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."

46 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: 5, Interesting

      There was no sing of any transgender tendencies before.

      Someone clearly wasn't paying attention.

      (1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and... its important that it gets out... i feel, for some bizarre reason
      (1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something
      (1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least not now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy...
      (1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind... i make no sense... the CPU is not made for this motherboard...
      (1:14:42 PM) bradass87: s/as boy/as a boy
      (1:30:32 PM) bradass87: >sigh<
      (1:31:40 PM) bradass87: i just wanted enough time to figure myself out... to be myself... and be running around all the time, trying to meet someone else's expectations
      (1:32:01 PM) bradass87: *and not be
      (1:33:03 PM) bradass87: im just kind of drifting now...
      (1:34:11 PM) bradass87: waiting to redeploy to the US, be discharged... and figure out how on earth im going to transition
      (1:34:45 PM) bradass87: all while witnessing the world freak out as its most intimate secrets are revealed
      (1:35:06 PM) bradass87: its such an awkward place to be in, emotionally and psychologically

      --
      FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
    4. Re: Yay! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Dumping cargo into the bay is not treason. Illegal, but not treason.

      Damaging property of the Crown and going against the explicit orders or the representative of the Crown was viewed as treason, even by those doing it. Dressing as non-citizen Mohawk warriors made it even clearer that this was treason. Donning war garments not of your own country is pretty much the archetypical definition of treason.
      Governor Thomas Hutchinson called it high treason, and in England, several of the leaders were charged with treason, but as they never were brought to England for trial, and thus not convicted (nor cleared) of the charge. But it was clearly meant as a "We've committed treason, now what are you going to do about it, fucker?"

    5. 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?
    6. 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 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. Re:She did the right thing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      We're not allowed to say things like that because it exposes that Manning is potentially the same kind of person as Cosmo or whatever they're calling themselves now: a mentally-imbalanced individual with severe cognitive and emotional control problems due to unaddressed psychiatric issues.

      GID is generally handled by gender reassignment. That's usually mostly-benign, although there's a lot of social stress that's secondary. GID is frequently comorbid with serious psychiatric disturbances that look an awful damned lot like schizophrenia or schyzotypical personality disorder.

      It's theoretically possible for a schizotypal to manifest their paranoid delusions as GID, along with a belief that Obama is plotting to lead the Muslim invasion from the secret military installation under Denver Airport and implement Shariah Law in the US, and that FEMA has coffins everywhere to put the bodies when they release the plague and kill off 99% of the US population so they can herd the rest into concentration camps for forced labor. Nobody talks publicly about that because identifying a subset of GID cases as downstream from blunt insanity is impolitic.

      So yeah, everyone is going to laud this person as some kind of immaculate hero because it's not stylish to do otherwise.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. Re:She did the right thing by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  3. Re:Freak show by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Traitor, sexually confused, suicidal...

    Are we talking about Manning or Trump?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:Freak show by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Yes, she would fall under the UCMJ, but... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    As long as she is on active duty, she falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If the charge is violating military rules or regulations, she would be processed under the UCMJ. But, even for normal active duty personnel, many crimes or charges are handled by normal civilian courts if they do not involve other military personnel or occur on military property. The military has the option to process them under the UCMJ, but often just let civilian courts handle the charges.

  6. Re:When leaking national secrets was cool by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trump consistently acts incompetent, and needs a serious medical check-up to verify his cognitive capability to remain president or be removed for medical reasons (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or simply Dementia, etc.)

  7. Or by SlashDread · · Score: 4, Insightful

    7 years too late.

  8. 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.
  9. Re:Freak show by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have you seen his diet?

    --
    Eat the rich.
  10. Re:Freak show by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    He has the best diet.
    Nobody has a better diet than him.

    --
    FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  11. Re:Hopefully... by Rei · · Score: 2

    It's a "tragedy" that her genitals may change? What, were you hoping to fuck her?

    --
    FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  12. Re: remain an active duty? so this he she will get by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    mbe u shood taake a chil pil

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  13. 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?
  14. 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?
  15. Re:When leaking national secrets was cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Info the Israelis gave to us in confidence, that we very well won't be getting any more of in the future, because Trump is an imbecile.

    The only people saying the intel was from Israel are the media and an anonymous source in the government. Yet we were told by the media only a day earlier that the Russians could reverse engineer the intelligence provided by the POTUS despite him never mentioning the source. In fact, according to the National Security Advisor the President was not told of the origin. Strange how the media can reveal the presumed source (nation state) of the intelligence but mere false rumours about the President telling the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister about the threat not the origin of the information is enough to get the media into a genital licking orgy.

  16. Re:Transgender by arth1 · · Score: 2

    You identify as transgender in your head.... Technically, your DNA puts your body in one of two genders...

    You confuse gender with sex. Your sex is which dangly bits you popped out with, and is controlled by which chromosomes you have.
    Your gender is an identity, and has a more complex control, likely related to a combination of genes on non-sex chromosomes as well as environment.
    These days, you can change your sex (more or less successfully) without changing your gender or DNA.

  17. Re:Freak show by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

    At least Pence isn't incompetent. Trump has no fucking idea what he's doing. It's like putting a chimp behind the wheel of a jumbo jet.

  18. 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?

  19. Re:When leaking national secrets was cool by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    If a Clinton had won and done this, it would be the wisest act of diplomacy ever.

    Clinton wouldn't have done it. That's the point. Fuck it, Bush Jr wouldn't have done it. Can you see any President in living memory, except maybe Reagan (who had an excuse) doing this? I can't.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  20. Re:Freak show by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Excercise? Who needs it.

  21. Re:Transgender by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  22. 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
  23. Re: Hopefully... by Rei · · Score: 2

    "What's put in place" is their own tissue.

    Male and female genitals develop from the same initial sets of tissues; every organ has a homologue (although those descending from the Mullerian or Wolfian ducts are degenerated to very small sizes in the opposite sex). The clitoris and glans are the same organ. Same tissue, same nerves, etc. Under the influence of testosterone, for example, the clitoris becomes several times larger. The shaft of the penis in women is bifurcated, beneath the skin, and not as developed - but still present. The labia minora and scrotum are the same tissue. Guys, see the line in the middle of your scrotum? That's where your labia fused. On and on down the line.

    Where GRS has to make compromises is with degenerated organs, where the equivalent tissues are too small to be useful. For FTMs, the shaft of the penis is the biggest challenge, while for MTFs, it's the vaginal barrel. While the lower portion of the vagina is equivalent to part of the male external tissue, the upper portion is Mullerian, which is degenerated. Hence MTF GRS uses grafts (grafts also being used for natal females with insufficient vaginal depth). Also, while testes and ovaries are equivalent organs, and most cells in the body react to changing hormones by changing their behavior (for example, breasts develop in MTFs under the influence of estrogen, and they can breastfeed a child, just like any other woman), there's not yet a technique to change the transcription factors that affect hormone production in them.

    In short, in the human body there are aspects that absolutely are reversible, and there are aspects that are not at present reversible with current technology. The techniques used to overcome the latter are the same as are used for natal-sex equivalents needing reparative or reconstructive work. Without gonadal hormone production, hormones must be taken artificially - but they are the exact same hormones as are normally found in the bloodstream, and cells respond to them in the same way.

    Now, could you clarify why exactly you care so much about their genitals?

    --
    FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  24. Re:Transgender by yodleboy · · Score: 2

    what is 4chan? do they have a newsletter i can subscribe to?

    If there are large numbers of 4chan users here, they are impressively restrained...

  25. Re:Transgender by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  26. Re:Hopefully... by Megol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Black & white worldview... You know that's an indication of a personality disorder*?

    In fact there's little difference between men and women _excepting_ the sexual organs themselves and people without functioning sexual organs aren't that uncommon. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make your crappy ramblings true.

    (* well it _is_ true but most people like that are simply either idiots or assholes)

  27. Re:Hopefully... by fedos · · Score: 2

    Maybe suicide rates are affected by the fact that they're subjected to constant hate spewed by bigoted morons.

  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Re:Freak show by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    Treason is the only crime whose definition is part of the US Constitution. There are a horde of lesser offenses under which someone who has committed treasonous acts might be convicted, but a conviction for treason itself requires either a confession in open court, or two eyewitnesses to the same overt act of treason. Stands to reason that a bunch of people who had recently rebelled against the authority of King and Parliament would be a bit touchy about the definition of "treason".

  31. Re:Freak show by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    It's a HUGE diet. A BIG BEAUTIFUL diet. A GREAT AMERICAN diet. And Mexico is going to pay for it.

    Of course, the truth is that he's not getting any from his wife any more, so he's compensating with food.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  32. Re:Hopefully... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Your suggestion has been proven not to work. And yet, people like you keep pushing it out of willful ignorance (how hard is it to look it up on the Internet?). You know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity, don't you?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  33. Weird place, Slashdot by bestweasel · · Score: 2

    There are many more comments about Manning's genitalia than about his/her actions. What is it with you people?

    S/he did more than anyone else to disclose the obscene careless violence used by the US military in Iraq. As in the 1st Gulf War, the western media were largely controlled by the military, keeping them away from anything they shouldn't see. Manning almost single-handedly lifted that curtain and should be lauded for doing so.

    Those of you harking back to the days when the US could bomb anyone with impunity would do well to consider - even if you discount the immorality - the long term harm to US interests caused by such actions.

    Obama (who like every US President has been responsible for lots of deaths) clearly recognized the importance of Manning's actions in deciding to release her.