Conquer Club

Chelsea Manning, the US army soldier who became one of the most prominent whistleblowers in modern times when she exposed the nature of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who then went on to pay the price with a 35-year military prison sentence, is to be freed in May as a gift of outgoing president Barack Obama.

In the most audacious – and contentious – commutation decision to come from Obama yet, the sitting president used his constitutional power just three days before he leaves the White House to give Manning her freedom.

Manning, a transgender woman, will walk from a male military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, on 17 May, almost seven years to the day since she was arrested in a base outside Baghdad for offenses relating to the leaking of a vast trove of US state secrets to the website WikiLeaks.

Nancy Hollander, Manning’s lawyer, spoke to the Guardian before she had even had the chance to pass on to the soldier the news of her release. “Oh my God!” was Hollander’s instant response to the news which she had just heard from the White House counsel. “I cannot believe it – in 120 days she will be free and it will all be over. It’s incredible.”

mrswdk wrote:I don't get it. Manning was arrested, tried and imprisoned while Obama was in power, and now years after Manning first got sent to prison Obama suddenly decides to just cancel the rest of the sentence a couple of days before he leaves office? Is Obama saying he fucked up by allowing the state to maliciously prosecute someone who should never have been sent to jail in the first place, or is he saying Manning should have gone to jail but now he's going to let Manning walk without serving hir entire sentence, just because funsies?

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I don't get it. Manning was arrested, tried and imprisoned while Obama was in power, and now years after Manning first got sent to prison Obama suddenly decides to just cancel the rest of the sentence a couple of days before he leaves office? Is Obama saying he fucked up by allowing the state to maliciously prosecute someone who should never have been sent to jail in the first place, or is he saying Manning should have gone to jail but now he's going to let Manning walk without serving hir entire sentence, just because funsies?

I think he's always been sympathetic to her plight, but as long as there was a chance that it could hurt Hillary's chances in the election, he couldn't risk pissing off the war hawks by going easy on her. Now that Hillary's dead and buried, there's no longer any votes to worry about, so he can do the right thing.

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I don't get it. Manning was arrested, tried and imprisoned while Obama was in power, and now years after Manning first got sent to prison Obama suddenly decides to just cancel the rest of the sentence a couple of days before he leaves office? Is Obama saying he fucked up by allowing the state to maliciously prosecute someone who should never have been sent to jail in the first place, or is he saying Manning should have gone to jail but now he's going to let Manning walk without serving hir entire sentence, just because funsies?

I think he's always been sympathetic to her plight, but as long as there was a chance that it could hurt Hillary's chances in the election, he couldn't risk pissing off the war hawks by going easy on her. Now that Hillary's dead and buried, there's no longer any votes to worry about, so he can do the right thing.

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning is of a commutation; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

I think you might be misusing a commution as interchangeable with a pardon. Manning has not been pardoned. Her sentence has been commuted.

Thomas Drake's sentence sentence can't be commuted. He wasn't even jailed, and anyway, he served his probation already.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning is of a commutation; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

I think you might be misusing a commution as interchangeable with a pardon. Manning has not been pardoned. Her sentence has been commuted.

Thomas Drake's sentence sentence can't be commuted. He wasn't even jailed, and anyway, he served his probation already.

I've clarified in red for those who were confused.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning is of a commutation; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

I think you might be misusing a commution as interchangeable with a pardon. Manning has not been pardoned. Her sentence has been commuted.

Thomas Drake's sentence sentence can't be commuted. He wasn't even jailed, and anyway, he served his probation already.

I've clarified in red for those who were confused.

Good for you, Saxi. Why do you think Drake shoud be pardoned more than Manning's sentence should be committed?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning is of a commutation; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

I think you might be misusing a commution as interchangeable with a pardon. Manning has not been pardoned. Her sentence has been commuted.

Thomas Drake's sentence sentence can't be commuted. He wasn't even jailed, and anyway, he served his probation already.

I've clarified in red for those who were confused.

Good for you, Saxi. Why do you think Drake shoud be pardoned more than Manning's sentence should be committed?

1- Drake acted in the public good. Manning's action seem to have primarily been due to sexual angst.
2- Drake provided information that was selective and substantial. Manning's revelations were interesting, but mostly salacious and mischevious.
3- Drake was persecuted instead of prosecuted. Ten of the 11 charges against him were dropped for lack-of-evidence, but only after the Obama regime first bankrupted him and destroyed his life through malicious prosecution. Even the judge in the case eviscerated the government's actions. They finally got a low-level misdemeanor that carried community service to stick as a parting shot.

But Drake isn't a houshold name and Manning is. Not to say that Manning should or shouldn't have also had its sentence commuted, but Obama couldn't get the front-page of the New York Times if he pardoned Drake and he could by commuting Manning's sentence.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Unless he were to pardon Thomas Drake, this is just a publicity stunt. Drake is far more deserving of a pardon than Manning is of a commutation; Manning just happens to be more high-profile so a commutation can help repair Obama's civil rights legacy, as opposed to being a genuine act.

I think you might be misusing a commution as interchangeable with a pardon. Manning has not been pardoned. Her sentence has been commuted.

Thomas Drake's sentence sentence can't be commuted. He wasn't even jailed, and anyway, he served his probation already.

I've clarified in red for those who were confused.

Good for you, Saxi. Why do you think Drake shoud be pardoned more than Manning's sentence should be committed?

1- Drake acted in the public good. Manning's action seem to have primarily been due to sexual angst.
2- Drake provided information that was selective and substantial. Manning's revelations were interesting, but mostly salacious and mischevious.
3- Drake was persecuted instead of prosecuted. Ten of the 11 charges against him were dropped for lack-of-evidence, but only after the Obama regime first bankrupted him and destroyed his life through malicious prosecution. Even the judge in the case eviscerated the government's actions. They finally got a low-level misdemeanor that carried community service to stick as a parting shot.

But Drake isn't a houshold name and Manning is. Not to say that Manning should or shouldn't have also had its sentence commuted, but Obama couldn't get the front-page of the New York Times if he pardoned Drake and he could by commuting Manning's sentence.

I would suggest that he wasn't interested in pardoning people who leaked classified information. Nor in getting headlines. More that he was interested in commuting an unfairly long sentence.

I still think you're muddling the concepts of commutation and pardoning here though.

Symmetry wrote:Just to be completely clear, Drake was convicted on one misdemeanor charge, and served a year of community service. I don't really understand why not giving him a full presidential pardon for that is comparable to commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence.

Symmetry wrote:Just to be completely clear, Drake was convicted on one misdemeanor charge, and served a year of community service. I don't really understand why not giving him a full presidential pardon for that is comparable to commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence.