Chelsea Manning released from prison(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Chelsea Manning released from prison
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/chelsea-manning-release/index.html
306 comments
Unfortunately, many of the people that need convincing with regards to net neutrality and online rights also view her as a traitor with mental problems and thus "normal, patriotic Americans" should not worry about these things, except to prevent "liberals" from creating more "regulations" for companies and putting up barriers to keep our law enforcement from finding the "terrorists'" plans.
I don't know why other posters are disputing your assertions.
Lets cut through all the noise and look at the President's uncut opinion on net neutrality.
>Donald J. Trump Verified account
>@realDonaldTrump
>Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
So there, that's what about one third of the country are led to believe about net neutrality. Just like with all the fake news recently, facts and rebuttals don't help one bit, and make the believers believe even more in their own "facts".
Good luck getting Breitbart and conservative radio on board with NN, they are fundamentally opposed to anything Obama did, plus are skeptical of govt regulations and there is a lot of money to be made from the cable industry fight on NN.
Lets cut through all the noise and look at the President's uncut opinion on net neutrality.
>Donald J. Trump Verified account
>@realDonaldTrump
>Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716...
So there, that's what about one third of the country are led to believe about net neutrality. Just like with all the fake news recently, facts and rebuttals don't help one bit, and make the believers believe even more in their own "facts".
Good luck getting Breitbart and conservative radio on board with NN, they are fundamentally opposed to anything Obama did, plus are skeptical of govt regulations and there is a lot of money to be made from the cable industry fight on NN.
This is so bass akwards, but of course as a non tech based septuagenarian it's not like I expected him to have an actually informed decision on this important issue.
But if anything net neutrality protects the voices of smaller media which, other than fox, many conservative media e.g. breitbart fall into that category. CNN wouldn't like it but they could pay for a network fast lane, Alex Jones or TheBlaze wouldn't nearly be able to compete!
But if anything net neutrality protects the voices of smaller media which, other than fox, many conservative media e.g. breitbart fall into that category. CNN wouldn't like it but they could pay for a network fast lane, Alex Jones or TheBlaze wouldn't nearly be able to compete!
[deleted]
I heard that same canard posted on conservative blogs about two years ago.
That whole argument makes no sense, but given where it comes from one of Trump's advisers probably whispered it into his ear.
That whole argument makes no sense, but given where it comes from one of Trump's advisers probably whispered it into his ear.
There's a cynical beauty in successfully making your entire position:
"Don't trust anyone who contradicts me".
Also unfortunately, those pro net neutrality are never willing to accept they may be wrong or may not see the complete picture and therefor assumptions they are correct follow with no chance of changing it. I suggest you and those like you get your ego in check and quit trying to convince people that what you believe to be correct is in fact the only truth because it's pure opinion, on both sides of the argument and the "I'm smarter than you" liberal/left-leaning attitude is way beyond old already.
This comment is so loaded with strawmen and vitriol I don't think it meets our communities comment guidelines.
I'd give it more up-votes if I could.
Yes, but it's still true, as my own conversations with conservative in-laws shows.
And in my case, quite false as a conservative with many conservative friends that disagree with your anecdote. This is always the problem, personal anecdotes rarely equal data.
The problem here (and the reason you are getting downvoted, I believe) is you think your anecdote of your friends' opinions trumps falcolas' anecdote about his/her family as untrue, instead of imagining the colorful world it is with various shades of conservatism living side by side.
For what its worth, I have family that believe like grandparent's family. Your anecdotes cannot convince them or me what their beliefs really are. This line of opinion does exist.
For what its worth, I have family that believe like grandparent's family. Your anecdotes cannot convince them or me what their beliefs really are. This line of opinion does exist.
We know the real reason for down votes is it's voicing support for conservative views and questions the HN group think bubble.
You can dress it up with whatever fancy logic you want, HN commenters are as bias and unthinking as any others.
You can dress it up with whatever fancy logic you want, HN commenters are as bias and unthinking as any others.
The original comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC didn't characterize conservative views or conservative ideology on this issue; they characterized what many people believed.
Empirically, this is true.
If those many people are wrong on net neutrality because they do not understand the issues, why is it that HN commenters are the biased and unthinking ones?
Empirically, this is true.
If those many people are wrong on net neutrality because they do not understand the issues, why is it that HN commenters are the biased and unthinking ones?
You can not change what you do not try to understand, you cant deconstruct something you keep from trespassing in your mind.
If you put the fingers in your ears and sing lalala i cant hear you- you end what might have been a discussion. I found most conservatives i met not to reactionary dictator supporters. They are just people with reasonable concerns, finding and in constant fear of some radical social discussion dominance bombers showing up shutting any chance on discussion with a warcrime down.
If you put the fingers in your ears and sing lalala i cant hear you- you end what might have been a discussion. I found most conservatives i met not to reactionary dictator supporters. They are just people with reasonable concerns, finding and in constant fear of some radical social discussion dominance bombers showing up shutting any chance on discussion with a warcrime down.
Well unfortunately, you and your conservative friends differ in opinion from the conservatives elected into power, which is who we're talking about. People's anecdotes don't matter; it's the prevailing opinion fed to the masses through conservative politicians and media that needs to change.
It's really not. Some people do feel this way and pointing it out isn't vitriol.
The worst thing that can happen to a cause is some crazy jackass being held up by the media as the spokesperson.
I was on board for the tea party until the media grabbed a few nut bags and made them the de facto spokespeople for the cause. It was purely about limited government until it got co-opted.
The worst thing that can happen to a cause is some crazy jackass being held up by the media as the spokesperson.
I was on board for the tea party until the media grabbed a few nut bags and made them the de facto spokespeople for the cause. It was purely about limited government until it got co-opted.
I feel as though I am gathered at the feet of a dispirited grandparent, being told tales of the purity they would have espoused if they hadn't been so rudely interrupted by the persistent existence of the world undermining their certainty.
In my hay days the youth still behaved.. We were stealing apples all day. Todays youth..they form a line to the shop that would make the krauts proud.
I think you're falling prey to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. All political groups have multiple goals (as they have multiple people in them, it is inevitable). Politics is the coordination of these goals.
Perhaps. But I would argue that the media plays a large part in undermining any movement they don't like.
They get to pick the person who they hand the microphone to and they will pick the craziest bat-shit insane person for that role if they don't like what your selling.
I'm just speaking from experience.
They get to pick the person who they hand the microphone to and they will pick the craziest bat-shit insane person for that role if they don't like what your selling.
I'm just speaking from experience.
The only legitimate role of government is to protect capital!
I took the copious use of quotation marks in the comment to indicate that it was a caricature of a type of opinion that, sadly, is out there.
Effecting change still takes time and effort. That requires people putting the time in, regardless if they themselves aren't a persuasive spokesperson with a mainstream audience. There's much work to be done to push the ideas out to a wider audience.
For one thing she is certainly more credible not being in prison.
For one thing she is certainly more credible not being in prison.
I'm hoping she takes some time (at least a few months) to visit friends and family and unwind from her time in prison before the media ensnares her, even a little.
(warning - not intellectually gratifying)
For selfish reasons I hope she sort of fades from public attention, just so I don't keep having Elvis Costello stuck in my head every time she's in the news.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvRQDsH0Yho )
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvRQDsH0Yho )
No one is going to ask her anything about net neutrality. They'll ask her how she was treated, what she's going to do next and how she feels about the previous and current administration. She'll say something mildly negative about Trump. Trump will tweet about it, and everyone will start talking about Trump's tweet.
unfortunately the fact she is trans will make her an easy target to smear
How are Manning and Net Neutrality even related subjects and when did Manning become a telecom expert?
"During one of his final acts in office, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence in January, thereby giving her an early release date."
For anyone else wondering where this is coming from.
For anyone else wondering where this is coming from.
While I'm very pleased that President Obama commuted the sentence of Ms. Manning, I'm also disappointed that he did not do more to change the policy about classifying information that allows classification to be used as a form of propaganda (by classifying the stuff that contradicts the message we're meant to believe about a war).
Don't mean to be a pendant, but he didn't pardon her. Officially her punishment was commuted. The former forgives the crime and the latter simply reduces the penalty for the crime.
Don't mean to be pedantic, but the word is pedant (a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning), not pendant (a piece of jewellery that hangs from a chain worn round the neck).
The mispelling may have been intended as an ironic joke.
There's actually a running joke on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast about this very thing. Several years ago they received an ironic pedantic correction from a listener who, in the correction, mistakenly used the word "pendatic". It's been a joke there ever since.
[deleted]
Appreciate the correction. I knew the correct status but was multitasking and got sloppy. Corrected my comment.
Now the question is: will Assange follow up with his promise?
For those wondering, WikiLeaks claimed[0] that they'll agree to Assange being extradited to the US if Obama grants clemency to Manning, but later on Assange's lawyers said[1] that this was only applicable if Manning gets released immediately, and that the deal Obama gave was still not enough for Assange to agree to be extradited.
[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713
[1] http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawye...
[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713
[1] http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawye...
Clemency would mean that she was pardoned, yes? But she was merely released early on a commuted sentence.
He has since amended his requirements. Listen to his interview here: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19/intercepted-podcast-juli...
"Amended his requirements" aka "Oh shit, I didn't think you'd actually do it. I was only kidding!"
> "Amended his requirements" aka "Oh shit, I didn't think you'd actually do it. I was only kidding!"
?
He was never going to do it in the first place. Do you really think that a president would reverse a pardon if Julian Assange did not stand by his words?
?
He was never going to do it in the first place. Do you really think that a president would reverse a pardon if Julian Assange did not stand by his words?
I think you misunderstood what I meant
>He was never going to do it in the first place.
That is what I was implying. Julian didn't think Obama would actually commute the sentence so said he'd turn himself in for free PR points.
>He was never going to do it in the first place.
That is what I was implying. Julian didn't think Obama would actually commute the sentence so said he'd turn himself in for free PR points.
Not to mention that it is the Swedes that want to talk to him. The US hasn't called for his extradition.
> The US hasn't called for his extradition.
Maybe not. But I don't think he decided to spend 3-4 years in the Ecuadorian UK embassy because he's having fun there.
Maybe not. But I don't think he decided to spend 3-4 years in the Ecuadorian UK embassy because he's having fun there.
We don't know if the US would call for his extradition and neither does he. I understand why he would try to play it safe. I still think he should be on trial for that alleged rape.
'Alleged rape' is a term loaded with propaganda for what he is accused of, especially taking into account what the witnesses have to say about the incidents.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
To my knowledge, that ist what he is wanted for in Sweden. If there is a better way to express that, I would like to hear it.
To my knowledge, that ist what he is wanted for in Sweden. If there is a better way to express that, I would like to hear it.
Good thing he wasnt sentenced to embassy arrest for 15 years- that would be something we usually only do to murders.
I thought he just liked the cat
Can I get a timecode? That is a long audio file and I apparently can't quess the right keywords to find it in the transcript.
Edit: I have now listened to the whole thing and there seems to be no mention of that offer as far as I can tell. So either I missed it, you mistakenly linked the wrong interview, this is anti-Assange Propaganda you hope nobody is going to check too closely, or it is guerilla marketing for the intercept.
Edit: I have now listened to the whole thing and there seems to be no mention of that offer as far as I can tell. So either I missed it, you mistakenly linked the wrong interview, this is anti-Assange Propaganda you hope nobody is going to check too closely, or it is guerilla marketing for the intercept.
Neither. I listened to the whole thing and Jeremy asked specifically what it would take to get him to leave the embassy.
Do you seriously think that this half-measure is sufficient to call him out on it though?
It seems to me to be too little (clemency instead of a pardon) too late (she already spent a horrific amount of time under torturous conditions in prison).
It seems to me to be too little (clemency instead of a pardon) too late (she already spent a horrific amount of time under torturous conditions in prison).
[deleted]
Sort of. She's on unpaid active duty with the Army still while her appeals wind through the legal system, and thus subject to the UCMJ.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/14/chel...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/14/chel...
This is what I was going to remark on and maybe someone can clarify, but I don't believe the Army has any such thing as "unpaid active duty". The military doesn't just make up stuff like that. If you're on active duty, you're getting a check and accrueing time in service. Seems like sloppy reporting. Also considering:
> After the 2013 sentencing, the ex-intelligence agent changed her name to Chelsea Manning and identified as transgender.
Enlisted MI are hardly 'intelligence agents'.
> After the 2013 sentencing, the ex-intelligence agent changed her name to Chelsea Manning and identified as transgender.
Enlisted MI are hardly 'intelligence agents'.
There certainly are methods of punishment the Army uses which includes taking one's pay while they are on active duty. It's not clear to me though how it's done in Manning's case.
Edit: NBC reports it as voluntary excess leave. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chelsea-manning-set-be-r...
Edit: NBC reports it as voluntary excess leave. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chelsea-manning-set-be-r...
That's not entirely true, there are plenty of CI positions with the enlisted ranks within all branches of service. Many of the enlisted service members are also billeted within other government agencies (NSA, CIA, etc) where there titles are considered "Agent" roles. This would also include job roles with the "operator" designation, which are not solely SOF based.
I signed the petition. I am cynical and really don't take much civic action; but this helped. This taught me to be less cynical; she taught me to be more courageous.
Thank you Chelsea, welcome home
Thank you Chelsea, welcome home
I have very mixed feelings about what Manning did. I also respect the moral courage it took to do them, and to face the consequences.
I think she served a more than adequate punishment for her crime (if anything, she should have only had serve something less than 5 years).. and I wish her all the happiness that life has to offer.
Her punishment was illegal under the 8th amendment, and her "crime" was protected whistleblowing.
I don't think putting someone in extended solitary confinement is reasonable in almost any circumstance (and very not reasonable in this case). But I don't think what she did is protected whistleblowing (she basically aired the 'sausage making' of US foreign and military policy, not highlighted a specific violation of US law) - on the other hand, I think the length of the sentence ought to be proportional to the gravity of the crime.. 35 years is overkill by an order of magnitude, she should have gotten 1-5 years.. with 2 being an ideal.
[deleted]
Hopefully, she doesn't disappear, but uses her popularity to stand up and fight for what she believes.
It's honestly up to her. One could easily argue that in the cause of freedom, she's already (literally) done her time; someone else's turn to step up.
She's been in prison for ~7 years, and I'll bet it was a pretty strict prison. I'm prepared to let her recovery and heal first. She is under no obligation to be under the spotlight from tomorrow.
She's still in the Army. Her ability to talk freely is very limited right now. Only when she's discharged will she be able to talk.
> She was released from United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas around 3 a.m.
3am?! A parting kick to the head, or a ploy to avoid publicity?
3am?! A parting kick to the head, or a ploy to avoid publicity?
I hope she's alright after this; there might be people literally gunning for her, even if she wasn't trans.
I think the "having been a whistleblower in the most powerful government on the planet" part of Chelsea's story is considerably more risky than the "is transgendered" part. There aren't many people running around "gunning for" trans people in the same sense that there are people "gunning for" informants. Primarily in the sense that in the latter case they use actual guns.
You might be surprised at how dangerous it is to be trans. Wikipedia maintains a list of unlawfully killed trans people at this page[1]
I guess there are more trans people than informants so maybe there's some statistical point to be made there, but frankly I'm not sure why you picked this nit to begin with. I think it's important to recognize, rather than downplay the risks faced by marginalized groups in the US and elsewhere.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran...
I guess there are more trans people than informants so maybe there's some statistical point to be made there, but frankly I'm not sure why you picked this nit to begin with. I think it's important to recognize, rather than downplay the risks faced by marginalized groups in the US and elsewhere.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran...
I wasn't downplaying anything - and suggesting that I'm "downplaying the risks faced by marginalised groups" kind of poisons the well doesn't it? I was just questioning the idea that there are people out there "gunning for" trans people in a sense that is comparable to the rate that informants and whistleblowers are killed. I also have to point out that quite a small proportion of the linked murders seem to be hate crimes - and that trans women in the sex trade are at an even higher risk of murder or violence due to their work. I have every sympathy for victims of hate crimes, but to suggest that the average trans person is somehow at comparable risk of violent death to a government leaker is fallacious and that's what I was pointing out.
If you publish an unedited photograph, you could reasonably say that your photograph contains only the truth, and you can't be criticized for it. But if all of your photographs are of immigrants committing crimes, the fact that you've used your discretion to focus on this issue is nonetheless a political statement that's subject to criticism.
Similarly, if you go on social media to make posts about how being trans is not as dangerous as people seem to be implying, even if it contains a grain of statistical truth, you are making a certain point. Again, I think it's important to "photograph" the oppression faced by marginalized groups than to highlight ways this oppression is supposedly exaggerated.
Your point about my poisoning the well suggests you think I was trying to "call you out" or attack you, but that's not the case. I think we have a reasonable meta-disagreement about whether there is a political knock-on effect of highlighting different statistics or narratives. It's a disagreement two people of good faith can have.
Similarly, if you go on social media to make posts about how being trans is not as dangerous as people seem to be implying, even if it contains a grain of statistical truth, you are making a certain point. Again, I think it's important to "photograph" the oppression faced by marginalized groups than to highlight ways this oppression is supposedly exaggerated.
Your point about my poisoning the well suggests you think I was trying to "call you out" or attack you, but that's not the case. I think we have a reasonable meta-disagreement about whether there is a political knock-on effect of highlighting different statistics or narratives. It's a disagreement two people of good faith can have.
> unlawfully killed trans people
As a Dutch person I was very confused for a minute, but then I remembered there are indeed lawfully killed people in other countries.
(And while writing this, I remembered euthanesia is legal here, but that's not killing in my mind because the person chose it for themselves and the given reason cannot be an external, solvable condition.)
As a Dutch person I was very confused for a minute, but then I remembered there are indeed lawfully killed people in other countries.
(And while writing this, I remembered euthanesia is legal here, but that's not killing in my mind because the person chose it for themselves and the given reason cannot be an external, solvable condition.)
There are also accidental deaths, in which a person is killed, but it is not ruled unlawful.
It looks like it's particularly dangerous to be trans and black, and also very dangerous to be trans and hispanic, at least in the US over the past few years. It looks like Manning doesn't have much to worry about, at least for being trans.
my impression is that black culture (so as to distinguish it from race) is extremely homophobic
Trans people are safe in very few places in the world.
Although there are some places where they're more accepted than gay people or than they are the western world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-introduce... gender identity and expression has been added to Human Rights in British Columbia. But even here it's a recent development and the so called BC Liberals (in reality, they are conservatives, hello weird Canadian politics where the provincial parties have nothing to do with federal parties) voted down Mr. Chandra Herbert several times before turning around and introducing the bill themselves.
No place is safe considering the majority violent cause of death among trans people is suicide.
I wonder why that is... Maybe the social isolation and pervasive hatred and mocking attitude of society has something to do with it?
Fear, confusion, rejection, hostility, being cut off from your family...
I worried about all these things and all I was doing was coming out as gay. And I live in the UK, which has strong legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender, and a relatively accepting culture.
I can only imagine it was a thousand times worse to come out as trans. Or even to understand it in yourself - again, this took me years and I was "merely" discovering that I was gay.
I worried about all these things and all I was doing was coming out as gay. And I live in the UK, which has strong legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender, and a relatively accepting culture.
I can only imagine it was a thousand times worse to come out as trans. Or even to understand it in yourself - again, this took me years and I was "merely" discovering that I was gay.
Sophie Labelle was hacked and forced out of her home by Nazis the other day. Openly trans people are very much in danger even in 2017.
https://www.facebook.com/sophievlabelle/posts/18847957251286...
https://www.facebook.com/sophievlabelle/posts/18847957251286...
Plenty of trans women are murdered around the world on a daily basis, and yes, including the USA.
I'm going to have to ask for a citation confirming that trans people (there are trans men too) are killed on a daily basis in the USA. That sounds like hyperbole.
"including the USA" can be read as a qualifying statement that those murders include people in the USA, not necessarily that trans people are murdered on a daily basis in the USA.
oh right, I understand. That makes a lot more sense.
Yes there are about as many trans men as trans women, but trans women are at a higher risk of violence.
Here's some more reading: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran...
Here's some more reading: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran...
Id say there is some overlap between the two groups..
But he was not a whistleblower, there was nothing important to leak besides bunch of state's secrets. The leaks held no value.
I'd argue that the Collateral Murder videos triggered considerable controversy and criticism against the US military's attitude to airstrikes. The cable leaks also caused a fair amount of political embarrassment. So it depends on what you consider to be valuable - I'd say direct evidence of airstrikes being triggered against civilians with minimal oversight alone is valuable to a citizenry that wants to keep tabs on military accountability and push for change.
If Manning had only leaked the video in an attempt to bring light on what she perceived as a war crime, she would've had a case as a whistleblower. Indiscriminately leaking thousands of documents where she had no idea of the contents, is not whistleblowing. That's why she ended up with the sentence that she did.
and yet her sentence was commuted where Snowden remains a fugitive.
Yeah, thats quite the wrong sort of airstrike. The good sort of airstrike is, where you sneak in the middle of the night in some village, where one bad guy sleeps - kill him, get caught - wake everyone up, and get in a chaotic shoot out with a medieval village, where raids by neighboring warlords are the norm.
Then when you get wounded you call a airstrike and eliminate the village.
One has to give it to the drone warriors- at least they send the commando duke of hazards to the unemployment office.
Then when you get wounded you call a airstrike and eliminate the village.
One has to give it to the drone warriors- at least they send the commando duke of hazards to the unemployment office.
Didn't she disclose the information on the video 'Collateral Murder' that was subsequently subject to a FOIA request?
I think you mean _she_.
I think he meant exactly what he meant. Wasn't Manning still identifying as "he" when the leaks were done? Or was she already transitioned at that point?
I hate this whole walking on eggshells around gender/identity politics. It detracts from the discussion for no valid reason.
I hate this whole walking on eggshells around gender/identity politics. It detracts from the discussion for no valid reason.
There aren't really any eggshells to walk on unless you're inventing them (and the person you replied to was not impolite about the correction). Chelsea Manning identifies as a woman. This isn't something that happens overnight; it's impossible for you or I or the great-grandparent to know when Manning decided to come out to family, friends, that sort of thing. As such, it's incumbent upon us to use the most currently, and thus least likely to inadvertently offend, pronoun and referents. (This is also why it is poor form to use a trans person's pre-transition name when referring to them in the past tense. In my experience, if a trans person would rather be described using that prior name or prior pronouns for his or her prior self, he or she will let you know.)
We're just gonna have to respectfully agree to disagree on some of this.
I don't go out of my way to be insensitive, but I'm not going to flush my DVD of The Matrix down the Memory Hole because it has "Wachowski Brothers" stamped on it. If the Wachowskis put out a new movie today, I'll reference them appropriately as the Wachowski sisters who produced it, but they simply weren't sisters when they created The Matrix, and I'll continue to reference the creators of that movie as brothers.
I saw a similar rewriting of history upstream in this thread, and I just can't let that slide. In fact, this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong, so there can really be no "correction" to call out. Someone (Manning) changed the rules mid-game, so it must be expected and tolerated that not everyone will parse the output of the remainder of the game to their liking.
I don't go out of my way to be insensitive, but I'm not going to flush my DVD of The Matrix down the Memory Hole because it has "Wachowski Brothers" stamped on it. If the Wachowskis put out a new movie today, I'll reference them appropriately as the Wachowski sisters who produced it, but they simply weren't sisters when they created The Matrix, and I'll continue to reference the creators of that movie as brothers.
I saw a similar rewriting of history upstream in this thread, and I just can't let that slide. In fact, this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong, so there can really be no "correction" to call out. Someone (Manning) changed the rules mid-game, so it must be expected and tolerated that not everyone will parse the output of the remainder of the game to their liking.
Just out of curiosity, what happens to your perception of the importance of what someone should be called when a change of gender is taken out of the mix?
For instance, when Muhammad Ali won a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics and the heavyweight title in 1964, he was still going by his "slave name" of Cassius Clay; do you think it is reasonable - either for anyone or for someone who watched the matches at the time - to refer to the 1964 heavyweight champion as Cassius Clay, or should they just call him Muhammad Ali?
Women also frequently change their name, sometimes more than once, throughout their lives; if a woman marries and takes the name of her husband, or divorces and resumes use of her maiden name, would you continue to refer to her by her former name, even in reference to events that took place during her use of it, or would you simply update your nomenclature without complaint?
For instance, when Muhammad Ali won a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics and the heavyweight title in 1964, he was still going by his "slave name" of Cassius Clay; do you think it is reasonable - either for anyone or for someone who watched the matches at the time - to refer to the 1964 heavyweight champion as Cassius Clay, or should they just call him Muhammad Ali?
Women also frequently change their name, sometimes more than once, throughout their lives; if a woman marries and takes the name of her husband, or divorces and resumes use of her maiden name, would you continue to refer to her by her former name, even in reference to events that took place during her use of it, or would you simply update your nomenclature without complaint?
If Manning comes out and says that she is comfortable with the use of her prior name (there is a reason that in the trans community that prior name is referred to as one's "dead name", you get me?) and prior gender assignation, then sure, go for it.
Until then, I'm afraid that there's not really a whole heck of a lot that's respectful about your disagreement. Trans folks as a whole overwhelmingly evince preference for not having their prior name or gender identity thrown around and trans folks very regularly remain in the closet publicly even when they are out to friends and family, making your assumptions based on...well, not a whole heck of a lot. Unless you've read something I haven't (totally possible, but you'll forgive me if I doubt it), you have no idea of timing or the propriety here and so the presumption of her gender identity at that point is kinda actually really mean. You may have good intentions, but you're pissing in the pool and you should stop.
Until then, I'm afraid that there's not really a whole heck of a lot that's respectful about your disagreement. Trans folks as a whole overwhelmingly evince preference for not having their prior name or gender identity thrown around and trans folks very regularly remain in the closet publicly even when they are out to friends and family, making your assumptions based on...well, not a whole heck of a lot. Unless you've read something I haven't (totally possible, but you'll forgive me if I doubt it), you have no idea of timing or the propriety here and so the presumption of her gender identity at that point is kinda actually really mean. You may have good intentions, but you're pissing in the pool and you should stop.
Nobody is "rewriting history," that's absurd.
>this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong
It's not some sort of edge case, the "right," (polite) way to refer to someone is the way they prefer to be refereed as. If someone named James introduces themselves as "Jimmy" and you refer to him as "James" and he says "it's Jimmy" and you say "Nuh uh your name on your birth certificate is James, you're wrong I'm right!!" you are just being a dick.
People change what they like to be called during their life all the time, that's not new nor is it an edge case. Kid nicknames go to the wayside of adult names/nicknames. I've known a "Peggie" who changed to "Margaret," an "Anthony" who changed to "Tony," and a "Robbie" who is now "Bob." In fact, many/most women change their name at some point in the future. It's normal/accepted/polite to call someone by their current name/pronoun even when referring to past actions.
If I recall a childhood story about my friend Tony I'm going to call him Tony in the story even if he went by Anthony at the time. It's weird/confusing/stupid to do otherwise and certainly not "rewriting history" or "changing the rules."
>this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong
It's not some sort of edge case, the "right," (polite) way to refer to someone is the way they prefer to be refereed as. If someone named James introduces themselves as "Jimmy" and you refer to him as "James" and he says "it's Jimmy" and you say "Nuh uh your name on your birth certificate is James, you're wrong I'm right!!" you are just being a dick.
People change what they like to be called during their life all the time, that's not new nor is it an edge case. Kid nicknames go to the wayside of adult names/nicknames. I've known a "Peggie" who changed to "Margaret," an "Anthony" who changed to "Tony," and a "Robbie" who is now "Bob." In fact, many/most women change their name at some point in the future. It's normal/accepted/polite to call someone by their current name/pronoun even when referring to past actions.
If I recall a childhood story about my friend Tony I'm going to call him Tony in the story even if he went by Anthony at the time. It's weird/confusing/stupid to do otherwise and certainly not "rewriting history" or "changing the rules."
Do you believe that a person's gender is irrevocably tied to their biology? Do you believe in gender dysphoria? If so, how do you think it should be handled by society?
>it's incumbent upon us to use the most currently, and thus least likely to inadvertently offend, pronoun and referents
This only follows if the value of "not saying something that would be offensive to someone who isn't even party to the conversation" (a value which we violate without a second thought, sometimes even gleefully, when it doesn't involve an anointed "social justice" issue) outweighs the value of "communicating clearly and accurately". Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
It's one thing to request that people call you by a certain name and pronoun now - it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
This only follows if the value of "not saying something that would be offensive to someone who isn't even party to the conversation" (a value which we violate without a second thought, sometimes even gleefully, when it doesn't involve an anointed "social justice" issue) outweighs the value of "communicating clearly and accurately". Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
It's one thing to request that people call you by a certain name and pronoun now - it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
> Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. But using 'he' as a pronoun, even for things in the past, is weird and confusing. Do you call Marilyn Monroe 'Norma Jeane Mortenson' when talking about her childhood? No, of course not, because that confuse people.
Manning has been Chelsea and used 'she' for 4 years now, people now know her as a woman, and it makes sense to use that pronoun. Back in 2013, when Manning first came out as trans, maybe it would be alright to say 'Bradley' for a day or two when talking about her transition. But not now.
> it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
Quite frankly, it feel like you're just doing this to be transphobic and invalidate her identity.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. But using 'he' as a pronoun, even for things in the past, is weird and confusing. Do you call Marilyn Monroe 'Norma Jeane Mortenson' when talking about her childhood? No, of course not, because that confuse people.
Manning has been Chelsea and used 'she' for 4 years now, people now know her as a woman, and it makes sense to use that pronoun. Back in 2013, when Manning first came out as trans, maybe it would be alright to say 'Bradley' for a day or two when talking about her transition. But not now.
> it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
Quite frankly, it feel like you're just doing this to be transphobic and invalidate her identity.
So if if you talk about your married friend using their married name you are pretending they were never unmarried?
> even if she wasn't trans
Who is gunning trans (just because they are trans)?
Who is gunning trans (just because they are trans)?
Probably most notable case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena (the story was made into the movie Boys Don't Cry). You can find quite a few more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran....
It's the second part of his question that's the important one -- lots of people are murdered for lots of different reasons. There are estimated to be over a million trans people in the USA, do they have a disproportionately high rate of murder?
I can't find conclusive numbers on murders specifically. http://time.com/3999348/transgender-murders-2015/ says:
> Though a federal hate crimes law requires the collection of some statistics related to violence against transgender people, experts are dubious about the numbers they're getting. “A lot of jurisdictions report zeroes, even in places where we know there are hate crimes," Keisling says. Most state laws don't require the collection of such statistics, according to Minter.
Given the high incidence of sexual violence against transgender persons (https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html) it certainly seems likely the murder rate is similarly high. There's a "one-in-twelve" stat that appears to have gone around, but it's not true: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/may/13/garne...
> Though a federal hate crimes law requires the collection of some statistics related to violence against transgender people, experts are dubious about the numbers they're getting. “A lot of jurisdictions report zeroes, even in places where we know there are hate crimes," Keisling says. Most state laws don't require the collection of such statistics, according to Minter.
Given the high incidence of sexual violence against transgender persons (https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html) it certainly seems likely the murder rate is similarly high. There's a "one-in-twelve" stat that appears to have gone around, but it's not true: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/may/13/garne...
I don't think political murders targeting individuals are that common in the US. Or am I completely wrong?
How would one know?
Because of the media, power balances, legalities etc of US life, they obviously wouldn't be doing them in an open Third World/Banana Republic style (where, depending on the country/political climate, the state doesn't hesitate much to semi-openly get rid of enemies and more or less everybody knows they did it).
Because of the media, power balances, legalities etc of US life, they obviously wouldn't be doing them in an open Third World/Banana Republic style (where, depending on the country/political climate, the state doesn't hesitate much to semi-openly get rid of enemies and more or less everybody knows they did it).
How would one know?
Because people who would be targets of political murders don't die at a statistically unusual rate. Unless you think they are also being secretly replaced with more pliant clones/cyborgs or we are all just copied over to a less unruly simulation. Then it would be harder to know.
Because people who would be targets of political murders don't die at a statistically unusual rate. Unless you think they are also being secretly replaced with more pliant clones/cyborgs or we are all just copied over to a less unruly simulation. Then it would be harder to know.
>Because people who would be targets of political murders don't die at a statistically unusual rate.
They don't have to be well known people that you would identify as targets. In fact those would be the worst to target. They could be potential whistleblowers you never learned of, for example.
That said, sticking to well known people that could be targets, there's a large variety of those to e.g. MLK Jr, Malcom X, JFK, Robert Kennedy -- to name but a few in a single decade's span.
They don't have to be well known people that you would identify as targets. In fact those would be the worst to target. They could be potential whistleblowers you never learned of, for example.
That said, sticking to well known people that could be targets, there's a large variety of those to e.g. MLK Jr, Malcom X, JFK, Robert Kennedy -- to name but a few in a single decade's span.
These are political assassinations but they are assassinations by crazies. If you think these are government plots or that the man is secretly sending ninjas to rub out potential whistleblowers, you have to come up with some evidence otherwise it's just conspiracy theorizing. We might as well talk of alien abductions.
>These are political assassinations but they are assassinations by crazies.
Some of them, we don't know who did them at all (e.g. MLK).
But even if that was the case, it's not difficult to manipulate a "crazy" to do something, especially if you have both crazies and guns in abundance in a country.
It would be a nice way to avoid blame for the whole thing, and you can even have some mafia figure/ex-cop collaborator kill them afterwards, before said crazies ever get to go to trial for the first murder.
>you have to come up with some evidence otherwise it's just conspiracy theorizing
You think there's much evidence in e.g. banana republic political murders too, even those where still everybody knows the government or some mogul with special interests ordered them?
Some of them, we don't know who did them at all (e.g. MLK).
But even if that was the case, it's not difficult to manipulate a "crazy" to do something, especially if you have both crazies and guns in abundance in a country.
It would be a nice way to avoid blame for the whole thing, and you can even have some mafia figure/ex-cop collaborator kill them afterwards, before said crazies ever get to go to trial for the first murder.
>you have to come up with some evidence otherwise it's just conspiracy theorizing
You think there's much evidence in e.g. banana republic political murders too, even those where still everybody knows the government or some mogul with special interests ordered them?
it's not difficult to manipulate a "crazy" to do something
It's not difficult to say it's not difficult. Again, it's a completely evidence-free claim.
You think there's much evidence
There isn't any evidence the government is taking out hits on politically inconvenient figures in the US. "There can't possibly be any evidence, look at some other (vaguely described, non-specific place/event) where there is also no evidence, QED" is pretty much classic conspiracy-theorist logic (if you can call it that).
It's not difficult to say it's not difficult. Again, it's a completely evidence-free claim.
You think there's much evidence
There isn't any evidence the government is taking out hits on politically inconvenient figures in the US. "There can't possibly be any evidence, look at some other (vaguely described, non-specific place/event) where there is also no evidence, QED" is pretty much classic conspiracy-theorist logic (if you can call it that).
It is true, we are experts at effecting the social death so that the continued existence of the body is only a lingering triviality.
Especially not AFTER they've done all the damage they can do! What's the point of killing her now?
Even though it's not proved, Seth Rich comes to mind.
(edit removed the yet in "proved yet")
(edit removed the yet in "proved yet")
myaccountzz(3)
While not rotting in prison is great - isn't it strange that Manning was pardoned, while there are a lot more pardon deserving persons among the other whistleblowers of the era.
Nothing good or interesting came from those leaks. And they were legitimate threat to US security. And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
Nothing good or interesting came from those leaks. And they were legitimate threat to US security. And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
> While not rotting in prison is great - isn't it strange that Manning was pardoned
Manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. She is still considered guilty on all grounds on which she was convicted.
> And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
> And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
> What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
Snowden has not been sitting a in a US prison for years (in pretty difficult conditions) after a sentencing which many found excessive and unfair.
So the lesson is rather more "get sentenced to rank reduction to E-1, forfeiting of pay and allowances, dishonorably discharged and 35 years in prison and you may see the last part reduced to only ~6 years afterwards".
Oh don't forget the 6 years include a significant duration as POI at Quantico:
* checks by guards every five minutes
* not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am on weekends) and 8 pm
* required to remain visible at all times, no sheets, pillow built into mattress, and blanket designed for unshreddability
* sleeping attire limited to boxer shorts
* 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink
* allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals in the cell, shackled during lawyer visits
Not to disparage Snowden, and his reasons for not coming back seem sound, but political asylum in Russia isn't exactly Manning's last 6 years.
Manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. She is still considered guilty on all grounds on which she was convicted.
> And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
> And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
> What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
Snowden has not been sitting a in a US prison for years (in pretty difficult conditions) after a sentencing which many found excessive and unfair.
So the lesson is rather more "get sentenced to rank reduction to E-1, forfeiting of pay and allowances, dishonorably discharged and 35 years in prison and you may see the last part reduced to only ~6 years afterwards".
Oh don't forget the 6 years include a significant duration as POI at Quantico:
* checks by guards every five minutes
* not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am on weekends) and 8 pm
* required to remain visible at all times, no sheets, pillow built into mattress, and blanket designed for unshreddability
* sleeping attire limited to boxer shorts
* 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink
* allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals in the cell, shackled during lawyer visits
Not to disparage Snowden, and his reasons for not coming back seem sound, but political asylum in Russia isn't exactly Manning's last 6 years.
There's a lot of people working hard to bring those conditions back to the workplace.
I responded to a different thread with this, but she wasn't actually pardoned. Her sentence was commuted, or shortened. Formally this means she hasn't been forgiven for the crimes.
To be able to get the same treatment as Manning, Snowden would first have to get to the US, go through a trial, get convicted, serve a couple of years in prison, and then get his sentence commuted.
Snowden thinks (and I personally agree) that the second step (of him going through a trial) would not work, because he wouldn't get a fair trial, and I agree with him.
And, as was pointed out to you, Manning hasn't been cleared of claims that she made. She still made a crime according the court and was still convicted of that crime. It's just that her punishment got reduced and she is now free.
It's nowhere even near the similar situation. Snowden's case is basically in the same stage where Manning's case was when she leaked the documents, so somewhere around 2011. Manning pleaded guilty to the charges in court in early 2013. Snowden still didn't go through that process.
Snowden thinks (and I personally agree) that the second step (of him going through a trial) would not work, because he wouldn't get a fair trial, and I agree with him.
And, as was pointed out to you, Manning hasn't been cleared of claims that she made. She still made a crime according the court and was still convicted of that crime. It's just that her punishment got reduced and she is now free.
It's nowhere even near the similar situation. Snowden's case is basically in the same stage where Manning's case was when she leaked the documents, so somewhere around 2011. Manning pleaded guilty to the charges in court in early 2013. Snowden still didn't go through that process.
They were very different cases:
1. Manning thought she was doing the right thing and didn't realize what she would cause. Snowden knew exactly what he was doing.
2. Manning leaked the docs to something that is probably a Russian front but something she didn't realize was a Russian front. Snowden, if he didn't turn over the leaks to the Russian and Chinese governments, certainly put them in great risk of being turned over.
1. Manning thought she was doing the right thing and didn't realize what she would cause. Snowden knew exactly what he was doing.
2. Manning leaked the docs to something that is probably a Russian front but something she didn't realize was a Russian front. Snowden, if he didn't turn over the leaks to the Russian and Chinese governments, certainly put them in great risk of being turned over.
[deleted]
Good.
lerie(1)
jfabre(2)
interfixus(5)
datatan(3)
Why is this on Hacker news?
Hacker News isn't exclusively about startups and software.
No, but the guidelines do say that political news stories are generally considered off topic and I'm not sure there's any interesting discussion to be had or new insight to be gained from this article. It just seems to have invited mostly vitriolic, off-topic debate.
Oh my mistake. Maybe it should be renamed to "News, commented on by hackers"
That's a great idea, but it's kind of wordy. Maybe something short and pithy like "Hacker News" would work?
Why are you on Hacker news?
To find intriguing news about software, startups and related topics of geekery.
>software, startups and related topics of geekery.
You have a very narrow definition of Hackers.
You have a very narrow definition of Hackers.
From the HN guidelines:
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
[…]
If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
[…]
If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link.
Nice editorialization of the guidelines... Directly below that describes what is off topic:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Ah, I RTFArticle now. She stole documents (digitally I presume) and was tried and convicted a while ago.
This seems like mainstream TV news, not really Hacker News.
This seems like mainstream TV news, not really Hacker News.
She was an intelligence analyst, which meant she sat in front of a computer and queried U.S. intelligence databases all day.
She copied a lot of that data onto a CD and passed it to Julian Assange, who is the head of Wikileaks. Wikileaks publishes digital data it receives from whistle-blowers, both summarizing and analyzing the data itself. It also provided access to other journalists (Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.) in order to incentive scoops and increase the impact of the leaked material. Some of the material includes the "Afghan War Logs", which is essentially raw military data on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, including estimates of civilians killed in raids. The data itself is available to the public as an SQL or CSV database.
One of the pieces of data was the so-called "collateral murder" video which shows a U.S. apache helicopter firing on unarmed civilians, including a Reuters journalist who died and two children who were injured. Reuters had filed a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) to get public access to the video, but was unsuccessful. Since Manning had access to database, and because digital data has a marginal cost of $0, he was able to copy the video onto the CD passed along to Assange, thus bypassing the stall tactics of the U.S. government in releasing the video.
Manning was caught after the FBI had apparently enlisted Adrian Lamo-- himself a former hacker (or I guess cracker to be exact) who apparently Manning trusted and chatted with over IRC.
Also-- and I admit this is a digression from actual "hacker news"-- the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture publicly stated that the U.S.'s treatment of Manning while awaiting trial was "cruel, inhuman and degrading." In fact, when someone from the press finally got the nerve to ask about this, a U.S. state department official called Manning's treatment "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." (He then resigned.)
Anyway, we're talking about the release of a computer analyst who got caught confiding in a well-known hacker, and who was sent to prison for passing the largest collection of digital documents to someone who is at present probably the most well-known hacker in the world.
If this subject isn't relevant to a site called "Hacker News", what is?
She copied a lot of that data onto a CD and passed it to Julian Assange, who is the head of Wikileaks. Wikileaks publishes digital data it receives from whistle-blowers, both summarizing and analyzing the data itself. It also provided access to other journalists (Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.) in order to incentive scoops and increase the impact of the leaked material. Some of the material includes the "Afghan War Logs", which is essentially raw military data on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, including estimates of civilians killed in raids. The data itself is available to the public as an SQL or CSV database.
One of the pieces of data was the so-called "collateral murder" video which shows a U.S. apache helicopter firing on unarmed civilians, including a Reuters journalist who died and two children who were injured. Reuters had filed a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) to get public access to the video, but was unsuccessful. Since Manning had access to database, and because digital data has a marginal cost of $0, he was able to copy the video onto the CD passed along to Assange, thus bypassing the stall tactics of the U.S. government in releasing the video.
Manning was caught after the FBI had apparently enlisted Adrian Lamo-- himself a former hacker (or I guess cracker to be exact) who apparently Manning trusted and chatted with over IRC.
Also-- and I admit this is a digression from actual "hacker news"-- the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture publicly stated that the U.S.'s treatment of Manning while awaiting trial was "cruel, inhuman and degrading." In fact, when someone from the press finally got the nerve to ask about this, a U.S. state department official called Manning's treatment "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." (He then resigned.)
Anyway, we're talking about the release of a computer analyst who got caught confiding in a well-known hacker, and who was sent to prison for passing the largest collection of digital documents to someone who is at present probably the most well-known hacker in the world.
If this subject isn't relevant to a site called "Hacker News", what is?
The subject of the hacking (aka copying docs to a CD in this case) was certainly hacker news.
The CNN mainstream news was that she is being released from prison and she wants to grow her hair. Okay. My opinion is that this isn't really hacker news... more pop-culture about someone who once was convicted of copying intelligence data to a CD and giving it to someone. The story of the hacking was a while ago.
The CNN mainstream news was that she is being released from prison and she wants to grow her hair. Okay. My opinion is that this isn't really hacker news... more pop-culture about someone who once was convicted of copying intelligence data to a CD and giving it to someone. The story of the hacking was a while ago.
It's both. Ever read 2600? Manning is a hot topic.
logicallee(2)
As far as I'm concerned this is the first thing that Obama did that was a real progressive act. Thank God he did this. If only he did the same for Snowden.
It's unlikely Snowden will ever get a pardon.
Functional governments have a vested interest in not forgiving blatant disregard for their laws, regardless of the morality of the acts that led to the disregard. It's possible (but probably unlikely) that he could have been pardoned, found innocent, or had a sentence commuted had he turned himself in, but escaping the reach of American justice? There's very little incentive for a country to reward "Break the law then run from our jurisdiction," independent of the details.
Snowden's successfully attained a life probably free of American legal influence. His reward is a life free of American legal influence.
Functional governments have a vested interest in not forgiving blatant disregard for their laws, regardless of the morality of the acts that led to the disregard. It's possible (but probably unlikely) that he could have been pardoned, found innocent, or had a sentence commuted had he turned himself in, but escaping the reach of American justice? There's very little incentive for a country to reward "Break the law then run from our jurisdiction," independent of the details.
Snowden's successfully attained a life probably free of American legal influence. His reward is a life free of American legal influence.
> Functional governments have a vested interest in not forgiving blatant disregard for their laws
Unless you are high enough on the food-chain
Unless you are high enough on the food-chain
I agree. And I doubt his fate is going to get any better in the future, unfortunately.
His fate is pretty good as-is, right? I hear Russia is a beautiful country.
I wouldn't characterize it as pretty good. He's living day to day, and at any point Russia could change their minds. Snowden basically sacrificed his life and freedom for the rest of us.
I disagree with what she did, she probably made the world a much less safe place and caused thousands if not millions of deaths through wikileaks role in inciting the Arab spring. Still I'm convinced she did it with the best of intentions and the genuine belief that she would make the world more peaceful and open. I guess she was naive so I'm glad to see her released early.
One might assume that if what she leaked upset people to the point of revolution that there was something they had a right to be upset about.
This works all that well from an idealistic perspective but when the result is having these nations over-run by terrorists like ISIS and oppressive theocratic regimes, I question the benefit of these revolutions. The world is more complex than simple "it's bad, let's revolt." There are better ways to bring about change than inciting violent revolutions.
Chelsea didn't incite the revolutions. She only released the information. The information that was previously hidden was found to be egregious enough for others to incite the violence. That's enough reason for me to believe she was right that people had the right to know.
Yeah, I'd have preferred the Arab Spring to be resolved more peaceably myself. It's not under Chelsea's control nor mine how that played out after the information was released. It's difficult to blame the person who released true information for the impact of the information. The content and the creators or subjects of the content are to blame for the revolutions. Chelsea just let the rebels and revolutionaries know what they had every right to know.
Yeah, I'd have preferred the Arab Spring to be resolved more peaceably myself. It's not under Chelsea's control nor mine how that played out after the information was released. It's difficult to blame the person who released true information for the impact of the information. The content and the creators or subjects of the content are to blame for the revolutions. Chelsea just let the rebels and revolutionaries know what they had every right to know.
Let's hope the media doesn't tear her apart.
[1]: https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/847264510247190532