Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's sentence

I don't think there's any chance of Snowden getting a pardon.

Even if I didn't think Manning had performed a great public service, no one with even a touch of humanity could think that she deserves to spend 35 years in jail.

This isn't a memo or two she passed along. Reportedly, it was up to or perhaps more than 750,000 documents she leaked completely betraying the trust this country placed in her as an intelligence analyst. If she had been convicted of aiding the enemy, she could have been sentenced to death. She's lucky it was only 35 years. And I have plenty of humanity, thank you, just not towards people who place this country at risk for their own selfish reasons and because they've deluded themselves into believing they occupy a higher moral plain than everyone else.

Updated On: 1/17/17 at 09:36 PM

This is a surprising commutation; I do however agree with kdogg that Chelsea Manning should be pardoned, even considering the gravity of the convictions. Also we don't know the possible several reasons for the pardon; first, she did stand trial, admitted her "crimes" and was serving her sentence. IMO, that takes more gumption and moral perseverance than fleeing the country.

The President may have decided to play it as a "chess move", controversial,

1) Actual human compassion for her.

2) It adds another layer to the issue of hacking and Russia.

3) Assange said he would return to the US if she was pardoned

4) Maybe deciding that her circumstances regarding logistics of incarceration and/or the cost of the surgeries (I actually do not know where she is in her transition).

If the Democrats don't grow a pair, Obama may toss a few more "foul balls" before Friday.

There are secrets and then there are secrets. Within that continuum there is just personal and political embarrassment but there can be death to individuals and to large groups of people. The issue for me is where we draw the line. To those who say that there should be no line and the government should have no secrets, I say that is lunacy. And I say the same thing to those who feel the government should be able to collect and store information on everyone just because they have the power to do so.

I do not believe it is such a fine line. People who put themselves in grave danger in the hope of protecting the rest of us from things like Orlando should not be betrayed in the name of free speech. I don't have the guts to be doing many of the jobs being done to protect people whether it's being a cop working undercover or a foreign national infiltrating a terrorist group. To me, Manning isn't even a close call. It's an egregious case that deserves the harshest penalty within the law.

Updated On: 1/18/17 at 01:51 AM

"Im guessing Mr Obama would have pardoned General Andre and Benedict Arnold if he was ever extradited.

Updated On: 1/18/17 at 09:22 AM

Petralicious said: "
"Im guessing Mr Obama would have pardoned General Andre and Benedict Arnold if he was ever extradited."



Your posts are akin to someone flinging wet toilet paper to a wall to see what sticks.

Remind me who was sentenced to prision for 30 plus years for the DNC leaks...

It also seems dishonest to compare Chelsea Manning to Benedict Arnold.

Updated On: 1/18/17 at 11:12 AM

kdogg36 said: "I don't want to start a larger argument about our apparently differing attitudes towards the wars fought since 2001, but let me ask one question of my opponents here. The documents leaked by Manning exposed some very shady dealings by the US government on matters of great importance, often matters of life and death. In addition to the infamous video of an attack on civilians, here's a rundown of some of the things included in the leaked documents:

https://www.thenation.com/article/long-list-what-we-know-thanks-private-manning/

My question is: without the actions of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, how would we ever know about these things? (Don't even try to say we shouldn't know about them.)"



I'm always up for a good political discussion/debate but the one requirement I always have is that the person I'm having the discussion with be interested and open minded enough to want to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of where I'm coming from and expect that I will return the favor. To have a discussion with someone who is clearly not interested in gaining a greater appreciation of my view and is so firmly entrenched in his that virtually no greater understanding is possible is, to me, a complete waste of time. To describe a broader discussion as a "larger argument" which says you view what we've been having as an argument, to describe people of differing opinions as "opponents", to ask for a response but tell me what I shouldn't even try to include in it, to self describe yourself as living in a bubble where you have intentionally surrounded yourself with people who only think exactly as you do and to get even a minor jolt to learn not everybody sees things the way you do and believes in exactly what you believe tells me that you have zero interest in trying to understand where I am coming from and only seek to more forcibly argue your point. For me, I don't believe going back and forth with you would be productive or a good use of my time. I think Dented gave a great explanation of why her actions were wrong and instead of asking us to respond to your question, you can if you wish, respond to the specific points he made. To you she's a whistleblower and a hero, to me she's a traitor who put lives at risk and compromised our nation's safety and deserves to serve every day of the sentence given her. We will have to agree to disagree.

UncleCharlie said: "We will have to agree to disagree."

Well, yes, that's fine. I don't think my question was phrased in as hostile manner as you suggest; in this small area of discussion, yes, you're my opponents. :)

To clarify one thing: I don't surround myself with people who think exactly like I do. I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, and the vast majority of my friends are progressives and self-described leftists. It just so happens there's very little disagreement among my in-person friends on this issue.

The fact is, I have great skepticism that the "war on terror" is doing anything other than poking various hornets' nests and pointlessly killing foreign civilians as well as US military personnel. Clearly, others on this thread disagree. I respect that disagreement but am unwilling to put in the time and attention required to have that - yes - larger argument. :)

I was hoping to start a "smaller argument" with my more specific question, but obviously no one's under any obligation to engage me on that.

Theater_Nerd said: "Channing didn't flee the country, owed up to her wrong doing and took her punishment.



"



That implies she had the opportunity to flee....

Petralicious said: "For a man obsessed with his legacy, Mr Obamas final days are mind bongling. Between releasing Manning, pardoning 209 felons, The UN, Cuba and now he releases yet another terrorist. Before there was ISIS (or ISIL as only he calls it) there was the FALN who terrorized America. But at least Lin Manuel Miranda is crying tears of joy!"

I don't know much about Oscar López Rivera, but the vast bulk of Obama's pardons and commutations have been for nonviolent drug offenders who were given ridiculously long prison sentences. I think if you looked into some of these cases, you'd agree that clemency is appropriate. For me, this is one of the high points of Obama's very mixed legacy, though I wish he'd done much more.

The recent decision on Cuban refugees is a bad one. (Of course, if it were up to me, I'd welcome peaceful people from anywhere in the world without restriction.) That's a shame, because Obama's previous reforms on Cuba policy were another bright spot in his legacy.