Obama Largely Commutes Manning Sentence, To Be Released in May

[Joun_Lord]

You don't see constant footnotes but you will see during stories about past crimes involving a woman for them to refer to the current Jane Doe as Jane Smith when talking about those past events before she was Jane Smith because referring to her as Jane Smith during those events is inaccurate.

I don't want her former identity included in everything, I was asking if I should refer to her former identity during events where she was living her former identity. Its part of the story because at the time when the meat of the story takes place there was no Chelsea, only Zuul......Bradley I mean, they aren't separate. Bradley Manning was who joined the Army, Bradley Manning leaked documents, Bradley Manning was who was arrested, again no Chelsea at the time. Hence why I was asking the proper etiquette of how to refer to Chelsea before she was Chelsea, before there was a Chelsea Manning.

[Dragon Angel]

Etiquette? Yes, it is proper etiquette to refer to her as Chelsea, even back then. It's also proper journalistic ethics. And even if you don't care about either etiquette or ethics, it's plain fucking better writing. "Bradley" is a distraction. It takes away from the gravitas of what is actually happening at this moment.

Seriously, if a Jane Doe was caught leaking to Wikileaks but was named Jane Smith at the time, I would guarantee you that her last name would barely make 5% of all articles and 0% of all comments. This is a thing trans people notice a lot in the media and in popular culture. Our former identities and what genital configurations we have are paraded around as the most important facts about ourselves, completely ignoring almost everything else we may have achieved. This isn't about "political correctness". This is about correctness, period.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't particularly like Manning as a person because by all accounts she was a dickhole of the highest caliber back before this and while I think the release of the material was needed (nothing to my knowledge endangered anyone) Manning only did it because she was a whiny fuck who couldn't hack military life, however I applaud Obama releasing her. I don't think she was a traitor, maybe an idiot, and don't think whistleblowers should be arrested. The only way the US is going to stop fucking up is when our dirty laundry is aired, shit stains and all.

I'll be really interested to see if ASSange actually follows through with turning himself in or weasels out of it.

Also quick possibly un-PC question, am I supposed to always refer to Manning as she even for when she was still Bradley and identified as a he? Is her current gender identity I guess retroactive?

Yes, it is retroactive. She did not "become" a woman, she always was one. In the interests of not confusing people it *might* be appropriate to use the Deadname under some contexts, but only as a footnote in case someone missed the memo. Not to refer to her actions prior to transition.

Example. I had a bit of a crush on a friend of mine in highschool. Her name is Cassondra. This might be confusing because I am as gay as the day is long at the north pole on June 21st, so a foot note regarding her transition in 2007 is appropriate.

When I am telling a story about something that happened in 2003, I use Cassondra, not the deadname. They are still the same person. You don't lose accuracy by using their real fucking name.

As for your "personal view", the issues she was going through actually should cover a great many sins. Maybe not in terms of "we should not punish you" but in terms of "we understand why you were acting the way you were, and while we cannot condone or excuse it, we understand and don't hate you."

It is entirely possible for someone to have clean motives for leaking information, while also having a... spotty record for other things due to life circumstances.

Not really a care but at one time she was Bradley and in the interest of accuracy I would think she's be referred to as Bradley when that was still her name. Thats not disrespecting her transition, thats just acknowledgement of who she was previously.

No, it is disrespecting her transition. Sorry, but it is.

Get it through your skull. She. Was. Never. A. Man.

My assessment of her personality is based upon the word of other soldiers serving with her. She was chronically late, disregarded rules, destroyed property after a reprimand, and struck another soldier. I know she was going through alot but her actions speak of someone who was a really shitty person. Having gender identity problems does not excuse assaulting someone.

Excuse? No. Explain and extenuate? Yes.

[Lonestar]

You can't trust to the honor system with classified material.

Fundamentally, the honor system is how classified material is handled. Yes there are controls set in place, but other than perhaps some specific programs you don't have to try past medium-hard to figure out a way to remove stuff from a secure location.

Regarding the sentence being commuted:

I am very frustrated with Manning getting their sentence commuted. This wasn't Snowden who at least made an effort to be somewhat discriminate in picking what information to whistleblow on, Manning did the software equivalent of walking by an unlocked crypto vault, putting their arm on everything on a shelf, and shoveling it into a box and walking off. It was extraordinary dangerous, and seemed to be more an act of vindictiveness(against perceived slights while in the Army) than anything.

And for some reason Manning has become an ultra popular cause amongst the left(right up until Wikileaks started being perceived as an organ of Russian intelligence, at least). If I had done what they did, I doubt I would have had my sentence commuted until I'd been in the brig for a few decades. But Manning seems to have pushed all the right buttons with groups like Code: Pink.

Heck there was a guy on my ship who was in the brig for 3 years before he went to trial, with 24/7 lit cell for "suicide watch" purposes but that never made the news. Manning taking a long time with similar monitoring? You'd think that the military was specifically targeting her the way people act.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Fundamentally, the honor system is how classified material is handled. Yes there are controls set in place, but other than perhaps some specific programs you don't have to try past medium-hard to figure out a way to remove stuff from a secure location.

Sure, but when someone does do that, the state has to come down rather hard on them for self-preservation purposes, and has to be seen to do so. That was my point, if perhaps worded a bit poorly.

[Simon_Jester]

I think people do refer to women by their maiden names if they were using the name during the events referenced.

I don't.

I mean, would you say "When Hillary Clinton was a little girl, she attended That School Over there?" Or would you say "When Hillary Rodham was a little girl, et cetera?" Is it actually more 'consistent' to do things the latter way? If so, you create ambiguity about who you're talking about, since Mrs. Clinton has been married for over forty years. You'd create even more ambiguity talking about, well, almost any other married woman, because most of them don't publicize their maiden names as much as Hillary Clinton has.

I don't want her former identity included in everything, I was asking if I should refer to her former identity during events where she was living her former identity. Its part of the story because at the time when the meat of the story takes place there was no Chelsea, only Zuul......Bradley I mean, they aren't separate. Bradley Manning was who joined the Army, Bradley Manning leaked documents, Bradley Manning was who was arrested, again no Chelsea at the time. Hence why I was asking the proper etiquette of how to refer to Chelsea before she was Chelsea, before there was a Chelsea Manning.

Given that transgender people have structures in their brains that belong to the opposite sex of what their genes say they are (as in, literally man brain in woman body), it would seem more accurate to say that there was a Chelsea trapped inside a Bradley. The Bradley disguise (an accident of birth) has now been removed, much like one might remove the rubber werewolf costume from a Scooby-Doo villain.

If a Scooby-Doo villain gets arrested for terrorizing the neighborhood, people aren't going to go around saying "oh, but when he committed the crime, he wasn't Tom Johnson, he was the werewolf!" There never was a werewolf, there was a guy trying to pretend to be one, and failing.

Likewise, Chelsea apparently tried to pretend to be a Bradley for many years, because that was the identity she was stuck with from birth. Not like anyone consulted her about that. But trying to be Bradley didn't work, because she wasn't Bradley, she was Chelsea. So she gave up and decided to try and get other people to acknowledge her as a Chelsea (hopefully, with luck).

If Manning had ever really been Bradley, Manning would never have decided to do that. She wouldn't have needed to.

[Incidentally, if Bradley was a girl's name and we were talking about a woman who had been raised under some kind of secret identity without her consent, while being coerced into pretending to be someone else, no one would even be bothered by her saying "no, my real identity underneath was XYZ all along."]

[Flagg]

I am operating on the assumption that Obama is a fundamentally decent human being here. Keep that in mind.

I think he probably feels that the State has to prosecute those who leak classified information--no matter what they leak--or the security and intelligence apparatus itself will break down due to a lack of deterrent. You can't trust to the honor system with classified material.

Then why do this now, as opposed to several years ago?

Same reason as everything else: Politics. The President is a politician. Who knew?

[Joun_Lord]

Etiquette? Yes, it is proper etiquette to refer to her as Chelsea, even back then.

Thank you, thats all I was asking. I didn't know if it was proper to refer to her as her name then or now because for back then there was no Chelsea back then.

And while I have no doubt some make her former identity the most important thing that was not my intention but again trying to be accurate when referring to events in the past when she was not yet Chelsea Manning

Yes, it is retroactive. She did not "become" a woman, she always was one. In the interests of not confusing people it *might* be appropriate to use the Deadname under some contexts, but only as a footnote in case someone missed the memo. Not to refer to her actions prior to transition.

I was never debating her gender or sex or whatever, even I as a crass Neanderthal know that someone doesn't just become their new gender when they transition but were always mentally and possibly chemically their proper gender even if their body didn't always match. Chelsea was always a she but she was not always Chelsea. My question was about using her then legal name for past events when it was her legal and only name.

It would be like if my name used to be Harrison Ford Coppola and I won a hot dog eating contest but later changed my name to Micheal Jackson Pollack. I did not gorge myself on weiners as Micheal Pollack, there was no Micheal Pollack at the time, hence why I'd assume (and no doubt make as ass of myself) that when I am referring to winning the hot dog eating contest I'd use the Harrison Coppola name to describe it.

Also I never said I didn't understand why she acted as she did, I do, gender identity problems are torturous even at the best of times and during the time of DADT in the manly military when medical help was even worse then it was today it was probably harder then normal. However I don't feel her problems warrant excusing her actions, she was an asshole, a violent asshole (darn my imagination). I believe her problems help explain some of the assholish behavior but I think some of it was just she was an asshole plain and simple.

[Flagg]

I think people do refer to women by their maiden names if they were using the name during the events referenced. The identity is relevant to the story because Chelsea was Bradley when she blowed the whistle on fucked up military shenanigans, the reason she is currently in jail and the reason Obama has to commute her sentence.

A trans person is the focus of this quest for accuracy because a trans person who while under a different identity there her current one committed the crimes that form the basis of this story (leaving aside the original crimes she whistleblew on).

No, generally, that is not true. You don't see the constant footnotes of Jane Doe (previously Jane Smith) the way you would see constant footnotes of, pulling a random trans person out of my head, Christine Jorgensen (previously George William Jorgensen Jr.).

Chelsea Manning's actions of whistleblowing and her former identity of Bradley Manning are two separate ideas, only made into a huge deal because she announced her transition while being a high-profile figure. There is literally no journalistic addition to mentioning her former identity unless it is about her transition specifically, because in the end, the central idea of the story is her whistleblowing, her being sentenced for decades, and her now being pardoned. Only pedants of the highest order would even care about her former identity being included in every single article ever written about her and her actions.

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.

[Dragon Angel]

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.

Context is everything, of course; like, when this was first breaking, it was necessary to establish the link so readers would have some continuity. But at some point one has to stop repeating old details lest one becomes a broken record, i.e. if a high-profile person suddenly becomes permanently disabled, the disability would eventually become common knowledge and be thought of in any story that does not directly involve their disability. It would get to the point where writing "Muhammad Ali, who has Parkinson's, gave a speech talking about his experiences in the Nation of Islam today" would just appear completely sloppy.

At least, I would ... hope so.

[Broomstick]

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....?

[RogueIce]

I think people do refer to women by their maiden names if they were using the name during the events referenced.

I don't.

I mean, would you say "When Hillary Clinton was a little girl, she attended That School Over there?" Or would you say "When Hillary Rodham was a little girl, et cetera?" Is it actually more 'consistent' to do things the latter way? If so, you create ambiguity about who you're talking about, since Mrs. Clinton has been married for over forty years. You'd create even more ambiguity talking about, well, almost any other married woman, because most of them don't publicize their maiden names as much as Hillary Clinton has.

Apparently Wikipedia does. Go read her article, and she is reference as "Rodham" up until the point she started using the surname Clinton, which wasn't immediately after her marriage (she kept Rodham for a number of years).

Since Wikipedia uses last names, the Bradley/Chelsea thing doesn't seem to be an issue for them FWIW.

[Broomstick]

Do we refer to women with their maiden names in the interests of accuracy?

There are times when it is appropriate to do that, though I would say it's more in the interest of preventing confusion than "accuracy". If a woman first became publicly known under her maiden name, for example, she might still continue to use it for some purposes. Which, of course, is not the same as a name change post-transition.

More comparable would be, say, the situation of Yusuf Islam. It is still done to refer to the music of "Cat Stevens" rather than Yusuf Islam. Mr. Islam has returned to recording under his current name, so now he might be referred to as either "Yusuf Islam" or "Cat Stevens" when discussing music, generally Cat Stevens being used for the body of work through the late 1970's and Yusuf Islam for that later works. You might also see something like "A new release by Yusuf Islam, who originally came to fame under the stage name Cat Stevens."

Another example would be Caitlyn Jenner - when referring to her accomplishments at the Olympics many years ago you usually hear "Bruce Jenner won the decathlon", not "Caitlyn Jenner won the decathlon". Otherwise, of course, one should use only female pronouns and descriptors for her.

Basically, unless there is a very specific reason, the default for a transwomen would be female pronouns/descriptors and male for transmen.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a world where a biography entry like "Ms. Carmen Jones was born James Jones and transitioned at 19" wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

It's kind of enlightening how trans people seem to be the main focus of this quest for accuracy where the addition to the story is exactly zip.

I think perhaps some of it is trying to establish a societal norm for something that, let's face it, was entirely swept under the rug/in the closet/totally ignored until recently.

[Gandalf]

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?

[Alyrium Denryle]

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?

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.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the fact that Donald Trump is headed for inauguration this week is a good illustration of why political outcomes have consequences.

Consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose I were president, and that I had the option of pardoning a prisoner I felt was being held unfairly in 2015. Said prisoner was convicted lawfully, but with circumstances that make me think the sentence was unfair.

However, holding this prisoner until December 2016 would have ensured Trump's defeat in the election somehow.

If I made the decision to make the pardon, and as a result Trump won the election, would people on this website be saying that I made the right choice? Or the wrong choice?

From the point of view of some extremely inflexible, Kantian code of ethics... pardoning the prisoner is the right choice. Because you do things like that, and ignore the consequences, no matter how disastrous they are.

From a utilitarian point of view... maybe not so much. And like it or not, presidents are forced to live in a world where utilitarian concerns matter, because the responsibility attached to their office is so high.

Apparently Wikipedia does. Go read her article, and she is reference as "Rodham" up until the point she started using the surname Clinton, which wasn't immediately after her marriage (she kept Rodham for a number of years).

Since Wikipedia uses last names, the Bradley/Chelsea thing doesn't seem to be an issue for them FWIW.

I don't know what Wikipedia uses for a style manual, but I sincerely doubt that everyone, uniformly and unambiguously, should always use "vintage" names for people who have changed their names. It depends on circumstance.

[Shroom Man 777]

Obama had to Spock it. I think as a person of such varied heritage, maybe he's never been "totally" at home in one whole setting in his life, so he's always had to engage things with a certain degree of... measure? Certain degree of... reservation, of wait and see, unlike people who are more "used" to things. This is aside from the realpolitiks or whatever he's playing. Kind of like Angela Merkel, outsiders, not comfortable insiders or good old boys, but not the usual customers who have somehow adeptly maneuvered in this setting due to their own abilities, adeptness or whatever, but one that's not entirely natural, one that had to be calculated, measured, deliberated before being acted upon.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is he's a kind of person who's probably had to live an entire life of treading softly and moving only after having weighed things. Due to all the potential snags he might have encountered. Measured moves, level heads. In politics and everywhere else I don't doubt.

[Thanas]

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

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

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.

None of the years of torture she had happen to her can morally be justified by politics.

[Flagg]

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.

Context is everything, of course; like, when this was first breaking, it was necessary to establish the link so readers would have some continuity. But at some point one has to stop repeating old details lest one becomes a broken record, i.e. if a high-profile person suddenly becomes permanently disabled, the disability would eventually become common knowledge and be thought of in any story that does not directly involve their disability. It would get to the point where writing "Muhammad Ali, who has Parkinson's, gave a speech talking about his experiences in the Nation of Islam today" would just appear completely sloppy.

At least, I would ... hope so.

Yeah, I don't see the necessity of it being used more than in the first few (at most) reports on this just because there are people who didn't follow the story long enough to even know about the name change to reflect her true gender identity just as there are people who forgot it.
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.

[Flagg]

I think people do refer to women by their maiden names if they were using the name during the events referenced.

I don't.

I mean, would you say "When Hillary Clinton was a little girl, she attended That School Over there?" Or would you say "When Hillary Rodham was a little girl, et cetera?" Is it actually more 'consistent' to do things the latter way? If so, you create ambiguity about who you're talking about, since Mrs. Clinton has been married for over forty years. You'd create even more ambiguity talking about, well, almost any other married woman, because most of them don't publicize their maiden names as much as Hillary Clinton has.

Apparently Wikipedia does. Go read her article, and she is reference as "Rodham" up until the point she started using the surname Clinton, which wasn't immediately after her marriage (she kept Rodham for a number of years).

Since Wikipedia uses last names, the Bradley/Chelsea thing doesn't seem to be an issue for them FWIW.

Fuck Wikipedia?

[Alyrium Denryle]

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

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.

None of the years of torture she had happen to her can morally be justified by politics.

That depends on one's operational definition of "justified". It is no different ethically from a situation in which one is forced to kill 1 person to save 100 people. Something that a head of government/state might have to decide on a regular basis. One can hate the situation as unjust, but at some point the decision has to be made.

Decent human beings can fall on either side of that question, depending on what ethical system they are most guided by.

[Flagg]

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

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.

None of the years of torture she had happen to her can morally be justified by politics.

Well, it's better than the years of torture/harsh treatment/America being cunts subjected her to plus imprisonment until 2045? I never agreed with how Manning was treated, so unless Ginsberg strokes out and President-Elect Dribbling Anal Abscess uses that opportunity to unconstitutionally break the "no-takesy-backsy" rules of pardons and commutations, things are working out better for Pvt Manning than most thought/feared they would.

[Flagg]

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.

None of the years of torture she had happen to her can morally be justified by politics.

That depends on one's operational definition of "justified". It is no different ethically from a situation in which one is forced to kill 1 person to save 100 people. Something that a head of government/state might have to decide on a regular basis. One can hate the situation as unjust, but at some point the decision has to be made.

Decent human beings can fall on either side of that question, depending on what ethical system they are most guided by.

The answer is "never". It's never "justified". It's "explainable", "understandable", and maybe somewhat on the line of "tolerable", but not "justifiable".

[Terralthra]

Omelas is the other way, Flagg.

[Starglider]

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is he's a kind of person who's probably had to live an entire life of treading softly and moving only after having weighed things. Due to all the potential snags he might have encountered. Measured moves, level heads. In politics and everywhere else I don't doubt.

Generally I would agree but in this case I think there has been some fairly frantic behind-the-scenes strategising about how to hinder Trump without undermining Democrats or the presidency. Sorry to say but this was just a tactic that probably would not have happened if Clinton was incoming.