Obama Largely Commutes Manning Sentence, To Be Released in May

[Joun_Lord]

But beyond that, I don't get Joun_Lord's preoccupation, and with (what can be construed as) insensitive remarks concerning what many "people" (mostly homophobes) consider to be a "homosexual disease" just weeks ago I question his motivation for making it a sticking point.

It wasn't a preoccupation. I asked a question on terminology and had to make multiple posts defending why I asked the question, which I guess that part could be considered a preoccupation as I dislike being accused of being something I'm not. I asked so I wouldn't offend anyone or make a factually incorrect statement. I didn't think just asking the question would be considered insensitive, iThought thats what people were supposed to do when they were unsure of the correct terminology. Though I guess in hindsight I can see how it might be considered a bit insensitive considering that can be construed as questioning someones sexuality or identity even if neither was my intent.

[Dragon Angel]

iThought thats what people were supposed to do when they were unsure of the correct terminology. Though I guess in hindsight I can see how it might be considered a bit insensitive considering that can be construed as questioning someones sexuality or identity even if neither was my intent.

It's less that you asked the question but more that you kind of came off as doubling down on it. Plus I guess I have been seeing all too many people insisting their damnedest on not respecting Chelsea's identity, so your question managed to blend in with that crowd.

A better phrasing probably would've not included "un-PC" and posting what was basically a context-less assessment of her personality. It seemed a lot like a personal attack.

[Joun_Lord]

It's less that you asked the question but more that you kind of came off as doubling down on it. Plus I guess I have been seeing all too many people insisting their damnedest on not respecting Chelsea's identity, so your question managed to blend in with that crowd.

A better phrasing probably would've not included "un-PC" and posting what was basically a context-less assessment of her personality. It seemed a lot like a personal attack.

I probably didn't help clear up any misunderstanding with my own boneheadedness and getting a bit defensive. I probably of yes put into context why I dislike Chelsea because I can see why that might come across as pretty shitty on my part.

And if I offended you any I do apologize, that was not my intention nor to disrespect Chelsea Manning's identity.

[Vain]

Yeah, I know that part. My point was that if if one runs from the assumption that Obama is a decent person, why wait until it's politically feasible to commute a sentence? Did he feel that Manning deserved a sentence conveniently as long as his need for some good security theatre?

Because Obama is a decent man, not necessarily a great one....?

What's decent about keeping someone locked up because of political calendars?

I am obviously not privy to Obama's thought processes on this, but I posit that a reasonable person could believe that Manning is guilty (she is) and that some consequences are appropriate. This reasonable person could believe that 35 years in military prison is excessive, but that ten years is not. If President Obama believes that, and likewise believes that following Presidents are unlikely to commute her sentence, then the decent thing would be to keep her as long as he can before commuting her sentence himself, rather than leave her to serve additional decades that he believes are unwarranted.

[Gandalf]

Because, as I have explained but you cannot seem to grasp, those political calendars have actual consequences attached that can be worse than keeping one person locked up longer than they necessarily deserve.

It is not a hard concept.

Liberty and justice for all, provided that they poll well in key demographics. It's the American Way!

Your subsequent posts give me an interesting idea. Based on the outcomes of the most recent election, would you argue that perhaps Obama/Clinton should have rolled over on some more unpopular minorities in order to not get beaten by seventy odd electoral votes?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because, as I have explained but you cannot seem to grasp, those political calendars have actual consequences attached that can be worse than keeping one person locked up longer than they necessarily deserve.

It is not a hard concept.

Liberty and justice for all, provided that they poll well in key demographics. It's the American Way!

Your subsequent posts give me an interesting idea. Based on the outcomes of the most recent election, would you argue that perhaps Obama/Clinton should have rolled over on some more unpopular minorities in order to not get beaten by seventy odd electoral votes?

Given that the large groups of people that would be rolled over on are the same ones harmed by Trump... No. Particularly because there are better options. Utilitarianism requires taking the least harmful course of action (accounting for risk and uncertainty), not the one marginally better than the worst. Jesus fucking christ, go read some freshman-level ethics.

That having been said, we've been rolled over in the name of avoiding worse for a Long. Fucking. Time. This is Tuesday for us.

DADT, the Defense of Marriage Act, those were signed by the Clinton Administration in order to avoid worse (DOMA cut the legs off a constitutional amendment that would have been passed and ratified instantly. DADT was better than what existed before, because the military would actively root out gays in the military, and full legalization was not an option).

So... go fuck yourself.

[Shroom Man 777]

Simon and others already mentioned that how for all its horribleness, the decision to "tactically" go with one unjustifiable act is also due to how morally reversing that unjustifiable act will create openings that will allow other unjustifiable acts to be done (by asshole bigots in power) and/or will stymie other efforts that are actually constructive and beneficial. It is horrific. It is the Kobayashi Maru, except the Klingon attack ships aren't even coming from the outside, they're coming from the inside, from large swaths of self-destructive types in all levels of society, the highest most powerful ones to the meekest ones.

(Also PS, to echo others even if this is improper because the subject/conversation should be dropped... but still: the guy, that guy, shitting on trans and feminists can go eat shit btw.)

[Flagg]

I tend to go with "let 1000 guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent". The thing is, Manning wasn't exactly "innocent". Was she treated harshly by the military douche-"justice" system past the point of abuse approaching if not surpassing torture? Yes. Unfortunately that happens to inmates of pre-trial and post-trial incarceration so much in this country that to single out the suffering of one admittedly guilty person borders on using the way she was treated before pleading guilty as an excuse for the pre-meditated crime she openly admitted to beforehand. And frankly, I think it's an entirely separate issue.

The real issue here is the draconian sentence handed down given what was released and the motivations behind releasing it.

[Shroom Man 777]

+ Obama does have some kind of close and complex relationship with the crypto-killstate...

[Joun_Lord]

The real issue here is the draconian sentence handed down given what was released and the motivations behind releasing it.

That was my main problem with the whole affair, beyond the people who Manning exposed the dirty laundry of probably never getting punished, was the fact her sentence was inhumane. Was she guilty of crimes? Yeah, whatever we think of the reasons for doing so or whether it was right to do it still broke laws. And good intentions or not law breaking needs punished (atleast when its not about rehabilitation, which always should be the first consideration of crime and punishment but in this case it wasn't really a rehabilitation thing unless they got some sort of rehabilitation program for not downloading shit you aren't supposed to).

But the punishment should fit the fucking crime. Somebody leaking documents to some bleach haired culty fuck shouldn't get a harsher sentence then murderers, child molesters, and people who download academic journals from MIT. If she had gotten what is her current reduced sentence in the first place I'd have considerably less of a problem with it.

I bet thats why Snowden thinks staying in Putin's Playhouse is a better alternative. If they were going to give Chelsea "just" 35 years I'd hate to think of what they'd give Eddie.

[General Zod]

American prisons are basically never about rehabilitation.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, they're more about politicians posturing to show how tough on crime they are to the so-called "Christian values" base, while making money for the prison-industrial complex.

[Joun_Lord]

American prisons are basically never about rehabilitation.

I know unfortunately. I've bitched long and hard about how shitty American prisons are, they're fucking stupid for profit bullshit or inhuman "tough on crime" crap that encourages more arrests, steeper sentences, and does nothing to ensure people don't re-offend, quite the opposite in fact.

Say what you will about the Eurocommies and their luxury resort prisons but they seem to work better. Places like Norway have a recidivism rate that is half or a 3rd less then the US. Of course there are more factors then just the prison stay, cultural and economic factors, and there is some reports I've read that some Europeon countries have much higher suicide rates then US prisons (somehow, not sayings its impossible but sounds to me like its highly unlikely) but I'd still say they are superior. I'd be scared to death to get locked up in a US prison, not as much as like a 3rd world prison but still pretty close, while I think European prisons would atleast be survivable.

[Simon_Jester]

I tend to go with "let 1000 guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent".

It is extremely easy to say this when you don't actually have the power to release one thousand guilty people and then watch the consequences unfold.

I mean seriously, think this one over for a moment. Suppose that the price of one maybe-innocent person's freedom actually was letting a thousand guilty people go free, and you knew that. Would you actually push that button? Would you say "the consequences of having a thousand genuine criminals go unpunished for their actions isn't so bad, as long as I can focus on this one happy case?"

Because that kind of reasoning, taken to its logical extremes, leads to Stalin's observation that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." People who really think that way, and are prepared to sacrifice a million people they cannot personally visualize, for the sake of one person who they can... Generally are not the kind of people you really want in charge. Because the odds are literally a million-to-one that you'll end up being one of the sacrifices, not one of the beneficiaries.

People who will actually DO things that sacrifice the welfare of millions for ideological reasons, or for tangible benefit to a few easily remembered faces, tend to be dangerous fanatics, not just extremely moral people.

The best balance is someone who will consistently try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while engaging in specific, individualized acts of mercy to limit the consequences and harm done to the undeserving.

[Flagg]

I tend to go with "let 1000 guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent".

It is extremely easy to say this when you don't actually have the power to release one thousand guilty people and then watch the consequences unfold.

I mean seriously, think this one over for a moment. Suppose that the price of one maybe-innocent person's freedom actually was letting a thousand guilty people go free, and you knew that. Would you actually push that button? Would you say "the consequences of having a thousand genuine criminals go unpunished for their actions isn't so bad, as long as I can focus on this one happy case?"

Because that kind of reasoning, taken to its logical extremes, leads to Stalin's observation that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." People who really think that way, and are prepared to sacrifice a million people they cannot personally visualize, for the sake of one person who they can... Generally are not the kind of people you really want in charge. Because the odds are literally a million-to-one that you'll end up being one of the sacrifices, not one of the beneficiaries.

People who will actually DO things that sacrifice the welfare of millions for ideological reasons, or for tangible benefit to a few easily remembered faces, tend to be dangerous fanatics, not just extremely moral people.

The best balance is someone who will consistently try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while engaging in specific, individualized acts of mercy to limit the consequences and harm done to the undeserving.

I won't say that the ratio is 1000/1 but plenty of guilty as sin people go free while a hell of a lot of innocents sit behind bars or get needles in their arms based on reasons ranging from economic factors (on every level of society), racial bias (on every level of society), and corruption (both on every level of our society and especially the "justice system" which has an unintentional but oh so fitting Orwellian title, a fictional one could never exist for it) which runs so rampant that examples exist from judges selling children to private prisons, wealthy celebrity child molesters being allowed to pay their victims to shut up and District Attorney offices staffed by crazed crusader prosecutors who in like Nancy Grace don't get shitcanned for prosecutorial misconduct (and instead get TV shows where they talk innocent mothers of missing children into committing suicide).

All of this essentially ignoring the fact that it's more a philosophical rather than literal statement.

Plus I think there's actually such a good chance that in the US justice and penal system I will bet you the life of your firstborn that I could do exactly what you describe with 90% (I'll give you 10% of those imprisoned as being violent 75%+ chance of likely to reoffend extremely violent offenders) of those currently incarcerated in jails, prisons, and Plantations Work Farms that if programs (as pathetic as they are) were followed, the crime rate wouldn't rise significantly.

[Simon_Jester]

What I'm getting at isn't even specific to the criminal justice system, it's the overall mentality that political leaders should always do what some person with no power and no control over the situation would decide is morally right, with zero regard for political consequences.

"Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon" sounds a lot better when you're not actually staring at Armageddon. "Better to let ten guilty men go free" sounds better when you aren't actually worried about the consequences of setting ten guilty men free. "Not one step backwards!" sounds better when you're not the guy who's going to get people killed by refusing to let them retreat.

I'm not even making a specific argument here about a specific situation or a particular country or anything of that nature.

What I'm trying to make is a general argument that yes, it is right and proper for national leaders to make utilitarian calculations about the welfare of their people as a whole, when making decisions that affect a specific private individual. That it is not somehow automatically unethical and evil of them to do so, and that it's not inherently blameworthy for them to do so. Deciding that no, making this person's life better now as opposed to four months from now isn't worth the potential for negative consequences? That's a pretty common class of decision to make. It's very hard to be successful without the ability to perform that kind of mental calculation.

You can't always Leeroy Jenkins your way into a situation determined to "do what's right" without stopping to carefully consider actions and consequences and "what the right thing to do" actually is.

[Flagg]

Wow, congratulations on figuring out what any well adjusted 13 year old knows. SMARTEST BOARD ON THE INTERNET! THE INTELLECTUAL CRUCIBLE, EVERYONE!

Any absolute statement taken to its extreme is bad. WHO KNEW?

"First, do no harm." Unless you're Doctor Sam Becket and have somehow Quantum Leapt into the place of that WWI British soldier who had Pvt Addy Hitler dead to rights, in his sights, and because shooting an unarmed man in the back IS ALWAYS WRONG let him slink off to abscurity. But Sam pulled that trigger and... The gun jammed. Oh, boy! Will his next leap... Be the leap home?


No.

[Shroom Man 777]

Look. There are all sorts of annoying types out there especially if you're just guzzling the cherrypicked Breitbart clickbait edgelord "oh look at these silly minorites lols, lookit em obnoxiously shouting at some professor, etc."

But nonetheless, whatever the actual composition of people's headcheese or grey matter might be, if they do choose to live in another gender even if is something that has no biological organic basis, without the backing of essentialism or whatever... so what? Fuck it, there's no MRI research to show what biological neurological developments led people to become furries or bronies or getting turned on by depictions of giant people eating smaller people... but if that rocks their boat and that's important for them, then what?

Like if a person has a name change, s/he will get pissed if you don't use the right name s/he prefers right? So why's doing this for pronouns different? A person picks a new unusual pronoun - YE GADS. How is that different from someone who prefers a new exotic name? ZOMG.

Even if their mobilization in college campuses or whatever is annoying, my goodness that's the least of society's concerns regarding all the other shitshows that morons everywhere are doing. As far as I'm concerned, normal binary people have just recently shown us all over the world what kind of shitshows the supposed majority can inflict on everyone.

[Elfdart]

Meh, I can see it being mentioned something like "Chelsea (Formerly Bradley) Manning has had sentence commuted..." just because it's a story that hasn't been heavily covered beyond blurbs in a couple years and it's still America, so at least 30% of people would probably think it's Chelsea Clinton's married name given how godsdamned stupid this cesspit of a country is.

No reason to be having this discussion on this particular forum, but standards be slippin' yo.

The could use the French née (born) not just for maiden names, but for this as well.

Not that it matters: Manning could be a straight dude to a fault (like, owning Van Halen albums and shit) and he would be a fucking hero. Were it not for the video he released (the one where US troops blow away civilians, shoot a 7-year-old kid in the stomach, and gloat), Obama would have reneged on Bush's withdrawal from Iraq and we'd still have several divisions fighting over there.

[Elfdart]

Your subsequent posts give me an interesting idea. Based on the outcomes of the most recent election, would you argue that perhaps Obama/Clinton should have rolled over on some more unpopular minorities in order to not get beaten by seventy odd electoral votes?

No, but these are the Democrats we're talking about, so they just might be stupid enough to do something like that. After all, the Clintons were quite willing to slap black people around when they thought it might get them support from southern whites. In 2016, Charles Schumer had the brilliant plan of slapping around Bernie supporters and rust belters, on the grounds that for every disgruntled ex-factory worker screwed by NAFTA, the Democrats would magically recruit two or three "moderate" Republicans from the suburbs.



If Hillary had simply picked someone like Sherrod Brown, Ed Rendell or someone else with appeal in the Great Lakes region, she would have been sworn in yesterday, and might have gotten a couple more Dem senators like Feingold elected. Instead, she brought in a guy who was popular just south of Washington DC and nowhere else.

[Broomstick]

The could use the French née (born) not just for maiden names, but for this as well.

Strictly speaking if the person in question is a man I believe you'd use né - Muhammad Ali, né Cassius Clay as an example.

Then again, these days most English speakers, at least in America, seemed to have lost the distinction between financé and financée.

[Gandalf]

Given that the large groups of people that would be rolled over on are the same ones harmed by Trump... No. Particularly because there are better options. Utilitarianism requires taking the least harmful course of action (accounting for risk and uncertainty), not the one marginally better than the worst. Jesus fucking christ, go read some freshman-level ethics.

That having been said, we've been rolled over in the name of avoiding worse for a Long. Fucking. Time. This is Tuesday for us.

DADT, the Defense of Marriage Act, those were signed by the Clinton Administration in order to avoid worse (DOMA cut the legs off a constitutional amendment that would have been passed and ratified instantly. DADT was better than what existed before, because the military would actively root out gays in the military, and full legalization was not an option).

So... go fuck yourself.

I would think that a goal would then be to just roll over on people less than a Trump presidency, ensuring that the amount of hedons per head of population work out in the mix. Sometimes you maximise good and sometimes you minimise harm. But to the core point of disagreement, there's a reason I reject this kind of utilitarian approach to any sort of larger scale politics. It's largely because one can shit on Group A because Group B gets something out of it, and the people/cultural norms who decide who winds up on what side of that equation rarely seem to be the ones who lose out. Remove that problem, and I'd be all over this idea.

Here's an example a little closer to home. Indigenous in Australia are a group continually fucked over because everyone sort of cares but not enough to have a decisive action, one way or another. The majority population sort of feel bad about the genocide, slavery, and the generations of children that were literally stolen from their parents to be placed in institutions (public/private/religious/etc) and other hellish places. So they demand action to right this historical wrong quieten their collective conscience, leading to current half-arsed measures which are slowly and quietly killing us as a people. The government is happy to put whole communities on a stream of welfare payments in towns with nowhere to spend it except for two shops and a pub. At the same time, they invest little else to make it possible for people in these communities to escape that cycle of abuse, except for prisons. I trust you know what isolation and rampant substance abuse do a population. I should have had more uncles make it past forty. But the majority can sleep well, knowing that everyone has done enough and that any subsequent unpleasantness is on those lazy [word I won't use].

Currently, there's fuck all political desire to help people, because we're a dwindling population, and not well concentrated to make a real political impact. Any actions designed to be of tangible benefit are always going to happen no sooner than "the next term," unless it's a punitive law in which case it's passed so quickly that I suspect time travel is involved. As a local MP once told me, the desire to help is there but the votes aren't, so nothing is going to happen unless there's a major change in outlook by enough of the wider population. An entire people are being isolated and wiped out because the politics are simply difficult, and Indigenous lives lack equal weighting with Western Sydney voters' desire for "better taxes."

[Iroscato]

Question: can Trump reverse this decision? I don't really know much about how this sort of thing works, but since one of Trump's primary directives is to tear down Obama's legacy, it sounds like the sort of thing he'd do...

[Simon_Jester]

Question: can Trump reverse this decision? I don't really know much about how this sort of thing works, but since one of Trump's primary directives is to tear down Obama's legacy, it sounds like the sort of thing he'd do...

Presidential pardons are no-takebacks. And I strongly suspect Trump will not want to set the precedent that they can be taken back, even if he can which is doubtful. Because I suspect that however his administration winds down, he and/or a lot of people he likes are going to need them.

Then again, Trumpo the Giant Used Car Salesman is the kind of person who will scream and flail like a petulant manchild if something he dislikes happens, and he's perfectly capable of ignoring long term consequences of his actions even when it means blowing up the ground under his own feet. Otherwise I doubt the man would be able to bankrupt a casino.