Pvt. Manning files appeal to lower sentence

[American Imperial State]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/22/ma ... tence.html

Yes, folks. Manning, the disgraced former soldier from my home state of Oklahoma had appealed the sentence the judge gave for betraying the country.

Manning wants it reduced from 35 years to 10. I think that would be a grave injustice to the country, and to the comrades and superiors manning betrayed.

The enemies of this country have been provided boundless further propoganda in their evil campaign and thousands of files have fallen into the public domain.

How do you feel about this appeal?

[Frank Zipper]

Do you mean Chelsea Manning?

[American Imperial State]

Do you mean Chelsea Manning?

The news article and official army documents refer to manning as "Bradley "

Otherwise I attempted to use gender neutral statements in the OP, but I slipped on the title.

[Maurepas]

Do you mean Chelsea Manning?

The news article and official army documents refer to manning as "Bradley "

Otherwise I attempted to use gender neutral statements in the OP, but I slipped on the title.

Yeah, but they're misgendering her. There's really no need to use gender neutral statements when she's out as a transwoman.

[Maurepas]

As to the point, yes, I do think it should be reduced. I think Obama should in fact pardon her and Snowden. They weren't "aiding the enemy" they were exposing wrong-doing on the part of the United States Government. And it was a campaign promise from the President that he would be strong in his defense of whistleblowers.

I do find it interesting that there's a thread up about Obama's "ranking" where people, myself included, are talking about how he's actually accomplished quite a lot, that I'm also reminded here of something I think he's failed at that he promised us he wouldn't.

[American Imperial State]

The news article and official army documents refer to manning as "Bradley "

Otherwise I attempted to use gender neutral statements in the OP, but I slipped on the title.

Yeah, but they're misgendering her. There's really no need to use gender neutral statements when she's out as a transwoman.

Can you really be trans in the army?

[Maurepas]

Yeah, but they're misgendering her. There's really no need to use gender neutral statements when she's out as a transwoman.

Can you really be trans in the army?

Yeah, there are plenty. While the army might be behind in acknowledging it, it doesn't change the fact of Chelsea's identity.

[Threlizdun]

She shouldn't have been charged in the first place. What she did was heroic.

[American Imperial State]

As to the point, yes, I do think it should be reduced. I think Obama should in fact pardon her and Snowden. They weren't "aiding the enemy" they were exposing wrong-doing on the part of the United States Government. And it was a campaign promise from the President that he would be strong in his defense of whistleblowers.

I do find it interesting that there's a thread up about Obama's "ranking" where people, myself included, are talking about how he's actually accomplished quite a lot, that I'm also reminded here of something I think he's failed at that he promised us he wouldn't.

Maybe she was exposing wrong doing. But I think she could have done it more appropriately. The fact of the matter is that she was responsible for highly sensitive confidential materials, she swore and signed that paper.
She leaked classified materials despite that, and I think she should be punished.

Go to your senator, go to up the chain of command. But leaking classified materials is a no go.

[Maurepas]

As to the point, yes, I do think it should be reduced. I think Obama should in fact pardon her and Snowden. They weren't "aiding the enemy" they were exposing wrong-doing on the part of the United States Government. And it was a campaign promise from the President that he would be strong in his defense of whistleblowers.

I do find it interesting that there's a thread up about Obama's "ranking" where people, myself included, are talking about how he's actually accomplished quite a lot, that I'm also reminded here of something I think he's failed at that he promised us he wouldn't.

Maybe she was exposing wrong doing. But I think she could have done it more appropriately. The fact of the matter is that she was responsible for highly sensitive confidential materials, she swore and signed that paper.
She leaked classified materials despite that, and I think she should be punished.

Go to your senator, go to up the chain of command. But leaking classified materials is a no go.

Unfortunately that line of thinking is a good way for it to never see the light of day, and likely get the same result for the people reporting it to boot. If it was going to get any kind of public knowledge, releasing it publically was the only way to do it.

[Threlizdun]

As to the point, yes, I do think it should be reduced. I think Obama should in fact pardon her and Snowden. They weren't "aiding the enemy" they were exposing wrong-doing on the part of the United States Government. And it was a campaign promise from the President that he would be strong in his defense of whistleblowers.

I do find it interesting that there's a thread up about Obama's "ranking" where people, myself included, are talking about how he's actually accomplished quite a lot, that I'm also reminded here of something I think he's failed at that he promised us he wouldn't.

Maybe she was exposing wrong doing. But I think she could have done it more appropriately. The fact of the matter is that she was responsible for highly sensitive confidential materials, she swore and signed that paper.
She leaked classified materials despite that, and I think she should be punished.

Go to your senator, go to up the chain of command. But leaking classified materials is a no go.

Senators don't have any more authorization to those files than any other U.S citizen. Their civilians. That would still be a leak. Those higher up the chain of command were usually aware if not largely responsible for the offenses she revealed. Leaking it to the public is the only effective way to make them stop. The state should not have the right to hide its harmful actions from its people.

[The Union of English Speaking Countries]

Manning can swing as far as I'm concerned.

[American Imperial State]

Maybe she was exposing wrong doing. But I think she could have done it more appropriately. The fact of the matter is that she was responsible for highly sensitive confidential materials, she swore and signed that paper.
She leaked classified materials despite that, and I think she should be punished.

Go to your senator, go to up the chain of command. But leaking classified materials is a no go.

Unfortunately that line of thinking is a good way for it to never see the light of day, and likely get the same result for the people reporting it to boot. If it was going to get any kind of public knowledge, releasing it publically was the only way to do it.

A lot of immoral shit happens during a war. War is not a clean cut thing. Everyone is a victim in war, accidents happens, mistakes are made.

If your job is to deal with classified materials, it's not your job to go through everything and decide what should be released to the public. She released classified material, illicitly sneaking it out of her wor area. She knew what she was doing, and it was wrong.

I would have been more sympathetic if she tried the chain of command or contacted the house armed services committee or so. She chose to go directly out, steal classified material she was charged with protecting and hand it out because she didn't feel they should be classified.

The buttom line is that she betrayed her country and put lives at risk. There are appropriate ways to handle her concerns, and she didn't follow them. The sentence was more than appropriate,

[Maurepas]

Unfortunately that line of thinking is a good way for it to never see the light of day, and likely get the same result for the people reporting it to boot. If it was going to get any kind of public knowledge, releasing it publically was the only way to do it.

A lot of immoral shit happens during a war. War is not a clean cut thing. Everyone is a victim in war, accidents happens, mistakes are made.

If your job is to deal with classified materials, it's not your job to go through everything and decide what should be released to the public. She released classified material, illicitly sneaking it out of her wor area. She knew what she was doing, and it was wrong.

I would have been more sympathetic if she tried the chain of command or contacted the house armed services committee or so. She chose to go directly out, steal classified material she was charged with protecting and hand it out because she didn't feel they should be classified.

The buttom line is that she betrayed her country and put lives at risk. There are appropriate ways to handle her concerns, and she didn't follow them. The sentence was more than appropriate,

I don't think that "bottom line" is as true as you think. The stuff that was released, what the public has seen of it, didn't tend to pertain to anything combat related.

Frankly, my big question here is, if you truly feel "War is dirty" and therefore nothing should be exposed as a result(as clearly would be the case in the scenario you outlined), why then does it matter how she actually exposed it? Clearly doing so at all is enough to warrant decades in prison, so why even bother making the distinction?

Because the question really isn't "how should she release it?" it's "whether it should be released", because asking the people who are committing these things whether they want to be exposed for it, would result in no information given out at all. So there's really only the two options, public or not at all.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

Manning can swing as far as I'm concerned.

Calling for the lynching of a trans woman. Classy.

[New Grestin]

Oh, the government got it's sooper secret files leaked. Let me play a tune on the world's smallest violin.

(He/She) did what (He/She) thought was right, and that's commendable.

The government is, has, and always will treat whisteblowers like traitors. The best I can hope for in this instance is that history is kind to the likes of Manning and Snowden, because they deserve it. They put their asses on the line for the rest of us.

[American Imperial State]

A lot of immoral shit happens during a war. War is not a clean cut thing. Everyone is a victim in war, accidents happens, mistakes are made.

If your job is to deal with classified materials, it's not your job to go through everything and decide what should be released to the public. She released classified material, illicitly sneaking it out of her wor area. She knew what she was doing, and it was wrong.

I would have been more sympathetic if she tried the chain of command or contacted the house armed services committee or so. She chose to go directly out, steal classified material she was charged with protecting and hand it out because she didn't feel they should be classified.

The buttom line is that she betrayed her country and put lives at risk. There are appropriate ways to handle her concerns, and she didn't follow them. The sentence was more than appropriate,

I don't think that "bottom line" is as true as you think. The stuff that was released, what the public has seen of it, didn't tend to pertain to anything combat related.

Frankly, my big question here is, if you truly feel "War is dirty" and therefore nothing should be exposed as a result(as clearly would be the case in the scenario you outlined), why then does it matter how she actually exposed it? Clearly doing so at all is enough to warrant decades in prison, so why even bother making the distinction?

Because the question really isn't "how should she release it?" it's "whether it should be released", because asking the people who are committing these things whether they want to be exposed for it, would result in no information given out at all. So there's really only the two options, public or not at all.

I don't think a private in the army should have the authority to decide what should be released to the public. I also heard that the leaks put afghan informers and American soldiers at risk. She operated with callous disregard to her duties and comrades.

[Maurepas]

I don't think that "bottom line" is as true as you think. The stuff that was released, what the public has seen of it, didn't tend to pertain to anything combat related.

Frankly, my big question here is, if you truly feel "War is dirty" and therefore nothing should be exposed as a result(as clearly would be the case in the scenario you outlined), why then does it matter how she actually exposed it? Clearly doing so at all is enough to warrant decades in prison, so why even bother making the distinction?

Because the question really isn't "how should she release it?" it's "whether it should be released", because asking the people who are committing these things whether they want to be exposed for it, would result in no information given out at all. So there's really only the two options, public or not at all.

I don't think a private in the army should have the authority to decode what should be released to the public. I also heard tha y the leaks pUT afghan informers and American soldiers at risk. She operated with callous disregard to her duties and comrades.

Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, those with the "authority" to do that would do nothing but bury it. They're the ones who were exposed for wrong doing. Now it is true that what she released exposed a lot of terrible things done by some soldiers, but I don't think I'd count that as the same thing as actually putting soldiers in the field "at risk".

But to me in an ideal scenario that'd be something that could be hashed out later when our government sits down and comes up with a system to deal with this sort of thing. In the absence of such a system it is necessary to protect whistleblowers, even if it was riskier than one might have been comfortable with. Therefore it is my opinion that the President should pardon Chelsea, ultimately. Snowden too.

[Dumb Ideologies]

If she wants out, she's gonna have to roll a double like anyone else.

[Bhikkustan]

They knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If the government don't want something known, you shouldn't know it. If you think that is ok, would you be ok with having all of your internet history available to the world?

[Maurepas]

They knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If the government don't want something known, you shouldn't know it. If you think that is ok, would you be ok with having all of your internet history available to the world?

If anything has come out of the Manning and Snowden cases is true, it's this: Your Internet History is already available to the world.

[The Romulan Republic]

If it was up to me, I'd say Manning should probably get a Presidential pardon.

[Bhikkustan]

They knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If the government don't want something known, you shouldn't know it. If you think that is ok, would you be ok with having all of your internet history available to the world?

If anything has come out of the Manning and Snowden cases is true, it's this: Your Internet History is already available to the world.

Yeah, but no one actually looks. If you have something to hide, people should know about it. I don't get their problem with government snooping.

[Wisconsin9]

They knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If the government don't want something known, you shouldn't know it. If you think that is ok, would you be ok with having all of your internet history available to the world?

No, but I'm not responsible directly for three hundred million people and indirectly for a decent chuck of the entire planet.

[Maurepas]

If anything has come out of the Manning and Snowden cases is true, it's this: Your Internet History is already available to the world.

Yeah, but no one actually looks. If you have something to hide, people should know about it. I don't get their problem with government snooping.

Is that not somewhat contradictory towards your previous statement/example?