Pangloss, you've been pretty vocal on Edward Snowden and I've agreed with you. I am curious your thoughts on PFC Manning, what she leaked and Obama commuting her sentence. I'll be honest, it bothers me that someone could do so much damage to our country and intelligence community and walk in 6 years. Does this embolden other potential leakers?
here is Obama's rationale, fwiw
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...manning-233781
and an article as to why he cant pardon Snowden
http://www.newsweek.com/why-obama-wo...den-nsa-538632
She served 7+ of her 8-35 yr sentence. All of the info she leaked was Secret or lower, which although important, it actually isn't all that high of a classification. She didn't run, turned herself in, didn't fight the charges (pled guilty), and still got the absolute max sentence. Average sentence for people in similar situations is 3-5 years. Granted, no previous leak has been this large.
7 years in prison, much of it in Solitary, should be enough to buy the silence of other potential leakers.
She's been in for 7 years. I don't know how that compares with comparable felons who confessed. I doubt her getting out in 7 years will embolden anyone to do the same thing.Originally Posted by Rocker Ute
That said, I don't agree with the commutation. On the subject in general, President Obama has been a lot tougher on leakers that his predecessors.
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so"
- Will Rogers
"Cyberspace is - or can be - a good, friendly and egalitarian place to meet. "
- Douglas Adams
I'm popping off... never mind. I'll summarize by saying I also don't agree with the commutation given the gravity of what was done.
Last edited by Rocker Ute; 01-18-2017 at 03:10 PM.
From Commentary:
The harsh treatment imposed on Manning before his trial was an example of the Obama administration’s crackdown on whistleblowers. Obama’s antipathy toward leakers was shared by a variety of Democrats, including figures like Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, who authored legislation authorizing streamlined the prosecution of those who mishandle classified materials as a response to Manning’s releases.
“This disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy,” said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.”
“We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our own decisions about how the laws operate,” President Barack Obama added. “He broke the law.” The president was admonished by activists for prejudging Manning’s guilt before trial, but the case the Justice Department brought against WikiLeaks and Manning revealed the seriousness with which the administration took this violation.
The government’s case was a strong one. “I could’ve sold to Russia or China, and made [a lot of money],” Private Manning wrote in an online conversation with the hacker Adrian Lamo, who eventually turned him in. Lamo told investigators that Manning believed the information to which he had access was “public data.” Some of that which was released by WikiLeaks included the revelation that the late Saudi King Abdullah urged the U.S. to strike Iranian nuclear targets and that the U.S was keeping bombers at the ready to attack al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Cables released by Manning to WikiLeaks also revealed that Zimbabwean opposition figures were in contact with U.S. diplomatic officials, allowing Robert Mugabe’s dictatorial government to discredit them.
“China made ample use of the WikiLeaks cables to incite a witch-hunt against every academic and human rights activist named in the cables–and of course many who were not–for passing information to Washington. This applied especially to Tibetans and Muslim Uyghurs,” wrote the U.K.-based columnist Kyle Orton. As the Associated Press reported at the time, prosecutors produced an “uncontested written statement that former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden asked for and received from an associate the Afghanistan battlefield reports that WikiLeaks published.”
Manning’s far-left defenders have latched onto the contention established at trial that no one was killed as a direct result of the WikiLeaks dump, but this is a tendentious assertion. At issue is the claim that members of the Taliban killed a tribal elder terrorists alleged had been outed by Manning’s revelations, but that claim was rendered dubious because the murdered individual’s name was not on the list of U.S. informants in those documents. Because it could not be firmly established, the court sustained a defense objection and struck the matter from the record. That does not mean, as Manning’s credulous devotees insist, that this killing was unrelated to these leaks. It very likely was.
Witnesses at Manning’s trial testified in detail to the ways in which America’s mission in Afghanistan had become more difficult as a result of the leaker’s actions. They outlined the extent to which individuals who worked with Americans were forced to go into hiding as a result of Manning’s leaks. Government prosecutors brought such a strong case that they secured not only a theft and espionage conviction but the longest prison sentence ever imposed on a leaker of state secrets.
Then Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning.
Even those liberals who prided themselves on their unwavering resolve on matters related to national security went soft on Manning after he became a she. A fluffy profile of Manning in the New York Times last week presaged Obama’s commutation. “Chelsea Manning Describes a Bleak Life in a Men’s Prison,” the Times declared. The piece betrays the headline’s lie. The report describes in detail Manning’s “special status” at Fort Leavenworth. There, Manning receives hormone treatment, wears makeup, and meets with lawyers in a secure information facility specially constructed just for Manning. The only maltreatment the report alleges is the contention that Manning is unclear about whether or not Manning will receive taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgery.
This contrived victim status is, it seems, all it took to transform Democrats who were previously unsympathetic toward Manning into anti-“deep state” activists and agitators. There is no justification for Obama’s commutation save the alleged tribulations Manning has endured in prison while serving time for imperiling American national security. Republicans do seem to be of two minds on Assange these days, and that’s a shameful hypocrisy. Democrats, it seems, are keen on embracing traitors who have a reasonable claim to persecuted minority status. Which is worse?
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/democrats-chelsea-manning-hypocrisy/
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"I heard that Commentary was going to merge with Dissent to become Dysentery."
Woody Allen, "Annie Hall"
For what it is worth, here are some of the highlights of the info leaked by Manning. In addition to this there was the info about Gitmo torture, the Rendition program, and the "Collateral Murder" video which showed US troops firing indiscriminately on group of people (mostly civilians) and then fire again when ambulances or medics would arrive to assist.
• 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.
I think I know the uncited source of this list and it is interesting the stuff they left out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting on a phone through Tapatalk while trying to get the kids to bed is challenge enough.
Here is the source.
https://www.thenation.com/article/lo...ivate-manning/
Yeah, as I was alluding to, not the most objective source.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those look like conclusions based on someone's interpretation of the information. All are devastating. Not surprising with The Nation as the source. Here's a view from an equally objective source on the other side:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12553/...ichael-qazvini
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by LA Ute; 01-20-2017 at 09:50 AM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
And LA's ultra-neo-conservative Commentary Mag source is objective?
Manning did a bad thing and released damaging info, was convicted on espionage charges (not Treason), and served 7+ years of an 8-35 yr sentence, which is longer than any other similar conviction.
But some of the released info was proof of covering up war crimes. As we know from the Nuremberg trials, 'simply following orders' is not sufficient cover when actions go against the Geneva Convention.
We are not all that far removed from the My Lai Massacre, and don't forget that the three US servicemen who attempted to stop the massacre were also labeled as traitors.
Hell, Lt Calley only served 3-1/2 years under house arrest for ordering and compelling his platoon to execute that massacre.
Last edited by NorthwestUteFan; 01-20-2017 at 10:55 AM.
Of course Commentary is not objective. It's an opinion journal! You were quoting The Nation as a source of facts.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Comparing sentences is a dangerous, and usually pointless game.
The guy who tried to shoot me only served 17 months.
Our legal system has never been built to hand out consistent equal sentences. It can't even hand our consistent bail amounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Manning was found guilty of crimes with a max sentence of 136 years, not 35, she was sentenced to 35. She released info that has chilled communication and done damage that is inestimable. She claimed to have gone through what she released but there is no way with 750k documents and cables. In fact there is evidence she didn't even understand what she leaked.
Plus when people cite a 'typical' 3-5 year sentence they are comparing leaks of a few documents to people who aren't our enemies. Not hundreds of thousands of classified documents to our enemies.
People would be losing their minds if Trump came and commuted her sentence tomorrow.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't disagree that Manning has done harm. She had no idea what she was doing and was essentially a bumbling idiot in the whole process.
I was just trying to show a few positives that came out if the revelations as our democracy relies on the government following the rules, and being at least nominally transparent (e.g. not covering up war crimes, though we obviously are extremely good at it over the last 7 decades).
At times I'm conflicted about disclosures.
When is it correct for someone who has run out of official procedural options to correct a wrong to become a whistle blower?
And when does an ethical whistle blower become an enemy of the country by releasing enormous volumes of classified information without regard to the content or the damage that could or will be done to the country?
In Snowden's and Manning's cases they released enormous volumes of information without regard to the damage it caused. If Manning had given the collateral murder video and perhaps an additional handful of cables to the NY Times, for example, I would be sympathetic, if not congratulatory. Disclosing 750,000 documents to a scumbag like Assange is inexcusable. Seven years in prison is a lot. Not enough in my mind, but certainly not a slap on the wrist.
A similar case can be made for Snowden. Disclosing the illegal NSA surveillance of domestic communications was fair game, ethical and correct. The volume of very damaging information he gave to the enemies of our country makes me want to see him rot in prison, or a gulag.
There's a line somewhere between whistle blower and traitor. I don't how to define the line, but I have no doubt in my mind that Snowden and Manning crossed it and both did much more harm than good.
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so"
- Will Rogers
"Cyberspace is - or can be - a good, friendly and egalitarian place to meet. "
- Douglas Adams
If Manning writes a book or goes on a speaking tour I would love to see all her profits diverted to an appropriate non-profit. Maybe the USO.
Last edited by LA Ute; 01-22-2017 at 08:33 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
You sum up my thoughts well. I originally asked because I know you spent a career with a deep understanding of the requirements around classified information. It is tough to draw a line but obvious ones are the volume and to whom the info is released. Like you said, releasing to media that sort of stuff, and you could be effective releasing just some things or direct damning evidence is the role of a whistleblower. Intent to embarrass and disgrace along with endangering lives include those of the US citizenry is to be a traitor.
Snowden'a only hope of a long life is to convince the public he is actually a good guy and a patriot. He has worked very hard trying to do that. If he can't and remains in Russia he'll live as long as he is politically expedient. If he remains in the public eye he'll be that. When that stops he'll mysteriously disappear.
I will back off one thing upon further thought. Manning is obviously very mentally ill. People have been very worried about her transsexualism but not much is being said about the obvious psychological help she needs. I hope she gets that and so a little mercy should be extended.
But she doesn't deserve book deals and speaking tours, which she'll likely get.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yup
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so"
- Will Rogers
"Cyberspace is - or can be - a good, friendly and egalitarian place to meet. "
- Douglas Adams
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote