Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing To Testify On WikiLeaks (apnews.com)

The Associated Press is reporting that Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, "has been sentenced to jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating Wikileaks." From the report: U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ordered Manning to jail for contempt of court on Friday after a brief hearing in which Manning confirmed she has no intention of testifying. She told the judge she "will accept whatever you bring upon me." Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial. The judge said she will remain jailed until she testifies or until the grand jury concludes its work. Manning's lawyers had asked that she be sent to home confinement instead of the jail, because of medical complications she faces. The judge said U.S. marshals can handle her medical care. Prosecutor Tracy McCormick said the jail and the marshals have assured the government that her medical needs can be met.

Comments

Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

(s)he should have been executed for treason from the get-go, then we wouldn't be dealing with such asinine shit.

Re:Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[click2005]

Yeah, we need to make sure nobody else tries to embarass the US Government by showing they're guilty of genocide & war crimes.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Genocide? Of whom? And the video Manning leaked was deliberately misrepresented by Assange to boost his own ego, as others in WikiLeaks have stated.

What's particularly bad about this is Manning was leaking information with the specific intent to cause harm to the Army, (possibly leading to the deaths of US soldiers) without being aware of its contents at all. Manning did this purely out of spite; it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. The reason he did this goes back to his early days in the Army. Read on:

https://huwieler.net/2017/01/1...

Nothing would make Manning more happy than to see his comrades die simply because he was deliberately an asshole in basic. As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I knew how it was possible one person could be irreprably as stupid as you. Go drink bleach you useless waste of flesh and shit.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like they already executed your brain!

Go back to jacking pff to MILF porn, OK?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

" As an Army veteran myself, I have zero sympathy for that stupid fuck." - Ok, so how do you feel about a coward who lied 5 times to stay out of his duty to country, and looks down on those who enlisted to serve? (Drumpf the traitor)

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

also helping to highlight how utterly moronic the haters are and how gullible they are for US propaganda via comments like the above.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you ball-licking asshats have to make everything about the orange shitgibbon?

Cap: typical

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

See USA's history in South East Asia.

Re:Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite any person Manning is (male/female), it is wrong to be treated in contempt
for this. She already revealed everything she knows at her court martial; the GOV
has no legal standing with Manning any longer as time has be served and "crimes"
have been paid for. Additionally, there is no evidence of involvement with Wikileaks
beyond what is already on record. In other words, the GOV has no probable cause
to arrest / detain Manning. This is a perfect example of a bad judge and a wonderful
example of why jury nullification (which if you notice, Manning's access to a jury has
been denied) is such an important part of our legal system.

The message is very clear -- if you rat on the GOV, you will never be safe...
 

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I have zero sympathy for you

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Uhh.... Manning had a connection with WikiLeaks. When he leaked classified Army data, who do you think he gave it to?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with MILF porn? I'd rather see women than little girls.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Also, he didn't "rat" on anything, he indiscriminately gave out classified information without even knowing what's in it.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Archangel Michael]

Ok, so how do you feel about a coward who lied 5 times

I dunno. I know how I feel about you though based on that one statement, that you represented for yourself.

You're a douchebag idiot who can't help himself/herself/catself from inserting something completely irrelevant in an effort to try to score brownie points.

Drumpf the traitor

yeah, and that confirms my suspicions. You think you're so clever when all you are is a parrot spewing whatever someone else says that fits your world view.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Here's a quote from Adrian Lamo on exposing Manning:

âoeHad I done nothing, I would always have been left wondering whether the hundreds of thousands of documents that had been leaked to unknown third parties would end up costing lives, either directly or indirectly.â

In case you're not familiar, Lamo was the person who Manning was passing these documents to in order to have them made available via WikiLeaks.

I don't care if you want to say bad things about the military or the US government; hell, I've done it plenty of times. But deliberately trying to get your battle buddies killed? What a miserable psychopathic piece of shit.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Be more specific. Name the time period and the specific people that the US attempted genocide on.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Oh. I don't care.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That site is so low-effort that you should be ashamed of yourself. The domain was created in Sept 2016 and archive.org shows nothing before 2017 even though the earliest article was dated June 2016. Since then, there has been nothing new except for back-dated articles to Feb 2015.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cherokee, Hopi and Lakota domestically in the 18th and 19th century.

In the 20th one could argue that there was an effort underway to do so to black Americans as part of the eugenics movement before World War Two made it unfashionable.

Even still the forced sterilizations lasted until the 70s.

In terms of foreign entanglements, we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.

During Vietnam we basically waged chemical warfare and tried to defolate the Jungle and Rice paddies.

It is more fair to say the US occasionally aides in and sometimes commits a crime against humanity.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Lanthanide]

Yes, it was offtopic.

But now that the question has been asked, perhaps you'll answer it?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely.

And while we're at it, let's ask why black males are 6% of the population, but 52% of the murderers?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

More black babies have been killed by abortion since 1985 than people who were killed in every genocide of the last 200 years.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Army veteran myself

This speaks volumes to your mindset and motivations. You are a brainwashed, bootlicking, wannabe murderer. Fuck you and fuck your military.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess your right

The shitclown jacks off to beastality pics. My bad.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

So, who got killed? Do you have actual names, or are you running with the old talking point that has been disproved since 2010?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Uberbah]

A fetus isn't a baby. Not even you racist dumbfucks believe that, as you don't have funerals for miscarriages at 13 weeks or earlier - when most abortions are performed.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

A smear campaign about what happened very much earlier. Everybody stays recruit, nobody leaves or is removed? That is dishonest as shit!

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the personal choice, and rising above poverty if one can help it.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Uberbah]

And the video Manning leaked was deliberately misrepresented by Assange to boost his own ego, as others in WikiLeaks have stated.

What other's - that hack Daniel Dumbshit-Berg? To digress for a moment, I've always been ambivalent on Joe Rogan's standup comedy, days on Fear Factor, fight commentary, and most of his podcast guests....but his interview of Bari Weiss of the New York Times was pure gold. She called Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady", but wasn't able to substantiate her accusation. Or define the word. Or even spell it.

Now, you can obviously spell the word "ego". And you might be able to define it. But the rest is reaching your fingers to the back of your mouth to regurgitate some character assassination you heard somewhere. Just like Bari Weiss. If Assange was 'in it for himself', he would have sold the cables given to Wikileaks by Manning to any number of state intelligence agencies around the planet, and be living on his own island in the Bahamas right now. With blackjack. And hookers.

What's particularly bad about this is Manning was leaking information with the specific intent to cause harm to the Army, (possibly leading to the deaths of US soldiers) without being aware of its contents at all. Manning did this purely out of spite; it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. The reason he did this goes back to his early days in the Army.

Pressin those fingers down, hard, on the back of your tongue. Manning was bothered by war crimes and illegal wars, something Manning and Assange haters absolutely DGAF about. And she tried raising her concerns "through the appropriate channels" and was ignored. Which left leaking as her only choice, or stay silent and complicit in an illegal invasion and occupation.

As an Army veteran myself

As a member of the Army, you took an Oath of Enlistment to defend the Constitution of the United States, not neocon war criminals. Manning was upholding that oath, and is an infinitely better soldier and human being than you ever were or will be.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a smear campaign to expose Manning. Just read through IRC logs of him talking. You can see for yourself just how much of a piece of shit he is by his own statements. As an example, in spite of being LGBT himself, he is often found making sexist statements against lesbians, and even bragged about "punching a dyke in the place" (his words.)

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

If Assange was 'in it for himself', he would have sold the cables given to Wikileaks by Manning to any number of state intelligence agencies around the planet, and be living on his own island in the Bahamas right now.

I see you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Think about it, if he turned these documents over to any government entities, you bet your ass that he wouldn't be allowed to talk about it. He wants fame, not secluded islands. How the fuck would he get that?

Besides, after he turned over the first document, the leaker would distrust him after it doesn't show up on WikiLeaks, and instead of fame, he'd get infamy.

Dumbass.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

I'm not one for whaboutism, but you may as well ask me about millions of other draft dodgers while you're bringing irrelevant people into the topic. Really, I don't care at all about them, neither do I care about Trump, over any issue at all. They, along with deserters, don't really mean anything to me. They didn't try to get their fellow soldiers killed. I would think more of Manning if he simply deserted instead.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Hell if I know, but you're a fucking moron if you think indiscriminately leaking classified documents to unknown third parties doesn't put military personnel at risk. That's not a talking point, it's just a fact, before and after 2010.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.

lol

Well clearly you're someone to be taken very seriously on this subject ...

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

The Cherokee, Hopi and Lakota domestically in the 18th and 19th century.

I think if genocide was the end goal, the trail of tears wouldn't have been a thing, they would have just killed them instead.

In the 20th one could argue that there was an effort underway to do so to black Americans as part of the eugenics movement before World War Two made it unfashionable.

The eugenics movement (outside of Europe) wasn't about race so much as it was about making sure undesirable people, such as drug users, didn't procreate. Prominent black people were participants in it, namely they wanted to improve the image of the black race by sterilizing blacks who were "immoral".

In terms of foreign entanglements, we don't have a specific policy of genocide but we certainly don't seem to mind Israel turning Gaza in to a Concentration Camp or colonizing the West Bank.

I recall Israel pulling their own people out of the West Bank, including people who lived there before Israel became a thing again. And you might to look up the definition of a concentration camp.

During Vietnam we basically waged chemical warfare and tried to defolate the Jungle and Rice paddies.

I don't think you know much about the Vietnam war. The US didn't wage anything, that whole mess started with France (along with scores of other messes in other countries, up to and including slavery.) If you want to talk about crimes against humanity, go read about the origins of the Hanoi Hilton.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

The way back machine has to know about a website before it can archive it. You should leave the thinking to those of us who can.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

Actually, the US Army inadvertantly teaches you to have a low first impressions of any new authority figure by default. After you run into so many bad leaders and really dumb spec-5s and 6s, and 90-day-wonder-what-to-do butterbars, you tend to take the idea of heirarchy less seriously than you did before taking the oath.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Be honest with yourself. Abortion is about killing your own baby.

I'm not even anti-abortion. But I think we need to be honest about what abortion really is.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Go visit Vietnam sometime. It's a beautiful country, and despite our history of war the people are surprisingly friendly to Americans.

But you WILL see the lasting effects of Agent Orange. Vietnam has one of the highest rates in the world of people born handicapped. Sometimes you see some really horrible deformities, and it's painful even to look. It's a sad sad undercurrent in an otherwise cheerful and prosperous place.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

No Jackass, if the soldiers weren't killing innocent people, we wouldn't have to deal with this. Please sterilize yourself.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[ArmoredDragon]

It's kind of obvious that you're living in the deep end, so I'm not going to bother with most of your post. However, it seems you think I'm a neocon or at least know someone who is. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Unlike you, I don't let political affiliations define who I am or what I believe in. Terms like left and right only have any relevance in France, where they originated. Here in the US, these terms only lead to confusion and division. Speaking very honestly, I have Republicans call me a liberal, and Democrats call me a conservative, both very often. When either gets to know me a little, they call me moderate or libertarian. I am neither of these things; I have strong opinions on many issues, and I believe that capitalism doesn't work without regulation and laws (and I am very anti-socialism and anti-communism.)

But continue with your "us vs them" mentality if it makes you happy.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[cyber-vandal]

The US didn't wage anything? Are you serious?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

We paid for your education, your health care, and your salary. You work for us. We will tell you what to think about military issues, not the other way around.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can be a whistleblower without a spiteful character. 99% of all people won't have the guts to do it. You probably wouldn't either - I'm sure I wouldn't. It's just too easy to be quiet and comply, when the alternative is the full force of the government.

Re:Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. You should be executed.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Picard, he

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for the person who you asked, but my answer is: I feel far better about that person than someone who only presents the bad aspects of a person, in the worse possible light, and expects someone to make a judgement call of the person as a whole.

Feel free to include that he doesn't call out military baby killers, he's actually handling the abortion that is the VHA, and seems to be uncuffing our military as far as the insane ROI they've been under?

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

And âoeknows more than any of my generals.â Because he spent time in military school. Because normal boarding school âoewasnâ(TM)t working out.â By and large, military school is full of upper-class delinquents, not military geniuses.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean certain crimes were selectively prosecuted as murders versus other forms of crime resulting in death; tried by possibly racist juries, defended by racist public defenders and resulting in statistically much longer sentences, just because a guy had dark skin. We sent a lot of innocent men to jail for decades, or a death sentence, who were 100% innocent, who matched a junkieâ(TM)s description of âoeblack guy with a hoodie.â If that doesnâ(TM)t make your blood boil, youâ(TM)re probably living in the wrong country.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t judge anybody who refuses to serve out of principal. But the rich guys whose parents kept them out of Vietnam are disproportionately likely to send other peopleâ(TM)s kids to die in Glorious War. Look at Bush and the Chickenhawk club attacking John Kerry. His rich family could have kept him out of the war. Instead he asked for the #1 most dangerous job - river boat patrol - and got wounded several times. F the Swift Boaters.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

So no examples? The fad lately is to classify everything, especially the embarrassing stuff. Iâ(TM)ve never heard of any specific documents Manning released that revealed operational stuff. I honestly donâ(TM)t know enough about Manningâ(TM)s case to judge his motives.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's some savage self delusion

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

A fetus isn't a fucking baby. Jesus Christ. This isn't hard.

Why do you care what other people do with their bodies? You are an over age male. Fuck off.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep moving the goalpost faggot.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why you idiots blindly follow orders and never get to question what you are told? The militaries fucking job is to break you down, brainwash you, and make you never question their leadership. That is the job of boot camp. Everyone I know who's been has said this to me. Including half my fucking family.

Keep lying to yourself, you've done it all up and down this thread.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right tho. My sister was killed by a white guy and I totally didn't care. Like, it's all good bruh, just keep it in the race. If some darkie pulled that shit though ... off with his head!

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what people do wirh their bodies. I also don't care what they do with black people. Neither one of those affects me in the slightest, so it's all good.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[c6gunner]

The US tried to clean up the French mess. The USSR took it as an opportunity to fuck up the country even more, just to fuck with America.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[c6gunner]

I'm glad we could all get this lesson on what the military is from a guy who never served.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification is useless in this case. Contempt of court is an end run around any civic rights one may have. No jury, no defense, just one judge with the ability to send you to prison for the rest of your life.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

Which he was already convicted of and punished for. If you actually read what you were replying to, you would understand that op was implying Chelsea had no further contact with wiki leaks that she/he hadn't already testified on.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[cyber-vandal]

What a load of bollocks. You were there for 19 years. Your government faked an attack on one of their ships to justify an invasion. Stop blaming other people.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it wasn't stupid enough to serve. All the military does is run around the world causing problems.

I shit on you and every other military scumbag in existence. You're just a bunch of idiotic cowards and trouble-making children and I'd happily cave your skull in if I ever met you.

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Uberbah]

Be honest. How many funerals has your church held for miscarriages under 13 weeks? How many families even named them? It's also easy to show how full of shit anti-abortionists are by a simple application of the Trolly Problem.

Science fiction author Patrick S. Tomlinson this week explained how opponents of abortion rights can be shut down with one simple question about whether 1,000 embryos are more important than the life of a single child.

In a series of tweets on Monday, Tomlinson revealed the scenario that he says has repeatedly stumped so-called pro-life activists. Tomlinson said that he asks abortion opponents whether it makes more sense to save one child from a burning building or a vial of 1,000 embryos.

"They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A." A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically," he wrote. "This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true."

Re: Oh look, another faggot in the limelight

[Uberbah]

I see you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I see you're a projectionist.

Think about it, if he turned these documents over to any government entities, you bet your ass that he wouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

He'd be talking to models about it (without getting too specific). While they were giving him blow jobs. You know, if he was just in it for himself.

Shit for brains.

Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Another political prisoner to be indefinitely held.

Re:Not so good

[jellomizer]

She is a Traitor to the country. This isn't because of any party loyalty. These were classified documents which she was working on as a member of the military. She chose to be in the military, and work in an area that had such access. This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives. Or Assange who isn't an American Citizen.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically any German that sent classified documents to the Allies would be a Traitor. What's more important, loyalty or morals?

I don't really care for Manning but history will look fondly on this.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason requires specific adherence to a foreign power. Unlike the Great Colluded, there is no evidence of Manning working for anyone outside the US.

Not a traitor. Find another word.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Only until it dies in prison... hopefully from massive rectal trauma.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Bradley and he's still man.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Great Colluded like Linus and the Great Pumpkin? Will you be waiting out in the pumpkin field this coming October?

Re:Not so good

[Whorhay]

I think I read that the longest she can actually be held for this is 18 months. Though it wasn't clear if at the end of 18 months she could be asked again, refuse, and get another 18 months. I know there have been other cases of people being held indefinitely for contempt of court. If memory serves one man was held for a decade or longer regarding an accusation of embezzling money overseas, eventually the judge died and the next judge decided that was enough.

Re:Not so good

[Dasher42]

She is a Traitor to the country. This isn't because of any party loyalty. These were classified documents which she was working on as a member of the military. She chose to be in the military, and work in an area that had such access. This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives. Or Assange who isn't an American Citizen.

Yes, and the Holocaust was both legal and mostly secret too. Your rhetoric discards all morality in favor of laws that corrupt people wrote to give their blood-soaked oil war cover. Every organized atrocity happens because someone carried out orders. You're hounding for people to just do as their told, no matter how blatantly evil it is.

The Iraq war murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, displaced over a million, and created gulags where torture and rape were carried out in malice by American soldiers against those rounded up indiscriminately in an occupied country. The American people were broadly deceived about the cause of the Iraq War, as they have been for many previous wars waged on behalf of rich people's interest abroad, and our soldiers in particular were lied to about what they put their lives on the line for.

That is morally treasonous, and anyone who disobeyed an order from an official to restore basic human rights is a hero.

I will not hear of traitor from you sadistic authoritarian psychopaths. You're a traitor to humanity regardless of borders. Full stop.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

She was pardoned by Obama. This is Trump/Republicans trying to go barround it. Most likely denied questioning to protect herself.

Re: Not so good

[Nidi62]

She was pardoned by Obama. This is Trump/Republicans trying to go barround it. Most likely denied questioning to protect herself.

Her sentence was commuted. Obama specifically said he wasn't pardening her, he felt that her sentence was out of proportion to what others had received. He didn't even commute the whole sentence.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that without her actions, we wouldn't know about the illegal and morally fucked up shit that happened. At some point you have to realize the crime she committed was in service to a greater good, no matter how much that might frustrate your Military Worship mindset.

Re:Not so good

[fish_in_the_c]

Not a she. Just saying. Dude doesn't live in reality so why to you expect his judgment on other things to be sound.

Re:Not so good

[jeff4747]

This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives

There are lots and lots of ways for a contractor to report illegal activities. And it is a requirement that contractors be briefed on those ways every year.

There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command. They also accept anonymous tips.

"I had nowhere to report it!!" is bullshit designed to make Snowden more appealing after-the-fact.

Re:Not so good

[Joce640k]

Question: What would history label a German who sent information to the allies about the Nazi extermination camps?

(We know the German high command would probably label them a traitor and jail them, I'm asking about "history")

Re:Not so good

[jellomizer]

Well we can Strawman this. But just saying you are morally obligated to break a law, is really a cop out. If Manning had a moral objection to what she was doing, she should had quit. Now the difference was if in Germany if you put in an objection you could be killed, so one was forced to do what they find morally wrong.

Historians will look fondly at this, mainly because they have more documents to study. However so far, most of the content isn't that ground breaking, it isn't like she uncovered America doing grossly evil thing, but just bureaucratic quieting of the level of harm they are doing during a war, that is greater then what they tell the media.
The biggest news on the leak is how humdrum most of the information is anyways, and why do we feel like we need to classify such humdrum information. That is the biggest part of the leak.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

No she was loyal to her country, she was just a traitor to the military. You are in the military to serve the country, when the military is failing that duty you have an obligation to do the right thing.

Re:Not so good

[jellomizer]

Goodwin Law much?

Re:Not so good

[jellomizer]

Details?
The worse I heard, is that there was a higher civilian causality count then reported. And some cases where Solders being less then professional and performing some bad crimes (outside the chain of command) which was covered up.

We know this stuff happens during war.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the Holocaust was both legal and mostly secret too.

So what you're saying is, from a legal standpoint Hitler did nothing wrong?

That's fucked up.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we can Strawman this. But just saying you are morally obligated to break a law, is really a cop out. If Manning had a moral objection to what she was doing, she should had quit.

He. Manning was male at the time the leaks occurred.

Re:Not so good

[drinkypoo]

Not a she. Just saying.

Any time you see someone say "just saying" it's because they have nothing useful to say. Any time you find yourself say "just saying", just STFU.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

She?
1. Manning is a "he"
2. His last name is "Manning"

So either
1. Never ever under any circumstances for any reason in the future ever make a claim that you "believe in science" or "follow the truth" or anything like that
2. Talk about what actually is and use language correctly (i.e. use the proper pronouns when speaking English and thus refer to Manning as a "he")
3. Be lulzy and just make fun of him because of his last name and the circumstances he has chosen to put himself in vis-a-vis his transexuality
4. Just be a sheep and bow to the politically correct pressure of the modern day and disregard all objective truth and continue to call him a "she"

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget that the "patriots" who wrote the declaration of independence were actually terrorists.

It's all relative.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your post, except the civilian death count from the Iraq war is 1-2 million. That's on your head USA. Saddam couldn't have killed as many (with his fictional WMDs) if he tried.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I could be wrong on that death toll. Lots of conflicting info online. The body count website states 150-230k, but the Washington Post reported 500k back in 2013.

If we include the destabilization of the region and the rise of IS then the body count has to be higher.

I still think the toll is disproportionately high, and Iraq should have been left very much alone.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. Why do you get off on cruel and unusual punishment?

Watch this and do some *thinking* for a change:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw

Re:Not so good

[BlueStrat]

There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command.

Only in theory. They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.

What they actually are, are tools that those in power use to find those who might be or might potentially become whistle-blowers, and to provide a propaganda stage-prop to help fool the gullible into believing there are actually effective checks on their powers.

Just like the recent story about the NSA halting some of their spying. I guarantee you that whatever functionality and collection that was being done is continuing under a different program. Why would anyone believe anything the NSA says when they've been caught over and over blatantly lying to the public?

So far Snowden, Assange, and Manning all have a much better track record of being truthful and honest than anyone in the upper levels of the US federal government. Hell, in Assange's case, the US government is attempting to prosecute a citizen of a foreign nation living outside the US under US domestic laws who has never been on US soil and who has committed no crime even under US law (Pentagon Papers/NYT). If you don't think it's right for somebody like a Putin to kill or snatch & imprison someone in the West, how in the hell do you justify the US doing the same shit? Because "we're the 'Good Guys(TM)'? That's the sort of reasoning behind every atrocity and genocide in modern history.

Strat

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad 'history' isn't a place once can choose to live in. We live in specific countries - he knows the laws of the one he lives in and will face consequences for his actions. Sounds fine to me.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

...and treason requires two eye-witnesses.

Re:Not so good

[Joce640k]

Seig heil!

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit that was well said.

Re:Not so good

[terrycarlino]

From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.

Moral and legal are often not only the same thing but contrary.

However, as everyone from Emerson to King understood, being morally right does not provide legal protect from the consequences of your actions. So when you act on your morality be ready to accept the consequences. The concept that you should not have to accept the consequences of your actions just because you are doing the right thing is a particularly modern notion and unrealistic in the extreme.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Quitting and not saying anything would absolutely have been immoral. If you have knowledge of wrongdoing and you choose not to try and stop it (by bringing it to the attention of authorities, or the public when the authorities are the ones doing the wrong), you are complicit in it.

Re:Not so good

[Archangel Michael]

Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.

Better? Or are you "just saying" that "just saying" something doesn't make it so. He can call himself a girl all s/he wants I don't give a shit about whatever gender they think they are, but saying something ("just sayin") doesn't make it so, even according to your own logic. S/He could call themselves the Queen of England for all I care, it doesn't make it so.

You're not entitled to your own facts. Objective Reality Hurts

Re: Not so good

[Shotgun]

Can't blame Obama for that, considering how he help Hillary escape prosecution.

Re:Not so good

[Archangel Michael]

Bingo.

And as for everyone here, it is important to understand the US Government has become the enemy of the people, and under no circumstances should you ever say anything to a government agent. Ever.

"I'm taking the fifth. I refuse to answer any questions. Under no circumstances can you infer guilt by my remaining silent and refusing to answer any and all questions, per my Constitutional Rights. Am I free to go or am I being detained?"

Re:Not so good

[Scarletdown]

Let us just go with the safe pronoun: s/h/it

Re: Not so good

[phantomfive]

Seriously who cares? If she wants to act the societal role of a girl, what's wrong with treating her like that? No need to bring it up in every story when it's not relevant.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

If Manning had exposed "extermination camps", this would be a very different discussion. He didn't; he gave away sensitive information which very well could have gotten plenty of good men and women killed, for no reason other than because he had a chip on his shoulder.

What kind of point are you trying to make exactly? That because being a traitor to Nazis would have been a good thing, it must be a good thing to be a traitor to every other nation? Do you not realize how retarded that is?

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

The title of your comment should be "History as told by Noam Chomsky's Asshole". Pretty much all of it is either outright lies, or references to actual events which you have twisted to such an extent that they bear no resemblance to what actually occurred.

I can't speak for the guy you're responding to but I, for one, couldn't care less if some delusional ignoramus called me a traitor. The fact that Bradley is a traitor is public record, reguardles of whether you acknowledge it.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

Seriously who cares?

Only those of us who care about what's real.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Some sense.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

No, he was loyal to himself, and he never gave a fuck about either his country or anyone else.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically any German that sent classified documents to the Allies would be a Traitor. What's more important, loyalty or morals?

Nice attempt to win by controlling the discussion.
Manning is like a german who reports medical supply shipments and civilian evacuation routes to any allied contact that will listen. The real truth is that manning leaked a wide variety of secret shit. Seriously go look through it, it's interesting but it's not clear at all what he was actually trying to accomplish.
His prized submission was "collateral murder" where journalists get shot from the air for going to get footage of an area they were specifically told not to enter because that's where we're shooting everyone we see. It was a massive yawnfest since it's pretty much what happens when people go to war, over half the country supported the iraq war at one point so over half the country needs to shut the fuck up and keep their dumb opinions to themselves before they get anyone else killed.

You know it too there is no way you come here with any regularity or even care about nerd shit and you haven't seen that it's common to like snowden and hate manning. Why do you think that is?

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

If i want the societal role of a god, what's wrong with treating me like that? Don't forget to kill those who commit heresy by disrespecting my author-o-tay.

The pronoun he is for males. We used to think male mean "has/had a penis, can't have a baby". A whittling accident doesn't make a guy into a girl. In the last seventy years or so we learned about DNA, and male became the X vs Y chromosomal difference, at least for humans.

The appropriate thing to do with people who want to misuse pronouns, or any language, is to correct the other. Politeness probably should not be held in higher regard than truth. Otherwise we wouldn't prosecute murderers, as it is impolite to call people that.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read what he leaked and then get an understanding of what diplomatic services and the state department do.
His personality is generally insincere but if you're not good with people and really believe that he had altruistic intent: At least try to get a handle on the possible positive impact of his actions.
He was in a position where he should have understood the value of what he was dumping but he didn't cause he's developmentally disabled.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

At face value it might seem that way. I hate our imperialism and I hate the general dysfunction surrounding our military and down to earth folksy bush family crime syndicate.
Manning exposed nothing that I couldn't have told you was a normal consequence of war back when I was in highschool. Go read the documents (I'm sure you tell people you did)
Manning didn't expose american war crimes.
Manning exposed the ignorance of people like you.

Maybe it wasn't you, maybe you were against the war the entire time. But you're dumb, and not curious about the world around you. Still you enjoy flapping your gums if you'd been born into other circumstances you'd be a war happy chickenhawk republican. Probably deeply devoted to whatever passes for christianity in your neighborhood, complete with a nice little crib of bible-sounding quotes you like to drop so people think you read.

This is you. Weak mind, strong opinion. You happen to be "on the same side" as me but pretty much everyone with a clue is getting sick of you fuckers no matter how you dress yourselves up.

Re:Not so good

[jeff4747]

They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.

Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge. Which, btw, can be done legally. And they will use their corrupt quest for power to expose it.

If you're as foolishly nihilistic as you are, and not actually in the military, then go the Ellsberg route.

If you're particularly dumb, you go the Snowden route and accept things from other countries for your leaks, thus planting yourself firmly on the wrong side of espionage laws. You also lie about what exactly you leaked, because few are going to look through the large volume of stuff and notice that the red meat you're talking about with your supporters isn't actually in the documents you leaked. 'Cause you leaked capabilities, and very few operational documents about how or where they're being used.

Those operational documents that were leaked showed they were not being used against US persons.

Your fans will assume they are so important that they must be the target of all of these capabilities, actual targeting documents be damned.

And then they post on Slashdot how the government is totally after them, despite their continued not-in-prison existence.

Re:Not so good

[quenda]

Not a she. Just saying.

Yes, a "she". It is a courtesy, like when people call you "sir" even though you are not of noble birth.

If she wants to join the soccer team, or get a female-only scholarship, then you complain about her not being a real woman.
But if somebody wants to be addressed as a woman, its not that hard. For better or worse, it is a social norm.

Re:Not so good

[quenda]

Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.

Actually not quite. Classification is based on external appearance at birth, which is determined by the effect of androgens during pregnancy.
Even if a baby is known to be XY, phenotype trumps genotype.

Though somehow nowadays, we have people denying any biological basis to gender differences, and claiming things like occupation preference and aggression are purely cultural. So the logical conclusion is that you can be whatever sex you want.
    This makes perfect sense if you believe sex is a social construct :-)

S/He could call themselves the Queen of England

NOT the same. Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis. Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself. In some cases it does not, and many people feel the best path is to live as the other sex.

Re:Not so good

[BlueStrat]

Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge.

Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs. They're both equally part of the problem. They may use the issue to garner support and votes, but nothing will actually change. What we have currently is the political elite of both Parties versus the citizens.

Strat

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only until it dies in prison... hopefully from massive rectal trauma."

Shut up, fag. What's wrong, couldn't get a little boy to follow you into the restroom you fucking freak?

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you illiterates don't care, but it is "Sieg Heil." Sieg is not a word.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Iraq war gave rise to some horrible acts, sure, but that doesn't mean it wasn't justified. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since the invasion need to be offset against the hundreds of thousands who died in the years before the invasion, under Saddam.

Yes, the WMD thing was bull. (Not complete bull. Saddam went to a lot of trouble to make people believe he had the weapons.) But even without them, the invasion was still the morally right thing to do. Ask Bill Clinton.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

He was pardoned. Please use the correct pronoun.

Re:Not so good

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Yeah exactly. To my mind, no one from the west has been held accountable for the iraq war. Certainly not the american executive at the time. People forget about wars and the guilty go unpunished. George w bush is still living it up playing golf and shit.

If people don't get punished, bad behaviour continues and the imperialists keep going with tacit approval.

Re: Not so good

[phantomfive]

If i want the societal role of a god

There's a well-respected societal role for a God, but you have to turn water into wine and give away fish and bread, and in the end I warn you it doesn't turn out well. Although you get resurrected.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the "sensitive information" was the location of Bin Laden which the CIA knew about but didn't bother to move on for whatever reason. Once the leaks showed we knew were he was it forced Obama's hand. So what were they waiting for?

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Asked EU or any other country?

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is paranoia. Don't confuse politics with roles and arms of gov. Who'll protect you from psychopaths and bulltards such as Tramp? Most people are decent, but all must ensure system isn't perverted.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a traitor. *He*

Re:Not so good

[PsychoSlashDot]

She is a Traitor to the country.

I my humble opinion, there is a difference between being a traitor to a country and being a traitor to a country's military chain of command. The word of law may disagree, but the word of a law may be incorrect, unjust, misguided, out-of-date or otherwise inappropriate, and a civilized and free nation should react appropriately to correct any such flaws if they are democratically determined to exist.

Yeah, lots of "if" statements, but boiling Manning's case down to "she's a traitor" because the law says so disregards an awful lot of nuance to the circumstance.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was elected to lead Germany; he was appointed. And he was appointed because his followers threatened - and practiced - mass violence until Hitler was put in charge. The appeasers caved, and the rest is history.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means.

Will you uneducated American rightwing fucktards ever stop repeating this Nazi lie?

Hitler became a dictator by orchestrating the Reichstag fire, blaming it on the Communists and the Social Democrats, and using that as a pretext to detain their MPs illegally. Then he proceeded to threaten the remaining MPs from the conservative parties to give him absolute power, which they did by violating a bunch of rules of the Weimar constitution.

It was all illegal as the war in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually it's "Sieg Heil". Sieg is not a word.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

What's there to hold them accountable for, exactly?

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

> NOT the same. Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis

That's only true when it actually matches one's gonads. A biological male identifying as something else is no more biologically based than identifying as a king because you think you share genes with some random historical figure. Oh, wait, I have XY chromosomes just like the King of England!

You shall all henceforth refer to me as "Your Majesty"!

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis

Does it? What's the biological basis? Other than "brain misfiring"? Because if that's the biological basis you're talking about, then believing that you're Napoleon Bonaparte also has a well documented biological basis ...

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

If some random jackoff insisted on being called sir, I'd tell him to get fucked too. Calling someone "sir" is not a societal norm; it's generally a sign of respect, or at least of deference. Calling a man "she" is likewise not a societal norm; it is a misguided attempt to be magnanimous. Rather like reassuring a young child that yes, there really is a Santa Claus.

Re: Not so good

[quenda]

Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis

Does it? What's the biological basis?

You can see it in early childhood development. Children strongly identify as boy or girl, even before they really know what the difference is. And not because adults tell them. It is hard-wired.

Evolution has driven us to identify by sex, and adopt gendered roles in society. The modern idea of gender equality - all roles in society filled by both sexes - is going against millions of years of evolution.

I am not saying there is a "biological basis" to sudden late-onset gender dysphoria. We have a lot to learn in that area.

Re: Not so good

[quenda]

It is easy to be an arse on the internet, but think about it.
In real life, if you meet a "man in a dress" - say a clerk in the post office - are you really going to abuse them and insist on calling them a man to the other staff?
I mean WTF dude, however deluded you may think they are, that just ain't cool. Let live a little?

Re: Not so good

[astrofurter]

The "two party system" is better described as "one party, two faces".

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting opinion. I will even grant that it is expressed with much more civility than many in this forum... BUT:

Many people have opinions.
Some of those opinions are in direct -even violent- opposition to other opinions.

Let us say that I am attempting to develop an opinion of my own.
Why should I model my opinion on your own?

For example, you say "Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis."
The poster to whom you reply says "His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him."

On what basis should I choose to give credence to one of these statements rather that the other?
A politely expressed opinion may be wrong (or correct!)
A rudely expressed opinion may nonetheless in better accord with observable fact (or ...not).

There may be insufficient observed data to determine what is fact...

$CAPTCHA=="lawsuit"

Re:Not so good

[serviscope_minor]

Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.

Well, science also classifies you as a moron. Since we both agree SCIENCE[*] is always right we therefore both accept my statement.

Anyway just to show you that your sub-schoolboy level of understanding of genetics is wrong, see if you can guess which of these people are XY:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

(none of them have had gender reassignment surgery). It's all of them!

Also you plonker, science doesn't bother itself with your silly pronouns. It's more concerned with more precise words like "phenotype".

[*] i.e. some rando claiming it's what "science says".

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

Ah, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying ... though I'm still not sure I fully understand your argument.

Earlier you said that "Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself". This would seem to imply that "gender self-identification", as you put it, isn't a biological trait so much as a psychological/behavioral one (insofar as those are distinct concepts). The fact is, children role play and try on all kinds of behaviours. I've seen kids walk around on all fours, barking and panting. Are they self identifying as a dog?

A male child who takes on a female persona for a while isn't following some biological imperative to be a girl; it seems much more likely that he's just trying out a role. The only "hard wired" imperative is to try out new things; something which has served us well as a species. It only turns into gender dysphoria (a psychological problem) for those who eventually decide that they prefer a role which doesn't match their body.

Re: Not so good

[Joce640k]

He didn't; he gave away sensitive information which very well could have gotten plenty of good men and women killed

You say "plenty". Do you have any evidence that a single person did get killed?

Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA. The USA would be a very different place if not for people like Chelsea Manning who are willing to go to prison for their belief in justice.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

It is easy to be an arse on the internet, but think about it.
In real life, if you meet a "man in a dress" - say a clerk in the post office - are you really going to abuse them and insist on calling them a man to the other staff?

I've met and had decent conversations with a couple of women who "identified" as men. They were fun to be around, and seemed to enjoy my company as well. I simply addressed them by name. Had they insisted that I refer to them as "he", I would have refused, but they never asked, so we never had any issues. They also never tried to force their way into a male bathroom or change room, so that's another issue which could have have caused conflict but was handily avoided.

On the other hand, I was once out drinking with a group of friends when one of them - while trying to get by a guy in a crowded bar - said "excuse me, dude". The guy immediately turned around and screamed at the top of his lungs "I AM A WOMAN!!!!!". The subsequent conversation did not go well for him, and he eventually left the bar in tears.

I don't give a shit how you identify. Just like I don't really give a shit if you believe that the earth is flat, or that Elvis is still alive. Your beliefs don't matter to me until you try to force them on me, or on others. You can go on believing that you are Sir Fluffynuts of Licksley all you like; I'm unlikely to comment on it until you start demanding that I address you by your title.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir have marked a bifurcation point in history, for henceforth *that* shall be deemed s/h/it.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

War crimes.

Methed-up helicopter pilots who can't tell the difference between a fucking camera and a rocket launcher, killing journalists before confirming their targets are hostiles.

Abu-ghraib prisoner abuse and torture.

Robert Bales. Kandahar massacre.

The puppy pitcher. Don't look it up.

Shall I continue?

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Like those pesky protesters in Tiannamen Square. They shuold have read the local law!

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

And the most egregious crime of all...

Going to war under false pretenses. Twice.

Al-qaeda had already left Afghanistan. The Taliban is not the same thing, they are a domestic organization with no foreign policies or plans for expansion, unlike Al-qaeda's international reach and mandate. But the U.S. decided what the hell, let's shoot 'em all anyway, for the crime of being... landlords?

Iraq had no W.M.D.'s. None. But the U.S. decided what the hell, let's finish the job Daddy Bush started. For the lulz.

The United States went to two foreign countries and killed people because the Commander in Chief lied to them. These are crimes against Afghanistan, crimes against Iraq and crimes against the families of the U.S. soldiers who lost their sons and daughters over these lies.

Re: Not so good

[quenda]

"Identifying" is the the same as believing. It is about powerful feelings that sometimes don't go away, even with therapy.
Not all trans go for that PC "man trapped in a woman's body".

Take Catherine McGregor for example. Very sporty, ex-army, not especially effeminate, but always had a problem with gender identity. Saw psychiatrists.
Very intelligent, articulate, and down to earth.
I've not heard her describe herself as a "woman", always a "trans-woman". She is under no delusions. Jokes about her Adams apple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This of course is very different to the hysterical sudden-late-onset gender dysphoria that seems to be plaguing alienated young adults on liberal arts campuses across America.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

You say "plenty". Do you have any evidence that a single person did get killed?

Nope, otherwise I would have said that he DID get people killed. Obviously from a legal perspective this would be important in determining the category of his crime, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make a difference.

Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA.

You really are kind of an idiot, aren't you? I guess you think that Anders Breivik is the true face of Norway, too.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 (cause I'm in a hurry, well said guys)

Re: Not so good

[Joce640k]

Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA.

You really are kind of an idiot, aren't you? I guess you think that Anders Breivik is the true face of Norway, too.

What's your explanation for Abu Ghraib? Are you one of those who believes it was just a couple of low ranking soldiers doing that and that none of the officers in charge knew anything?

Re: Not so good

[Joce640k]

While you're there you could comment on the US prison system.

I don't mean the sheer number of people in there, I mean the way that it's a place for institutionalized rape and that most Americans seem to be perfectly OK with that.

The two things (Abu Ghraib and federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) seem related to me. The idea that there's whole classes/races of people who somehow "deserve" to be tortured, abused and shot at seems to be prevalent in the USA.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

War crimes.

Give me a specific example of a war crime which occurred and for which "no one from the west has been held accountable".

Methed-up helicopter pilots who can't tell the difference between a fucking camera and a rocket launcher, killing journalists before confirming their targets are hostiles.

Give me an example of this occurring. No, the Bradley Manning video doesn't show that, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it does.

Abu-ghraib prisoner abuse and torture.

Plenty of people were held accountable for this, which directly contradicts the original claim.

Robert Bales. Kandahar massacre.

Got life in prison. Again, what kind of retard thinks this is an example of westerners not being held accountable?

The puppy pitcher. Don't look it up.

He was booted out of the marines, and his buddy was disciplined. Strike three, you're out!

Shall I continue?

If you're going to provide more of the same, then no, you certainly shouldn't. If you have some legit examples then please start.

Re:Not so good

[Yosho]

That is how science classifies him.

And that is the attitude I'd expect from somebody whose most complex science education was high school-level chemistry and was later reinforced by ignorant bigots spouting memes.

Sex isn't even binary, it's a bimodal distribution. Your genes have a strong influence on that, but there are people with XX chromosomes who produce sperm and XY chromosomes who have ovaries. And on top of that, there are half a dozen other ways your chromosomes can be configured, and your hormone distribution can change things on top of that. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes and can be broadly classified as female or male because of that, but that's incredibly reductive -- everybody's sex is unique to them. Your desire to shove everything into a simple box is not actually scientific at all.

And given that actual, physical sex is that complicated, you think that gender, a mental construct, can be easily divided into two categories? That's as scientific as saying that the tides and lightning happen because God.

Here's a more detailed thread from an actual biologist on the subject, if you're willing to read: https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184

Re: Not so good

[walllaby]

I had hoped we were living in a society that could recognize the difference and be BETTER about how we treat those that buck the system for a greater cause. Silly me.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

I don't mean the sheer number of people in there, I mean the way that it's a place for institutionalized rape and that most Americans seem to be perfectly OK with that.

You want me to explain to you why a facility full of hardened criminals might have a somewhat high incidence of rape? And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?

This goes back to that "kind of an idiot" thing ....

The two things (Abu Ghraib and federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) seem related to me. The idea that there's whole classes/races of people who somehow "deserve" to be tortured, abused and shot at seems to be prevalent in the USA.

That might be a valid observation if it were solely an american phenomenon. It is not. Not even close. I've heard similar comments made by people of all kinds of different nationalities, and prison rape is certainly not a US-only phenomenon. For you to single out the USA says far more about your biases than it does about the actual character of the United States as a nation.

Re: Not so good

[Joce640k]

And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?

No, I want you to explain why the general public thinks they're all "hardened criminals" (they aren't) and (b), why even "hardened criminals" deserve that.

(Conversely, why should the other hardened criminals be allowed to have "fun" doing it? The very worst of society seems to have great fun in prison)

For you to single out the USA says far more about your biases than it does about the actual character of the United States as a nation.

I single it out because a) America makes more noise about being decent and upstanding, and b) Because people in other countries see it as a genuine problem and try to do something whereas it's on the rise in the USA.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

No, I want you to explain why the general public thinks they're all "hardened criminals" (they aren't)

Because people are ignorant and like easy stereotypes.

and (b), why even "hardened criminals" deserve that.

When did I say they did?

(Conversely, why should the other hardened criminals be allowed to have "fun" doing it? The very worst of society seems to have great fun in prison)

If you think anyone has fun in prison you're slowly starting to transition from "kind of an idiot" to "definitely an idiot". Regardless, you're asking the wrong person since I never made any such claims.

I single it out because a) America makes more noise about being decent and upstanding,

This is nonsense. People in pretty much every EU nation make far more noise about how superior they are to those horrible colonials than people in the US have ever made about themselves. For every one american I hear chanting "USA number 1!" I hear at least 5 Europeans telling me how Europe is better at absolutely everything. And Canadians aren't any better, either. Our national sport may be hockey, but pointing out why we are better than Americans comes in as a close second.

and b) Because people in other countries see it as a genuine problem and try to do something whereas it's on the rise in the USA.

Again, nonsense. In the US the number of reports is rising, but that's not the same as the number of occurrences rising. Anonymous surveys of prisons have always shown a much higher incidence than actual reported incidents, which is no surprise; the same occurs amongst the civilian population. The rise in reporting coincided with the introduction of new reporting standards. The new reporting standards themselves were driven by the passage of the "Prison Rape Elimination Act" way back in 2003.

Of course you can ignore all that and keep insisting that "rape is increasing in US prisons" and "only other countries try to do soemthing about it", but that will just help move you further into the "definitely an idiot" category.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not any other nation. It's USA - the empire.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what your brain is made out of- shit.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish some very heavy karma will fall on some of these rich people, and they will be the ones stripped of everything they have, and tied up in a windowless concrete walled interrogation room, naked, and getting their faces smashed in with a rifle butt.

Re: Not so good

[ememisya]

This is an interesting one. Some public good did come out of the material she published. Namely in ending that horrifying drone program also known as terrorist making factory. It was because of automated drone strikes killing civilians that we caught a terrorist here in the U.S. who told the authorities their entire family were killed by a flying robot for no reason. They trained their entire life to find the person responsible for their deaths which is actually understandable on a personal level. Who wouldn't do the same thing? Tragic yes, but she served her sentence did she not? She's okay by my book. Thank you stranger. Odd that she isn't testifying though, I wonder why?

Re: Not so good

[Joce640k]

If your defense of the USA is that "other countries do it too" then you're losing sight of the problem.

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

Wow, you didn't just move those goalposts, you launched them to another planet!

Re: Not so good

[c6gunner]

That's stupid, of course. If you're going to blame the USA for all the retards killing each other, then you may as well blame Saddam for the US invasion, and the subsequent retards killing each other. But you won't do that because - under your ideology - the USA has to be responsible for every bad thing that happens I'm the world.

Re: Not so good

[Cederic]

You want me to explain to you why a facility full of hardened criminals might have a somewhat high incidence of rape? And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?

Yes, because the US has a far greater issue with this than other countries despite imprisoning a far higher percentage of its population.

It's not coincidence that the term 'rape culture' was invented to describe the US prison system before being coopted by the man hating fuckwits trying to scare women into supporting the destruction of masculinity - and see the outcomes for boys in schools these days for the damage that's causing.

Of course, that merely feeds the prison system but hey, the general public don't care. Why?

Re:Not so good

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Classified" is just a statute construction only in effect since 1917. While it's the single best tool the power brokers have to subjugate the masses, it has no moral authority. You certainly won't find it as a power listed in the Constitution (because the founders knew the dangers of a secret government).

Manning may be a violator of statute but she's a patriot to the Constitution.

Re:Not so good

[slashdot_commentator]

There are lots and lots of ways for a contractor to report illegal activities. And it is a requirement that contractors be briefed on those ways every year.

But they don't get protection under whistleblower laws; they aren't considered federal employees. (The argument could be made that federal employees aren't protected by whistleblower laws...)

Re:Not so good

[slashdot_commentator]

I guarantee you that whatever functionality and collection that was being done is continuing under a different program.

Then you know of a specific instance where the illegal mass collection of US citizen data has thwarted a terrorist attack or dismantled a serious criminal conspiracy against the US or its citizens? The NSA isn't shutting down the program because of pangs of conscience; they want to use the money elsewhere, but they can't do so while its allocated to collectng more data than it can process. The whole issue is an albatross over their necks, and the senior management employees in the intelligence umbrella during the Obama administration have all moved on; there's no more management ass to cover.

Why would anyone believe anything the NSA says when they've been caught over and over blatantly lying to the public?

Well, that's true... But any assertion from the NSA is not conclusive proof that the NSA is factually untruthful.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

The consequences have been increasing extremely for a while now.
The notion that you have to accept the consequences is the one that is quite ridiculous (and don't come quoting Thoreau here because days or months in prison is very different from nowadays reality).

You should not accept consequences. When you chose the moral path you accept the risk of the consequences. Outright accepting punishment is contrary to the moral path you chose. When you receive exemplary punishment, this will deter others of doing what is moral. A good example is to do the moral thing despite of possible consequences.Getting hanged only helps the tyrants you are fighting.

Re:Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when he waited because Obama was elected with promises of stopping the domestic spying and getting out of Iraq? And then Obama increased the spying and started another few wars?

Tell me again about how they should have talked to the Republicans about the Republican implanted spying programs.

Re: Not so good

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the lie to start the war, Chelsea showed us thousands of things. There is a reason the US doesn't "recognize" the International Criminal Court, because on the eyes of anyone with basic education you are all criminals.
You don't read/watch because you are a piece of shit.

Re:Not so good

[jeff4747]

Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs.

Prove it.

Not the "both parties are the same!!!" thing. The domestic spying program part.

Because the actual documents Snowden leaked have all of 1 program that can collect on US persons, and that one was legal thanks to an over-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision (phone records were ruled standard business records and thus not private. Phone records grew in the age of cell phones to reveal....well really the same stuff they revealed back in 1979, since you knew the location of the call since it was a land line).

The very, very, very few documents that talk about targetting explicitly include steps to exclude US persons. The vast majority of Snowden's leaked docs were capabilities, with no description on how they are used.

Instead, it has been continuously asserted that the NSA must be doing massive amounts of domestic spying, on the assumption that that is the only possible use for those capabilities. Which is an incredibly dumb assumption, but it's also incredibly popular.

If you want to freak out about domestic surveillance, look at the FBI, your local police, and technologies like Stingrays.

Re:Not so good

[jeff4747]

Tell me again about how they should have talked to the Republicans about the Republican implanted spying programs.

Have you been in a coma? Just because Republicans do something does not mean they will not attack Democrats for doing the same. See: Every scandal since at least the 1990s.

Re:Not so good

[AmiMoJo]

Quitting does not satisfy the moral imperative. People are being harmed, and taking no action to stop it when you could have is not a moral course of action.

Re:Not so good

[mjwx]

From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.

That is a bit of a misnomer.

Hitler wasn't legitimately elected, he just wanted it to look that way. The Nazis had their SA stormtroopers (A.K.A. Brown Shirts) literally stand over voters in booths to ensure they voted correctly. Hitler and the Nazi's rise to power was a massive usurpation of democracy, not a failing of it.

Re: Not so good

[Archangel Michael]

I think male means having a XY Chromosome. It is objective. Having XX means Female. And in the rare cases of XYY, XXX, XXY, and a few others, we have to have some measure of extended viewpoint. Most, if not all Trans people are not Chromosome defected in any way.

He is for XY, She is for XX.

Your Royal Highness is reserved for Queens/Kings not just anyone claiming to be a sovereign..

Re:Not so good

[BlueStrat]

Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs.

Prove it.

Lolwut!?

Both Parties have been in power, back and forth, for the entire time these agencies were created, expanded endlessly, and then allowed to create and operate the spy programs for years and years until people like Snowden exposed them.

And guess what? They're *still* doing the same unconstitutional shit as we speak.

Neither Party has stopped them. Both Parties are responsible for their creation and enabling them to create these programs and give them budgets every year to carry on doing so.

The only one in Congress that's fought it has been Rand Paul.

Strat

Re:Not so good

[jeff4747]

Reading. Try it!

Again, you completely glossed over the problem with your claim about illegal domestic spying via Snowden docs: There isn't any in the docs he leaked.

So where's the proof? Is your ego so large you find it unfathomable that the NSA would spend its time spying on foreigners?

Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[SuperKendall]

I think it's very telling that both under a strident Democratic administration, and now a Republican one, that the investigation and hatred for Wikileaks is exactly the same. This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties...

I do feel sorry for Manning though, sending her to jail and not even letting her be confined to home is bullshit. As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify. I think it's sad they can get away with this.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[ganjadude]

*him

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how morons keep focusing on the transgender thing - i guess they're too stupid to see the forest for the trees eh.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

You think both parties are the same based on this one single point? You're an idiot. Or a GOPnik posting propaganda.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or a GOPnik posting propaganda." - You must be new here, Kendall is famous for being a lying faggot in defense of denialism for the GOP. Caught hundreds of times being a shameless faggot baldfaced liar. Hundreds.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

It could also be assange is not what he says he is. Remember, even his "team" hated his fucking guts for being a cunt. Release the RNC's emails, Julian.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[PopeRatzo]

I think it's very telling that both under a strident Democratic administration, and now a Republican one, that the investigation and hatred for Wikileaks is exactly the same. This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties...

You have to remember, there was a time before Wikileaks was just a partisan tool of Russia. It actually exposed real crimes instead of just trying to embarrass a certain party in order to install a puppet president.

Like everything and everyone associated with Trump, Julian Assange and Wikileaks has lost a lot of credibility. His degeneracy spreads. If you don't believe me, ask yourself if there is a single person or institution associated with Trump that has gained in stature and respect.

Oh, and Chelsea Manning is a goddamn hero. No bone spurs on Chelsea. She did what she believes and has been willing to stand up and pay the consequences. It's exactly how people with honor and character behave.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

They have different opinions on baby murder, but on everything else from slow abolition of free speech to open borders to never ending imperialist war the Bush and Clinton cliques are almost identical.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how people who disagree with political correct opinions on controversial subjects are always morons.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

> As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify.

I suggest you brush up on your basic civics because, yes, that's exactly the point of being held in contempt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court). This is not because she's affiliated with Wikileaks; this is not because she leaked classified information. This is specifically because she has been subpoenaed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena) meaning her testimony is NOT optional. This is in no way an unusual or unfair outcome of refusing to testify and she is not being singled out. If you are subpoenaed by a grand jury and refuse to testify, you get thrown in jail until you cooperate. Doesn't matter who you are.

Wikileaks saying that on Twitter like they're somehow making a revelation or leveling an accusation is extremely stupid attention seeking behavior as is pretty much standard operating procedure for them.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[bluefoxlucid]

Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

As for the two parties, one is the Liberal philosophy and one is the Conservative philosophy. They're polar opposites, with degrees of how strongly people push those philosophies. That's the real difference, and it's important. Legislators and administrators will take the country in different directions depending on which philosophical ideal underlies their party, even if you have things like unmitigated corruption.

To a degree, government structures can mitigate corruption; not much else can. Municipal governments, in particular, can use the council-manager structure to ensure a highly-responsive government with minimal corruption. More-representative bicameral government structures with highly-representative and manipulation-resistant electoral systems can also mitigate corruption as a secondary effect.

Under the Model City Charter, the City Council appoints and may dismiss at any time a City Manager to perform all administrative functions; the Council has no direct administrative power. This contrasts with a Council-Strong Mayor form, wherein the Mayor is elected, powerful, and can freely run the city while hindering Council severely.

The Mayor can easily appoint all their friends and donors to high-power, lucrative positions; whereas a City Manager is not an elected official, has little reason to do that, and can be thrown out by City Council. City Council needs to appoint the City Manager, so they sort of share influence and, thus, will have severe conflicts about which of their friends and donors should be appointed where, creating a stopgap for such corruption.

Unicameral City Councils can operate with a mixed election, such as 14 Districts each electing one Council member, plus 7 more at-large by proportional vote. This creates a modal difference between members and tends to hinder corruption as well.

Bicameral structures, on the other hand, can operate by districts of Condorcet single representatives (Senate) and proportional multi-representatives (House). This ensures that Senators represent the overall consensus, which severely hinders power-grab politics focusing on small groups and majority power; while House Representatives are fit to the largest cohesive subgroups in the voting population, creating more-extreme voices while essentially making competition between candidates unappealing to their own base moot (i.e. a Republican and a Democrat in a mixed district have basically no reason to campaign against each other, and need to focus heavily on beating the candidates similar to themselves).

By using a system of Unified Majority, we eliminate tampering by strategic nomination, party primary manipulation, and propaganda attack. Unified Majority uses nonpartisan blanket primaries held by STV. For single-seats, it nominates 5 (or 7 or 9) Candidates from which we elect via the non-manipulable Condorcet system, Tideman's Alternative. For multi-seats, it nominates between 2n and 5n, from which we elect (n) candidates via a second round of Single Transferable Vote. STV itself is highly tamper-resistant.

Unified Majority ensures your nominated candidates represent the span of the voters. Baltimore City is 7% Republican and like 0.5% Green; you're not going to elect a Green or Republican mayor, and Unified Majority gives you a span of various Democrats--unless, of course, a Green or Republican runs such a strong campaign that they have a real shot at winning the general election (that's happened, and they won by being more than 50% of voters's first choice, so they would have been nominated under Unified Majority's nonpartisan blanket primary).

Party Primary gives Baltimore City one Democrat for 92% of the voters and one Republican for 7% of the voters, which is not choice. Under Unified Majority, you'd need

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

She doesn't trim her bush?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[dfghjk]

Perhaps it just never occurred to you that the DOJ is non-partisan and its consistency and continuity says nothing about the differences between political parties.

Of course, nothing you post demonstrates the slightest insight.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[blindseer]

If Manning wasn't transgendered then he'd still be in prison. The only reason he got out is because some people made enough noise about a woman trapped in a man's prison.

This is otherwise a quite simple case of a US Army private making a serious enough violation of the rules on handling secret documents that he could have got the death penalty. Now that "she" is out of prison there's discussion of "her medical complications". What would those "medical complications" be? That "she" has a penis?

Without those "medical complications" this would not be a story.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how morons keep focusing on the transgender thing - i guess they're too stupid to see the forest for the trees eh.

I think it's because a tree is where a bush should be.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[ageoffri]

You do know that it is an effort to force Manning to testify? It is a legal option that judges have and is used every day to compel someone like him.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken

Contempt of court. The judge says "pat your head and rub your tummy" and if you refuse to, he can send you to the court's jail until you pat your head and rub your tummy. Judges are dictators in their courts.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange gained a lot of credibility in my eyes by exposing that the party I used to vote for was completely corrupt and tanked my preferred candidate on purpose. I suspected it, but it was great to finally have proof.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same hatred, when Manning was fucking the Republicans she was the darling of the Democrats. When she shit on them too she became a traitor. Same thing happened to Julian Assange. The so called "democratic" left is only democratic when it's their lies being told.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

:-) Man! Can you be any more obvious? Did the DNC give you a Milk-Bone for that post?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[CrimsonAvenger]

Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

Fifth Amendment protects against SELF Incrimination.

It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder....

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Archangel Michael]

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Lots of sub-clauses here, but this is the one that is key.

"I refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate me"

This does not indicate that you have or haven't committed a crime, as there is no reasonable person who knows all the crimes they may or may not have committed. There are just too damn many, and the government can use ALL of them against you should you testify. And should you accidentally admit that you committed a crime (that you weren't aware of) they could AND HAVE used such as a witness against people, which is all the warning you need.

Under no circumstances should a person ever speak and answer questions of/from a federal agent.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

Fifth Amendment protects against SELF Incrimination.

It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder....

Damn, don't pretend to be a lawyer.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Blue Stone]

Sounds like slavery.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah, and? Leaking of classified material is an issue that both parties can get behind. Wikileaks is effectively a foreign intelligence agency that actively tries to turn native intelligence operatives rogue.

That Manning managed to get their sentence commuted under Obama is the only reason that they're already at home -- they should should be in prison for their crimes.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS! Wikileaks is NOT A PARTISAN RUSSIAN TOOL. That, along with claims that Manafort visited Assange is NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA designed to make stupid people like you go, "Meh, Wikileaks, Assange, they had it coming" when the US government (either side, doesn't matter apparently) finally get their hands on him. Obama and Clinton are the reason Assange sought asylum in Ecuador, they were in charge, and they were pursuing him for revealing war crimes committed on Bush's watch.

Christ, if I see one more idiot say, why doesn't he release Trump's tax records? Or, why doesn't he publish the contents of the Republicans servers? I swear I'm going to lose my mind. How fucking stupid are you people?? They publish LEAKED INFORMATION MORONS! Someone has to leak it to them first!

Wikileaks and Assange haven't lost credibility because they're associated with Trump. They've been the subject of a MASSIVE propaganda campaign, in league with major news outlets, to paint Assange as some sort of weirdo because then YOU WON'T MIND WHEN THE US GOVERNMENT JAILS AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALIST AND PUBLISHER FOR PUBLISHING AMERICAN SECRETS. In addition, the massive propaganda campaign discourages other whistleblowers from contacting Wikileaks as well.

Wake the fuck up.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that our government is trying to use a secret court that is one-sided and that is what Manning is protesting. Please read up on Grand Jurys to find out that there is no defense lawyer, the standard rules for evidence are thrown out, the prosecuting attorney is able to lie and bully in ways that would never go down in a public trial, and so much more that will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. These things are our modern Kangaroo court at their finest. The only thing that gets better is when they hold a Grand Jury because you broke a secret law that you may not even be allowed to know that you broke or see the evidence against you. Nothing like fucking over our Constitution to keep their power in place.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Under no circumstances should a person ever speak and answer questions of/from a federal agent

Right, because what a glorious and free utopia that would be if we all did this. You remain the stupid cunt you always have been

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Uberbah]

You do know that it is an effort to force Manning to testify? It is a legal option that judges have

Do do you know that would be much more impressive if the justice system gave two shits about the war crimes revealed by Manning?

compel someone like him.

Bigoted transophobe.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and Chelsea Manning is a goddamn hero. No bone spurs on Chelsea. She did what she believes and has been willing to stand up and pay the consequences. It's exactly how people with honor and character behave.

This. It's amazing how seldom people truly stand up for principles, knowing the consequences.

In comparison are current president is free about who should be locked up, without proof or investigation, often in complete and total negation to actual reality. For him, "The buck stops with everybody."

Manafort got off with a slap on the wrist for crimes that should have got him 20 years. Trump we all know isn't going to serve a day in jail ever, and could easily get reelected. His actions are destroying our alliances, destroying our future, giving despots and dictators a free pass, and helping to weaken democracy the world over. I can't think of anyone guilty of actual treason who has done more damage to our country. It is possible he is not being directly directly by Vladimir Putin, but could you tell it by his actions? He seems a quite effective agent, whether he is on the payroll or not.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Boooo hoooooo hooooo fag

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[thegarbz]

This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties...

You and I are the same. We both type words into the internet. So we must be the same in every possible way? Political parties remain political parties. Ruling governments remain ruling governments. Just because they share a common "enemy" and someone specifically doing something to you are trying to prevent makes them your enemy doesn't mean there is "little difference between the two parties".

As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify. I think it's sad they can get away with this.

Well ... yeah. Of course it is.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[thegarbz]

Bigoted transophobe.

Hey, he hasn't changed his name to Womanning yet.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

I do feel sorry for Manning though, sending her to jail and not even letting her be confined to home is bullshit. As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify. I think it's sad they can get away with this.

Cutting off a dudes dick doesn't make him a her no matter what sex he wants to be. Manning is also a treasonous traitor.

Snowden released documents to the press. Manning gave whole stash without any consideration of consequences to Wikileaks a front for Russian propaganda.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

> she

No. Being a woman is not an insult. Stop being misogynist. He is a he.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time US democrats (and the labor party of the UK) were partisan tools of Russia.

It's possible assange has lost credibility, but that would depend on how close he has stayed to the truth. Good luck figuring that out at this point..

You lost all credibility a long time ago.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Do do you know that would be much more impressive if the justice system gave two shits about the war crimes revealed by Manning?

so it's a war crime when america does it, but not when it's some other country?

Bigoted transophobe.

reality denialist.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigoted transophobe.

Or, you know... pro-science...

Still find it hard to believe believing science is now frowned upon on a tech website. Funny world.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's telling that an American traitor was rewarded by a Democratic administration with freedom and a free gender change instead of a bullet to the head. Obama had a very very sick sense of justice Manning didn't do it for America or to help America in anyway. He wasn't Snowden.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Uberbah]

You have to remember, there was a time before Wikileaks was just a partisan tool of Russia. It actually exposed real crimes instead of just trying to embarrass a certain party in order to install a puppet president.

There was a time when Democrats didn't fully insert their heads into their asses, and mocked Romney for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. In an election where Putin voiced a preference for the candidate not campaigning on raising tensions with his country. Mind blown?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Send "Chelsea" to Fascist Iran.

Problem solved.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[c6gunner]

war crimes revealed by Manning?

[Citation needed]

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[c6gunner]

The problem is that our government is trying to use a secret court that is one-sided and that is what Manning is protesting. Please read up on Grand Jurys to find out that there is no defense lawyer, the standard rules for evidence are thrown out, the prosecuting attorney is able to lie and bully in ways that would never go down in a public trial, and so much more that will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

That's idiotic. The reason there's no defense lawyer is because there's no sentence and no punishment. The grand jury is not a "secret court" because it is not a court at all; it is an investigative body set up to determine whether a case should even proceed to court. You may as well call a police investigation a "secret court".

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a legal option that judges have and is used every day to compel someone like him.

Why would a judge compel himself? Wouldn't he just do what he intends to do?
Your sentence makes no sense.

Besides, the rest of us are talking about the judge compelling Manning to testify. Try to stay on topic here.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

You may as well call a police investigation a "secret court".

Interesting analogy. What would you say if the police took you to the station and told you that you couldn't get help from a lawyer when they interviewed you?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot accept that some people do not agree with you on the transmania stuff, then you are a bigot.

Also I don't think you can deduce that he is irrationally scared of transvestites because of his comment. He might just find them silly, or counter productive to the goals of mental health.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Sabriel]

Asking as an ignorant foreigner, how does the US government reconcile the use of coercing testimony from a witness with the First Amendment?

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[c6gunner]

Other one got modded down by some morons, so reposting to give you a chance to back up your blather:

war crimes revealed by Manning?

[Citation needed]

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

>I think it's very telling that both under a strident Democratic administration, and now a Republican one, that the investigation and hatred for Wikileaks is exactly the same. This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties..

Yes. This one thing. And why do you "often maintain" it? Why don't you maintain it all the time.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[walllaby]

I wish I had mod points for this. +1

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[DRJlaw]

It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder....

That is not remotely true, says the licensed attorney.

The fifth amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you fail to assert the fifth amendment and voluntarily answer the question "Did YOU murder that family" in the affirmative to a grand jury, then your goose is pretty much cooked.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

slavery
the state of being a slave

slave
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Short response: No.

Longer response: You're being idiotic.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[squiggleslash]

Compelling a witness to testify if they themselves are not the subject of the investigation (where the fifth amendment might apply) is a long established right the courts have had for centuries, it's not unusual and yes, you're normally compelled to do so on pain of being found in contempt of court.

Courts have this right because the interests of justice - that is, ensuring people are and aren't punished in accordance to the nation's laws - are not served if people withhold information about crimes. It's not an unfettered right, and there is due process even here, but once you get to the point that it's established that a crime has likely be committed, and a third party is more likely than not to have relevant information, then, well, the courts have the right to compel testimony. You'll note that the 5th Amendment specifically only excludes people testifying against themselves, not against others. That's not an oversight, that's a deliberate decision by the authors of the Bill of Rights.

Of course, when the nation's laws aren't just, or are being used to perpetuate an injustice - at least from the perspective of the witness - then that puts subpoenaed witnesses in a terrible position, which is what's going on here.

This case is a little awkward. Manning's involvement in Wikileaks dates back to when many people thought Wikileaks was trying to do the right thing. With hindsight, it's not clear to me Assange was, even then, but with the Bush regime being almost cartoonishly evil at the time, that was hard to see. I think Manning was used, I'm surprised Manning is still trying to protect them, but I respect her for doing that.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[mapkinase]

That's a bullshit broad ar5icle to direct at ideological opponents. Every single country has these broadly defined legal funnels to suck in anybody who you can't otherwise persecute.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

I do feel sorry for Manning though, sending her to jail and not even letting her be confined to home is bullshit.

Every American citizen has an legal obligation to testify when summoned to a grand jury. A grand jury cannot coerce information out of a witness, provided doing so violates 4th amendment protections. A witness cannot abet criminal activity by refusing to provide information to a grand jury. If for some reason they feel compelled to conceal that activity (or testimony), they are imprisoned for contempt of court. They aren't tortured for the information.

What's bullshit is not being subject to criminal liability, but choosing not to provide information about criminal activity against hapless victims.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

While I would nominally agree that Assange is a cunt with a penis, there's no reason to believe the Russians gave him the RNC's emails, or that Assange would have motivation to withhold them. Assange is an Australian anarchist who hates the US government. He has no reason to prefer Republican fascists over Democrat fascists.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

YOU WON'T MIND WHEN THE US GOVERNMENT JAILS AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALIST AND PUBLISHER FOR PUBLISHING AMERICAN SECRETS

I'd hardly call Assange an international journalist or Wikileaks a journalistic publisher. Any journalistic endeavor requires nominal standards of accuracy, verification to support their statements, and enough absence of bias to be considered news, and not propaganda.

I'd call Wikileaks a shitshow masquerading as journalists, the way the Trump administration masquerades itself as "responsible" governance.

Contrast that to Snowden, who funnelled information to known journalists with a track record of investigative reporting, and attempted to have them work with a known journalist publishing organization to vet the data, in order to not unduly jeopardize security operations, or endanger individuals.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

A witness does not have to be a party to an illegal act to testify, but when summoned, they are legally required to provide testimony. If a witness bears false testimony to the grand jury, that is a crime. If the witness withholds information (that doesn't incriminate him/her) to potential criminal activity (i.e. refuse to testify), they demonstrate that they are participating in a criminal conspiracy (by withholding what they know). This is where the "contempt of court" charge leads to imprisonment.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

Under no circumstances should a person ever speak and answer questions of/from a federal agent.

That's morally contemptible. Being silent rather than providing information to law enforcement that could avert or imprison persons conducting criminal activity is abetting the crime.

What should be said is "Any individual is in legal peril anytime they submit to questioning from a LEO. They can choose not to participate when asked by a LEO, cease to answer questions the moment they become suspicious of a LEO's line of questioning, or require the presence of a legal representative during questioning.".

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[slashdot_commentator]

It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder...

That's not true. A statement like that would be considered "a confession" which was freely given. It also doesn't stop police investigators from collecting information that could be used instead to indict you with the crime. Its also quite possible to accidentally or incompetently self-incriminate oneself in grand jury testimony. That is why there is a 5th amendment that protects you from being compelled to provide testimony against yourself, but that's it.

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh they protesth too much, all latent trannies in denial, a sadass bunch of tossers.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Uberbah]

Other one got modded down by some morons, so reposting to give you a chance to back up your blather:

war crimes revealed by Manning?

Lolwut. That's like going to a political convention and asking for evidence that Obama is black.

There's three war crimes in the Collateral Murder video alone: targeting civilians, targeting the press, and targeting first responders. There are cables on the US pressuring other countries to ignore our extraordinary kidnapping and torture program. The biggest doozy, though, has got to be using US taxpayer dollars to pay for Bacha Bazi boys for Afghan warlords. Because all of the transophobes clucking "you mean HIM???" in reference to Chelsea Manning don't seem to have a problem with their tax dollars being used to support boy-fucking. Boy-fucking taking place on US military bases.

KABUL, Afghanistan - In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

"At night we can hear them screaming, but we're not allowed to do anything about it," the Marine's father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. "My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it's their culture."

Now, you were blathering something about blather?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Uberbah]

so it's a war crime when america does it, but not when it's some other country?

Dafuck are you talking about. It's a war crime when anyone targets civilians, engages in torture, deliberately bombs hospitals, engages in child sex trafficking. But American's don't have a vote for who's king of Saudi Arabia. They can vote for presidents, senators, and members of the house.

WYFP

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[bluefoxlucid]

How do you know that your knowledge of a crime isn't a crime itself, or doesn't reveal that you have likely committed crimes?

Re:Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gvt

[Archangel Michael]

What is morally contemptible is a government set up in such a way that this is the only reasonable option. There is NO guarantee that if you give info to a Federal Agent that they won't use it against you.

T. S. Ellis belongs in jail, dereliction of duty

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire Manafort trial under Ellis was a joke, he's a political partisan pile of shit who deserves an investigation and defrocking. Thankfully... Manafort has ~48 states worth of crimes to pay for anyway. Death in prison assured.

Next up : Drumpftard himself.

Chelsea Manning working with PUTIN PUPPET

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirmed!

Is Wikileaks a Kremlin tool, or not? Let's find out what the transvestites of slashdot think.

Re:Chelsea Manning working with PUTIN PUPPET

[jellomizer]

Wikileaks is just as it is, a place that broadcasts leaked information. Its problem is often leaked information isn't complete, and often parts of classified documents that really should be classified can now hurt people.
Now most of the stuff leaked was stuff we already knew about or at least assume it happened unless you just into the American propaganda. They were some Russian leaks on Wikileaks as well, and leaks from other countries too.

Hard Way

[Anonymous Coward]

And another idiot that thinks that the laws don't apply to them learns the hard way. You'd have thought that he would have learned the first time around when he got sentenced to 35 years. Before Obama let him skate on treason. He should have been put up against a wall and shot for aiding and comforting the enemy during a time of war.

Re:Hard Way

[Anonymous Coward]

"And another idiot that thinks that the laws don't apply to them learns the hard way. " - Manafort? Trump? I think it's obvious Manning knew what she was doing here, by comparison and in general. Trump's treason was incompetent.

Chelsea Manning will be out salsa dancing loooooong after Trump dies in Federal prison. How's that for spicy Americana?

conflicted

[ganjadude]

on the one hand, manning is a piece of trash

on the other he shouldnt be forced to testify

Re:conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

If given immunity everyone is required to do so. This particular unique snowflake is just high profile and is using this for the publicity.

Re:conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

piece of trash why? by providing evidence of the crimes against humanity and the ACTUAL COST OF WAR to all involved? ...if you're struggling with that, i think you're suffering from cognitive dissonance from being so thoroughly brainwashed.

Re:conflicted

[ganjadude]

its not because of what he did then its because of what hes doing now

The only Putin cocksucking is in the Trump admin

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a Kremlin tool, Manning didn't contact Russia like Trump did. (Secret backchannel, Drumpftard Tower Moscow, etc) Nice try, traitor. Really, almost worked lol.

World's most boring nazi faggot Ken Doll 3Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

Chelsea Manning had an effect on the world, did things against the law so she thought to benefit the American people. Manning will always be 10+ times the man Kendall ever was, or ever will be, the Colorado nazi incel of no consequence lol.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

[ClickOnThis]

Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Nidi62]

So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

Could be a desire not to endanger people Manning may have worked with or contacted within Wikileaks or even within the military. And of course, from the summary: "Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial."

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

> That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition

You can always take the fifth. It's a right, regardless of other process. Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[themusicgod1]

I thought she wasn't pardoned, merely released? This detail was discussed in her recent HOPE talk I think.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Nidi62]

Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.

Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[ClickOnThis]

You can always take the fifth. It's a right, regardless of other process. Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.

No, that's not true. There are some caveats, but generally if the government guarantees that you cannot self-incriminate (either via a pardon or a plea agreement) then you may be compelled to testify.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[ClickOnThis]

Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.

Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.

You're right. She was not pardoned -- her sentence was commuted. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Manning is a traitor, but so are secret courts.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned.

Actually no, she had her sentence commuted.

That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune

No, she'd already be immune from being prosecuted for the same crime twice. Doesn't really have anything to do with being pardoned. Even so, normally (except with the case of Nixon) pardons are limited to crimes you were convicted of, not a general get-out-of-jail free card.

In any case, she should still take the 5th on any crimes she committed, but wasn't convicted of.

So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

Because she disagrees with the secret nature of it. I tend to agree. Secret courts are almost always a bad idea, and this one involves things that happened almost a freaking decade ago. The government wants to keep it secret for political purposes, not national security ones.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[MobyDisk]

The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[ClickOnThis]

The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.

No, it isn't. I messed up. Several posters corrected me.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Registered Coward v2]

Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

She had her sentence commuted, she did not receive a pardon. She can be compelled to testify and could possibly plead the fifth depending on why she claims a fifth amendment right.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[thegarbz]

That means she can't take the fifth

By the fifth I assume you mean the right to remain silent. You have this right to not incriminate yourself, it does not prevent you from having to testify specific information about something when the court has subpoena you.

Speaking of grand juries and the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[thegarbz]

No, that's not true. There are some caveats

Calling it a caveat is putting it lightly given what the wording of the fifth actually is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

*So she is still technically considered guilty of his crimes

It's a pedantic difference, but hear me out: She was still a man when he committed the crimes, so she is guilty of his crimes. I know it's confusing, but you really have to be careful using past tense gender pronouns for Ms. Manning. :)

Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?

[c6gunner]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury

That, uhm ... that doesn't actually mean what you appear to think it means.

This part of the fifth amendment deals with the requirement to have a grand jury approve the charges before any felony is actually brought to trial. It's not saying that "you have to give answers to a grand jury", it's saying "you will not be put on trial (held to answer) unless a grand jury presents an indictment against you".

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has several well-established ways around those pesky Enumerated Rights. I'll give one example, double jeopardy:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

If you commit a single crime it's possible to be convicted for it twice. All the authorities have to do is say that you broke both a federal law and a state law and pow, that section of the Fifth Amendment somehow doesn't apply. A proper application of it would mean they have to *choose a jurisdiction in which to try you* but that's often not how it goes.

I think the authors of the Constitution also didn't anticipate the modern practice of prosecutors stacking charges in order to force plea deals. Perhaps they imagined a proper jury trial prior to every conviction but that's a rarity these days.

Re:Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

It says in the fucking summary above why she refuses -- she objects to the behind-closed-doors nature of the grand jury testimony.

Equivocation

[Anonymous Coward]

When Wikileaks are making the other side look bad, they are the best thing since sliced bread. When they make your side look bad, they are evil incarnate.

Re:Equivocation

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember if we're pro war or anti war. Things change so quickly.

Re: Equivocation

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hillary was president we would now be engaged in a land war in Syria.

I hope this somewhat clarifies things.

Re: Equivocation

[Anonymous Coward]

But we wouldn't be heading into a war with China.

Re: Equivocation

[Uberbah]

It was Obama who started the "Asian pivot" to start threatening China with the US Navy, not Trump. As Hillary Clinton is just as incompetent, petty and bloodthirsty as the Evil Mutant Death Walrus, I have no doubt she would have continued that policy.

Trump is the maximum level of traitor. Sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will be hanged a traitor along with his bitch beta traitor sons and bauble-whore daughter, illegally imported whore wife. #Manning America's GALLOWS Again!

Re: Trump is the maximum level of traitor. Sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Meth-addled nutjobs sure do hate President Trump.

Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is in the same category ad China, Russia or Nazi Germany.

A psychopathically evil totalitarian regime, backed by a vile mob of aggressive passive-thinkers and a kraken of a police state the likes of which have never been seen.

Axis of evil. That's th correct term.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. In those other states we wouldn't even discussing this because we wouldn't know about it. Or anyone that did would also be in jail... or dead

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[TigerPlish]

he US is in the same category ad China, Russia or Nazi Germany.

You're delusional. I suggest you talk to people who lived under the nazi flag. Talk to those who first-hand fought the fights, flew the raids, occupied Germany at the end. I suggest you educate yourself on what WWII Germany was doing, how they did it, and the sheer scale of what was done. Every country has blood on its hand, but WWII Germany was something else. Russia, too. Stalin offed twice as many Russians -- his own people -- than what Hitler did to the Jews and others Not Like Him.

We're not running a machine of death where we feed body upon body by the thousands into the furnaces. No, we just knock over dictators to put another dictator in, one friendly to our interests.

All we have here is a few minor inconveniences. For fuck's sake we can still buy guns with relative ease. And drugs. And cars, bikes, etc etc. We're a fucking paradise, my commie-pinko friend, even when compared to places in the Carribean.

I will fight people like you in the voting booths, now and until I die. You cannot be allowed to win. You have your right to say it, but we have the right to vote your people into oblivion.

And who the fuck modded you +1 anyway? Your post smacks of arrogant ignorance!

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[dunkelfalke]

Except not. Because if Stalin had actually killed 40 millions, then, together with the losses in WW2, the USSR population would have been halved. This alone would make the country completely unsustainable. At least you aren't as ridiculous as some people who insist that Stalin has killed 100 millions of soviet citizens because adding the WW2 losses that would be about all of them.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[TigerPlish]

Because if Stalin had actually killed 40 millions

12 million, wsn't it? where did you get 40 from?

Still. Way to endear yourself to your people, killing your own. Niiiicely done.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

To a Jew, everyone who isn't a Jew is a Nazi.

They are incredibly one-note on this issue, and it's why mainstream media is so fucking boring.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[drinkypoo]

he US is in the same category ad China, Russia or Nazi Germany.

You're delusional. I suggest you talk to people who lived under the nazi flag.

The USA sold fuel, aluminum, and other war supplies to the Third Reich, and also refused to enter the war on the basis that it might hurt certain people's reelection campaigns. The checks for the support contracts for the concentration management machines which were built by IBM of Germany were paid straight to IBM in Armonk, NY. Tell us again about that Nazi flag, which was only able to fly so long because the USA was profiting from the holocaust.

We're not running a machine of death where we feed body upon body by the thousands into the furnaces.

True, we only willfully aid and abet such, so that we can profit from them.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out quite a lot of information by cherry picking those parts. I know it seems cool to dis the US every chance you get, but really you just look ignorant to those who know more than you, which is pretty much everyone on slashdot. And that is a low bar achievement.

In short. Fuck off and die.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

There are entire networks of sockpuppets that write and mod that stuff up. Some professional, many just for fun apparently.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[drinkypoo]

You left out quite a lot of information by cherry picking those parts.

Those facts, you mean. If you have a problem with those facts, then by all means counter them. Otherwise, in short,

Fuck off and die.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not running a machine of death where we feed body upon body by the thousands into the furnaces. No, we just knock over dictators to put another dictator in, one friendly to our interests.

Yeah, luckily knocking over dictators is completely bloodless, oh wait,
Several estimates based on randomly selected household surveys estimate the approximate numbers of civilians killed, injured, and made sick due to war. These surveys place the total death count among Iraqis in the hundreds of thousands, including nonviolent or indirect deaths.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

And who the fuck modded you +1 anyway? Your post smacks of arrogant ignorance!

While you might not be among the absolute worst history has to offer, you are closing in from behind way to fast for you to get on your high horse. And the irony of you calling someone arrogant and ignorant...

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

My father was in a German death camp and later a Russian gulag for wanting to go to Israel. When I asked him why he didn't want to move to the US when he married an American here in Israel, he said everything in American politics feels like Nazi Germany circa 38' just waiting to explode and he specifically pointed to how the blacks are treated and to Vietnam.

This was almost 60 years ago when I was just a kid. But you'd hear similar opinions from Israeli Shoa survivors all the time.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the Jews, they weren't even the biggest victims of the holocaust: total death toll estimates are 17-21 million, Jews made up only 6million. The majority of the rest were gypsies (Roma) and homosexuals, but you don't hear them banging on about it like the Jews do.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

The holocaust count was not 6 million. You have fallen for Jewish propaganda where they claim they were the hardest hit by the holocaust. They weren't.

The holocaust death toll was 17-21 million, only 6 million of which were Jews. The rest were gypsies (Roma), homosexuals, disabled, and "others". The Jews were not even the largest group affected, that poor fate befalls the gypsies.

Now, the parent poster assumed you knew what you were talking about, and pointed out that "double" would mean 40 million.

Why don't you do us all a favour, make a cup of tea, and sit down with the holocaust Wikipedia page (there may be a specific one regarding the death toll) and read it. Read it all. You'll learn a lot.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being silly.

  How many massacres has the US government committed against it's own citizens? OK now how many of those were of MORE THAN 10 MILLION PEOPLE?

That would be the difference.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me leave this here for ya all. We do have smartphones....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

Except not. Because if Stalin had actually killed 40 millions, then, together with the losses in WW2, the USSR population would have been halved.

That's assuming he rounded up 40 million people and killed them all at once, which is a really stupid assumption. Stalin was in power for 33 years; had he killed 1.2 million per year it would not have come close to halving the population as long as the birth rate was fairly high (which it was).

Anyway, no it wasn't 40 million; the accepted figure is somewhere between 15 and 20 million. Which is obviously so much better.

At least you aren't as ridiculous as some people who insist that Stalin has killed 100 millions of soviet citizens because adding the WW2 losses that would be about all of them.

You're the one being ridiculous; that 100 million is a figure attributed to communism as a whole, not Stalin specifically, and not the USSR alone.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

The Jews were not even the largest group affected, that poor fate befalls the gypsies.

That's just complete horseshit. The most widely accepted estimate for Roma holocaust deaths is less than 220,000. Some historians have argued that the actual number is up to 1.5 million, but even if you credulously accept that estimate it is still nowhere near the number of Jews killed.

The largest single group would actually be "soviet civilians", though the number is close enough to the number of Jews killed that it's not really worth differentiating. The big difference, of course, is that Nazi Germany did not have a stated policy of exterminating soviet civilians; their deaths were mostly (though far from solely) a result of being used as slave labour for the German war machine. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but it does put them in a different category than those like Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled, who were specifically targeted for extermination.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

Those facts, you mean.

The fact is that you're an idiot who seems to think that IBM was part of the US government.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

Waiting to explode for 60 years so far, apparently. But it'll happen! Any day now!

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[drinkypoo]

The fact is that you're an idiot who seems to think that IBM was part of the US government.

The USA knew what IBM was doing. They also knew Alcoa was selling Aluminum, and they knew about the corporation selling the fuel (used to have a nice reference for him) etc. And it also knew that the holocaust was occurring, but delayed entry into the war so that everyone else would be at a disadvantage, having been bombed repeatedly. Japan wasn't getting bombed, though, so we did it. Then we were in the ideal position to domination manufacturing for quite some years, which is where the prosperity that the boomers enjoyed came from.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[walllaby]

No, just a military industrial complex that feeds soldiers into a meat grinder (Vietnam) for the sake of philosophical differences or selling more weapons (Iraq, Yemen). Not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

The USA knew what IBM was doing. They also knew Alcoa was selling Aluminum, and they knew about the corporation selling the fuel (used to have a nice reference for him) etc.

Who exactly in the US knew this, when, and why does it matter? Everyone did business with Nazi Germany. Throughout the 1930s even Palestinian Jews were importing goods from Germany. England and France continued doing business with them right up until the outbreak of war. Spain and Italy, of course, continued doing so long after, along with many other European nations. Of what significance is it, exactly, that some American businesses acted the same as businesses in most other nations?

And it also knew that the holocaust was occurring, but delayed entry into the war so that everyone else would be at a disadvantage, having been bombed repeatedly.

Historical revisionism at it's finest. No historian of any note believes anything remotely like this. The US entry into the war was delayed by domestic political bickering. However, even before their official entry into the war, the US was providing massive shipments to Europe in support of her allies, as well as engaging in naval battles against German vessels. You're making up complete nonsense.

Of course you won't criticize the USSR for signing a neutrality pact with the Nazis, since commies are your kind of people. Nor would you criticize the Swedes for remaining neutral throughout the war, because that's just not a popular position. But you're more than happy to make up nonsense about the USA because you're a Brave Peoples Warrior attacking those eeeeevil capitalists, and truth doesn't matter when you have righteousness on your side.

Re:Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what is your current body count? Or did you stop counting already?

Let me try. Keep in mind that the 'the winner writes the history', and 'enemy' side casualties were reported by 'winners' and thus most likely way reduced, and this does not include the 'nice long lasting consequences' war has on region and world:

- 1. Hiroshima/Nagasaki 300k + get off scott free for Japanese war criminals (unit 731)
- 2. various 'little wars' around the world to help boost your economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#History
  Iran, Guatemala, Korea,Syria, Kongo,Vietnam, Chile, typical way of operation
- what happened to your own president who didnt obey and engage vietnam in 1963?
- 3. Gulf war 1991: 125k (typical display how war/oil industry that powers America works)
- 4. War on iraq 2003: 50k
- 5. Overthrow in Libya (6k)
- 6. War in syria (began as response to oppressive regimes and a low standard of living and we all know who likes to play "destabilise the region so we can liberate it later" game ) 500k killed, 5+ million refugees with political consequences in EU ( rise of right wing populist parties)
- general 'echonomic asshole' behaviour leeching/exploiting by corporations of underdeveloped countries who can't defend themselves well - one of most extreme examples would be Bhopal 1986
- in general pretending to 'police' the whole world, whoever doesn't play by your rules gets punished

You get to few million if you sum it all up (and those were the lucky ones, they died 'quickly'). Now lets add a few 10 million of those who get to live in the 'paradise' created by war. So yes, you are definitely not "running a machine of death where we feed body upon body by the thousands into the furnaces". Your country is nothing more then war/predatory economy complex with fake elections - doesn't matter who 'wins' - policies don't change much.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[drinkypoo]

Of course you won't criticize the USSR for signing a neutrality pact with the Nazis, since commies are your kind of people. Nor would you criticize the Swedes for remaining neutral throughout the war, because that's just not a popular position.

I'd have criticized those things if the USSR or Sweden were the subject, but they aren't. That's why that shit is whataboutism. Maybe not skipping your meds would help you stay on topic?

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

Maybe not skipping your meds would help you stay on topic?

Says the cunt whining about US companies as a response to someone saying that the US is nothing like Nazi Germany.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[drinkypoo]

Says the cunt whining about US companies as a response to someone saying that the US is nothing like Nazi Germany.

Sounds like you don't know that corporations were much of the problem in Nazi Germany. Your ignorance knows no bounds, including national boundaries.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[c6gunner]

Amongst all the stupid things you've said over the years, blaming German companies for the holocaust has got to be by far the stupidest. Fuck off.

Re: Nazi state 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Best estimates are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

While the parent poster was incorrect about the largest group of victims, they were 100% correct in pointing out that the death toll is substantially higher than the 6 million figure. The objection being that due to Jewish exceptionalism the 6 million figure is so often misrepresented as the total death toll, when it is obviously not.

XY not XX

[Zorro]

Still a Dude.

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

^^ Not much of an anything, but at least you're zeroed-in on the transgender's crotch right? Seems normal for a Republican pervert.

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

A dude who has to do all of his Wikileaks sitting down..

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

chromosomes are only in the crotch?

Re:XY not XX

[Nidi62]

Still a Dude.

What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt Republican incels even have a crotch, just a smooth spot where balls should be that they let Vladimir Putin lick and post notes to them.

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

What about mentally ill attention seeking faggots like Chelsea Manning?

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

#truth

Re:XY not XX

[gweihir]

So you are so incredibly insecure in your identity that you fear nothing more than a person that has made the decision to switch genders? You have a serious problem.

Re:XY not XX

[Anonymous Coward]

> What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?

You are talking about a very, very small portion of the population.

Re:XY not XX

[Shotgun]

They are birth defects. What have they got do do with Chelsea Manning?

Re:XY not XX

[blindseer]

What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?

Does Manning have any of those conditions? All indications are that he does not. Manning is still a male, even if he goes through hormone replacement and a gelding.

People with the disorders you describe are a very small portion of the population. These people deserve compassion for their condition and to be treated as the gender they feel most comfortable presenting themselves to the public. We cannot upend our definitions of male and female because of a handful of exceedingly rare genetic disorders.

On the other hand those in generally good physical health should not be allowed to remove healthy organs because they suffer from a mental disorder. Allowing people to live a lie that they are some other gender than what they were born is not good for their own mental health, or the public's mental health. Why do we allow these people to mutilate themselves when there is obviously nothing physically wrong with them? Those that are obviously not suffering from some disorder of sexual development should not be allowed to undergo surgery just as we prevent people with body integrity dysphoria to amputate their legs or hands.

At least with body integrity dysphoria the surgery would actually make them what they want to be, an amputee. Cutting away healthy tissue on a man does not make the man into a woman. It makes the man a damaged man. Treating gender dysphoria with "transition" surgery is quite barbaric. I believe that in time we will see the damage this method of "treatment" has done to those that received this treatment. This will take decades to find out how much damage has been done as the artificial hormone treatments are still experimental, as are the cosmetic surgeries they have undergone.

If an adult wants to render himself or herself infertile then that is their choice. What I find unfathomable is parents being allowed to neuter their own children. That's child abuse and borderline demonic. If someone wants to see their family line end with them and their children then I can get some consolation in that whatever mental illness or anti-social norms they have engendered will die with them. We should be kind and compassionate to these people, not live in their fantasy world.

Re:XY not XX

[serviscope_minor]

Wow there's a lot of people short of reasoning here. To summarise:

>>> Your a moran XY means Male
>> Existence of [insert one of many conditions] proves that is not always true
> Nuh uh doesn't count.

Re:XY not XX

[serviscope_minor]

Does Manning have any of those conditions?

Utterly irrelevant.

The original claim is XY means male. The existence of those conditions proves beyond any doubt that XY is not the same as male, because there exist cases of XY where people are clearly, indisputably not male.

What you're trying to do is muddy to waters so the original claim of "XY is male" stands while hedging like hell.

Allowing people to live a lie that they are some other gender than what they were born is not good for their own mental health

Allowing people to not believe in Jesus will make them go to hell. We must convert them for their own good.

Thing is you're stating an opinion as if it were fact because you WANT to believe it's true, not because it is true. The evidence is very mixed. you claiming it as a known fact is you imposing your considerable biases.

What I want to know is why you care so much?

Excellent point.

[Anonymous Coward]

"She is a Traitor to the country." Ivanka sure the hell is! She was in the meeting with the Russian agent, lied about it too! ROPE IS COMING, RUN BACK TO MOSCOW TRAITORS DRUMPF.

Re:Excellent point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard

It's a lot more than one point

[SuperKendall]

They diverge in some regards but it pretty much any way that matters, both sides look out for power in DC.

Re:It's a lot more than one point

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who doubts this, just look at what happened when Rep. Omar had the audacity to say the quiet part loud. Can't put a spotlight on politician's meal tickets, that's strictly verboten.

Re:It's a lot more than one point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and the voters hand it to them on a silver platter, still, no matter what scandal can be dug up. Let's not blame anybody else for that! We can apply a Corollary to Moore's Law to history, it repeats twice as fast with every generation.

Majority Rule has hit the Brick Wall (that Trump built?).

Re:It's a lot more than one point

[Anonymous Coward]

both sides look out for power in DC

That's kind of the point of parties, isn't it? To attain power and stay in power so you can enact your agenda?

Having the correct (or correctest) agenda is what matters, and the major parties are significantly different in that regard.

Manning is more of a man than Kendall ever will be

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning had an effect on the world, did things against the law so she thought to benefit the American people. Manning will always be 10+ times the man Kendall ever was, or ever will be, the Colorado nazi incel of no consequence lol.

Chelsea Manning Jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I was waiting for them to come after her, as bad as they want Assange. Notice how her medical needs take a backseat to the powers-that-be's Quest for Justice.

Re: Chelsea Manning Jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they always need to get their 'suspect'.

I bet the Gestapo and the brownshirts before them needed to live out their cowboy fantasies because their dicks were just too small. Same thing with today's "justice system".

Re: Chelsea Manning Jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are her medical needs? Complications from hormone therapy, or other forms of self mutilation??

A piece of trash? Why??

[Anonymous Coward]

Because heshe leaked information about your sworn biggest enemy to the victim/cattle of said enemy (you) about how your enemy abuses you?

This is why the US does not need so many primitive repressions as e.g. China. No need. The citizens fight for their own oppression, censor themselves, oppress themselves. Their brainwashing propaganda game is top notch.

A film that you guys hate a lot because it went over your head, but is considered one of the bes ever made around here, had a quote about this dynamic:

<em>"You know what's so elegant about this little game, Jake?
Nobody knows where the enemy is.
They don't even know he exists.
He's in every...one of their heads.
And they trust him... ...because they think they *are* him.

If you try to destroy him... to save them,...
they'll destroy you... to save him.

It's beautiful, man!
You have to admire the opponent's elegance.
Check."</em>

You only just found out? Well, at last!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you don't have a democracy. you have a one-oligarchy dictatorship with two hand puppets to fake competition. Like Panasonic aka Matsuahita aka JVC in the 90s.

Besides: Since when is a "representative democracy" not an oxymoron and the opposite of a democracy anyway?
Especially when all they represent is the corporations they work/lobby for.

Ok, maybe it is an actual democracy. But the citizens are the corporations, and the real elections happens via those revolving door of lobbyism.

Note that I am not some USA hater. Quite the opposite. I'm angry that some assholes ruin the country that I love so much even though I'm not even from there.

PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian Assange and Wikileaks has lost a lot of credibility.

By losing credibility, he published DNC emails which have been confirmed 100% accurate and true and showed the DNC colluded with news outlets and rigged a primary.
Yep, in PopeRatzo's world, giving proof of a rigged primary is the same as "losing credibility". In just a single generation a story like this went from Pulitzer prize winner to losing credibility. It looks like the DNC's attempt to create morons through destroying public education has worked.

Re: PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

US âoeprimariesâ are private political party events, not an actual part of US Democracy. Theyâ(TM)re not fair or democratic, and they shouldnâ(TM)t be expected to be. The US should get real Primary elections instead.

Re: PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

True. The parties could completely eliminate primaries if they want to. In fact, the RNC have been open about the fact that they're not going to support anyone but Trump in 2020, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I also didn't see anything wrong with the DNC trying to steer the party toward Clinton.

Re: PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

See it here first. Liberals think democracy is overrated and rigging of elections is acceptable to them.
Just like censorship is acceptable to them.
Just like killing live born babies is acceptable to them.
Just like anti-semitism is acceptable to them.

Noticing a pattern here yet? Not meaning to Godwin myself, but liberalism sounds a lot like 1940 Germany.

Re:PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks and Assange lost their credibility the minute they started managing the dissemination of the information sent to them for publication. Wikileaks mandate was to provide a platform so people could anonymously publish information. That's it. And they have certainly failed to keep the information submitters anonymous.

When Assange went around trying to dictate the terms of release to the major media outlets his credibility was gone.

Wikileaks doesn't come close to the level of cherry picking the people releasing the Snowden documents conduct. Their political leanings are front and center and out of the millions of documents in their possession they have only released the documents which support their political ideology and damage their political adversaries.

Re: PopeRatzo the moron confirms his stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they didn't rig any elections (just their own primary, pretty slimy but not in same league as what Rs do), haven't done or said anything anti-semitic, and don't kill babies. But you're right about the censorship. 1/4, not bad for a fuckwit.

The Jesus freaks on parade!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! The Trumparoos will have a field day with this!

I guess they need a break between cross burnings and beating up the black man.

Re:The Jesus freaks on parade!

[Anonymous Coward]

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2...

You don't mean this black guy, that paid 2 other black guys to beat him up and use it to claim racism? Because he is right there is a racist to be seen here. His name is Jussie Smollett.

Leave her alone already

[Anonymous Coward]

So I fucking understand why the USA government and its assorted minions would be pissed at this individual, as the Wikileaks revelations revealed by Manning made the government look like a bunch of petty, asshat bitches. But come on already, enough is enough...at what point are you violating the fucking double jeopardy protections outlined in the US Constitution, for fuck's sake.
Here's a thought, stop fucking sowing wars and discord across the planet to sell your weaponry, and maybe, just maybe, there wont be this kind of goddamn motivation to reveal your bullshit meddling.

Note to Scott Snowden....the coast is most definitely *not* clear, so stay the fuck wherever you are. You wont be 'prosecuted', rather, you will be persecuted, just like Manning.

Re:Leave her alone already

[gweihir]

Fascists have no decency and no compassion. You can see this nicely in this example.

Re:Leave her alone already

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that's right now that he chopped his dick off and forces you to claim hes a woman, he now falls under the "protected" class that nobody is allowed to talk to or hold to the standards of the rest of the country. I forgot we have to treat people special and can't say bad things about them even if true. Because we don't care about Science or Truth. Unless it's our science and truth.

Chelsea Manning, traitor and future GOP hero? Hmm!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if she panders to the Republican base for a few years they can probably win the GOP nomination, as Trump the anti-abortion liberal fraud-turned-Republican-savior proved, right? They'll support ANY traitor who supports nazism.

not a clear thinker

[hdyoung]

She refuses to testify because she doesn't like the secrecy. But then she claims that she's already revealed everything there is to say. And somehow twists this into some sort of idealogical battle? This is a *very* fuzzy headed individual. Sigh. I guess that it's pretty common across the board. Humanity has put rationality in the back seat for the time being.

She won't win this fight unless she's ready to sit out the jail sentence. When a grand jury pulls you up and says "talk" you don't get a say in the matter, unless you're ready to plead the 5th or sit in a jail cell.

Re:not a clear thinker

[fish_in_the_c]

Not a she in the first place. So , claiming to be what you are not and never can be , should make one pause over any other claims related to clarity of thought.

Re:not a clear thinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off bigot. But I bet you still beat your dick like it owes you money on tranny porn, dont you?

Re:not a clear thinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Like wahtzizname on Hogan's Hero's:

Ve has vays to making you talk!

Re:not a clear thinker

[serviscope_minor]

Not a she in the first place.

Wow some people really REALLY care about other people's gender. I wonder why precisely you care so much, you need to get out more. Feel free to respond with a hilariously simplistic argument about genetics demonstrating that you have nothing more than a schoolboy level of understanding.

Schizophrenia of the History

[hackingbear]

Chelsea Manning is a traitor to this great nation: she exposed the hypocrisy of this nation.

Chelsea Manning is a hero to the world: she let the world learn the hypocrisy of an empire.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[gweihir]

Let enough time pass and let the current corrupt holders of power be forgotten, and the verdict will just be the second. Because it is the only thing that has a logical base.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[fish_in_the_c]

This person is not female. The fact you fail to acknowledge that realty significantly undermines the trustworthiness of anything else you say.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. Modern mainstream culture in the West is utterly batshit insane.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that people upvote this shows how old and backwards Slashdot has become.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. People who dont subscribe to the others view of gender definition, is therefore untrustworthy and what they have to say, regardless of their expertise, experience or reputation, is worthless.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[Anonymous Coward]

If they will lie about something as trivial as male and female. What else will they lie about.

Re:Schizophrenia of the History

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. We (people of the world) want US hands off Manning and off Assange.

He created them male and female

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Sound of Silence
Sun researchers find strange eclipse reading

HACKINGBEAR COME IN! CALLING ALL HACKINGBEARS!

[Anonymous Coward]

The glorious imperial faggot of China is NOT PLEASED with your propaganda lately, HACKINGBEAR! Your mother is dangling over a hot pot, she could be soup at ANY MINUTE. TRY HARDER, PROPAGANDA AGENT HACKINGBEAR!

Or your mother is JOOK!

KENDALL WORLD'S DUMBEST NAZI FAGGOT LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You will never matter like Manning matters. Deal with it faggot. Chelsea the transgender is more of a man than you will ever be. Suck it nazi faggot bitch.

Suck Putin's cock directly, GOP traitors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go suck Putin's cock directly, cut out the middle traitor Drumpftards. Trump is a traitor. Deal with it faggot snowflakes. At least Manning ostensibly pretended to be acting in the interests of the US public, unlike the traitor Drumpf.

Re:Suck Putin's cock directly, GOP traitors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning hangs out with white nationalists, I don't see that as acting in the interest of the American people. You're just a retard.

Re: Suck Putin's cock directly, GOP traitors.

[Anonymous Coward]

By that you must mean the gay white nationalists association?

Re:World's most boring nazi faggot Ken Doll 3Manni

[Anonymous Coward]

Manning will always be 10+ times the man Kendall ever was

Is that because Manning hangs out with noted hate group founder Gavin "I'll prove I'm not gay by shoving this dildo up my ass" McInnes and the absolutely retarded Mike Cernobitch?

Always been this way.

[Solandri]

You can be compelled by the court to testify in a case unrelated to you (other than you being a witness). Refusal to do so is contempt of court, and can result in jail time (not prison). Your desire to protect someone does not override the court's responsibility to get at the truth.

This seems like an odd reason to refuse to comply with the court. Grand jury hearings (they determine if there's sufficient evidence for a case to go to a real trial) act as a shield against government harassing innocents by constantly sending them to trial on frivolous charges. They are frequently held in secret so as not to prejudice potential future jurors, and not to prejudice the public in case there's a determination that there's insufficient evidence (people have this bad habit of assuming that being accused = guilty).

The only other notable case I can think of where someone refused to testify was a reporter who was ordered by a court to give up the name of his anonymous source, and was jailed (for years) under contempt of court. But in that case, the principle of freedom of the press was at stake - people wishing to inform the press anonymously would no longer do so if their anonymity could be stripped by a simple court order.

Re: Always been this way.

[Anonymous Coward]

No difference between a journalist not wanting to give up a source, Chelsea not wanting to give up a source, or you/I not wanting to give up a source.

Re: Always been this way.

[c6gunner]

He isn't being asked to give up a source; he IS the source.

Great example of media bias.

[fish_in_the_c]

This is Bradley Edward Manning
December 17, 1987 (age 31)
Crescent, Oklahoma, U.S.
and always will be regardless of how he dresses or what people call him. The fact the media insists on calling someone who is not and never can have an X chromosome she , is a perfect example of why people don't trust mainstream media any more. This is simple NOT living in reality and engaging someone in dangerous fantasy. More over it is confusing, unless someone happen to know the full story because it falsely identifies the individual involved with a different name.

It should further be an insult to women on nation international women's day that any man who feels like it can claim to be one of them.

Re:Great example of media bias.

[CaptainDork]

Fortunately, like White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, you are ineffectively intolerant and misguided.

Re:Great example of media bias.

[Ogive17]

Stop being so fucking insecure.

People are born different. One of my best childhood friends came out as being gay shortly after high school. Looking back, it's very obvious now. It wasn't a choice he made, it's just who he always was.

I'm not going to pretend to understand how anyone in those communities actually feel but I will respect them as individuals until given a reason not to. Their personal decisions have no impact on the lives of us, so why rant about it?

Re:Great example of media bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

Big example to be a fucking retard that still leave with a mindset if the XIX century

Re:Great example of media bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a Democrat too.

Re:Great example of media bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problems with a man that wants to suck dick. So long as they do not try to accost or molest me there would be no difference in the way I treat them. Hell my best friend and I walked into the house one day to catch his dad in a dress. We all laughed and now its a joke. When the man that wants to suck dick chops his own off and demands I treat him as a woman and tried to demonize me because I say I would never have sex with him. That's when the issues start and I will no longer treat them with the respect I previously would have. A man that cuts his dick off is not a woman. A woman who sews some extra skin onto their clit does not make them a man. No matter how much you want it to happen, it is scientifically proven that it CAN NOT happen. Please stick to science and truth on a forum for nerds who care about Science and Truth. However lacking that may seem around here lately, please don't make it worse.

No surprise

[duke_cheetah2003]

The rule of law is alive and well, in the USA, thank goodness. And if you defy a court of law, you will pay a price.

So, Chelsea better get comfortable unless she wants to answer questions.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule of Law? Sure, pal. Meanwhile, Trump shits over everything he surveys, and his spit lickers - AKA Republicans - do nothing. Rule of Law, indeed.

Manning testified about ...

[CaptainDork]

... certain matters at her trial.

There are other matters that the feds thought were unnecessary to pursue because they already had enough to put her away.

Even the Obama decision did not upset prosecutors. However, the US is gearing up for an Assange trial once Ecuador releases Assange to London.

For that reason, additional actions by Manning, declared moot at the time, are now important to the Assange trial.

Those same facts would also incriminate Manning and expose her to possible further litigation. I predict an immunity deal for her.

Re:Manning testified about ...

[Whorhay]

They apparently had already offered full immunity for testimony before the Grand Jury and she refused to testify anyways.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

"He is a traitor to his country."

shoah is the big lie

[Anonymous Coward]

you shabbos goy are the traitor to humanity when you prop up the big lie

Indeed

[SuperKendall]

Manning will always be 10+ times the man Kendall ever was, or ever will be

Indeed, Manning is 10+ times the man of all the Slashdot posters combined... that's is why I give deference to her pronoun; she has earned respect.

She saw a moral choice that would impact her greatly, and she chose to risk those consequences. I think she really botched how she did it (revealing some things she should not have), but by and large it was better for people to know what she, and Wikileaks, have revealed... always err on the side of transparency.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

HE saw something he didn't like, so instead of doing the righteous thing (releasing information about specifically what was wrong), HE released tons of information that likely caused several deaths of security assets and members of the military. HE is a fool. Instead of doing the right thing, he decided to burn the freaking house down. Prison is too good for him.

Grand Juries are bad law...

[bobbied]

I don't like how this process works, you testify or else. You can take the 5th and not testify, but you cannot pick and choose your questions. It's all or nothing, so as soon as you answer ONE question, you have no choice, even a question like "What is your name?" is enough.

That being said, Manning has competent legal counsel and immunity from prosecution for any possibly related crimes, so there is no pleading the 5th. But if you refuse to testify, jail is the result. Manning knows that, Manning's legal counsel knows, everybody knows.

What ever the reasons are, I guess jail is worth it to Manning. In fact, I wonder if it's not the whole idea, to get another few seconds in the limelight to complain about stuff again.

5th amend. doesn't apply to grand jury testimony

[DallasTruaxxx]

Susan Carol McDougal (née Henley; born 1955) is one of the few people who served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy of the 15 individuals who were convicted of federal charges. Her refusal to answer "three questions" for a grand jury, on whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, led her to receive a jail sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. That made up most of the total 22 months she spent incarcerated. She received a full presidential pardon from Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

This person is a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how manning manages to make it into the news. Maybe she can claim she was a man when she divulged info to Wikileaks so now he's a she that testimony isn't valid? Of course us taxpayers paid for he to be a she, which I'm thinking isn't something any insurance should pay for. I'd say let her/him rot in jail but how much will that costs us?

His name is bradley

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit acting like this treasonous nut case is a woman and anything other than a failure as a human being. Send him back to the brig where he should of stayed.

BRADLEY Manning was sent to jail

[WCMI92]

He is a he. "Chelsea" does not exist.

And yes I will be sent to -5 by the far leftists I don't even know why I read this site anymore.

Re:BRADLEY Manning was sent to jail

[serviscope_minor]

"Chelsea" does not exist.

So, you are denying the reality that legal name changes exist.

And yes I will be sent to -5 by the far leftists I don't even know why I read this site anymore.

Far leftists, i.e. enyone from moderately right of centre leftwards. If you want to get likes for your blatantly stupid bigotry, then head to Gab.

Patriot vs Traitor

[Anonymous Coward]

If the military's activities were illegal under the Constitution, the I would consider her a patriot, not a traitor.

To be the difference between the parties

[rsilvergun]

is that I think the Dems can be redeemed. There are folks like Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez & Ro Khanna who fight for the working class and the every day man/woman. There's an entire wing of the party (called "Justice Democrats") working to change the party from within. I know of no such movement in the Republican party. The closest the GOP has is Rand Paul's brand of libertarianism, but that ultimately leaves me at the mercy of folks with thousands of times more money than me.

Heck, AOC is actively working to reign the anti-worker, pro-corporate shills of the party in and primary the ones who refuse. Newt Gingrich basically did the opposite with his party in the 90s which, along with Bill Clinton, is why our country moved so far to the right and what got us in the mess we're in today.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Archangel Michael]

Bernie Sanders doesn't work for anyone but himself. He dresses it up in populist left wing idiocy, but his three houses show he is a full and complete hypocrite. He should donate two of them to people without homes. He is the 1% he hates. He hates himself, having never worked a day in his life. Definition:Parasite

Warren is a lying fake Native American, and was caught as such. She claimed native heritage and when caught with less native blood than the average American she claims she never did. Actual Documentation shows otherwise. Definition:Fauxahauntas.

AOC is an illiterate mess and a huge blight. When the founder of Greenpeace calls her on the carpet for "Green New Deal", you know she is bat shit looney. Yes, please keep shilling to AOC and her killing 25,000 well paid jobs that she doesn't feel are appropriate for New Yorkers. That is the definition of elitist snob. She obviously knows better being a fucking bartender what kind of jobs people actually want.

Aint nobody heard of Ro Khanna. How about you point to the other fresh face of the Democrat Party, Omar, the biggot Jew hater Muslim, who the Democrats can't actually call on the carpet because that would make them .... "Islamophobes" and part of the "Zionist conspiracy". Fucking racist assholes, the lot of them.

Re: To be the difference between the parties

[phantomfive]

Trump seems to think that he's fighting for the worker. At least, a lot of laborers I know favor the wall, and even here on Slashdot workers have favored his changes to the H1b system. Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration from Mexico too. He thought it undercut labor wages.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Anonymous Coward]

....Fucking racist assholes, the lot of them.

And what is Trump to you?

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who doesn't support bigoted policy like affirmative action.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Uberbah]

Bernie Sanders doesn't work for anyone but himself. He dresses it up in populist left wing idiocy, but his three houses show he is a full and complete hypocrite. He should donate two of them to people without homes. He is the 1% he hates. He hates himself, having never worked a day in his life. Definition:Parasite

Anyone remember Mr. Cranky? Satirical movie reviews, under the premise that all movies were bad. If the reviewer actually liked the film being reviewed, they'd just make up a bunch of stupid bullshit, like Raiders of the Lost Arc really being about Indiana Jones coming to grips with his bisexuality.

So you must really like Bernie Sanders, if you're making up a bunch of stupid bullshit like this.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pro-trump constitutional conservative, but I like Ron Wyden. You forgot to mention him. Only democrat with a functioning brain. Has some balls too.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Archangel Michael]

Trump is the guy elected after Obama. The better of two really bad choices for a large portion of the electorate. Keep in mind, the other choice sucked as much as Trump.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Archangel Michael]

Affirmative Action for Obama's kids because they are not privileged enough?

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Archangel Michael]

You told me! Oooooh.

Re:To be the difference between the parties

[Uberbah]

However you want to rationalize being ten pounds of shit crammed into a five pound sack. There are many, many legit ways to slam Bernie Sanders - but they're all from the left. His sheepdogging for the Democratic Party, acting as controlled opposition, support for Apartheid Israel, sneering that Hugo Chavez was a "dead communist dictator"....

She is not a traitor to the country

[rsilvergun]

not even in the legal sense. Traitor has a very, very specific legal meaning. It means treason, and good luck proving that. It's got the highest bar for anything in our legal system (and for damn good reason).

In the metaphorical sense she's anything but a traitor. She did what she felt was right to expose horrible things being done in my name and yours. Things done to protect the interests of the ultra-wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday working Americans.

I think the point is

[rsilvergun]

that this is how it starts. Go look up the early history of Stalin & Hitler. They didn't just start shooting. They were brutal, but clever. They made sure to appear legitimate until their hold on power was complete.

Re: I think the point is

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is not brutal, or clever. Try again.

"She" 10 times in one paragraph

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically correct stuff has to stop.. That or time to peacefully split the nation, I want no part of the leftist/postmodern thieves(socalists/communists).

Mod this troll as well, please

[drinkypoo]

I give you facts, you mod them troll, then you have less modpoints. I'll get more karma tomorrow. Mod away!

Re:Mod this troll as well, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother explaining to 'fanatics' - they don't care about facts. They have to perpetuate 'the greatest country in the world' myth.

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that guy's man made vagina is going to get a workout in prison.

Actually, it's just the Obama admin.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Senate, including Republican senator Lindsay Grahm and his pals, told Trump early on that if he "interfered" in the Justice Department (i.e. if he does the job of a president and runs a department that's under his authority, like all other presidents are allowed to do) they will impeach him.

As a result, there are very few Trump people in the Department of justice. His first AG (Sessions) recused himself immediately on takling office under the "advice" of the Obama people still running the DOJ ethics team (still staffed by Obama people 2 years into the Trump admin). The new AG (Barr) who just replaced sessions is an old establishment Republican who was AG under Bush. The Deputy AG (Rosenstein) was serving Obama until Trump appointed him to his position at the insistence of Senators, only to have Rosensteing recomment Trump fire Comey for misconduct, and then Rosenstein assigned Meuller to investigate Trump for firing Comey! (Note: Comey, Rosenstein, Meuller and Barr are all close personal friends).

Manning is being swepped-up into the Wikileaks hunt as part of the Obama team effort to get rid of Trump.

The current DOJ is TECHNICALLY Trump's, but it's really not Trump's at all --- it's still Obama's and it's still engaged in a slow-motion attempted coup. Democrats are cheering all this lawlessness as they keep hoping it will wipe-out the hated Trumpster. Warning to "progressives": Just like Obama's far-reaching executive orders and emergency declarations (which I and others warned you about) this attempt by Obama's team to stay in power and attempt a coup of the following administration is setting all sorts of precedents that WILL be used against your side in the future.

It's called "integrity", aka doing the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of good men and women did get killed, because murderous fucks didn't follow the rules of engagement. Exposing this is absolutely the right thing to do.

Meow mix please deliver.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also former military. I was not the sort of man or leader they want. I have massive gripes with the military and it has issues that seriously impair its ability to deliver on its mission. For the record I rec'd an honorable discharge and had high evaluations in the later part of my career, they wanted me to re-enlist.

Nothing that manning did would even come close to fixing those issues and he started throwing major red flags in boot camp before he would even be exposed to the military's failures. Then he had several instances where he should have been discharged or at least had his clearance yanked. Like slicing 'help me' into a pillow Eventually he physically assaulted a lesbian of a higher rank which he referred to as "punching a dyke in the phace". For this incident he received no punishment but was relieved of his duties. Finally.
But for whatever reason they neglected to reassign him into TPU or remove his clearance. The army's mistake was allowing him to sit around all day warzing and talking to celebrity hackers on the internet. His wikileaks submissions were an attempt to get cred and he bragged to lmao in an attempt to impress him for romantic purposes.
Of course more often than not celebrity hackers are actually paid informants and the rest is history.

The military also has problems with lgbt people... it's true. Manning was one of the people making the problem, he's selfish as a MTF transperson he frequently said sexist and homophobic statements about lesbians. You think that the sorts of people who would have normally come to manning's rescue felt like lifting a finger when he was crying about being denied hormones in leavenworth? Basically his conduct had one thing or another to alienate pretty much the entire military no matter who you are.
This is why his attorney staged incidents intended to make headlines in the outside and engage people who didn't know better.

Also if it matters I have hated trump since at least 2015. I thought at the time that he was full of shit and pandering because there is no way anyone could get through his life being that fucking stupid.
Now post-election I've learned that he's actually even dumber than I thought originally. I'm impressed by our government's ability to function on autopilot and route around the damage.

I don't feel super strong about his cowardly actions because I've had decades of republican chickenhawking to leave me jaded and indifferent. If you're upset you should go out of your way to publicly insult their masculinity. Be creative, they hate having to reconcile their rugged self-image with the reality that they're overweight, spoiled and afraid of their own shadows. If it were up to me I'd relieve trump and manning of their duties and crazy glue them asscrack-to-asscrack naked, let them free, and call it even.

But it's up to you the great dumb masses who seem to have a hard time judging character before accepting your heros.

Re: Meow mix please deliver.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re our govt working on autopilot ... the founders wanted it to be like a big ship. Slowly turning, so one nutcase canâ(TM)t do too much damage in 4 or 8 years. This makes change difficult, for good or bad, but also keeps us off the rocks.

um, it requires no insecurity to point out that

[Anonymous Coward]

things which are scientifically impossible are, in fact, not possible.

There is no scientific method for changing the gender/sex of a human being.

You can inject hormones and other drugs into a person. You can inject fillers, and surgically implant bags of saline or silicon or sculptec hunks of solid silicon into a person. You can cut off a male's genitals, or a female's breat tissues, and you can attach extraneous tissues to a female. You can shave an adams apple and brow ridges, remove or implant hair, tattoo features, do speech therapy, and more. NONE of this changes a person from male to female or from female to male in any way other than superficially. It's all just makeup and prosthetics. The resulting person cannot reproduce in their newly assigned sexual role using their own genetics, and indeed if you test their blood they will still be readily identified as their original sex.

Advocates of all this insanity love to point to the tiny percent of a tiny percent of human beings with genuine birth defects and genetic disorders, but these people have genuine disorders and when corrections are made they are best made to bring them as close as possible to what the genetic evidence says they should be. When the attemped correction is made contrary to the genetics, the results are often catasrophic. In any case, society, and indeed science itself, does not define normality based of the extreme outliers and their abnormalities.

Re:um, it requires no insecurity to point out that

[gweihir]

This panicked claim again. What is your problem? Male/Female is not nearly as definite as you insecure idiots claim.

Do u even know what that means?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sieg heil means hail victory. Who was victorious in that war? THE ALLIES. So what victory are you hailing? Remember: Allies TWO, Germany ZERO.

Re: Do u even know what that means?

[Anonymous Coward]

As spoken like a nazi who lived and died bootlickin instead of having ethical and moral principles. Not saying all leaks are good, but some are absolutely.

NICE!

[Anonymous Coward]

U win 1 interwebs!

(I am SO stealing that s/h/it! LOL)

Re: It's called "integrity", aka doing the right t

[c6gunner]

He didn't expose any such thing, as you well know. Idiots love to pretend that he exposed war crimes, but nobody has given a single example of anything in the released documents which would qualify. I'm sure some dickhead will link to the helicopter video as an example, but that incident has already been discussed to death and I have no desire to rehash it yet again.

Never asked you if it was a defect

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit deflection there, moron. What is the sex of an XX Male Syndrome human? That you cannot and did not answer goes to show your simplistic idiocy does not comport to reality.

They are female

[Anonymous Coward]

That you refuse to see reality shows you are insane.

So not you then

[Anonymous Coward]

REALITY does not have your simplistic idiotic minded fake binary choice. No definition you give will work to fit all and every person into just male or female, but you refuse to let reality affect your ideology and therefore you are not one who cares about what's real, only how you feel. And people changing genders (even in cases where the doctor got it wrong on the birth cirtificate have had a gender change from what their legal gender was) terrifies you.

Re: So not you then

[c6gunner]

Thanks, always nice to hear from the loonies.

It's very possible

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "gender reassignment surgery" and it is carried out thousands of times a year. Only delusional lunatics such as yourself do not believe somethjing that happens thousands of times a year is impossible and can never happen.

Re:It's very possible

[blindseer]

It's called "gender reassignment surgery" and it is carried out thousands of times a year. Only delusional lunatics such as yourself do not believe somethjing that happens thousands of times a year is impossible and can never happen.

I don't believe that anyone is denying these surgeries happen. You can call it anything you like but in the end it's still castration. I hear of people trying to bring awareness for female genital mutilation, another thing that happens thousands of time every year. That's being generous, it probably happens far more often than that. We consider this barbaric, unnecessary, brutal, criminal, and more, as we should. When this happens to men and we wrap this up in the euphemism of "gender reassignment surgery" then we celebrate it.

There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned". For every woman that decides to get "reassigned" there are 9 men that do the same, so this is largely a matter of men allowing themselves to be castrated. We've gone beyond just castrating men psychologically by declaring young boys as damaged girls, or treating any man as a potential rapist instead of a potential husband. That wasn't enough, now we celebrate the medical castration of men. We wrap it up in happy mouth noises and consider ourselves to be "helpful" in removing a man's ability to reproduce.

This is a sick society that celebrates the castration of healthy men. This will not end well.

Re:It's very possible

[serviscope_minor]

I hear of people trying to bring awareness for female genital mutilation, another thing that happens thousands of time every year.

You're comparing something forced on without consent to something entered into with full consent and at least over here considerable psychological evaluations and time spent in a reversible stage (hormone therapy). to compare the two is beyond disingenuous.

When this happens to men and we wrap this up in the euphemism of "gender reassignment surgery" then we celebrate it.

Kind of losing patience here.

Because it's not the same. You know like sex.

If you have sex with someone and you both consent, it's great. If you force sex on someone it's called "rape", it's bad and you shold go to prison for a long time. Even though they're both sticking your dick in someone.

My god! That's unpossible you say! How can some things which have physical similarities be so different!?

There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned".

OK lost patience.

Translation: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

That wasn't enough, now we celebrate the medical castration of men. We wrap it up in happy mouth noises and consider ourselves to be "helpful" in removing a man's ability to reproduce

Translation: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Re:It's very possible

[Anonymous Coward]

You must really like fucking men that claim to be women. You always rant about how its accept able and normal and they are REALLY WIMINZ!!! I SWEERR!!!! Just say you like fucking men that pretend to be women, you could end the argument as he would clearly see where your brain is really invested. You know its not normal, you just like it so you want it to keep happening. Confirmation bias.

Re:It's very possible

[gweihir]

There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned". For every woman that decides to get "reassigned" there are 9 men that do the same, so this is largely a matter of men allowing themselves to be castrated.

Ah, _that_ is your defect. And, not surprisingly, you have no understanding of what the facts actually imply. The simple reason female to male is much rarer is that it does not really work well surgically. This has absolutely nothing to do with "an attack on masculinity". If that one is real, it is happening somewhere else.

Re:It's very possible

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most delusional crap I've ever heard. People are only interested in rectifying an injustice if they're fucking the victims? If you think that's how normal people think... then it says a frightening amount about you.

Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts.

[Anonymous Coward]

That you cannot and will not answer shows that your idiotic claims about simple binary gender (because your brain cannot handle complexity beyond a simple two option choice) do not fit with reality.

Either Chelsea Manning cannot change gender therefore she was always female, but mislabeled before, or she can change. No case exists where she is not now a female. That you have to make claims about some factor like a fucking half-bred ignoramus and insist it makes reality and cannot change but, when some case doesn't fit your catastrophically limited assertion, you have to go "but that doesn't count!!!". Look up "special pleading", ask a grown up for help with the big words.

Re:Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts.

[blindseer]

That you cannot and will not answer shows that your idiotic claims about simple binary gender (because your brain cannot handle complexity beyond a simple two option choice) do not fit with reality.

I did answer your question. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I didn't answer it.

Either Chelsea Manning cannot change gender therefore she was always female, but mislabeled before, or she can change. No case exists where she is not now a female.

There is a case where Manning is not now a female. Manning entered the US Army as a male. Since the US Army does check for physical health upon enlistment we can be quite certain that the disorders mentioned earlier do not apply. Manning cannot change gender, that is true. What this means is that Manning was male then and is male now.

That you have to make claims about some factor like a fucking half-bred ignoramus and insist it makes reality and cannot change but, when some case doesn't fit your catastrophically limited assertion, you have to go "but that doesn't count!!!". Look up "special pleading", ask a grown up for help with the big words.

I did look up "special pleading". Now you go look up "ad hominem". Your argument is that I must be a "fucking half-bred ignoramus" that cannot understand "big words".

I can follow that there can be a special case for people that don't fit nicely in a gender binary. Manning simply is not one of these people. He was a healthy man that has now opted to mutilate himself thinking this will somehow make him a woman. That's not how things work.

Bringing up the special case of people that don't fit in a male/female binary and try to apply that to Manning does not follow. Manning is still a man that has chosen to mutilate himself. As I said before such people should be treated with compassion and kindness. That compassion and kindness should not include allowing a person to mutilate himself in an attempt to become something he is not. What we should do is treat this mental illness as best we can.

Re:Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts.

[blindseer]

With my previous reply I didn't notice the subject line, "Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts."

What an interesting way to introduce a rant on my supposed failure to understand that gender is not binary. Are you attacking my masculinity? Claiming I don't "have the balls" to answer your question? Maybe I have balls and wish I didn't, like Manning, and you have just damaged my psyche for reminding me of that. Maybe I don't have balls and wish I did, and you insulted me for my lack of "manliness" when I define myself as a man.

You want to rant on me for not understanding that there is a spectrum on which gender lies when using such an obviously emasculating insult? I should have simply not answered an AC. Now I must answer again to correct for my previous oversight.

The next time you want to make an argument on how there is a gender spectrum it might help to not start off with a demand to "man up".

About time

[p51d007]

This DUDE got put in prison!

I didn't want to joke about this...

[cloud.pt]

But I guess she really likes jail. I mean, you could both lie under oath and get away with it, or even tell the truth and know that it won't make shit difference on the opinion of the government (which in the US, has been proven to be the entity that controls justice) about Wikileaks. Even so, Chelsea prefers to go back to jail. Somebody needs to tell Chelsea that it's already too late to trust in heroic actions against that state.

Re: Chelsea Manning was sent to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that some day you will understand the error of your ways as well as the true ramifications of the hateful words you speak. Until then, and after, I will pray for you.

Re: Chelsea Manning was sent to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that some day you will understand the error of your ways as well as the true ramifications of the hateful words you speak.

Sometimes reality sucks.
Nothing justifies your disregard for objective reality. Demonizing those who speak it is harmful to society. It matters not who is "offended" by truth.

Until then, and after, I will pray for you.

God does not exist.

yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares. there are children starving in africa. thats far more important.

Stalin: How many

[GPS Pilot]

Some interesting stuff from Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin

In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), [British historian Robert] Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, at least 15 million people were killed "by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors".[64] Rudolph Rummel in 2006 said that the earlier higher victim total estimates are correct, although he includes those killed by the government of the Soviet Union in other Eastern European countries as well.[65][66] Conversely, J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft and others insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by "revisionist" scholars.[67][68] [British historian] Simon Sebag Montefiore in 2003 suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.

'Chelsea' Manning is a sad, screwed up creature.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we have to drop everything and treat such people as if they are justified in their delusions? We don't rush to get the dude who thinks he's Napoleon a uniform and a period hat, nor do we humor the guy who thinks he's Jesus. So why do we act as if gender dysphoria isn't insanity as well?

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of alt-right transphobia in this thread, I thought I was on reddit...

Put Trump in ADX Florence

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they can find the the skeletons of bodies Trump had dumped in the Atlantic Ocean during his casino empire gig.

Re: Oh look, another child molester posting

[Anonymous Coward]

The police told you to stay away from all public parks and schools, right?

You know what would be awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

If the ";od" (extra small "G") the Jesus freaks worship and hate for turns out to be real, and is even more of a psychopath* than the Bible makes him out to be.

They get to burn in hell as both Satan and God laugh while jerking off to their pain, and send their jizz down on to their agonized faces.

*here you go: https://evilbible.com - exposes all of the horrors and hypocracy of Christianity, taken straight from the Bible itself.

Re: You know what would be awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I would love to see the look on the the Jesus freaks' faces when the ;od they forced themselves to love and worship uses them as a sadism relief ball.

Fuck Christianity.

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gv

[Anonymous Coward]

"Boooo hoooooo hooooo fag"

What the fuck are you, 8 years old or something?

Get off of mommy's computer and brush your yellowed teeth.

Re: Oh look, another child molester posting

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedo troll sure does love projecting his own weird sexual proclivities onto those with whom he disagrees.

Good

[DrXym]

Manning is a self obsessed basket case who betrayed his country because of psychological issues and personal grievances with the army. Refusing to testify in front of a grand jury is not some heroic act. It's just a furtherance of what went before. Rot in jail.

Lock it up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the fuck it is

Re: Wikileaks investigation shows true face of gv

[c6gunner]

I would ask for it in writing, after which I would be quite happy to answer all of their questions. If they subsequently tried to charge me with anything I would laugh in their faces after the judge threw it out of court.

The comparison you're trying to draw is flawed because grand jury proceeding do not include the defendant. That's really the primary reason why there's no defense lawyer present; because the jury is not interested in hearing from the defendant at all. It's not a case of the defendant being forced to speak without his lawyer, but rather a case of the defendant not even being invited to the proceedings. Ergo your question is irrelevant; a more apt comparison would have been to ask "what would you say if the police didn't take you to the station?".

I've always thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

that a hole in the constitution is compelling people to testify, yeah the fifth amendment protects you from self incrimination, but I feel like the one sort of natural right any person should have is the right to do or say nothing at all, and having that right would implicitly get around some other issues that come up from time to time like people being afraid to testify for fear of reprisal, journalists being forced to reveal sources, and so on

I mean we've agreed that the right to remain silent is appropriate when questioned by cops, why doesn't it apply in court?

btw to be clear, I do think it would have to be limited in one sense. It would have to be all or nothing. Like you couldn't take the stand, say what you want and then refuse to answer cross examination. In that sense similar to the way a person doesn't have to testify in his own defense but if he does, then he's open to cross.

here

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

min 40 upwards 49 million

Re: Oh look, another child molester posting

[Anonymous Coward]

Very lame attempt to try to shift your own pedo tendenies on somebody else.

Remember, you need to stay at least 1,000 feet away from all parks and schools.

If WWIII breaks out....

[Anonymous Coward]

..I want to see Donald Trump strapped down, put in a torture mask, and rifle-butted in the jaw while being kicked in the crotch.

Fuck, if that kind of war broke out, I will loot everything in site, and beat up everybody I don't like.

Hitler was NEVER ELECTED

[Anonymous Coward]

From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means.

Revisionist fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrielleneingabe

Re: It's called "integrity", aka doing the right t

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no desire to rehash it yet again

And yet, you raise it. It is far from the sole example of civilian massacre by US forces though, as you well know. Idiots love to pretend that their military can do no wrong, but of course there is that group of dickheads who don't place any value on brown lives and treat rules of engagement as a bureaucracy that doesn't apply to them. Perhaps you're not one of those, gunner, but you feel obliged to stand up for your murderous pals. Shame on you.

you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig

[NynexNinja]

a man can never be a woman. a woman can never be a man.

There is no US GJ, that is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

That paranoid ego-inflated rapist is using these fake allegations of a "US grand jury" to run from his rape crimeS.
We all know that because it was said so many times here in Slashdot.

Re: Trump is the maximum level of traitor. Sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

You’re kidding, meth addled is Trumps base.

Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

He can call himself whatever he wants, but no fantasy can change his biological sex.

her, you moron. Can't you read?

[Anonymous Coward]

Her.

You fucking gendertroll.