, especially after the initiation of hormone therapy.

    Example:

    Longitudinal outcome studies of gender dysphoric individuals suggest improved psychological functioning after gender reassignment treatment.

    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You're wanting to withhold effective treatment, why exactly? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Is your identity or sexuality so fragile that you can't deal with existing in a world with transpeople, and as a consequence want them to remain untreated? Because that is the treatment.

    It's quite true that transpeople have higher suicide rates than the general population both before and after treatment (although not the same before and after). But what exactly do you expect when dealing with family rejection, workplace discrimination, medical discrimination, parenting discrimination, huge medical costs that they have to bear unlike people being treated for almost any other condition (aka, they pay in their insurance premiums for other peoples' treatments but other people don't do the same to them) and (combined with workplace discrimination) correspondingly higher rates of homelessness, higher rates of sexual assault, higher rates of physical assault, pricks passing "bathroom laws" and the like, and general anti-trans assholery, e.g. like you find here at Slashdot?

  9. Re:Transgender by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?

    People suffering from transphobia - a fear that they might find someone attractive but then later discover that they have the "wrong" genitals, resulting in deep shame and disgust. That's why the traditional portrayal of transgender people in movies and on TV is for a guy to date a hot trans woman, discover she has a penis and then throw up.

    It's as if being attracted to someone, loving someone, is wrong and disgusting if you can't also insert your penis in your preferred hole. There are also a bizarre panic over theoretical fake trans woman rapists in bathrooms, let's not forget that.

    The risk of this happening is apparently great enough (in their minds) to warrant all sorts of oppression and general asshattery.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:Transgender by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births

    You have a very lenient definition of "common." 0.33% is not common.

    He didn't say they're common. He said they're surprisingly common, which means they're more common that you might expect, not that they're common in any absolute sense (whatever that means, anyway).

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Re:Hopefully... by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spoken like a true cave-man with zero understanding of the issue at hand.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.