Obama commutes Manning's Sentence

[Amppax]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sentence-commuted/

Interested to hear thoughts on this. From what I've been hearing, this was done largely in the hopes of getting Julian Assange to turn himself in, which he is of course not doing, though he promised to do so if this happened. 

I'm also interested more broadly on everyone's thoughts on the immorality/morality of the actions of whistleblowers such as Manning/Assange/Snowden. On the one hand, I personally tend to lean towards the libertarian side when it comes to government transparency, and in general, I think we should pay attention to what our government is doing in our names and object to what is wrong. On the other hand, of course, is the issue of leaking the information, and the harm it may do. 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

One chief difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning went through the justice system, while Snowden fled. It makes more sense to commute a sentence than to issue a pardon, which is what Snowden would need. 

 

[Socrates]

Commuting the sentence of this creep and traitor by Obama is absolutely disgusting.

This is not about "whistleblowing" or "government transparency," but about Manning deliberately betraying one's country by releasing secret information he was solemnly sworn not to reveal as part of his duties, and betraying and risking the lives of his fellow American soldiers and allies.

Some good commentary here:

Quote

 

It’s important to properly understand Manning’s case. Contrary to media framing, this was not a conventional “leak” prosecution. Instead, Manning is responsible for one of the largest security breaches in American military history. He downloaded, copied, and passed along to WikiLeaks several hundred thousand files that comprehensively detailed American military and diplomatic activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

These files not only disclosed the identities of individuals working with Americans and spotlighted vital and sensitive classified diplomatic efforts, they provided a comprehensive overview of American military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan — including detailed descriptions of American tactics and strategies, right down to descriptions of the vehicles used in various missions, the purpose of the missions, and the targets of operations. In other words, to borrow a football analogy, it was like handing the opposition your playbook — except with lives on the line.

During Manning’s trial, prosecutors introduced evidence that al-Qaeda was not only gleeful about the leak (one of its spokesmen said, “By the grace of God, the enemy’s interests are today spread all over the place”), Osama bin Laden himself “asked for and received” the “Afghanistan battlefield reports that WikiLeaks published.”

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443965/chelsea-bradley-manning-sentence-commuted-unjust-decision-obama

 

Here's some more by David French (himself an Iraq combat veteran): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443934/disgrace-obama-commutes-bradley-mannings-sentence

 

Like many of Obama's pardons and sentence commuting of various criminals and terrorists, this action is seems driven by his leftist politics.  No doubt, the "transgender" angle played a role.

 

It should also be noted that the Church clearly teaches that the Eighth Commandment, in addition to forbidding lying and slander, etc., also commands us to keep secrets we are professionally bound to keep.

From the Catechism: 

Quote

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

Let's be honest and not treat Manning's or Obama's actions as virtuous or justified.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Socrates

[Amppax]

Thanks for the commentary, Socrates, I'll look into it. I tend to like David French's writings, even if I don't always agree with him. 

Does the 8th commandment, however, mandate that we keep a professional secret if it involves something inherently unjust? Not saying that Manning's actions are justified, but in the case of releasing the video purporting to show the intentional targeting of civilians and journalists, do you think that he was bound, morally, to keep that secret? If you assume the video shows deliberate targeting of civilians and journalists, ignoring the fact that that may be debateable. 

[havok579257]

16 hours ago, Socrates said:

Commuting the sentence of this creep and traitor by Obama is absolutely disgusting.

This is not about "whistleblowing" or "government transparency," but about Manning deliberately betraying one's country by releasing secret information he was solemnly sworn not to reveal as part of his duties, and betraying and risking the lives of his fellow American soldiers and allies.

Some good commentary here:

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443965/chelsea-bradley-manning-sentence-commuted-unjust-decision-obama

 

Here's some more by David French (himself an Iraq combat veteran): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443934/disgrace-obama-commutes-bradley-mannings-sentence

 

Like many of Obama's pardons and sentence commuting of various criminals and terrorists, this action is seems driven by his leftist politics.  No doubt, the "transgender" angle played a role.

 

It should also be noted that the Church clearly teaches that the Eighth Commandment, in addition to forbidding lying and slander, etc., also commands us to keep secrets we are professionally bound to keep.

From the Catechism: 

Let's be honest and not treat Manning's or Obama's actions as virtuous or justified.

I would not say to treat Obama's actions as virtuous, no.  Although you can't say he is not justified due to history.  Every other similar person who was tried for whitleblowing got a shorter sentence and was granted a commuted sentence way shorter than his/her.  So his actions were in line with every other president who pardoned whistleblowers.

 

Also to be fair, he/she did reveal secrets I believe should not have been kept hidden.  Such as the killing of innocents due to being in the fire zone.  If anything, the government was unjust in covering up the killing of innocents.

 

Not saying I believe Manning should be let go or not, I never read that much into it but I will say it is not immoral to be a whistleblower.  Many things government officals do in secret should be known.  They cover up a many of things that the public deserves to know.  It is our government, not just the elected officials.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

Thanks for the commentary, Socrates, I'll look into it. I tend to like David French's writings, even if I don't always agree with him. 

Does the 8th commandment, however, mandate that we keep a professional secret if it involves something inherently unjust? Not saying that Manning's actions are justified, but in the case of releasing the video purporting to show the intentional targeting of civilians and journalists, do you think that he was bound, morally, to keep that secret? If you assume the video shows deliberate targeting of civilians and journalists, ignoring the fact that that may be debateable. 

We are not called to keep secrets that are inherently unjust.  It would, I would say,actually be sinful to keep secrets you know to be unjust.  Killing of innocents is one such example.  Although anything someone would do that is criminal, you would not be required to keep secret.

[Socrates]

On 1/19/2017 at 11:08 AM, Amppax said:

Thanks for the commentary, Socrates, I'll look into it. I tend to like David French's writings, even if I don't always agree with him. 

Does the 8th commandment, however, mandate that we keep a professional secret if it involves something inherently unjust? Not saying that Manning's actions are justified, but in the case of releasing the video purporting to show the intentional targeting of civilians and journalists, do you think that he was bound, morally, to keep that secret? If you assume the video shows deliberate targeting of civilians and journalists, ignoring the fact that that may be debateable. 

I'll quote from the Catechism once again:  "Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth."

It could be argued that releasing the particular video in question could be justified if it's release were to actually save lives (by preventing more civilians from being killed), and  if all other means of addressing the issue (such as by taking it up the chain of command) were tried and failed.

However, the reality is that Manning released a lot more than just that video, but illegally released literally hundreds of thousands of classified files detailing American strategy and tactics, and making it available to the enemy, endangering the lives of American soldiers, operatives, and foreign allies.

Sorry, but I don't see how such an act of treason can remotely be justified, either legally or morally.

If the liberal media is ignoring the facts by treating this as simply a case of "whistleblowing," it is being blatantly dishonest in its reporting in order to preserve the narrative of Manning as a hero and LGB-whatever martyr, rather than the traitorous POS he is, and justify the actions of its Dear Leader as good and noble, rather than politically-motivated injustice.  Thank God that leftist fool is no longer in the White House!

 

On 1/19/2017 at 1:24 PM, havok579257 said:

I would not say to treat Obama's actions as virtuous, no.  Although you can't say he is not justified due to history.  Every other similar person who was tried for whitleblowing got a shorter sentence and was granted a commuted sentence way shorter than his/her.  So his actions were in line with every other president who pardoned whistleblowers.

 

Also to be fair, he/she did reveal secrets I believe should not have been kept hidden.  Such as the killing of innocents due to being in the fire zone.  If anything, the government was unjust in covering up the killing of innocents.

 

Not saying I believe Manning should be let go or not, I never read that much into it but I will say it is not immoral to be a whistleblower.  Many things government officals do in secret should be known.  They cover up a many of things that the public deserves to know.  It is our government, not just the elected officials.

Did you even read my post (including the linked articles)?

Manning wasn't convicted merely for "whistleblowing," but for deliberately leaking hundred of thousands of classified files, essentially making America's war plans known to the enemy, and recklessly endangering the lives of his fellow soldiers, as well as foreign operatives, who had to be moved to safety.

That's not "whistleblowing"; it's treason.

Next time, please take time to read my posts before spouting off more left-wing talking points.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Socrates

[havok579257]

40 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I'll quote from the Catechism once again:  "Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth."

It could be argued that releasing the particular video in question could be justified if it's release were to actually save lives (by preventing more civilians from being killed), and  if all other means of addressing the issue (such as by taking it up the chain of command) were tried and failed.

However, the reality is that Manning released a lot more than just that video, but illegally released literally hundreds of thousands of classified files detailing American strategy and tactics, and making it available to the enemy, endangering the lives of American soldiers, operatives, and foreign allies.

Sorry, but I don't see how such an act of treason can remotely be justified, either legally or morally.

If the liberal media is ignoring the facts by treating this as simply a case of "whistleblowing," it is being blatantly dishonest in its reporting in order to preserve the narrative of Manning as a hero and LGB-whatever martyr, rather than the traitorous POS he is, and justify the actions of its Dear Leader as good and noble, rather than politically-motivated injustice.  Thank God that leftist fool is no longer in the White House!

 

Did you even read my post (including the linked articles)?

Manning wasn't convicted merely for "whistleblowing," but for deliberately leaking hundred of thousands of classified files, essentially making America's war plans known to the enemy, and recklessly endangering the lives of his fellow soldiers, as well as foreign operatives, who had to be moved to safety.

That's not "whistleblowing"; it's treason.

Next time, please take time to read my posts before spouting off more left-wing talking points.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong in the country today.  Your response is why this country is in the mess it is in.  The minute someone disagree's with you, they are branded democrat/liberal/left -wing.  I am not a democrat.  I dont' vote democrat.  I don't support their platform.  I don't support and am against the vast majority of what liberals stand for.  Although because I don't tow the line of conservative pundits in all I say and do, I am branded to be following left wing talking points.  

 

Did Manning reveal the deaths of innocents?  How is that not whistleblowing?  Should innocents who were killed have their deaths covered up?  Was other stuff also released? Yes, it was.  Although you can't deny revealing the deaths of innocents is something that she should not have done.  Unless your ok with innocents being killed and it being covered up?

 

Was Manning convincted of treason?  You can't complain that she was not merely whistleblowing(which last I checked was not something I was opposing) since that was not what she was convincted of but come back and talk about treason when she was not convicted of treason. You claim she was not just a whistleblower (I never stated she was just a whistleblower) because of how she was convicted.  Although you claim she commited treason when she was not convicted of treason.  Can't have it both ways. 

 

 

[Socrates]

35 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

This is a perfect example of what is wrong in the country today.  Your response is why this country is in the mess it is in.  The minute someone disagree's with you, they are branded democrat/liberal/left -wing.  I am not a democrat.  I dont' vote democrat.  I don't support their platform.  I don't support and am against the vast majority of what liberals stand for.  Although because I don't tow the line of conservative pundits in all I say and do, I am branded to be following left wing talking points.  

 

Did Manning reveal the deaths of innocents?  How is that not whistleblowing?  Should innocents who were killed have their deaths covered up?  Was other stuff also released? Yes, it was.  Although you can't deny revealing the deaths of innocents is something that she should not have done.  Unless your ok with innocents being killed and it being covered up?

 

Was Manning convincted of treason?  You can't complain that she was not merely whistleblowing(which last I checked was not something I was opposing) since that was not what she was convincted of but come back and talk about treason when she was not convicted of treason. You claim she was not just a whistleblower (I never stated she was just a whistleblower) because of how she was convicted.  Although you claim she commited treason when she was not convicted of treason.  Can't have it both ways. 

 

 

I didn't say you were a Democrat or left-wing, and I really don't care.  I said you were using their talking points, minimizing the reality of what Manning did as merely "whistleblowing" (without mentioning the vast amount of classified material detailing America's war plans he released and made available for the enemy to read, endangering the lives of Americans and allies).

Most of the hundreds of thousands of files he illegally released were not related to "whistleblowing."  A video or two perhaps showing killing of civilians cannot be said to justify the rest of what he released, and the danger it posed to to others and his country.

Even though Manning may not have been convicted by the court of treason, I would argue that knowingly and willfully making such information available to the enemy was indeed treasonous.  He was in fact charged with aiding the enemy, an offense punishable by death.  Imo, he got off very lightly, even before Obama cut his sentence short.

And yes, Bradley Manning is a "he," even if he likes to dress up like a girlie and call himself Chelsea.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Socrates said:

And yes, Bradley Manning is a "he," even if he likes to dress up like a girlie and call himself Chelsea.

Yes. He is a indeed a man. But that doesn't mean that you have to be an a-hole about it.

[havok579257]

5 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I didn't say you were a Democrat or left-wing, and I really don't care.  I said you were using their talking points, minimizing the reality of what Manning did as merely "whistleblowing" (without mentioning the vast amount of classified material detailing America's war plans he released and made available for the enemy to read, endangering the lives of Americans and allies).

Most of the hundreds of thousands of files he illegally released were not related to "whistleblowing."  A video or two perhaps showing killing of civilians cannot be said to justify the rest of what he released, and the danger it posed to to others and his country.

Even though Manning may not have been convicted by the court of treason, I would argue that knowingly and willfully making such information available to the enemy was indeed treasonous.  He was in fact charged with aiding the enemy, an offense punishable by death.  Imo, he got off very lightly, even before Obama cut his sentence short.

And yes, Bradley Manning is a "he," even if he likes to dress up like a girlie and call himself Chelsea.

ok, he is a he.  I really don't care what he is or what he likes to be called.  That point is moot.

 

Was it a good thing that he released the cover up of innocents being killed?  Yes, he also dropped lots of classified information.  No one is denying that.  No one is claiming he acted in good faith. 

 

All I am saying is, what Obama did was nothing new when compared to other presidents and there was some good that Manning did (maybe not the reason for the dumps).  It revealed a cover up of innocents being killed.  I can't see where anyone could argue the church would be for covering up the deaths of innocents.

[Socrates]

13 hours ago, havok579257 said:

ok, he is a he.  I really don't care what he is or what he likes to be called.  That point is moot.

 

Was it a good thing that he released the cover up of innocents being killed?  Yes, he also dropped lots of classified information.  No one is denying that.  No one is claiming he acted in good faith. 

 

All I am saying is, what Obama did was nothing new when compared to other presidents and there was some good that Manning did (maybe not the reason for the dumps).  It revealed a cover up of innocents being killed.  I can't see where anyone could argue the church would be for covering up the deaths of innocents.

Releasing one "whistleblowing" video purportedly showing the killing of innocent civilians cannot possibly justify the releasing of the hundreds of thousands of other files, essentially giving away our plan to the enemy, and the danger that caused to his fellow soldiers, country, and allies.

It's a bit like if someone were to set  off a bomb in a crowded place, killing thousands of persons, and one of those killed in the crowd had plans to murder another person, but was killed by the bomb.  It would be silly to argue that the bomber he should be allowed to go free because "he stopped a murderer," as if that undid the evil of all the innocents killed by the bomb.

 

I certainly wouldn't say Obama "did nothing new" here.  He's pardoned and commuted the sentences of more convicted criminals than the previous 12 presidents combined.  And these include murderers and unrepentant domestic terrorists.

And if any other president has commuted the sentence of anyone who released so many military secrets to the enemy in wartime, I'd like to hear about it.

[Benedictus]

On 18/01/2017 at 7:04 PM, Amppax said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politics/chelsea-manning-sentence-commuted/

Interested to hear thoughts on this. From what I've been hearing, this was done largely in the hopes of getting Julian Assange to turn himself in, which he is of course not doing, though he promised to do so if this happened. 

I'm also interested more broadly on everyone's thoughts on the immorality/morality of the actions of whistleblowers such as Manning/Assange/Snowden. On the one hand, I personally tend to lean towards the libertarian side when it comes to government transparency, and in general, I think we should pay attention to what our government is doing in our names and object to what is wrong. On the other hand, of course, is the issue of leaking the information, and the harm it may do. 

 

Assange has made some brave sacrifices and the US, of course, still pulls its strings and plays games to ensure he remains under effective house arrest within the Ecuadorian embassy.

In terms of Manning - It was a good compromise. There was some term served but to issue a release now, although partly political, was a good thing.

The US is accountable for lots of bad stuff and it is far too interventionist overseas and manipulative, mostly to secure capital interests (and those with the wealth who influence and pay them to do so). Corrupt as hell and causes suffering to those in many other countries in the process.

The chickens haven't totally come home to roost for the US yet and hopefully it'll still be possible to deescalate before it gets worse. They are far too supremacist, arrogant and violent. But it takes a change of attitude, heart and behavior by the gov in general to global affairs before it can do so -  with big money in the mix I doubt it will happen. There's too much of a desire for a slice of the overseas resources and to create bargaining chips around conflict zones.

I think Trump may well see this and that's why he's starting out with a less aggressive foreign policy and is trying to make friends overseas. Lets see how long that lasts!

There are too many people in the US prison system who can, and should, be released and dealt with differently. It's a shame many won't have the same backing and opportunity as Manning.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Benedictus

[NadaTeTurbe]

In Zimbabwe, an opponent to dictator Robert Mugabe have been jailed thanks to the revelation of Bradley Mannings. 

Other opponents in real dictature have been endangered because of these revelations. 

He deserves to stay in jail for his whole life. He is not a whistle blower : a whistle blower protects democracy. Bradley Manning endangered resistant to dictature. He's just an angry soldier who wanted revenge. 

[Anomaly]

I think Nada's example brings up a very good point. While we can be appreciative of Manning's bringing to light the callous actions of the helicopter crews and problems with US Military policy, he didn't just whistle blow in that issue. He stole and distributed hundreds of thousands (well over a half million) documents and files.    He did not just give it to investigators or media, but made it available to anyone, including agents that could easily benefit to attack civilians and others innocent of the specific violations. Who and what he endangered could not be reasonably anticipated to be considered as proportional to the harm he was trying to stop or prevent.  

Just like the just war theory, if you decide you must pursue an action that may harm others, you have to consider if that is proportional to the harm you're trying to stop or prevent.

 I have not seen compelling evidence that Manning's actions were reasonably considerate of possible collateral damage, and isn't that exactly the point of the outrage over the helicopter crews' actions?

[4588686]

On 1/18/2017 at 9:59 PM, Socrates said:

Commuting the sentence of this creep and traitor by Obama is absolutely disgusting.

This is not about "whistleblowing" or "government transparency," but about Manning deliberately betraying one's country by releasing secret information he was solemnly sworn not to reveal as part of his duties, and betraying and risking the lives of his fellow American soldiers and allies.

Some good commentary here:

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443965/chelsea-bradley-manning-sentence-commuted-unjust-decision-obama

 

Here's some more by David French (himself an Iraq combat veteran): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443934/disgrace-obama-commutes-bradley-mannings-sentence

 

Like many of Obama's pardons and sentence commuting of various criminals and terrorists, this action is seems driven by his leftist politics.  No doubt, the "transgender" angle played a role.

 

It should also be noted that the Church clearly teaches that the Eighth Commandment, in addition to forbidding lying and slander, etc., also commands us to keep secrets we are professionally bound to keep.

From the Catechism: 

Let's be honest and not treat Manning's or Obama's actions as virtuous or justified.

David French is not a combat vet. He is a JAG officer who banned his wife from emailing men while he was deployed. 

Hopefully, everybody will disregard Socrate's links to the writings of creepy nerds like French. Manning exposed a number of human rights abuses occurring due to America's occupation of Iraq, including the killing of Iraqi civilians by American military personnel. She was being kept in solitary confinement and had attempted suicide multiple times due to her confinement. 

Any sane system of justice would recognize that seven years of these conditions is more than enough retribution. The only people who don't are people like Socrates who fetishize the military but never got around to actually joining.