Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 President Barack Obama announced his plan to free Chelsea Manning (who changed his name from Bradley) after leaking classified military documents to Wikileaks and being sentenced to 35 years in prison for his crimes. Once in prison, Manning went on a hunger strike to demand sex change surgery in prison, which was granted by officials at the cost of American taxpayers. Obama included Manning on a list of prisoner commutations announced late Tuesday afternoon, allowing him to be set free on May 17, 2017. …Obama’s move was panned by Manning’s critics, including several prominent Republicans. House Speaker Paul Ryan called the move “just outrageous.” “Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets,” said Ryan, R-Wis. “President Obama now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes.” Paul Ryan nailed it. It’s not only what Manning did; it’s also the precedent it sets. Obama’s latest destructive move sends a message to the military and the world that if you’re politically correct — a status presumably brought about by having sex change surgery — then you’re somehow immune from the obligation to side with the United States when you’re a member of the United States military. How fascinating. On the one hand, we’re told that Donald Trump’s presidency is invalid. Why? Because the Russians hacked computers and made him president. What’s the evidence for this? Well none, really, but that’s not the point. Then we have Bradley-Chelsea Manning whose guilt for breaches of security was proven in a court of law. And yet he/she is innocent. What’s the logic here? Or is even elementary logic no longer a requirement? If you ever had any doubts that Barack Obama isn’t merely a bad president, but a bad man — who isn’t on the side of the United States, and never was — then I don’t know what better evidence you can find than this decision. During the White House press briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest noted the “stark” differences between Manning and Edward Snowden, who also leaked highly classified documents. “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,” he said during the White House press briefing. Earnest added that Snowden “fled into the arms of an adversary,” and criticized him for seeking refuge from Russia, calling it “a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.” So let me get this straight. (1) Edward Snowden released secure documents showing wrongdoing by the government of the United States against its own citizens. This makes Snowden guilty of treason. (2) Bradley-Chelsea Manning released secure documents harming the ability of the United States government to defend its citizens against known wartime enemies. Yet inexplicably and without any justification required, Manning is innocent. With only three miserable days to go in Obama’s presidency, the truth has never been plainer: Obama is on the other side. He always was. The other side is anyone or anything opposed to freedom and liberty as established by our original government and Constitution. Obama still has three days to go. What do you think is coming next? Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1 Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here! Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE. The post Obama’s Manning Decision: Still Doubt That He Detests America? appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center. View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said: So let me get this straight. (1) Edward Snowden released secure documents showing wrongdoing by the government of the United States against its own citizens. This makes Snowden guilty of treason. (2) Bradley-Chelsea Manning released secure documents harming the ability of the United States government to defend its citizens against known wartime enemies. Yet inexplicably and without any justification required, Manning is innocent. Is that what the quoted material said? Let me look again: Quote During the White House press briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest noted the “stark” differences between Manning and Edward Snowden, who also leaked highly classified documents. “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,” he said during the White House press briefing. Earnest added that Snowden “fled into the arms of an adversary,” and criticized him for seeking refuge from Russia, calling it “a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.” Erm... It looks to me like Earnest (what a name for a press secy!) is saying that both committed crimes, but Manning went through the criminal justice process and Snowden did not. Not that Snowden is guilty whereas Manning isn't. (He straight up says that she was found guilty and "acknowledged wrongdoing." That does not equal "innocence.") I know it might be read as though I'm commenting on the Manning case, or Snowden, or even on Obama's morality, which I guess this post is meant to implicate, but such is not my intention. It's just that I read through this post en route to approving it for the forum, and I was struck by the wide deviation between what Hurd quoted and his immediate commentary on it. I'm still mystified. It's as though he didn't read the same thing I did at all... Edited January 18, 2017 by DonAthos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The linked article was edited from what was there when I looked earlier. Innocent is a poor substitute for this act. It doesn't change the verdict. It only overrides the sentencing, as I understand it. The difference Dr. Hurd is identifying is the contrast of the what that was leaked in the two cases, implicitly raising the question of why not the other way around, or pardoning them both. The information Snowden released showed that the US Government was subverting the constitution to spy on its own citizens, while the information that Manning revealed directly compromised the ability of the government to protect its own citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 For what it's worth, in a Washington Post article: How do presidential commutations and pardons work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 The plot thickens in this Daily Mail release Obama did not mention, and was not asked about, a potential pardon for another leaker, Edward Snowden, at his Wednesday news conference. Snowden, the former NSA contractor who fled the country after he stole a tranche1 of classified documents and exposed government secrets, neither applied for a pardon, the White House had said, nor did he proactively receive one in Tuesday's clemency declarations. The president plans to give another round of criminals early release before his final day in office this Friday, the White House says. But they were cast as low-level drug offenders whose sentences would have been shorter if they were sent to jail now. Asked about Snowden at his last press briefing on Tuesday, before the commutation notice went out, Obama's spokesman said, 'I cant rule anything in or out.' He noted then that Snowden had not filed paperwork to seek clemency from the administration, however, suggesting that precluded him from receiving pardon. Snowden had lobbied the White House to commute Manning's sentence, as well. He thanked Obama in a tweet on Tuesday afternoon for sparing Manning from a life in prison. Similar to a statement omitted in the 'amended' article Dr. Hurd cited: Snowden has taken refuge in Vladimir Putin's Russia, 'a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy . . . As pointed out in the recently released movie entitled "Snowden", if you answer the question why Snowden did not make it to his original destination, you will have some insight as to why he is in Russia seeking asylum. 1 a portion of something, especially money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 I'm not sure about what motivated Obama's decision, but it's not exactly an endorsement of espionage. She already served six years in prison, and would've been up for parole in two more anyway. So it's two years off the end of a pretty significant sentence for some fairly dubious charges (she was sentenced for "aiding the enemy", even though the only people she collaborated with were western political activists in no way affiliated with any enemy country or group. Add to that some very troubling incidents during her detention, which, in my opinion, amount to prisoner abuse, and I don't think anyone will be clamoring for this particular brand of "leniency" from the US government. Frankly, she's been punished enough for what she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.