Some what, but not entirely for me. Especially since I don't know everything leaked in this case.

 

I can't rob a bank just because I'm broke and expect a lesser sentence than anyone else gets...a crime was committed and he should face the music, so to speak.

It may as simple as , "What is wrong, is wrong."

 

There are penalties for the amount of.theft aren't there? So there are degrees. But in this case the sheer volume proves the intent in my mind.

Related, but a different direction - Be careful what you wish for with term limits.

 

To be clear, I completely support them for presidents, but hours left in office and Obama makes a move he never has to answer for. He's not the first and won't be the last, but he's only part of the executive branch. What happens when the people who make the laws have no external constraints?

Related, but a different direction - Be careful what you wish for with term limits.

 

To be clear, I completely support them for presidents, but hours left in office and Obama makes a move he never has to answer for. He's not the first and won't be the last, but he's only part of the executive branch. What happens when the people who make the laws have no external constraints?

 

Very good point.

My main issue is what Getslow brought up. For this particular violation you won't find a sentence remotely close to how long Manning received.

 

I felt the sentence was excessive but in a way still understand it.

 

This is why I am ok with how it has played out. I definitely understand the how and why to President Obama's decision.

My main issue is what Getslow brought up. For this particular violation you won't find a sentence remotely close to how long Manning received.

 

I felt the sentence was excessive but in a way still understand it.

 

This is why I am ok with how it has played out. I definitely understand the how and why to President Obama's decision.

 

I think the sheer volume of the information released is what alarms a lot of people. Putting out 200,000 pages of documents wasn't even possible just a decade ago. It doesn't seem like it's in the same realm because Daniel Ellsberg passing a packet of Pentagon files to the New York Times almost looks like nothing compared with the amount of information Manning gave to Wikileaks.

Related, but a different direction - Be careful what you wish for with term limits.

 

To be clear, I completely support them for presidents, but hours left in office and Obama makes a move he never has to answer for. He's not the first and won't be the last, but he's only part of the executive branch. What happens when the people who make the laws have no external constraints?

 

Maybe they govern like statesmen instead of pandering to the party manipulated demographic of the district they are in? I actually see some positives in this.

Related, but a different direction - Be careful what you wish for with term limits.

 

To be clear, I completely support them for presidents, but hours left in office and Obama makes a move he never has to answer for. He's not the first and won't be the last, but he's only part of the executive branch. What happens when the people who make the laws have no external constraints?

 

Big difference, the President can do this unilaterally. I may not agree with the particular pardons and commutations but Obama is 100% within the constitutional constraints of his office to do so.

 

A Congressman or Senator can't unilaterally do anything and there's no way every member of Congress or every Senator will be term limited at the same time.

 

Another way to look at it, maybe just maybe if a congressman or Senator is term limited he/she would actually vote their conscience based on what's best for the country rather then pandering to their base supporters.

I think the sheer volume of the information released is what alarms a lot of people. Putting out 200,000 pages of documents wasn't even possible just a decade ago. It doesn't seem like it's in the same realm because Daniel Ellsberg passing a packet of Pentagon files to the New York Times almost looks like nothing compared with the amount of information Manning gave to Wikileaks.

 

As a DBA maybe I'm immune to the shock of moving massive amounts of data at one time. I do it each and every day with my job. But I still view it as basically the same.

 

I think this is playing out in the best way possible. The judge handed down a harsh sentence that shows a message. Then by virtue of his right to grant clemency President Obama reduced the sentence to something more in-line with previous offenses.

 

I do completely see how people could be quite upset by this. It's a very strange case with many layers.

Big difference, the President can do this unilaterally. I may not agree with the particular pardons and commutations but Obama is 100% within the constitutional constraints of his office to do so.

 

A Congressman or Senator can't unilaterally do anything and there's no way every member of Congress or every Senator will be term limited at the same time.

 

Another way to look at it, maybe just maybe if a congressman or Senator is term limited he/she would actually vote their conscience based on what's best for the country rather then pandering to their base supporters.

 

At the end of the day, nothing about human nature has led me to believe that individuals will ever by and large stray far from acting in one's own self-interest. That group of people will never collectively choose to limit their own power, but I fail to see how removing one of the few constraints available would make them more noble.

Some what, but not entirely for me. Especially since I don't know everything leaked in this case.

 

I can't rob a bank just because I'm broke and expect a lesser sentence than anyone else gets...a crime was committed and he should face the music, so to speak.

It may as simple as , "What is wrong, is wrong."

 

I get that and I think it goes right to the heart of this whole thing.

 

I don't begrudge the military court for the sentence handed down. It's their job to secure their data and ensure that they're doing their best to protect their own and the citizens at home.

 

But I also think that Private Manning went over there with a preconceived sense of what things would be like over there that turned out to be somewhat flawed and that he ultimately couldn't deal with that reality. He couldn't stomach what he saw and what he knew and, in his mind, this was the way to go about curing that flaw.

 

Among the things we learned from the leak:

 

1) "Fargo 242" was an order in effect from 2004 that detailed the US military's operations to subvert the UN Conventions on Torture by not investigating claims in numerous incidents in which we were handing prisoners in our custody over to the Iraqi Security Forces where they were tortured for information.

 

2) The US government kept a tally of civilian deaths in Iraq despite consistent denials that they had these numbers.

 

3) The military withheld information about the killing of a dozen people in an Iraqi suburb, two of which were journalists from Reuters. There was even a video of the incident which the military had refused to provide in several FOIA requests.

 

There is much more, but these things go to the heart of what so concerned Private Manning.

 

So while I don't blame the military for its reaction, neither can I fault the civilian authority that oversees the military for seeing these leaks as something different than a traditional espionage case. All sorts of actions are being carried out in our names around the world by military and intelligence personnel and shedding daylight on some of the less savory ones seems not totally unreasonable and three-plus years in a military prison seems an adequate response.

At the end of the day, nothing about human nature has led me to believe that individuals will ever by and large stray far from acting in one's own self-interest. That group of people will never collectively choose to limit their own power, but I fail to see how removing one of the few constraints available would make them more noble.

 

I think term limits are a Utopian ideal that will never happen. Once people gain power they will not relinquish it. Our very own John Yarmuth ran against incumbent Anne Northup saying it was likely the Dems would become the majority party, saying that he wanted to be a member of the majority party, this area needed a representative that was a member of the majority and that he had no interest in serving as a member of the minority party. The Dems won the majority that election and promptly lost it 4 years later. How many times has Yarmuth now run and served as a member of the minority?

 

I also agree that the chances of a stalwart ideologue doing what's right regardless of circumstance is a longshot but the way the system is currently set there's less of a chance a sitting Senator or Representative will vote in opposition to their base.

It will be interesting to see where this goes:

 

Julian Assange under pressure to hand himself in for extradition following Manning commutation | The Independent

As a DBA maybe I'm immune to the shock of moving massive amounts of data at one time. I do it each and every day with my job. But I still view it as basically the same.

 

I think this is playing out in the best way possible. The judge handed down a harsh sentence that shows a message. Then by virtue of his right to grant clemency President Obama reduced the sentence to something more in-line with previous offenses.

 

I do completely see how people could be quite upset by this. It's a very strange case with many layers.

 

As a libertarian I value a lot of the information that was divulged through the leaks but my main gripe is not going through the proper protocols set in place to protect our National interests , and saftey of Military and Intelligence officers.

Interesting follow up centering on how the government over-uses the classification system to hide information from the public that should be part of democratic debate.

 

In Defense of the Chelsea Manning Commutation - The Atlantic