Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Jan '17 08:35 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    35 years sentence was pretty brutal whatever the Bible says about sexual politics among sheep farmers in the less well developed provinces of the Assyrian Empire.
    I am not entirely convinced that there is a correlation between Chelsea and the sheep farmers. However are we any more enlightened if one is not able to speak ones mind freely and question the transgender approach without being ascribed the obligatory phobias. 35 years was brutal for sure. I am not entirely convinced that Manning was motivated by altruism rather than a kind of act of vengeance borne of resentment against his superiors.
  2. 18 Jan '17 08:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Like e-mails leaked that Hillary was given debate questions and such?

    Is that fair game as well?

    Let me guess, that was just plain wrong, right?
    It wasn't the government hiding information from us. Private person.

    But I don't have a lot of sympathy for Clinton.
  3. 18 Jan '17 08:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Will there be any legal restrictions upon Chelsea Manning's freedom after she's released?
    She may feel safer living elsewhere besides a United States under President Trump.
    Not that I'm aware of.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    18 Jan '17 09:01
    Originally posted by uzless
    Y'all still question the master...i know not why. Read and be educated my son...


    WikiLeaks said Obama may have saved Manning's life by granting her clemency. But the secret-spilling site said little about founder Julian Assange's pledge that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. if Manning got clemency.

    "Ms. Manning is a hero, whose bravery shou ...[text shortened]... ich he appeared to offer himself up to U.S. authorities in return for Manning's freedom cbc.ca
    Master of missing the point. Assange is not facing charges from the US, he is facing charges from Sweden.
  5. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    18 Jan '17 15:59
    He' s facing sex charges in Sweden but the thinking is if he goes to sweden to face those charges, the US will have him extradited for his wikilieaks involvement.
  6. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Jan '17 16:40 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by uzless
    He' s facing sex charges in Sweden but the thinking is if he goes to sweden to face those charges, the US will have him extradited for his wikilieaks involvement.
    One thing in Manning's favor: None of the documents revealed were higher than mere secret. Manning was sentenced to far more time than anyone else for that level of treason. And the Duchess is right, if she can find another place to live, it would be in her best interest. She doesn't get out till May 17th.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    18 Jan '17 18:05
    Originally posted by uzless
    He' s facing sex charges in Sweden but the thinking is if he goes to sweden to face those charges, the US will have him extradited for his wikilieaks involvement.
    The US would be a little outside of its jurisdiction. While receiving and publishing US secret documents may be a crime under US law for a person of any nationality if they do it while in the US or for a US citizen to do that anywhere in the world, I don't think that they can claim jurisdiction over a non-US citizen publishing their secret documents while outside of the US. Depending on what country he was resident in when he did this, it might be a crime to receive and publish documents of an ally under their law, but then it would not be the US requesting extradition. There was no attempt to gain his extradition from the UK before Sweden requested his extradition and he high-tailed it into the Ecuadorian embassy. So I don't think that argument works.
  8. 18 Jan '17 21:28
    Originally posted by mchill to Whodey
    But....but...but Manning is a transgender

    Whodey seems to think everyone is "transgender" 🙄
    This post is another example of Mchill's trolling, ludicrously misrepresenting Whodey.

    Like many diverse writers (though not the troll Vivify), I condemn Whodey as one of the worst
    lying trolls at RHP. In particular here, I condemn Whodey's bigotry against transgender people.

    But it's factually accurate to say that Chelsea Manning identifies as a transgender woman.
    And there's no evidence that Whodey 'seems to think everyone is transgender' (to quote Mchill).
    It's wrong, however, for Whodey to insinuate that Chelsea Manning has received any
    preferential treatment for identifying as a transgender woman.
  9. 18 Jan '17 21:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse to Uzless
    One thing in Manning's favor: None of the documents revealed were higher than mere secret. Manning was sentenced to far more time than anyone else for that level of treason. And the Duchess is right, if she can find another place to live, it would be in her best interest. She doesn't get out till May 17th.
    "...for that level of treason."
    --Sonhouse

    In fact, Chelsea Manning never has been convicted of treason.
    I was thinking that she could find a society more accepting than the USA of transgender people.

    Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years. In contrast, there was an extreme right-wing
    Christian white American who defected as a pilot to Germany during the Second World War.
    (He handed over his undamaged Lockheed P-38 fighter to the Germans.) He made
    Nazi propaganda broadcasts urging other American airmen to defect. He accepted an
    officer's commission in the SS. He volunteered to fight for Germany against the USSR.
    This was the most blatant case of treason by an American during the Second World War.
    But he was an American who excused his actions by claiming that he only wanted to fight Communism.
    Convicted of treason, he was sentenced to only 25 years (of which he served 12 years) in prison.
  10. 18 Jan '17 22:16
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    This post is another example of Mchill's trolling, ludicrously misrepresenting Whodey.

    Like many diverse writers (though not the troll Vivify), I condemn Whodey as one of the worst
    lying trolls at RHP. In particular here, I condemn Whodey's bigotry against transgender people.

    But it's factually accurate to say that Chelsea Manning identifies as a t ...[text shortened]... Chelsea Manning has received any
    preferential treatment for identifying as a transgender woman.
    Self identification is not enough for people. One could for example make the argument that self identification may be a kind of self delusion, that one has convinced oneself that a determinism exists, that genetics have acted as a causation, all kinds of things and by contrast human physiology is very real. I am not arguing that Manning has no right to self identify or that he/she should be the object of derision, merely that self identification is not enough for some people and some other compelling reason must be found.
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    18 Jan '17 22:17
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    The difference is: one is whistleblowing (look up the term) and one is a foreign country influencing an election.
    The similarity is: the TRUTH hurts those who are corrupt and unprincipled.
  12. 18 Jan '17 22:29 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Self identification is not enough for people. One could for example make the argument that self identification may be a kind of self delusion, that one has convinced oneself that a determinism exists, that genetics have acted as a causation, all kinds of things and by contrast human physiology is very real. I am not arguing that Manning has no righ ...[text shortened]... elf identification is not enough for some people and some other compelling reason must be found.
    As far as I know, Chelsea Manning never has been diagnosed as mentally ill (meaning
    incapable of being responsible for her own actions). So she's a sane adult with a legal
    right to establish her identity as a transgender woman, even if that upsets some other people.

    Why do some other people object when Chelsea Manning says that she would be
    happier living as a woman than as a man? It's her life to choose. Live and let live.
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    18 Jan '17 22:36
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Self identification is not enough for people. One could for example make the argument that self identification may be a kind of self delusion, that one has convinced oneself that a determinism exists, that genetics have acted as a causation, all kinds of things and by contrast human physiology is very real. I am not arguing that Manning has no righ ...[text shortened]... elf identification is not enough for some people and some other compelling reason must be found.
    We need people like Chelsea Manning. It is surely every good citizen's duty to risk their freedom in order to expose injustice and hold evil to account. But in this case we know enough about the circumstances of her actions to appreciate that she was greatly affected by poor mental health and this is relevant to both her behaviour - in so far as we determine that to be criminal - and her penalty.

    As it happens, her poor mental health revolved around her confused sexuality, leading to her self identification as a woman, but poor mental health is not in and of itself the same thing. Plenty of perfectly healthy people self identify as transgender and the implications of this for their health rather hinges on the way their society is prepared to respond. For Chelsea Manning, her problems included but were not confined to being in the US military and being surrounded by the harsh and religiously puritanical culture of the US at its worst. Even so, the relevant issue here is primarily her mental health; her transgender status is only relevant in so far as it evokes oppressive responses in her environment: those responses are the problem and when her freedom is taken away from her by the state, then she is entitled to be protected from them.

    Her confused sexuality seems to provide endless amusement to people here, without evoking the least awareness of the potential relevance of her poor mental health to her actions, and also the implications of her confused sexuality for her incarceration in a military prison. This is not a matter of approval or disapproval on moral grounds but rather a matter of elementary, basic human empathy. Her sentence really should take that into acccount and it is that which I suspect has influenced the decision about clemency.

    I am concerned though that, having acknowledged this, she will nevertheless remain in prison for another five months, suffering continuing and cumulative harm, and potentially at risk of interference by Trump's fascist executive seeking to throw more red meat to the madmen who elected him. That delay suggests to me that Obama is almost certainly playing a political cat and mouse game with her as the mouse and Trump as the cat, taunted into doing something nasty.

    Hateful people.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    18 Jan '17 22:37
    "A Long List of What We Know Thanks to Private Manning":

     So for those who either suffer from memory loss or ignorance on this particular score, here is a partial accounting of some of the important revelations in the Manning leak, drawn from my book—with Kevin Gosztola—on the Manning case, Truth and Consequences (the e-book just now updated to include the trial, the verdict, this week’s sentencing and reactions).

    The revelations below were compiled for the book in March 2011—many others followed, including the important Gitmo files (see my piece about them) in April 2011. Here is a New York Times take on just part of those Gitmo files: "What began as a jury-rigged experiment after the 2001 terrorist attacks now seems like an enduring American institution, and the leaked files show why, by laying bare the patchwork and contradictory evidence that in many cases would never have stood up in criminal court or a military tribunal." So even this accounting below is far from complete.

    And let’s not forget what started it all: the “Collateral Murder” video.

    First, just a very partial list from “Cablegate” (keep in mind, this does not include many other bombshells that caused a stir in smaller nations abroad):

    • Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by the US. All part of giving US full rein in country against terrorists.

    • Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland.

    • US tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition.

    • Egyptian torturers trained by FBI—although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.

    • State Dept. memo: US-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was “illegal and unconstitutional.”

    • Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country’s ruling elite described as “The Family,” with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country’s first lady may have made massive profits off a private school.

    • US knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.

    • Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect US interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.

    * Oil giant Shell claims to have “inserted staff” and fully infiltrated Nigeria's government.

    • US pressured the European Union to accept GM—genetic modification, that is.

    • Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.

    • Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie’s cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.

    • The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the US is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.

    • The New York Times: “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

    • Afghan vice president left country with $52 million “in cash.”

    • Shocking levels of US spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.

    • Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the US when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

    • US used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year’s crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

    * American and British diplomats fear Pakistan's nuclear weapons program — with poor security — could lead to fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists or a devastating nuclear exchange with India.

    • Hundreds of cables detail US use of diplomats as “sales” agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.

    • Millions in US military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov’t uses (or stolen) instead.

    • Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the ”brink of collapse.”

    • The US secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

    • As protests spread in Egypt, cables revealed that strong man Suleiman was at center of government’s torture programs, causing severe backlash for Mubarak after he named Suleiman vice president during the revolt. Other cables revealed or confirmed widespread Mubarak regime corruption, police abuses and torture, and claims of massive Mubarak famiiy fortune, significantly influencing media coverage and US response.

    Now, an excerpt from our book on just small aspect of the Iraq war cables. As I noted, this doesn’t even include the release of the “Collateral Murder” video earlier.

    Al Jazeera suggested that the real bombshell was the US allowing Iraqis to torture detainees. Documents revealed that US soldiers sent 1,300 reports to headquarters with graphic accounts, including a few about detainees beaten to death. Some US generals wanted our troops to intervene, but Pentagon chiefs disagreed, saying these assaults should only be reported, not stopped. At a time the US was declaring that no torture was going on, there were forty-one reports of such abuse still happening “and yet the US chose to turn its back.”

    The New York Times report on the torture angle included this: “The six years of reports include references to the deaths of at least six prisoners in Iraqi custody, most of them in recent years. Beatings, burnings and lashings surfaced in hundreds of reports, giving the impression that such treatment was not an exception. In one case, Americans suspected Iraqi Army officers of cutting off a detainee’s fingers and burning him with acid. Two other cases produced accounts of the executions of bound detainees.

    And while some abuse cases were investigated by the Americans, most noted in the archive seemed to have been ignored, with the equivalent of an institutional shrug: soldiers told their officers and asked the Iraqis to investigate…. That policy was made official in a report dated May 16, 2005, saying that ‘if US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted until directed by HHQ.’ In many cases, the order appeared to allow American soldiers to turn a blind eye to abuse of Iraqis on Iraqis.

    Amnesty International quickly called on the US to investigate how much our commanders knew about Iraqi torture.

    A top story at The Guardian, meanwhile, opened: “Leaked Pentagon files obtained by The Guardian contain details of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the US-led invasion, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded.

    “British ministers have repeatedly refused to concede the existence of any official statistics on Iraqi deaths. US General Tommy Franks claimed ‘We don’t do body counts.’ The mass of leaked documents provides the first detailed tally by the US military of Iraqi fatalities. Troops on the ground filed secret field reports over six years of the occupation, purporting to tote up every casualty, military and civilian.

    “Iraq Body Count, a London-based group that monitors civilian casualties, told the Guardian: ‘These logs contain a huge amount of entirely new information regarding casualties. Our analysis so far indicates that they will add 15,000 or more previously unrecorded deaths to the current IBC total. This data should never have been withheld from the public.’ ” The logs recorded a total of 109,032 violent deaths between 2004 and 2009.

    Citing a new document, the Times reported: “According to one particularly painful entry from 2006, an Iraqi wearing a tracksuit was killed by an American sniper who later discovered that the victim was the platoon’s interpreter…. The documents…reveal many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians—at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations. Such killings are a central reason Iraqis turned against the American presence in their country, a situation that is now being repeated in Afghanistan.”

    And now, re the Afghanistan war logs, another book excerpt:

    The Times highlighted it as “The War Logs” with the subhed, “A six-year archive of classified military documents offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war.” Explicitly, or by extension, the release also raised questions about the media coverage of the war to date.

    The Guardian carried a tough editorial on its website, calling the picture “disturbing” and raising doubts about ever winning this war, adding: “These war logs—written in the heat of engagement—show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate. It is in some contrast with the tidied-up and sanitized ‘public’ war, as glimpsed through official communiques as well as the necessarily limited snapshots of embedded reporting.”

    Elsewhere, the paper traced the CIA and paramilitary roles in the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, many cases hidden until now. In one incident, a US patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing fifteen. David Leigh wrote, “They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as ‘cheap’.”

    The paper said the logs also detailed “how the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.” Previously unknown friendly fire incidents also surfaced.

    The White House, which knew what was coming, quickly slammed the release of classified reports— most labeled “secret”—and pointed out the docu...
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    18 Jan '17 22:40
    Continued:

     documents ended in 2009, just before the president set a new policy in the war; and claimed that the whole episode was suspect because WikiLeaks was against the war. Still, it was hard to dismiss official internal memos such as: “The general view of Afghans is that current gov’t is worse than the Taliban.

    Among the revelations that gained prime real estate from The New York Times: “The documents…suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.” The Guardian, however, found no “smoking gun” on this matter. The Times also reported that the US had given Afghans credit for missions carried out by our own Special Ops teams.

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

    A pardon before Manning did a day in prison would have been more appropriate than a commutation after 7 years in custody IMO.