• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Commutes Bulk of Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo Say it aint so! The President may disagree with some of his cabinent members on certain things! This is sooo unprecedented! :lamo


Doubtful. Going out with a 60% approval rating. Obama is going to be treated very kindly in the history books.
Click to expand...

Only because predominantly Socialist write the History books.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo Say it aint so! The President may disagree with some of his cabinent members on certain things! This is sooo unprecedented! :lamo


Doubtful. Going out with a 60% approval rating. Obama is going to be treated very kindly in the history books.
Click to expand...

Barack Obama's legacy: a historic victory and a disappointing record

How will Barack Obama be remembered? As America’s 44th president prepares to leave office today, his approval ratings are around 60 per cent, suggesting that here was a popular leader who achieved many or most of the objectives that he set for himself eight years ago. Yet this is evidently not the case. The very fact that he is being succeeded by Donald Trump, who tapped into a deep well of disaffection in America, indicates that Mr Obama failed in his one, overarching, ambition, which was to heal his country’s divisions, racial, economic and political.
As the first black occupant of the White House he was the personification of diversity; yet he leaves behind a country still riven with ethnic tensions and entrenched poverty. Realistically, such deep-seated problems could never be extirpated in eight years, but Mr Obama gave the impression, somewhat naively, that they could be.
He came to office on a wave of goodwill probably unmatched in recent American history. In his first inauguration speech, he warned of “gathering clouds and raging storms” and proclaimed an end to the “petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas” of Washington politics. . . .
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yea! These imaginary socialists are everywhere! :roll:
Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist TheDemSocialist is online now
Gradualist


TheDemSocialist's Avatar Join Date
Apr 2011
Location
Somewhere in the Midwest
Last Seen
Today @ 01:43 PM
Gender

Lean
Socialist
Posts
34,539
Likes (Given)
7868
Likes (Received)
16026


Talk to the hand....:/
 
j-mac said:
TheDemSocialist TheDemSocialist is online now
Gradualist


TheDemSocialist's Avatar Join Date
Apr 2011
Location
Somewhere in the Midwest
Last Seen
Today @ 01:43 PM
Gender

Lean
Socialist
Posts
34,539
Likes (Given)
7868
Likes (Received)
16026


Talk to the hand....:/
Click to expand...

I never knew I wrote textbooks.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo Say it aint so! The President may disagree with some of his cabinent members on certain things! This is sooo unprecedented! :lamo


Doubtful. Going out with a 60% approval rating. Obama is going to be treated very kindly in the history books.
Click to expand...


That approval rating ranks right up there with the Presidential election polls and defies the election results. Didn't see President Hillary take the oath of office or Democrats take control of the Congress. Wonder who they polled and the percentage of parties polled? really doesn't matter because you are going to believe in spite of the numbers Obama was a good President. he wasn't and his record shows it
 
Jack Hays said:
Again, the new prosecution would need to be on a new charge unrelated to the previous charge. And Manning was not pardoned; her sentence was commuted.
Click to expand...

Again, a "new charge" that required the substantial presentation of the evidence of the old charge, is not a new crime. It would be considered double jeopardy. The fact that you would advocate such thing is a testament to the intent to lock him up for the same crime. So, that is one constitutional problem. The other constitutional problem is that the President has the right to pardon or commute any sentence. The fact that you would advocate such thing is a testament to your lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution.

It ain't gonna happen as there are no grounds for it to happen.

If you are so hung up on the egrigious nature of the crime, perhaps a double trial is in order, with Gen. Petraeus as the other defendant, as after all, Petraeus actually and intentionally conveyed classified information.

Aren't we trying to "drain the swamp" and no longer have two sets of rules: one for the influential and one for those that can not defend themselves?
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
I agree with Dr. Krauthammer here: Barack Obama?s Exit Reveals His True Colors | National Review
Click to expand...

That's the first article from NR I've read in years. I used to subscribe to the magazine for many years, pre-internet. I was a huge fan of William Buckley and his rational stand against drug prohibition. Eventually the magazine became rather irrelevant for its many articles favoring the status quo. This article by Krauthammer reminds why I eventually let the subscription lapse, as it is but an apology for and defense of our illegitimate invasion of Iraq. Like Krauthammer, I've been aware of Obama's true colors since early on in his administration.

His case against Manning is just the weeping and gnashing of teeth by a reactionary "republican". He expects his reader to buy into the lies of Dubya & Dick. Sorry, no can do. I didn't buy into those lies as they were being told, and 15 years passing have proven and demonstrated why I didn't buy into those lies.

Krauthammer fails to mention that Gates take on Manning's actions were rather blasé. If the US was hurt so badly by Manning's actions, I wonder why Gates said otherwise? Krauthammer fails to mention the level of classification of the documents taken by Manning, but he sure does cry some crocodile tears, considering the material that David Petraeus released to his lover/journalist. Also, unless I missed it, Krauthammer also fails to provide any perspective in his article by reference to what Daniel Ellsberg did all those years ago with his release of Top Secret material.

So I guess you're passing on a comment about your opinion of Ellsberg and what it provided the American people, and on his status as "traitor"?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Because you believe every fake news story that comes down the line does not mean I must follow suit. Gullible is as gullible does. :peace
Click to expand...

Unfortunately everything you believe in is based off of lies and make believe. The rest of the world deals in fact. It's why when your BS gets called out, as it so often does in the CT section, you disappear from that thread.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo Say it aint so! The President may disagree with some of his cabinent members on certain things! This is sooo unprecedented! :lamo


Doubtful. Going out with a 60% approval rating. Obama is going to be treated very kindly in the history books.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the future history will be. If healthcare will no longer be called Obamacare and Trump and the Republicans get the economy to zing with no major world problems, Obama will go down in the history books as being the first African American president, nothing else.
 
Sherman123 said:
Terrible news, and a blemish on his otherwise exemplary record of pursuing 'whistleblowers'. A disappointing end to a disappointing administration.
Click to expand...

Now if Bradley(not Chelsea) Manning had released info on Hillary Von Pant Suit and the DNC instead of 700,00 files of top secret US military secrets, "Hussein" Obama would have attempted to tack another 35 years to his sentence.
 
Peter King said:
I have no real issue with this, she was in jail and will never be in a position to do something like that again so there is no risk of re-offending.
Click to expand...

However the damage he did do put far too many lives in danger and has likely led to some of them getting killed. That top secret US military info fell into the hands of al qeuda and the Taliban. Manning should have been sentenced to death.
 
Jack Hays said:
Barack Obama's legacy: a historic victory and a disappointing record

How will Barack Obama be remembered? As America’s 44th president prepares to leave office today, his approval ratings are around 60 per cent, suggesting that here was a popular leader who achieved many or most of the objectives that he set for himself eight years ago. Yet this is evidently not the case. The very fact that he is being succeeded by Donald Trump, who tapped into a deep well of disaffection in America, indicates that Mr Obama failed in his one, overarching, ambition, which was to heal his country’s divisions, racial, economic and political.
As the first black occupant of the White House he was the personification of diversity; yet he leaves behind a country still riven with ethnic tensions and entrenched poverty. Realistically, such deep-seated problems could never be extirpated in eight years, but Mr Obama gave the impression, somewhat naively, that they could be.
He came to office on a wave of goodwill probably unmatched in recent American history. In his first inauguration speech, he warned of “gathering clouds and raging storms” and proclaimed an end to the “petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas” of Washington politics. . . .
Click to expand...

One could very easily argue that race relations have plummeted under Obama's watch.
 
Carleen said:
The punishment was extremely harsh, so Obama did the right thing IMO.
Click to expand...
\

Too harsh? You have to be kidding! The man released 700,000 files containing top secret US military information and likely led to people getting killed. It fell into al queda and the Taliban's hands. Manning should have received the death penalty.
 
Moderate Right said:
One could very easily argue that race relations have plummeted under Obama's watch.
Click to expand...

or, one can easily argue that Obama's presidency just exposed what was there....

Many may have accepted the idea of an occasional black invited into the country club, and in fact, patted themselves on the back for their progressive outlook. God forbid, however, that black is elevated to membership committee.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Simply untrue...What Manning exposed not only outed methods, and procedures, but actual names of people aiding the US military almost certainly resulting in the death of those individuals at the hands of the Taliban. He, and yes he is a he, no matter what he has surgically removed, is a traitor to this country. And as such should have been shot by firing squad....

Manning & Obama Damage Done | National Review
Click to expand...

I'm not persuaded. In the years since this happened, the world has not ended, and neither has the GWOT. We're still there, though it's unclear exactly which group of mercenaries we're supporting today. We succeeded in destroying most of Iraq, books like "We Meant Well" by Peter Van Buren have been written (he was there with State Department), and what Manning released change precious little, just as Gates noted back when it happened.

War mongers crying bitter tears of recrimination effects only those crying the tears. Likely the US is still losing more troops to suicide than to hostile fire. Life and war go on.

Not persuasive J-Mac.
 
braindrain said:
Unfortunately everything you believe in is based off of lies and make believe. The rest of the world deals in fact. It's why when your BS gets called out, as it so often does in the CT section, you disappear from that thread.
Click to expand...

If it appears to you that I "disappear", that's because I discovered long ago that a rational and honest dialogue with a person in denial is impossible. Efforts towards it are usually futile. Stupid and repetitively silly questions are not worth engaging.

Intelligent questions are ALWAYS worth engaging.
 
upsideguy said:
Again, a "new charge" that required the substantial presentation of the evidence of the old charge, is not a new crime. It would be considered double jeopardy. The fact that you would advocate such thing is a testament to the intent to lock him up for the same crime. So, that is one constitutional problem. The other constitutional problem is that the President has the right to pardon or commute any sentence. The fact that you would advocate such thing is a testament to your lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution.

It ain't gonna happen as there are no grounds for it to happen.

If you are so hung up on the egrigious nature of the crime, perhaps a double trial is in order, with Gen. Petraeus as the other defendant, as after all, Petraeus actually and intentionally conveyed classified information.

Aren't we trying to "drain the swamp" and no longer have two sets of rules: one for the influential and one for those that can not defend themselves?
Click to expand...

I was very disappointed that Petraeus did not go to prison.

Re Manning, I'm sorry I was not clear enough. What I'm looking for is a new trial on a new charge with new evidence. IMHO the abuse of the Constitution in this case was BHO's. Jonathan Pollard, who damaged US interests less than Manning, served his full thirty years. Why? Because deterrence is a cornerstone of our system to protect classified information.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think a reduction in sentence was appropriate, but this was a massive overreach. The lesson shouldn't be that if you take a 'moral stand' and enough people agree with you that the President will commute your sentence. I think she deserved to serve a few more years in prison. I fear this will severely undermine the deterrence her original trial and sentence had imparted.
Click to expand...

Naaawww, the weary trite refrain of 'deterrence' is silly. Why did a PFC (E3) have such widespread access, How in the HAIL did Snowden get such access??? Kiss my 4th point of contact! Piss poor oversight, ignoring even the simplest security measures- this isn't employee theft of candy bars at Walmart.

I doubt there will be a rush of gender confused privates in highly sensitive areas rushing to download embarrassing data on targeted civilian deaths in the Middle East. Let's remember the data he handed over compromised no 'means and methods', exposed no operatives in enemy territories, and didn't help the Roosians invade anything.

Just showed some Americans behaving badly... :peace

Oh and I doubt Assange voluntarily sets foot in this country, no matter what he has said in the past...
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's the first article from NR I've read in years. I used to subscribe to the magazine for many years, pre-internet. I was a huge fan of William Buckley and his rational stand against drug prohibition. Eventually the magazine became rather irrelevant for its many articles favoring the status quo. This article by Krauthammer reminds why I eventually let the subscription lapse, as it is but an apology for and defense of our illegitimate invasion of Iraq. Like Krauthammer, I've been aware of Obama's true colors since early on in his administration.

His case against Manning is just the weeping and gnashing of teeth by a reactionary "republican". He expects his reader to buy into the lies of Dubya & Dick. Sorry, no can do. I didn't buy into those lies as they were being told, and 15 years passing have proven and demonstrated why I didn't buy into those lies.

Krauthammer fails to mention that Gates take on Manning's actions were rather blasé. If the US was hurt so badly by Manning's actions, I wonder why Gates said otherwise? Krauthammer fails to mention the level of classification of the documents taken by Manning, but he sure does cry some crocodile tears, considering the material that David Petraeus released to his lover/journalist. Also, unless I missed it, Krauthammer also fails to provide any perspective in his article by reference to what Daniel Ellsberg did all those years ago with his release of Top Secret material.

So I guess you're passing on a comment about your opinion of Ellsberg and what it provided the American people, and on his status as "traitor"?
Click to expand...

You'd be guessing incorrectly.
 
upsideguy said:
That would cause all kinds of problems as it would violate the constitutional right of the president to pardon (or in this case, a commutation of sentance) and any defense attorney would have it quickly dismissed on a violation of his/her constitutional right to not be tried twice for the same crime. He did not pardon him, he just reduced the sentence.

"...Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction...."

Respect your constitution and respect the right of your president to whoever the H he or she wishes.
Click to expand...

It was a shameful thing for obama to do
 
But the good news is that bo bergdahl did not get a pardon and will spend many years in federal prison
 
Mac77 said:
But the good news is that bo bergdahl did not get a pardon and will spend many years in federal prison
Click to expand...

Either did Hillary as far as we know.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was very disappointed that Petraeus did not go to prison.

Re Manning, I'm sorry I was not clear enough. What I'm looking for is a new trial on a new charge with new evidence. IMHO the abuse of the Constitution in this case was BHO's. Jonathan Pollard, who damaged US interests less than Manning, served his full thirty years. Why? Because deterrence is a cornerstone of our system to protect classified information.
Click to expand...

I understand. But the problem is you simply want him back in jail, which is, in essence a disrespect of the Constitution on two parts: double jeopardy (as your objective is to have him back in jail on some charge you can not name and my "new evidence" that may not exist) and the Presidential right to pardon whoever he damn well pleases.

While one man's experience (Jonathan Pollard) is not necessarily the argument that all men should experience the same (argument could be made the Pollard's sentence was too long or should have been commuted), the case of Manning is a little different. He was likely commuted as a matter of grace because being a transsexual in a military prison was probably a danger to his well-being. just speculating here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom