I'm holding out a tiny glimmer of hope that Obama comes to his senses enough to pardon for the domestic pieces. It doesn't seem likely, but doesn't seem to directly contradict what he's said, and maybe Obama can pre-emptively compromise with me for once...
In this case, though, the pardon itself would be a substantial piece of policy. I think it would be disingenuous and disrespectful of the administration to refuse comment.
I expect to be disrespected, but hold out some small amount of hope that they will surprise me.
At the risk of diminishing Manning's plight, I'm sure whistleblowers like Snowden are exactly the kind that Wikileaks wants supporting them.
Also, it stands to reason that Manning's plight itself may have inspired Snowden.
If there was a single thing that Snowden did better, it was showing good judgement in who he turned over his evidence to.
It was for that reason I got worried (and remain worried) for Snowden once WikiLeaks swooped in to plant their flag. I'd trust HRW, EFF, ACLU, FSFE, or even just flying his father over there before I would trust WikiLeaks to always think in Snowden's best interests, and on not just their own. WikiLeaks already screwed up the asylum process with Ecuador (via Assange's ego) long enough to possibly maroon him in Moscow.
Glenn has his own issues IMO but I certainly get a better vibe from him regarding concern for the safety of his sources, and even concern for public safety compared to WikiLeaks.
Assange didn't hang Manning out to dry, Adrian Lamo betrayed Manning.
"Only after Manning gave WikiLeaks the video of the Apache assault in Baghdad shortly thereafter did he start to hear back from someone in the IRC using the handle “Ox.” He believed that Ox was “likely Julian Assange” or Assange’s then-second-in-command, “Daniel Schmitt” — the German activist Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Shortly thereafter, Manning encouraged Ox to use a different handle to contact him, “Nathaniel,” after the author Nathaniel Frank.
Manning said his ensuing discussions with “Nathaniel,” often about the classified material, became friendly, enjoyable and long. “In retrospect, I realize these dynamics were artificial,” Manning continued. “They were valued more to me than Nathaniel.”"
"But Manning said that no one at WikiLeaks ever encouraged him to leak — which may be significant, if the U.S. government is, as rumored, considering charging Assange in connection to the leaks.
“No one associated with the WLO [WikiLeaks Organization] pressured me to give them more information,” Manning said. “The decision to give documents to WikiLeaks [was] mine alone.”"
"...Manning said he first tried to take his information to the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico, before contacting WikiLeaks."
"“I never hid the fact that I downloaded copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A” and burned them onto CDs, Manning said, even labeling and storing them “in the open” in his unit’s tactical operations center. Nor did he hide that he also downloaded compression software to facilitate the transfer, Manning said."
"In each of these cases, Manning denied that he was compromising national security. The military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan were often “historic,” with its intelligence value perishable after “48 to 72 hours.” The Guantanamo Bay documents had “no useful intelligence” and did not disclose any results of detainee interrogations. The State Department cables were available to “thousands” of people throughout the government. A Washington Post reporter, David Finkel, had already written about a deadly Apache helicopter attack in 2007, in which civilians were killed, that Manning viewed on video."
I know that most news organizations have a slant to their reporting. Please do find me the transcript of Manning's statement so that I can see where he gives the impression that he was hung out to dry by either Wikileaks, or Assange himself.
Pretty damn simple.
The Guardian writes an expose on what should be the greatest political scandal of our lifetime- the fact that low level contractors and government employees can access all of our chat history, emails and browsing history.
The response? No one on social media is really discussing it, CNN America only has a passing mention of it on their front page (buried near the bottom) and America goes on with its day.
What does it take to get American's outraged about something?
- Stanley Kubrick http://youtu.be/xa-KBqOFgDQ?t=51m30s
It's worth noting that this was in the context of nothing less than the atom bomb.
Suggest that professional game players should take sensible safety precautions.
That, or an inside trading potential example.
Money or sex is something everyone understands.
I would argue that half of the country only gets fired up about something when they're told to do so by the party they vote for, the same one that dictates what they believe on any given issue. That's why it hurts that there is a Democrat in the Presidency right now, it has silenced a lot of the supposed civil rights advocates on the left.
Americans can get outraged just fine. The problem is that many people just don't understand exactly what's going on. They're either not very technical, and/or don't understand through the context of history, the ramifications of mass state surveillance.
This highlights the problem with our news-as-entertainment media model. It gives us what the country wants (sensationalism, excitement), not what the country needs (facts, context). Until not-for-profit media organizations can give the private news industry (in particular: CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS) some legitimate competition, we'll be stuck in this cycle.
He should have led with this leak.
> Defending Our Nation. Securing Our Future.
...I read that as...
Defending Our Own Money. Securing Our Own Power.
He was going to bomb NYC subways.
Please, if you're going to participate in this so called "surveillance debate", stick to facts and refrain from hyperbole.
If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? Any premeditated murder? Why hasn't a single banister been brought to justice over their internal emails detailing deliberate mortgage fraud? Why weren't they able to prove Bernie Madoff was swindling billions for years and there were many warnings? What about all the illegal insider trading of pretty much every congress person?
Oh that's right, because this system has absolutely nothing to do with bringing criminals to "justice" or keeping you safe.
This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit.
Trying to say that trillions of dollars in stolen money from people (if the funds taken from taxes are used to build a digital prison around you, those funds were stolen from you) to prevent some singular supposed attack is justified is farking insane!
The AUMF and constitutional case law give the executive branch a fair amount of discretion when it comes to national security. It's pretty hard to shoehorn drug cartels, bankers, and your run-of-the-mill murderers under national security. As such, prosecuting those folks using NSA-gathered evidence would force the NSA to reveal more about the program than it's comfortable doing.
See: Coast Guard.
>This is digital enslavement and every single person who approves of this bullshit is complicit.
And your evidence for that claim is...? Enslavement? Seriously?
(As always, their stupidity is our best protection, not the NSA)
If they're not all dumb and stupid then simply sitting on our hands waiting for the next massive attack is folly, and more importantly it's something the American public won't long stand for.
The nation has a long history of action where their sensibilities are offended, even where it doesn't maximize the cost/benefit analysis. Guess when this was said: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!".
A President or Congressman who tells the public that their counterterrorism plan consists of simply relying on the fact that it's not like lots of people will die will be the first ones out of office. Even Rand Paul agrees with counterterroism for crying out loud, he argues that you should have specific targets and then collect instead of collect first and wait for targets as the NSA is doing now.
The reason we spend money on "anti-terror" stuff is b/c terrorism is actually a highly efficient/extreme form of propaganda messaging, and propaganda is something that states care very much about. It cuts to the core of the legitimacy and efficacy of the state as an institution and so what is being protected is institutional credibility, not human life.
Is that part of the old "keeping the threat alive" strategy?
(Considering the eternity it took them to find OBL. And the one hiccup during the hunt when Bush called the team back, when in reality they were pretty close, as I remember reading.)
It seems the message is getting through, and that is a great thing.
Is there a way we can get out of this mess? I currently don't see any, besides the one with massive loss.
Please, anybody, correct me.
If you don't utilize gerrymandering then you lose, and if you're campaigning in a third-party then you lose.
The 2-party system will simply not allow it. They have the monopoly over the 2 "choices" we're given each time. They will continue to give us "choices" that they can control. Remember how one of the earlier whistle blowers revealed that Obama had been under surveillance earlier? People who are under surveillance are controllable. If they are allowed to access power, it's really not a stretch to think that they just have the function of a puppet. The 2 parties are controlled by the campaign money donors, which are mostly corporate interests. Do you remember how the Republicans ejected Ron Paul from the debates by quickly changing the rules when he got traction? (Not that I would really want Ron Paul for President.) The media are controlled by the same interests, just look at how little coverage you find about the new slides in the mainstream media, today.
I certainly don't pretend it's easy - but convincing people is the way it will happen.
And nothing Carter said - I assume you are referring to Carter's statements - were in absolutes. The system can be broken, it can be much harder to fix things than it should be, and yet it still might be our best means of fixing things.
What is the alternative?