Slashdot Mirror


Chelsea Manning Files to Run for U.S. Senate in Maryland (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: Chelsea E. Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, is seeking to run for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, according to federal election filings. Manning would be challenging Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin, who is in his second term in the Senate and is up for reelection in November. Cardin is Maryland's senior senator and is considered an overwhelming favorite to win a third term... However, a candidate with national name recognition, such as Manning, who comes in from the outside could tap a network of donors interested in elevating a progressive agenda...

Evan Greer, campaign director of the nonprofit organization Fight for the Future and a close supporter of Manning's while she was imprisoned, said the news is exciting. "Chelsea Manning has fought for freedom and sacrificed for it in ways that few others have," Greer wrote in an email. "The world is a better place with her as a free woman, and this latest news makes it clear she is only beginning to make her mark on it."

19 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Mixed feelings by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm 100% certain Manning's heart is in the right place. But she's impulsive in a dangerous way, politically inexperienced, and has proven herself a bad judge of character in terms of who she allies herself with. I just don't see any good coming out of this.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Is a trash compactor really such a bad place to put the dong of a traitor?

    2. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regardless of her other qualities, she damaged the security of the US by unilaterally dumping classified materials. She did not pick and chose messages or topics in a way that can be defended in an ethical argument. All other issues do not matter to me and I lean over to the left pretty far.

    3. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      As long as the rest of the traitor is in there with it, no.

  2. listen fuckers by Osgeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you have had CES running all week, and yet you shitpost from CNN, why is this news for nerds? People file to run for public office all the time.

    Fuck you Chinese Slashdot

    1. Re:listen fuckers by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and yet you shitpost from CNN,

      which part of "An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:" makes you think this is from CNN? was it the "(washingtonpost.com)" link?

      why is this news for nerds?

      i feel like you have discounted the slogan: "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"

      People file to run for public office all the time.

      People that have been charged with literal treason for doing what they felt was right. This is a high profile individual.

      Fuck you Chinese Slashdot

      Fuck you, Slashdot doesn't even have basic UTF8 support much less any support of any Chinese character sets!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  3. Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, you prefer your politicians to be criminals who haven't been caught yet... gotcha.

  4. Criminal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Doesn't the USA have laws against convicted criminals being elected for public office? Regardless of what you think about her, she still was convicted of a serious crime. How is she fit to serve?

    1. Re:Criminal? by gremlin_591002 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are some basic rules for running for the Senate, but criminal offenses are covered by state laws. In this case Maryland has chosen to allow felons to represent them. I have no idea how we have gotten to this point but I sure wish we could do take backs...

    2. Re:Criminal? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the US does not have laws against convicted criminals from being elected to public office, and it absolutely shouldn't have those laws. The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.

      If you block people from being elected (or people from voting) who have committed crimes, you allow unjust laws to ferment unchallenged, and you encourage politicians to pass laws that disproportionately affect their opponents.

      Yes, in some cases, that means a murderer or a rapist might be elected. But that's unlikely, I don't see the public supporting the election of a convicted murderer any time soon.

      As for Manning? She did what did for the reasons we know. In my view, I'm less bothered about the notion that she violated the law by leaking secret information as I am that she did so impulsively and without care about who she handed that information over to. She's probably a good person, but her lack of care, not the fact she technically violated the law, is a greater concern here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a wise rule of Maryland, because it is a standard tactic of fascist regimes and dictators to make sure that political opponents get convicted as felons. It's a good safeguard, take a look at Russia to see what happens if you don't have it.

    4. Re:Criminal? by mapkinase · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >The fitness of someone to serve is ultimately determined by the public.

      You are saying like this is something even remotely intelligent.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  5. Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wouldn't be, but thankfully Trump beat Hillary.

  6. Completely against this by ArtemaOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Bradley (active duty) released the stuff to wikileaks he did it in mass. He did not discriminate well on what he released. The video of killing the people, and then killing of the people coming to rescue the injured, is one thing. I wouldn't have ever done it, but I get what he was going for. Releasing tons of unrelated stuff that can hurt our objectives and server members is unforgivable. Now that Chelsea is released from prison she is using her trans status as a vehicle to jump on the progressive train for her own benefit. I heard that while in the Army he was a terrible private, and that gives me no confidence in him that could help recover his betrayal of the country he wants to represent. I say no, never. And it has nothing to do with her transition. (Gender applied chronologically)

    1. Re: Completely against this by bestweasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "while in the Army he was a terrible private"

      I heard that too: refused to target civilians with bombs, drones and trigger-happy military convoys, didn't take part in torturing or degrading prisoners, wouldn't cover up war crimes, a total disgrace to the US military.

  7. Re: Um...qualification? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Manning is the 4th Democrat to file for this office so far. The primary in May will weed out which one will end up in the general election, and it probably won't be her. Given the office is held by a well-respected two time Democratic senator, she probably doesn't have the traction to replace him, even with major name recognition.

    If her ultimate goal is book sales for her life story, running for office is a great way to keep her name in the news. Otherwise, being released, she's yesterday's news.

  8. Re:What's with all the criminals running for Senat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's what the rest of us call sarcasm. Lighten up, Francis!

    And yes, some of us are very happy that Hillary lost, but unfortunately, the democrat/republican party still won. So we gain nothing.

  9. Re: What's with all the criminals running for Sena by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What matters to people, apparently, are legal technicalities rather than character. If a con-man can rewrite the laws so that his con isn't illegal, that's good enough for them.

    In a nutshell, there are a lot of people who are content to be ruled.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. "HE", not "She" by chapstercni · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He can change his name, but not his gender.

    And he isn't one of those very few edge cases. But he is certainly a whacked out head case.

    His actions in the military were abhorrent, and he should still be in prison.