5 ms·

Good. I wish that he would just pardon her, though. I don't want the next administration to somehow undo this.

by blhack 10y ago

siegecraft 10y ago
Yes, it seems very cowardly and very much passing the buck and doesn't acknowledge that what she did was justified at all, just that mercy was granted.
- gph 10y ago
  Isn't that exactly what Obama was trying for? I've never read any statements from the Obama administration that makes it seem like they find anything about this case justified or acceptable.
  - detaro 10y ago
    This quote by a spokesperson in the article supports that: “Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” A criminal that's being granted a shorter sentence, not the "support" for someones actions a pardon would be.
wheelerwj 10y ago
She can't be tried again though, so how would they undo it?
- jandrese 10y ago
  Midnight assassination squads? They could start digging through laws looking for anything they can make stick (parking violations, jaywalking, etc...), but IMHO the most likely scenario is that nothing further happens to Chelsea Manning. She is yesterday's news. She is never going to work in a government position again, but somehow I don't think that's going to be relevant to her future plans.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Not for the same crimes, of course.
- DINKDINK 10y ago
  Legally they wouldn't be able to convict Manning of the same crime again. The state can do what they do with every dissident; surveil her in the extreme and then prosecute her for some trivial offense. Law is extremely complex and dense. You have certainly broken laws but haven't been punished for them sole reason that you haven't drawn the ire of the political class. Do you think it's just mere coincidence that anytime a citizen embarrasses the police they end up being busted for some trivial offense? The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent the state from harassing citizens and to rate limit the states ability to execute revenge convictions. With everyone having a dossier on them now, the state implicitly chills citizens from pushing back against the government.
  - FrostyElsa 10y ago
    OJ stole a TV after being found guilty in his murder trial decades later? 30-life. Yeah. Talk about a disproportionate punishment.
- voxic11 10y ago
  Just order the prison not to release them. That's what Bush did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie
  - unclenoriega 10y ago
    My understanding is that President Bush was able to revoke the pardon because it hadn't been executed yet. This won't be the case with Manning's commutation.
analogmemory 10y ago
I was curious and looked up the difference. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3339765&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3339765&page=1 A "pardon wipes out the conviction while a commutation leaves the conviction intact but wipes out the punishment." It seems that the next administration can't do anything about it at least.
464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
It won't be undone under Trump. If anything, he would grant immediate clemency or a pardon (though I don't expect either).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  While the right loves WikiLeaks now, that's all because of Assange's more recent tactions that don't involve Manning; at the time, they wanted Manning and Assange treated as enemy combatants, while that's changed for Assange because he has now served their political interests, I don't see any indication that it has for Manning.
mikeash 10y ago
Wouldn't it be outrageously unconstitutional to undo this?
- noobermin 10y ago
  Well given Trump's recent skirting around the emoluments clause... Let's hope he doesn't do that.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Well, that's why I said "outrageously." It's a lot more clear when there's an obvious wronged party and the outcome is an American in prison when they shouldn't be. It would surely be challenged in court, and won.
- cowardlydragon 10y ago
  We are effectively in a post-constitutional era... It's been a grey area with NSA spying and many other federal overreaches for a while, but with Trump it's official.
peteretep 10y ago
> I don't want the next administration > to somehow undo this. Cui bono? What a freakin' distraction that would be.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Distraction is pretty much the modus operandi of Trump, so...
  - peteretep 10y ago
    You know what? That's a great answer, and I hadn't thought of that. It would make an interesting way of distracting from something else.

Good. I wish that he would just pardon her, though. I don't want the next administration to somehow undo this.

by blhack 10y ago

Good. I wish that he would just pardon her, though. I don't want the next administration to somehow undo this.

Yes, it seems very cowardly and very much passing the buck and doesn't acknowledge that what she did was justified at all, just that mercy was granted.

gph 10y ago
Isn't that exactly what Obama was trying for? I've never read any statements from the Obama administration that makes it seem like they find anything about this case justified or acceptable.
- detaro 10y ago
  This quote by a spokesperson in the article supports that: “Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” A criminal that's being granted a shorter sentence, not the "support" for someones actions a pardon would be.

wheelerwj 10y ago

She can't be tried again though, so how would they undo it?

jandrese 10y ago
Midnight assassination squads? They could start digging through laws looking for anything they can make stick (parking violations, jaywalking, etc...), but IMHO the most likely scenario is that nothing further happens to Chelsea Manning. She is yesterday's news. She is never going to work in a government position again, but somehow I don't think that's going to be relevant to her future plans.
r00fus 10y ago
Not for the same crimes, of course.
DINKDINK 10y ago
Legally they wouldn't be able to convict Manning of the same crime again. The state can do what they do with every dissident; surveil her in the extreme and then prosecute her for some trivial offense. Law is extremely complex and dense. You have certainly broken laws but haven't been punished for them sole reason that you haven't drawn the ire of the political class. Do you think it's just mere coincidence that anytime a citizen embarrasses the police they end up being busted for some trivial offense? The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent the state from harassing citizens and to rate limit the states ability to execute revenge convictions. With everyone having a dossier on them now, the state implicitly chills citizens from pushing back against the government.
- FrostyElsa 10y ago
  OJ stole a TV after being found guilty in his murder trial decades later? 30-life. Yeah. Talk about a disproportionate punishment.
voxic11 10y ago
Just order the prison not to release them. That's what Bush did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Toussie
- unclenoriega 10y ago
  My understanding is that President Bush was able to revoke the pardon because it hadn't been executed yet. This won't be the case with Manning's commutation.

analogmemory 10y ago

I was curious and looked up the difference. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3339765&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3339765&page=1 A "pardon wipes out the conviction while a commutation leaves the conviction intact but wipes out the punishment." It seems that the next administration can't do anything about it at least.

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago

It won't be undone under Trump. If anything, he would grant immediate clemency or a pardon (though I don't expect either).

dragonwriter 10y ago
While the right loves WikiLeaks now, that's all because of Assange's more recent tactions that don't involve Manning; at the time, they wanted Manning and Assange treated as enemy combatants, while that's changed for Assange because he has now served their political interests, I don't see any indication that it has for Manning.

mikeash 10y ago

Wouldn't it be outrageously unconstitutional to undo this?

noobermin 10y ago
Well given Trump's recent skirting around the emoluments clause... Let's hope he doesn't do that.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Well, that's why I said "outrageously." It's a lot more clear when there's an obvious wronged party and the outcome is an American in prison when they shouldn't be. It would surely be challenged in court, and won.
cowardlydragon 10y ago
We are effectively in a post-constitutional era... It's been a grey area with NSA spying and many other federal overreaches for a while, but with Trump it's official.

peteretep 10y ago

> I don't want the next administration > to somehow undo this. Cui bono? What a freakin' distraction that would be.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Distraction is pretty much the modus operandi of Trump, so...
- peteretep 10y ago
  You know what? That's a great answer, and I hadn't thought of that. It would make an interesting way of distracting from something else.