NationStates

I think the 7 year sentence and subsequent release was appropriate. I wish her the best.

I actually do crossing guard duty about 100 yards away from the front gate of Fort Leavenworth. Traffic was pretty shitty considering impatient news crews were trying to we've in and out of traffic to get to and from the 7/11 parking lot just across the street from the gate.

Either way I wish her the best. I'm not particularly attached to her store ye en though I live about 20 minutes away from where she was contained.y only hope is that the crews leave by tonight so my job gets just a little easier.

Cedoria wrote:

KrakenCo wrote:
He. Biologically a he, so hes a he.

Then why did you bracket 'she' and 'it' the first time.

We know full well what you meant, so why did you try and cover yourself afterwards?

And she's a she. Not hard to understand.

So I didn't trigger any snowflakes. That didn't work now did it?

Ifreann wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, she provided classified information to a foreign organization whose leader is extremely anti-establishment and has a hate-boner against the US.

That's pretty much treason.

Not really, though. I don't think you even think it's really treason, what with how you've already gone from saying without qualification that she committed treason to saying that what she did is "pretty much" treason. Maybe you want it to be treason, but that's something else.

---

Thermodolia wrote:She did but it didn't stick in a court of law.

Everyone knows she did it they just couldn't prove it.

Funny how people can know things but not prove them.

Repeat that again alongside the line, "Maybe you want it to be treason." Because, you know, that's a rather unreasonable conclusion simply because he said "pretty much". Perhaps you want it to be treason.

KrakenCo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
Then why did you bracket 'she' and 'it' the first time.

We know full well what you meant, so why did you try and cover yourself afterwards?

And she's a she. Not hard to understand.

So I didn't trigger any snowflakes. That didn't work now did it?

Were you actively trying to "trigger" "snowflakes"? Is that what passes for entertainment for you?

No offense, but there's countless other things you could be doing for fun, other than actively trying to make others feel uncomfortable by being shamelessly rude.

Liriena wrote:

KrakenCo wrote:
So I didn't trigger any snowflakes. That didn't work now did it?

Were you actively trying to "trigger" "snowflakes"? Is that what passes for entertainment for you?

No offense, but there's countless other things you could be doing for fun, other than actively trying to make others feel uncomfortable by being shamelessly rude.

No, I said explicitly I wasn't trying to trigger them.

Learn to read, damn

KrakenCo wrote:

Liriena wrote:Were you actively trying to "trigger" "snowflakes"? Is that what passes for entertainment for you?

No offense, but there's countless other things you could be doing for fun, other than actively trying to make others feel uncomfortable by being shamelessly rude.

No, I said explicitly I wasn't trying to trigger them.

Learn to read, damn

And yet you called a human being "it".

"Not trying" indeed.

Insaeldor wrote:I actually do crossing guard duty about 100 yards away from the front gate of Fort Leavenworth. Traffic was pretty shitty considering impatient news crews were trying to we've in and out of traffic to get to and from the 7/11 parking lot just across the street from the gate.

Either way I wish her the best. I'm not particularly attached to her store ye en though I live about 20 minutes away from where she was contained.y only hope is that the crews leave by tonight so my job gets just a little easier.

Considering she's not there any more I doubt there'll be any great press presence at Ft. Leavenworth until the next time someone interesting is released.

---

KrakenCo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
Then why did you bracket 'she' and 'it' the first time.

We know full well what you meant, so why did you try and cover yourself afterwards?

And she's a she. Not hard to understand.

So I didn't trigger any snowflakes. That didn't work now did it?

You didn't want to trigger anyone, but when first informed about the correct pronouns to use you turn around and insist on the wrong ones.

Your lies are unconvincing, citizen.

I think there's more pressing issues for the thread than whether we should call Manning based on what they have between their legs vs. between their ears.

The only good thing Obama did in his presidency was fixing the mistake of letting her get locked up in the first place. God forbid we hold our government accountable for it's actions and blow the whistle when it goes too far, that's clearly treason. In reality, those who locked her up we're the real traitors as defending those actions made America look awful on the world stage where curbing the actions would have made America look much better.

Shrilland wrote:The only good thing Obama did in his presidency was fixing the mistake of letting her get locked up in the first place. God forbid we hold our government accountable for it's actions and blow the whistle when it goes too far, that's clearly treason. In reality, those who locked her up we're the real traitors as defending those actions made America look awful on the world stage where curbing the actions would have made America look much better.

He revealed more than was necessary to blow the whistle.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I think there's more pressing issues for the thread than whether we should call Manning based on what they have between their legs vs. between their ears.

Don't worry, we can multitask.

---

Jamzmania wrote:

Shrilland wrote:The only good thing Obama did in his presidency was fixing the mistake of letting her get locked up in the first place. God forbid we hold our government accountable for it's actions and blow the whistle when it goes too far, that's clearly treason. In reality, those who locked her up we're the real traitors as defending those actions made America look awful on the world stage where curbing the actions would have made America look much better.

He revealed more than was necessary to blow the whistle.

She.

---

See? Multitasking.

Jamzmania wrote:

Shrilland wrote:The only good thing Obama did in his presidency was fixing the mistake of letting her get locked up in the first place. God forbid we hold our government accountable for it's actions and blow the whistle when it goes too far, that's clearly treason. In reality, those who locked her up we're the real traitors as defending those actions made America look awful on the world stage where curbing the actions would have made America look much better.

He revealed more than was necessary to blow the whistle.

That's arguable. When you look at what the leaks brought about, not at all. I would say the U.S. overreacted and jailed someone just because they acted like idiotic children who talk crap behind their friend's back and expect not to get found out. The entire reaction was literally the same as a school child.

KrakenCo wrote:

Liriena wrote:Were you actively trying to "trigger" "snowflakes"? Is that what passes for entertainment for you?

No offense, but there's countless other things you could be doing for fun, other than actively trying to make others feel uncomfortable by being shamelessly rude.

No, I said explicitly I wasn't trying to trigger them.

Learn to read, damn

I can read your signature, and it contains a major falsehood since sex (male/female) isn't the same as gender (masculine/feminine).

Imperializt Russia wrote:Except members of the intelligence community admit it was classified. Trump himself basically admitted it was classified, just that it didn't matter because he's the president.

Nixon: "It's not illegal if the president does it"... that didn't end so well for him. But then again, Congress was far less partisan then than it is now.

Glad to hear she's been released. Her leak documented significantly unethical actions by the US government and its military... including the killing of journalists and civilians. Before she approached WikiLeaks with the documents she went to both the New York Times and Washington Post with the information, but they rejected her.

This leak paved the way for the better approaches employed in both the Snowden leak and the Panama Papers. Snowden saw that WikiLeaks didn't appropriately vet and redact personal information from Manning's leaks so he specifically spent time finding reputable journalists to communicate with, and because they learned from the Manning example they listened to him. The Panama Papers took that a step further with a massive collaboration between media outlets all over the world as part of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to verify, vet, and appropriately redact the leaks before reporting on them.

On the other hand, not so glad to hear that since she's in the news again it gives a bunch of people an excuse to explicitly misgender her. Just because she's a "traitor" doesn't give you the excuse to be a shitty person.

Sanctissima wrote:

Catakia wrote:Even if it was treason, a firing squad seems extreme. Prison changes people, and most once getting out just want to live a normal, humble life.

Eh, punishment should fit the crime.

Realistically, if you betray your own country, you don't deserve mercy.

If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy, is it?

Also, lets not act like her actions were unambiguously evil. The point of the leaks was to reveal the horrible shit that was being carried out in the name of US people. Really the people who carried out this heinous actions revealed in Manning's leaks should be the people locked up.

Ifreann wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I think there's more pressing issues for the thread than whether we should call Manning based on what they have between their legs vs. between their ears.

Don't worry, we can multitask.

---

Jamzmania wrote:He revealed more than was necessary to blow the whistle.

She.

---

See? Multitasking.

Please stop trying to take the discussion off topic.

Chestaan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, punishment should fit the crime.

Realistically, if you betray your own country, you don't deserve mercy.

If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy, is it?

Also, lets not act like her actions were unambiguously evil. The point of the leaks was to reveal the horrible shit that was being carried out in the name of US people. Really the people who carried out this heinous actions revealed in Manning's leaks should be the people locked up.

"If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy"

That is a very interesting question. And I admit, you have made me think.

So mercy is only really mercy if it is given when it is unwarranted? But what is it if it is given when it is warranted? Just normal behaviour?

Yeah - this is going to screw with my mind now.

Chestaan wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Eh, punishment should fit the crime.

Realistically, if you betray your own country, you don't deserve mercy.

If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy, is it?

Also, lets not act like her actions were unambiguously evil. The point of the leaks was to reveal the horrible shit that was being carried out in the name of US people. Really the people who carried out this heinous actions revealed in Manning's leaks should be the people locked up.

The worst things that seem to have been revealed, unless I missed something, are some battlefield fuckups and ignored crime and corruption in the Afghan and Iraqi governments. This is bad, admittedly, especially the latter, but why did he also have to reveal hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables which served no purpose other than to harm US relations and interests? There were no great crimes being revealed in a whole lot of these leaks.

Oneracon wrote:Glad to hear she's been released. Her leak documented significantly unethical actions by the US government and its military... including the killing of journalists and civilians. Before she approached WikiLeaks with the documents she went to both the New York Times and Washington Post with the information, but they rejected her.

This leak paved the way for the better approaches employed in both the Snowden leak and the Panama Papers. Snowden saw that WikiLeaks didn't appropriately vet and redact personal information from Manning's leaks so he specifically spent time finding reputable journalists to communicate with, and because they learned from the Manning example they listened to him. The Panama Papers took that a step further with a massive collaboration between media outlets all over the world as part of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to verify, vet, and appropriately redact the leaks before reporting on them.

On the other hand, not so glad to hear that since she's in the news again it gives a bunch of people an excuse to explicitly misgender her. Just because she's a "traitor" doesn't give you the excuse to be a shitty person.

Pretty much this.

Like, in my country, Louis Riel (who led the Red River Rebellion in 1870 and the Northwest Resistance in 1885) was historically perceived to be a traitor against Canada, but in recent generations, he has been portrayed more and more sympathetically.

If Manning were seen as a traitor today, I can only imagine what people will think of her in 125 years or so. Hopefully as someone who exposed the wrongs of the US military.

Calladan wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy, is it?

Also, lets not act like her actions were unambiguously evil. The point of the leaks was to reveal the horrible shit that was being carried out in the name of US people. Really the people who carried out this heinous actions revealed in Manning's leaks should be the people locked up.

"If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy"

That is a very interesting question. And I admit, you have made me think.

So mercy is only really mercy if it is given when it is unwarranted? But what is it if it is given when it is warranted? Just normal behaviour?

Yeah - this is going to screw with my mind now.

I'd love to claim credit for coming up with that question on my own, but I think it was asked of Napoleon or some other leader at some point,

I guess being lenient to somebody is only being merciful if the person in question does not deserve said leniency. Then yeah, I guess another word is required when mercy is given.

Jamzmania wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
If someone deserves mercy, then it's not really mercy, is it?

Also, lets not act like her actions were unambiguously evil. The point of the leaks was to reveal the horrible shit that was being carried out in the name of US people. Really the people who carried out this heinous actions revealed in Manning's leaks should be the people locked up.

The worst things that seem to have been revealed, unless I missed something, are some battlefield fuckups and ignored crime and corruption in the Afghan and Iraqi governments. This is bad, admittedly, especially the latter, but why did he also have to reveal hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables which served no purpose other than to harm US relations and interests? There were no great crimes being revealed in a whole lot of these leaks.

Didn't they reveal that the military had killed some Reuters journalists?

I've felt a bit differently about Manning since learning that she likely has FAS and I've suspected for awhile she may have borderline personality disorder as well.

Granted, the second is pure speculation on my end, but she does meet, just on a basic skim of her actions and background, five of the ten criteria.

I think it's very clear from the outset that the Army made some bad personnel choices. If anyone should be held directly responsible, it's the Army for letting someone with clear behavioral problems possess the kind of clearance Manning had.

Chestaan wrote:Didn't they reveal that the military had killed some Reuters journalists?

I guess you have the "Collateral Murder" incident in mind.

Arotania wrote:

Chestaan wrote:Didn't they reveal that the military had killed some Reuters journalists?

I guess you have the "Collateral Murder" incident in mind.

No such thing as collateral murder,

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Arotania wrote:
I guess you have the "Collateral Murder" incident in mind.

No such thing as collateral murder,

Collateral Murder was the name of the video which Wikileaks released of the incident you were referring to