Not really a fan of this move.

This should be remembered. Manning was cleared by a military court of aiding the enemy and was instead convicted of espionage and theft. And was given a much longer sentence than is usually given in these cases (the government wanted to make an example of Manning). Regardless of what you think about the commutation, it's not the same thing as what Snowden did.

Should everybody just access whatever information they have access to as long as they believe it leads to some greater good? Does that concept apply to Russia and Scooter Libby too?

Who is claiming this?

There's plenty of hero worship of both Mannning and Snowden. I'm just wondering where the line is, and when it's OK to release private or confidential information. If it's just an individual judgment call for the person doing the leaking, why wouldn't that apply more broadly?

It is not ok, and there was a punishment applied. The sentence was commuted and Manning has served more than twice as much time as anyone else convicted under the same statute, there was no pardon. You can argue the extent of the punishment, but Manning didn't get off scot-free.

I'm talking about the people who think it was OK. Like the poster on the last page.

"We need more Mannings and Snowdens. Telling the truth about evil, illegal activity should never be a crime."

And much more dramatic hero-worship in other circles. There's countless articles/petitions/subbreddits demanding pardons for both. If you don't think Manning and Snowden are celebrated figures than my point isn't applicable to you.

I'll take Manning and Snowden over our current military hero worship. The US government, especially the military and "defense" realm, has been part of some of the most vile behavior in modern history. Exposing them is not wrong. We need more whistleblowers and fewer mindless drones who just go along with orders because someone in a matching outfit tells them to do something.

WikiLeaks said it was the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released to the public. So I don't know if the sentence was appropriate, and Obama obviously has the power to do whatever he wants when it comes to pardons and commutations and that's his call. But there has to be a "longest sentence" for this type of crime, and it makes sense for that to tied to the largest leak.

It's ultimately an opinion whether, and how much of, the government's activity regarding surveillance is criminal, or unconstitutional. And of course, these leaks go way beyond even that surveillance activity.

And that gets back to what makes it OK. If in one's own person opinion, a government activity is "criminal" or "wrong" - even if there's no relevant binding court opinions holding that, and government attorneys have come to a different conclusion, does that give the person moral free reign to violate more clearly established law and release that information - even if creates national security issues or endangers the lives of intelligence operatives, etc? And does that give them moral free reign to release other information that isn't even related to things that the employee has personally deemed unconstitutional or criminal?

Some of the most "vile" behavior in modern history? I seriously hope this is a joke.

Not sure where "modern" starts here. But we have Hitler and Stalin in the 30's and 40's, PolPot in the 70's, Rwanda, Bosnia, China, North Korea. . . I mean, I could go on for awhile here. That doesn't mean I'm proud of everything the US military. I disagree with a lot of things they have done. But some of the most vile? Please. . . just stop.

Heeeere's your sign.

Right?

Killing civilians is wrong. That really shouldn't be debatable. Surveillance of US citizens, even passively, is a violation of privacy and an illegal search if there's no just cause. It's really that simple. Manning showed the US military killing civilians. Snowden showed the US government illegally collecting vast amounts of information on its citizens. Whistleblowers need to be lauded as heroes, not vilified as traitors.

Overthrowing governments ad nauseum in the Middle East has played a huge part in the destabilization of the area. Illegally invading Iraq and sending it into the chaos that it is still in, was reprehensible. Repeatedly going into countries, "peacekeeping," and leaving them in a mess has devastating long term effects. Killing civilians, especially via drone strikes outside of combat zones, is deplorable. Indefinitely jailing people without charges, just because of the suspicion that they might be involved in activities that are largely a reaction to US involvement internationally is disgusting.

Yes, at least in the post WWII era, the US is just as guilty of horrible behavior as anyone else, especially considering the longevity of our interference and aggressive expansion.

There are several document cases of severe breakdowns in the whistleblower system. Until that's fixed and the corrupted people responsible held accountable, public disclosure is unfortuantely the only viable alternative for people that feel something is to be said. It's a grey line to me.

Chelsea Manning was/is an idiot and didn't realize the magnitude of anything she was doing, she was likely manipulated directly by Assange. I more or less take pity on her and I'm sure Obama did as well. Assange is just a self centered attention whore with a self made halo on his head, he will do or say anything just to get in the papers.

Snowden on the other hand I do believe is well intentioned and would have followed proper channels if those channels hadn't already been shown to be hazardous. He has not said anything but the truth and does not come accross as the thoughtless narcisstic egomaniac Assange is.

I don't agree with this at all even being a huge fan of most of what Obama has done, but I also don't see how R's who were praising Assange for exposing Hillary a few weeks ago can possibly get up in arms about this.

Overthrowing Saddam led to civilian deaths, but letting Assad stay in power shows exactly how letting a dictator reign also leads to civilian deaths. Unfortunately there's no easy answer, but blaming the U.S. military isn't one either. There's a whole plethora of people, even in the U.S. security apparatus, that are in line ahead of them.

LOL. The final presidential press conference was like a funeral wake with all the press attending.

That should tell you something about our new President. We're replacing a fundamentally decent and reasonable man with a fundamentally indecent and unreasonable man.

The press is like a giant squad of Obama stalkers.

I may disagree with commuting Manning's sentence, but I am sympathetic to the view that the governments keeps too many secrets and needs to be more transparent. I have no sympathy for any government official who was exposed by the leaks but I do think Manning went about it the wrong way.

However someone is going to have to explain to me why this douchebag had his sentence commuted.

Obama commutes sentence of Oscar Lopez Rivera, member of Puerto Rican militant group - Chicago Tribune

What if the leaks gave the Russians the ability to hack into VIP government officials illegal private servers....or a political parties databases? What if it led to the rigging of our elections? Ya never know! :)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

He's a motherless son of a goat, and that's being too kind. Some happy day when he ceases to waste oxygen I just hope they don't poison the soil by burying his worthless carcass somewhere.

Please, give me a break.

And no, the US is not as bad as PolPot. The US is not as bad as Rwanda. The US is not as bad as Bosnia. The US is not as bad as North Korea. Hell, the US isn't even as bad as Russia.

Simply saying you don't like a leader in any of those countries could/will have you and your family killed.

There is something called context here. The US military is not and never will be a perfect group. They will make mistakes and when they do, they will usually be high profile. But they are not eradicating people in the numbers the other guys are and to act like they are shows a very poor lack of context and historical understanding. For example, before the US moved into Iraq, there was a genocide there in 1988. (note: this isn't the lack of chemical weapons things people talk about, this really happened. Hussein was also actively offering the families of suicide bombers financial rewards while his own people were being brutalized.

You can HATE the US all you want, you can say everything we have done was a mistake. The reality is, there has been no genocide, no killing fields, no country filled with labor camps for people who criticize the president. . . I could go on.

I'm sorry you hate us as bad as you do. . . . but saying we are as bad as anyone else is wrong on a lot of levels.

One more note: That doesn't mean we can't strive to be better. It doesn't mean we can't change foreign policy and get better. But we sure as hell aren't as bad as you are making us to be.

I can't wait to hear how much better life is for you when Trump grants your three wishes on Monday (he's taking the weekend off).

At worst, maybe the bleeding stops before the last few remaining drops drain out.

I'm not expecting wondrous miracles, I've been up front about that.
But at least he'll likely be less prone to do actual harm, that's improvement.

I think you know it's not that simple at all. "Domestic" companies are are global companies. And even when we have "just cause" for surveillance, the raw data that we might utilize to perform that lawful espionage is long gone, unless it's preserved in some manner beforehand.

But if you don't like espionage, and you don't like military action - how should we attempt to keep tabs on terrorist organizations, or, should we at all? If you think that's a "simple" question, then I hope you get involved in public service at that level because they could use definitely use your vision.

One thing I've learned working in various government agencies over the years (not in national security), are that the questions can be really difficult, most public servants mean really well, and the people that think they have all the answers tend to have least grasp of what's going on.

What do you think Obama's real end game was? Do you think he was sincere in his attempts to defend the country, and if not, what was his real goal instead? If he was sincere, why does he, and so many political leaders from both parties, find these programs so important, and significantly, legal? Public servants aren't infallible, but in situations where they have so much more access to information than the general public, I think it takes a pretty strong case to overcome such a broad consensus.

I've tried to figure out for a while what a "transparent espionage" program would look like. I know you're not calling for that, expressly I guess, but I hear those terms together a lot. That we need to me more open about how we conduct intelligence operations. I think that's really naive. Consequential governments spy, they always have, they always will. I'm glad to at least live in a country where that doesn't impact my daily life at all. I'm sure there's all kinds of data related to my interactions with global internet and telecommunications companies that are accessible by the government, but, I knew that before Snowden. It's actually surprising to me that pre-Snowden, so many people apparently thought that if they were say, Saudi nationals in the U.S. utilizing the internet to communicate and facilitate funding for terrorist groups, that the U.S. just had no way to attempt to try to keep tabs on that activity. That physical U.S. presence was some kind of "super-safe zone" that precluded intelligence gathering unless there was a specific investigation targeting a specific identifiable person. But yet a lot of these people who hate the concept of surveillance and intelligence-gathering also think that the U.S.'s failure to stop 9/11 proves that that was an inside job, or at best, that the U.S. was just grossly incompetent. At the domestic level, it reminds me of the Boston marathon suspect search. The Boston police simultaneously were criticized for being too aggressive, and also, not finding the suspects quickly enough. It's like there's some magic way to prevent all terrorism that doesn't involve intelligence gathering or military action, and we're just either haven't figured it out yet (except on reddit and message boards) or are keeping ourselves willfully ignorant. IMO, this shit is just way more difficult and dirtier to deal with than a lot of people assume. There's no easy answers.

Personally, I'd much rather the U.S. be more aggressive on the espionage and intelligence side, and much less aggressive on the invading countries side. And I wonder about the long-term side-effects of all of these patriotic leaks.

Expelling foreigners, bringing back slavery, and... I'm missing on the third.

I found this to be a fascinating, yet brief, look at the Obama presidency and the possible outcome of the Trump years.

Obama Hoped to be a transformational president. He failed.

There was a solid series of articles regarding the election on RCP this week. It looked at the election results region by region and compared Democrat vote totals every 8 years going back to the 88 election. Two items were interesting, essentially the map has flipped, and there is far less purple on the map.

Repealing Obamacare ... and replacing it with yet-to-be-defined Trumpcare

In the most utterly shocking news ever, a company lied about why it pulled out of Obamacare. You know, they made the law a scapegoat to fit what they what they already wanted to do for profit and retribution.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare - LA Times

Someone sure did a number on you in life.

But, but hes a racist and sexist and and he will start world war 3 and and he likes Putin and and he is going to want to help Israeli. Trump is the devil.

Thank you President Obama for staying classy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/politi...day/index.html

I sent a drunk email to the official Obama email address on election night, terrified of the future and thanking him for his service. I got a response a few months ago. A canned response of course, but specific enough to things I wrote that it was clearly at least read by someone. I miss having a grown-up in the white house, and I've never been a democrat.

:lol:

Was googling and came on a Pakistani news website. Some interesting comments on Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden's wife opens up for first time about night he was killed - The Express Tribune

May get the book, sounds interesting POV. Glad he knew who was coming for him early and have to give credit to Obama for his call.

Wife's account was OBL was shot in the room after she was shot first but I think the books/movie had him shot as he was peaking out the room?

Interesting article.

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook