quote: Mark Osler, a law professor and founder of a commutation clinic at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, gave Manning's petition a "zero percent" chance of success, given the relatively low number of pardons granted by Obama. The president has granted 39 pardons and one commutation since taking office, and denied 1,333. That's a lower rate than any recent predecessors, Osler said.
So that doesn't bode well for Chelsea.
Should it be granted? Is there a chance in hell that Pres. Obama would after the Eric Snowden fiasco that is weighing heavily on our foreign policies?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't believe Chelsea should just be let go, because of, really and truly, what breaking security clearance should entail.
That said, thirty five years for what she did is ****ing farcical and terrible and shameful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A commutation would be fair.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I'm kind of indifferent on the whole thing. Do I agree that she should be put away for a while? Yeah.
For thirty five years? I am unsure. If there was some evidence that proved that releasing those documents actually caused bodily harm to someone, I'd fine with the length. Barring that, I think the sentence is too long.
I don't think the president would grant the pardon or commute the sentence either, especially due to Snowden. It would (arguably) make him look weak.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm kind of indifferent on the whole thing. Do I agree that she should be put away for a while? Yeah.
Why? For what crime? Revealing blatant murderers protected by American uniforms?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For revealing classified data. Even if the data shouldn't have been classified, even if revealing it was in some larger sense the "right thing to do," it was still a pretty major crime. Even Robin Hood crimes are still crimes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah there's a larger argument over whether the options available for whistleblowing that didn't involve violation of security clearance were worth two craps, and about this administration's continuation and reinforcement of abhorrent treatment of whistleblowers, but even then, Manning still broke security clearance. And that's still a big thing.
Still, he did so to reveal some important things our government ought not have done which it does, and we imprison him for decades longer than torturers, murderers, and legit spies and seditionists prosecuted in courts martial, and that all says something super wonderful about our country.
Posted by Rob Lister (Member # 12850) on :
I think the 35 years has less to do with punishing him and more to do with dissuading others. That human interface on the 'red side' of the internet represents a pretty significant security threat. There are tons of folks that are in a position to do real harm.
In theory, to obtain any piece of information from siprnet services you need both the clearance and the need to know. Your assigned credentials is where these two necessities are supposed to meet. In practice, there is no practical way to architect access such that nobody has access to that which they don't absolutely need access to; For any given job, you generally don't know what you need access to until you have access to it.
They must therefore rely on the good conscience of those they give access. And if good conscience is not enough, examples of horrid punishment works too.
If Snowden is ever caught, he can expect much the same.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course deterrence has much to do with it, but I'm not at all prepared to set aside the notion that 'embarrass the government, they'll settle up' is not alsoa factor. Classification is not supposed to serve as blanket concealment for illegal activities, and government simply cannot be trusted to use classification with integrity.
Posted by Rob Lister (Member # 12850) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course deterrence has much to do with it, but I'm not at all prepared to set aside the notion that 'embarrass the government, they'll settle up' is not alsoa factor. Classification is not supposed to serve as blanket concealment for illegal activities, and government simply cannot be trusted to use classification with integrity.
I agree that classification should not serve as such, but that is a separate issue. Did all the classified documents Manning released represent illegal activities? Did any?
As to the trust issue ...
If you can't trust 'em, de-elect them when you get a chance.
Posted by Rob Lister (Member # 12850) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course deterrence has much to do with it, but I'm not at all prepared to set aside the notion that 'embarrass the government, they'll settle up' is not alsoa factor. Classification is not supposed to serve as blanket concealment for illegal activities, and government simply cannot be trusted to use classification with integrity.
I agree that classification should not serve as such, but that is a separate issue. Did all the classified documents Manning released represent illegal activities? Did any? Did a court decide that?
As to the trust issue ...
If you can't trust 'em, de-elect them when you get a chance.
[ September 06, 2013, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Rob Lister ]
Posted by Rob Lister (Member # 12850) on :
dupe]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
No court tried to make a distinction, Chelsea Manning is the only one being held accountable for her actions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rob Lister:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course deterrence has much to do with it, but I'm not at all prepared to set aside the notion that 'embarrass the government, they'll settle up' is not alsoa factor. Classification is not supposed to serve as blanket concealment for illegal activities, and government simply cannot be trusted to use classification with integrity.
I agree that classification should not serve as such, but that is a separate issue. Did all the classified documents Manning released represent illegal activities? Did any?
As to the trust issue ...
If you can't trust 'em, de-elect them when you get a chance.
How is it a separate issue? Shouldn't we hold that if something is illegal and classified, good citizens should consider it their duty to inform-first from within, then elsewhere-rather than their first duty to the classification? If we *don't* hold that, then really classification *is* a shield for criminality, isn't it?
As for the remedy for mistrust, how are we to gauge how trustworthy government is if evidence of deceit is classified, and the only time it's admitted otherwise is when it's exposed in spite of classification-which has been the case for both Manning and Snowden? We have no way of making a real judgment as to trustworthiness if it's made impossible to check.
Posted by Rob Lister (Member # 12850) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How is it a separate issue? Shouldn't we hold that if something is illegal and classified, good citizens should consider it their duty to inform-first from within,...
Is that what Manning did?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was challenging your all-or-nothing proposition-it's about classification, people of good conscience don't break it, and the appropriate remedy is at the polls-rather than applying my own blanket characterization.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
There's also a basic principle for jurisprudence in the west that the punishment should fit the crime, and not be disproportionate in order to set an example for others.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)