6 ms·

This is fantastic news.

ci5er 7y ago
Why? I'm not familiar with the facts of the case. And, I further realize that facts are almost completely immaterial to motivated reasoning about the case, but... ... assuming that you (or someone) is a straight-shooter, why is this "fantastic news"?
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  Because she is being released from incarceration!?
  - ci5er 7y ago
    Uhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.
    - wonderwonder 7y ago
      She is in jail for refusing to testify in front of a secret jury. The grand jury is essentially a politically motivated persecution of Julian Assange. She has already spent 7 years in jail for her part in the Wiki leaks mess and then they threw her in jail again. She released tapes to Assange documenting US killing of civilians. She is clearly a psychologically damaged person and now they are just trying to break her.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        Grand juries are a normal part of the system for determining if a case should continue to go to trial they had no power to put Assange in prison.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Well, there are many different... idealogical alignments in America. Some believe Manning is a hero who followed her conscience and leaked classified information in order to inform the public of secret crimes the government/military committed. Others think what Manning did was incredibly reckless and treasonous, tantamount to selling secrets to the enemy (just without the "selling" part) So to answer your question, people in the first camp see news like this as a good thing.
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        I don't think this should be reduced to her original actions. She was sentenced as a consequence of them, she served 7 years until the rest of the sentence was communted by Obama. So the real question is: was it appropriate to throw her back into prison, under very harsh conditions, just to force a statement from her. I think there is very good reasons to doubt that, independant of the stance about her original actions. From that perspective, I think her release is good news.
    - autonoshitbox 7y ago
      Hmm, I don't know, how about you answer this: Why are you such a fascist?
      - ci5er 7y ago
        I don't know. I don't think I started that way. I think I started out normal like? But when your mother awakened certain hidden feelings in me with her sex toys when I was 9, I did feel feelings against her other object of sexual obsession, you; I developed an urge to put my hands around your neck. It's been years, but I carry it to this day. I miss her.
- karthikshan 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning tl;dr she was a whistleblower facing the wrath of the people she outed
  - ci5er 7y ago
    I think she was being compelled to testify here in the Assange case, no?
  - jswizzy 7y ago
    Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.
    - kick 7y ago
      She was a whistleblower, hence everyone with a hint of credibility saying she was. Also, it's customary on HN to point out when you have a conflict of interest. You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work. How do you know that? I don't see anything in their profile. Was it a post that they made?
        kick 7y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Can you help me understand the difference between leaker and whistleblower?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Manning was being squeezed to get at Assange, who most people on HN agree is himself only being squeezed for geopolitical reasons. Nobody is happy to see the justice system abused for geopolitical goals, so any step away from "jail all of the dissenters and all of their supporters" is good to see.
  - ci5er 7y ago
    I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      What are you talking about? It was Russians (at least two independent Russian groups even) and CrowdStrike has only reiterated that. CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. He doesn’t know where his source got it, even if his source was not Russian. I’m also pretty sure that no LEOs said any such thing.
      - Natsu 7y ago
        > CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. Who else examined the servers? The US Government stated in court that it relied exclusively on their analysis and never examined the servers at issue. One might think this was normally something they should be doing, but it's getting more common (e.g. with Bezos' phone, where the private company failed to decrypt the supposed malware, despite there being open source tools for WhatsApp decryption). Given that they failed to identify the Ukranian P.A.S. malware or a bunch of Tor exit nodes, it's legitimate to question how definitively they were able to pin this on a specific APT. > It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. A fair point, but one you should make to the US Government and the media who promulgated the myth that he would somehow get a pardon for saying exactly what he's repeatedly said in public for years now when the real story was that someone hoped to convince Trump of that and never actually got to talk to him. Also, we do have some evidence against. The exfiltration happened at almost exactly the speed of a USB drive. That doesn't seem likely to be coincidental, or likely to randomly happen for internet exfiltration of data.

Why? I'm not familiar with the facts of the case. And, I further realize that facts are almost completely immaterial to motivated reasoning about the case, but... ... assuming that you (or someone) is a straight-shooter, why is this "fantastic news"?

jlgaddis 7y ago
Because she is being released from incarceration!?
- ci5er 7y ago
  Uhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.
  - wonderwonder 7y ago
    She is in jail for refusing to testify in front of a secret jury. The grand jury is essentially a politically motivated persecution of Julian Assange. She has already spent 7 years in jail for her part in the Wiki leaks mess and then they threw her in jail again. She released tapes to Assange documenting US killing of civilians. She is clearly a psychologically damaged person and now they are just trying to break her.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      Grand juries are a normal part of the system for determining if a case should continue to go to trial they had no power to put Assange in prison.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Well, there are many different... idealogical alignments in America. Some believe Manning is a hero who followed her conscience and leaked classified information in order to inform the public of secret crimes the government/military committed. Others think what Manning did was incredibly reckless and treasonous, tantamount to selling secrets to the enemy (just without the "selling" part) So to answer your question, people in the first camp see news like this as a good thing.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      I don't think this should be reduced to her original actions. She was sentenced as a consequence of them, she served 7 years until the rest of the sentence was communted by Obama. So the real question is: was it appropriate to throw her back into prison, under very harsh conditions, just to force a statement from her. I think there is very good reasons to doubt that, independant of the stance about her original actions. From that perspective, I think her release is good news.
  - autonoshitbox 7y ago
    Hmm, I don't know, how about you answer this: Why are you such a fascist?
    - ci5er 7y ago
      I don't know. I don't think I started that way. I think I started out normal like? But when your mother awakened certain hidden feelings in me with her sex toys when I was 9, I did feel feelings against her other object of sexual obsession, you; I developed an urge to put my hands around your neck. It's been years, but I carry it to this day. I miss her.
karthikshan 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning tl;dr she was a whistleblower facing the wrath of the people she outed
- ci5er 7y ago
  I think she was being compelled to testify here in the Assange case, no?
- jswizzy 7y ago
  Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.
  - kick 7y ago
    She was a whistleblower, hence everyone with a hint of credibility saying she was. Also, it's customary on HN to point out when you have a conflict of interest. You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work. How do you know that? I don't see anything in their profile. Was it a post that they made?
      - kick 7y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Can you help me understand the difference between leaker and whistleblower?
whatshisface 7y ago
Manning was being squeezed to get at Assange, who most people on HN agree is himself only being squeezed for geopolitical reasons. Nobody is happy to see the justice system abused for geopolitical goals, so any step away from "jail all of the dissenters and all of their supporters" is good to see.
- ci5er 7y ago
  I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    What are you talking about? It was Russians (at least two independent Russian groups even) and CrowdStrike has only reiterated that. CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. He doesn’t know where his source got it, even if his source was not Russian. I’m also pretty sure that no LEOs said any such thing.
    - Natsu 7y ago
      > CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. Who else examined the servers? The US Government stated in court that it relied exclusively on their analysis and never examined the servers at issue. One might think this was normally something they should be doing, but it's getting more common (e.g. with Bezos' phone, where the private company failed to decrypt the supposed malware, despite there being open source tools for WhatsApp decryption). Given that they failed to identify the Ukranian P.A.S. malware or a bunch of Tor exit nodes, it's legitimate to question how definitively they were able to pin this on a specific APT. > It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. A fair point, but one you should make to the US Government and the media who promulgated the myth that he would somehow get a pardon for saying exactly what he's repeatedly said in public for years now when the real story was that someone hoped to convince Trump of that and never actually got to talk to him. Also, we do have some evidence against. The exfiltration happened at almost exactly the speed of a USB drive. That doesn't seem likely to be coincidental, or likely to randomly happen for internet exfiltration of data.