So, how about that Manning thing

Poli-meaning many
Tics-blood sucking insects

Yep... that about sums up the Government...

So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:43 pm

I wonder what the consensus is here on FWIS about Obama letting her go.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama ... ar-AAlXtr5
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:02 am

Commutation is a substitution of the penalty for a crime with the penalty for another, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime.

Today, President Obama commuted the thirty-five year sentence of PFC “Chelsea” Manning. It is one of the few things that I really, really disagree with the president about. The truth is, in the up until the 1970s, Manning would have been hanged or shot for espionage, which, frankly is what s/he was guilty of.

Manning was not pardoned. S/he was not absolved of his/her crimes. S/he is not eligible for VA benefits, not that the VA would pay for whatever it is s/he is claiming his/her issues are.

Let us get this straight – Manning is guilty. Guilty of turning over classified material to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, for the purposes of publication. Manning is guilty of downloading classified material onto an unsecured computer, and transporting that information, and then disseminating that information to an outside agent. And in doing so, s/he endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers.

Whether or not Manning thought that s/he thought s/he thought s/he was doing the “right thing” is irrelevant. S/he was not a “whistleblower”. The definition of a whistleblower is an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it. If Manning was trying to stop something, then s/he should have gone to his/her superior officers, NOT Julian Assange.

There is no way you are going to convince me that Manning is some kind of hero. S/he is the lowest form of pond scum, and not only earned, but deserved the sentence that s/he got.

POTUS is a much better man than I.
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby SciFiFisher » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:05 am

I think the president may have been considering a number of factors. I don't agree that Manning should have received any leniency. But, it is worth noting that he was not convicted on the most serious charge that they charged him with. Which was aiding and abetting the enemy. That is a key component to being charged with Treason. If the government had won that one he may very well have been given the death sentence. Someone on Facebook observed that others who had committed "similar" crimes had served less than 5 or 10 years. It is worth noting that Manning was convicted on 11 other counts. He was originally sentenced to approximately 37 years in prison. If you average the number of convictions it is only about 3.3 years per each conviction.
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:02 pm

She said she was sorry.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:22 pm

vendic wrote:She said she was sorry.

Sorry don't butter the parsnips....
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Rommie » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:59 pm

DimSum, you know I love you, but I feel it really cheapens your message when it's filled with snide things like putting Manning's chosen name in quotes and talking about "...not that the VA would pay for whatever it is s/he is claiming his/her issues are." Particularly because I don't think you would do the same if you met any other trans person and they said "I prefer to be called Betsy and be referred to as she."
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:16 am

Rommie wrote:DimSum, you know I love you, but I feel it really cheapens your message when it's filled with snide things like putting Manning's chosen name in quotes and talking about "...not that the VA would pay for whatever it is s/he is claiming his/her issues are." Particularly because I don't think you would do the same if you met any other trans person and they said "I prefer to be called Betsy and be referred to as she."
I had this same discussion with my SIL... and what I basically said was... for this particular twatwaffle... I could care less... anyone else? I would take more care. But for PFC Manning... never.
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby SciFiFisher » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:07 am

Rommie wrote:DimSum, you know I love you, but I feel it really cheapens your message when it's filled with snide things like putting Manning's chosen name in quotes and talking about "...not that the VA would pay for whatever it is s/he is claiming his/her issues are." Particularly because I don't think you would do the same if you met any other trans person and they said "I prefer to be called Betsy and be referred to as she."


It can be difficult to explain. PFC Bradley Manning was part of a fraternity that takes a very harsh view of oath breaking. After he was caught and convicted he announced that he felt he was struggling with gender identity issues and that he was a female. For many of us in the fraternity it seemed less than sincere and more like a manipulative action on the part of a person who probably has a very serious case of borderline personality disorder. It seems as if he was doing it to gain sympathy and/or to distract people from the fact that he committed a very serious crime. If not treason then he certainly tiptoed right up to it. He was actually charged with a significant crime that if he had been convicted might have resulted in the death penalty. That crime is called "Aiding and Abetting The Enemy During A Time of War". For many of us in the fraternity the fact that the government did not convince the court doesn't mean he was not guilty of that crime. Merely that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convince the court.

Which means that for many of us PFC Manning is a traitor. Even worse he is a traitor who gave information to our enemies that more likely than not resulted in the deaths of people who worked with us, for us, or were us. What you are reading in Dimsum's post is not snide remarks. It is barely suppressed rage that this traitorous scumbag did not get what they deserve. And an observation that he is in for a very rude awakening when said scumbag is released from prison and realizes that she does not qualify for any federal benefits including those provided to honorably discharged military veterans

While I agree that it is noble and the right thing to speak of every one with some modicum of respect and dignity it is very, very, very, difficult to do so when it comes to people such as former PFC Bradley Manning.
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:09 pm

There was no evidence presented that anyone died as a result of the leaks at the trial or afterwards.

Fisher wrote:For many of us in the fraternity the fact that the government did not convince the court doesn't mean he was not guilty of that crime. Merely that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convince the court.


I understand the problem but at the end of the day the court had more knowledge about this than anyone not directly involved or that didn't have all the information.
I've used a similar argument that was toned down and was chastised for it. My argument is that you can't punish them for such offenses using the legal system. You can however have enough doubt to not let them near sensitive information and certainly not let them be in a position of power ever again. It's to me an acceptable solution.
In Mannings case that will never again be an issue.

BTW, people swear oaths all the time and break them. Look at the divorce rate! Sometimes they have legitimate reasons and other times they don't. :P
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Rommie » Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:39 pm

SciFiFisher wrote:
Rommie wrote:DimSum, you know I love you, but I feel it really cheapens your message when it's filled with snide things like putting Manning's chosen name in quotes and talking about "...not that the VA would pay for whatever it is s/he is claiming his/her issues are." Particularly because I don't think you would do the same if you met any other trans person and they said "I prefer to be called Betsy and be referred to as she."


It can be difficult to explain. PFC Bradley Manning was part of a fraternity that takes a very harsh view of oath breaking. After he was caught and convicted he announced that he felt he was struggling with gender identity issues and that he was a female. For many of us in the fraternity it seemed less than sincere and more like a manipulative action on the part of a person who probably has a very serious case of borderline personality disorder. It seems as if he was doing it to gain sympathy and/or to distract people from the fact that he committed a very serious crime. If not treason then he certainly tiptoed right up to it. He was actually charged with a significant crime that if he had been convicted might have resulted in the death penalty. That crime is called "Aiding and Abetting The Enemy During A Time of War". For many of us in the fraternity the fact that the government did not convince the court doesn't mean he was not guilty of that crime. Merely that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convince the court.

Which means that for many of us PFC Manning is a traitor. Even worse he is a traitor who gave information to our enemies that more likely than not resulted in the deaths of people who worked with us, for us, or were us. What you are reading in Dimsum's post is not snide remarks. It is barely suppressed rage that this traitorous scumbag did not get what they deserve. And an observation that he is in for a very rude awakening when said scumbag is released from prison and realizes that she does not qualify for any federal benefits including those provided to honorably discharged military veterans

While I agree that it is noble and the right thing to speak of every one with some modicum of respect and dignity it is very, very, very, difficult to do so when it comes to people such as former PFC Bradley Manning.


I understand that, but if Manning were black, and afterwards made disparaging comments about how black people are treated in society or similar, I doubt anyone would find it acceptable to show "barely suppressed rage" about that.

I still stand by what I said, there is plenty to be legitimately upset about than go that direction.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby squ1d » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:49 am

Sorry to return to this topic, but DimSum, I noticed you posting again about LGBTI rights again in another thread, yet here by using mixed pronouns and accusing a person of being "fake transgender", you are engaging in anti LGBTI behaviour. You're not a psychiatrist, and you're not privy to Manning's personal life, so any inferences along those lines are clearly prejudiced. As Rommy points out, if you think he's a traitor based on his actions, then fine. But don't pretend because your "Fraternity" has such special values that you can just get away with being hypocritical.
squ1d
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:08 pm

squ1d wrote:Sorry to return to this topic, but DimSum, I noticed you posting again about LGBTI rights again in another thread, yet here by using mixed pronouns and accusing a person of being "fake transgender", you are engaging in anti LGBTI behaviour. You're not a psychiatrist, and you're not privy to Manning's personal life, so any inferences along those lines are clearly prejudiced. As Rommy points out, if you think he's a traitor based on his actions, then fine. But don't pretend because your "Fraternity" has such special values that you can just get away with being hypocritical.


Her actions. :P
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby squ1d » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:40 pm

Sssh. :D
squ1d
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:00 pm

squ1d wrote:Sorry to return to this topic, but DimSum, I noticed you posting again about LGBTI rights again in another thread, yet here by using mixed pronouns and accusing a person of being "fake transgender", you are engaging in anti LGBTI behaviour. You're not a psychiatrist, and you're not privy to Manning's personal life, so any inferences along those lines are clearly prejudiced. As Rommy points out, if you think he's a traitor based on his actions, then fine. But don't pretend because your "Fraternity" has such special values that you can just get away with being hypocritical.

I wanted to come back to this but got busy.... thanks for reminding me....
About what Rommie said -

If Manning had been black - that was something that could not be changed. We wouldn't have gone around harping on his skin color every other sentence. Because that would have been stupid. And frankly, when I think of Manning, I think of someone called BRADLY Manning. A male soldier who sold out his country, was tried and convicted and was damned lucky that he wasn't put against the wall and shot for treason. Gender is fluid. With that being said, Manning has used gender identity issues as an excuse for having betrayed the country. So I am having some serious issues with taking his/her gender dysmorphia seriously. "It's not my fault.... I'm a woman, trapped in a man's body...." "I couldn't help myself.... I have gender identity issues...." "I didn't know what I was doing.... I was so depressed because they are being mean to me, because I would rather be a woman, than a man...." and this stuff only popped up AFTER s/he was caught.

Manning bragged. BRAGGED about what he had done to another hacker (the one that turned him/her in). So you will pardon me if I am less than sympathetic to his/her plight.
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:01 pm

I think it goes along the line that if we start deciding who we're willing to take seriously on their gender issues and who not based on our perspective, then we can't condemn others that do so from theirs.
That is an ugly road to go, but many want to travel it.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:53 pm

Something else I want to point out, about my rant about Manning. No... I'm not a psychologist. I'm not privy to Manning's personal life. But neither are any of you. You are all taking it on faith that Manning is telling the truth about his/her gender identity issues that didn't come to light until AFTER s/he was sentenced. Why not before? Why join the military? Really? There have been articles describing Manning in BASIC as less than stellar, and as permanent party in the same way. And then, counseling statements where (according to Manning) where s/he was treated harshly. I have a problem with that - a counseling statement where you are being told that your chronic lateness is a problem means that your chronic lateness is an issue and you need to address it, not flip over a table, or give excuses to your sergeant. In the civilian world, chronic lateness is cause for dismissal. In the military, it means that you get an Art 15, and are punished.

S/he is perhaps what s/he says s/he is. You don't know, and neither do I. I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. To an extent. And covering all bases.

BUT -- PFC Manning is in for a rude awakening. The Army is not going to pay for gender reassignment surgery, once s/he is out of Ft Leavenworth. And PFC Manning will not be eligible for VA benefits, since s/he is a convicted felon. S/he will also not be eligible for Medicaid/Medicare, public housing, public assistance or any other federal aid. I wish PFC Manning good luck (not really).
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:09 am

DimSum wrote:Something else I want to point out, about my rant about Manning. No... I'm not a psychologist. I'm not privy to Manning's personal life. But neither are any of you. You are all taking it on faith that Manning is telling the truth about his/her gender identity issues that didn't come to light until AFTER s/he was sentenced. Why not before? Why join the military? Really?


I'm not jumping on you but there is nothing other than taking it on faith when people claim different gender identity to the body they are in.

r.e. when she decided to come out etc.
I don't know how that relates to her gender identity but if she wanted to play it for what it was worth, it would have been better during the trial. Also, there are photographs of her in a blonde wig with lipstick before the leaks, and the army did know about it before hand.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-per ... ea-manning

The defense introduced a photo Manning emailed to her supervisor, Master Sgt Paul Adkins, with the subject line “my problem.” It showed Manning in a blonde wig and wearing lipstick. Clinical Psychiatrist Michael Worsley, who treated Manning in Iraq, also testified about how the military’s “hypermasculine environment” and hostility towards LGBT soldiers could have contributed to Manning’s depression and sense of isolation.

Dr. David Moulton, the forensic psychologist assigned to review Manning’s case, said that Manning was suffering from gender identity disorder, a diagnosis supported by a military sanity board.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Cyborg Girl » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:23 am

For just this once I agree with squ1d. A trans woman who does unethical things is still a woman... Just an unethical one.

And yes, okay, I'll butt out now. ;)

Edit: actually no, one more thing that I want to mention: "Dreyfus Affair." The parallels are not exact, but I think the point stands - as with Dreyfus, the victim in a public cause celebre does not need to be a hero, or even a decent person at all.
User avatar
Cyborg Girl
Boy Genius
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby squ1d » Wed Jan 25, 2017 3:58 am

DimSum wrote:No... I'm not a psychologist. I'm not privy to Manning's personal life. But neither are any of you. You are all taking it on faith that Manning is telling the truth about his/her gender identity issues
...
S/he is perhaps what s/he says s/he is. You don't know, and neither do I. I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. To an extent. And covering all bases.


This is a very sketchy position for someone claiming to support LGBTI rights.

Incidentally, the military is very famous for having a poor track record there too.
squ1d
 
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Rommie » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:16 pm

squ1d wrote:
DimSum wrote:No... I'm not a psychologist. I'm not privy to Manning's personal life. But neither are any of you. You are all taking it on faith that Manning is telling the truth about his/her gender identity issues
...
S/he is perhaps what s/he says s/he is. You don't know, and neither do I. I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. To an extent. And covering all bases.


This is a very sketchy position for someone claiming to support LGBTI rights.

Incidentally, the military is very famous for having a poor track record there too.


Yes. I also agree with GJ, Manning can just be a shitty woman, of which there are many in the world.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 4057
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby geonuc » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:40 pm

DimSum wrote:I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt.


Actually, I don't think you are, or you'd not continue with the 's/he' and 'him/her' stuff.

For anyone who supports and upholds transgender rights, Manning is a she: Chelsea Manning. There can be no waffling on that point. Her self-determination of gender identity is absolutely irrelevant to her guilt with respect to the crimes she's been convicted of.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby DimSum » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:17 am

Know what y'all.... I don't have to justify how I feel or don't feel about Manning. You don't like it? Tough shit. Don't think that I support LBGTQ rights enough? That's your fucking problem. As for me... I'm a happy little individual, who does what I need to do, for the people that I love.... which includes members of the gay community.

Like me, hate me... I gives a fuck.
DimSum
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Cyborg Girl » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:34 pm

I don't hate you, I just think you're incorrect on this point. It's possible to be incorrect without deserving hate. :P
User avatar
Cyborg Girl
Boy Genius
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby vendic » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:18 pm

If I'm correct, it is possible to hate being incorrect. :)
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: So, how about that Manning thing

Postby Cyborg Girl » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:07 pm

You too, vendic. Just noticed you use "him" in your OP...
User avatar
Cyborg Girl
Boy Genius
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 am

Next

Return to Poli-Tics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests