Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Breaking per MSNBC: President Obama Has Commuted Chelsea Manning's Sentence

skinsmarydu

By skinsmarydu
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Over/under for Trump pardening Snowden?

 

9 months?

President Obama has (according to the source) refused Snowden's appeal. 

Look, y'all.  We would have no idea of the scope of our country's surveillance abilities if it weren't for these two people. 

Y'all do know that wi-fi carries every keystroke you make?  Anything you say to anyone is being recorded somewhere.  Your phone can be completely off and still transmit pics of your location?

Does anybody watch PBS anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

Good decision IMO.

 

Those leaks revealed a lot of messed up stuff we've been doing abroad, especially the messed up stuff involving DynCorp and even how Japan and our ambassador over there were warned about Fukushima in advance and they ignored it.

Bad decision. You can't be allowed to use your position of trust to betray trust. The precedent set is that if you think something is wrong you can break the law and complain via the press about what you feel is wrong. 

1 minute ago, skinsmarydu said:

President Obama has (according to the source) refused Snowden's appeal. 

Look, y'all.  We would have no idea of the scope of our country's surveillance abilities if it weren't for these two people. 

Y'all do know that wi-fi carries every keystroke you make?  Anything you say to anyone is being recorded somewhere.  Your phone can be completely off and still transmit pics of your location?

Does anybody watch PBS anymore?

This is completely false. Every keystroke carried by wi-if? That is tin foil hat **** right here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Bad decision. You can't be allowed to use your position of trust to betray trust. The precedent set is that if you think something is wrong you can break the law and complain via the press about what you feel is wrong. 

 

The question I had (and to me she followed the wrong avenues no doubt), is/was there an opportunity to report the activities of alleged wrongdoing and be covered under the whistleblower act? Or does that not apply to military servicemembers? I believe it does cover classified info...


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Bad decision. You can't be allowed to use your position of trust to betray trust. The precedent set is that if you think something is wrong you can break the law and complain via the press about what you feel is wrong. 

This is completely false. Every keystroke carried by wi-if? That is tin foil hat **** right here. 

apparently you haven't been watching either.  But they're watching you.  The UK has cameras absolutely EVERYWHERE.  With facial recognition, that they started using 15 Super Bowls ago, just imagine.

That's the point.  Everyone just wants to be happy.  So do I.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

The question I had (and to me she followed the wrong avenues no doubt), is/was there an opportunity to report the activities of alleged wrongdoing and be covered under the whistleblower act? Or does that not apply to military servicemembers? I believe it does cover classified info.


 

It doesn't matter. You sign paperwork with lifetime obligations, legal obligations, with clear penalties spelled out, in order to be granted access. If you do not abide by those obligations you should serve every second of the sentence. Manning committed treason. Period. There is no debate there. He provided aid to our enemy in a time of war by divulging sources and methods, as well as covert operations to include embedded sources. He should have been executed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elkabong82

elkabong82

Posted
Posted
Just now, Popeman38 said:

Bad decision. You can't be allowed to use your position of trust to betray trust. The precedent set is that if you think something is wrong you can break the law and complain via the press about what you feel is wrong. 

 

Exposing DynCorp for child trafficking and US officials covering it up, officials in Japan being warned in advance about seismic activity and how Fukushima was not up to date yet it was ignored, the US ignoring torture in Iraq, ordering people not to investigate, actual numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan being hidden from the public, hiding information about the deaths of journalists, US helping to block minimum wage laws in Haiti, etc. 

 

Those are serious levels of wrong doing and informing the public is completely justified. Are you seriously going to try and argue otherwise given the seriousness of what I just mentioned was exposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Exposing DynCorp for child trafficking and US officials covering it up, officials in Japan being warned in advance about seismic activity and how Fukushima was not up to date yet it was ignored, the US ignoring torture in Iraq, ordering people not to investigate, actual numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan being hidden from the public, hiding information about the deaths of journalists, US helping to block minimum wage laws in Haiti, etc. 

 

Those are serious levels of wrong doing and informing the public is completely justified. Are you seriously going to try and argue otherwise given the seriousness of what I just mentioned was exposed?

Ends don't justify the means. He knowingly violated his lifetime obligations. Intentionally committed multiple felonies. 

 

If you set precedent that as long as you mean well we will forgive crimes then the wormhole opens for more leaks. I know that today we want to know everything the govt is doing, if you stop and think about it it is not feasible to be 100% transparent about everything. Impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

apparently you haven't been watching either.  But they're watching you.  The UK has cameras absolutely EVERYWHERE.  With facial recognition, that they started using 15 Super Bowls ago, just imagine.

That's the point.  Everyone just wants to be happy.  So do I.  

We aren't the U.K.  If this technology existed and was so effective, how do we have a most wanted list? Anytime one went in public they would be caught on multiple cameras. Yet people manage to evade capture in large cities for YEARS. Either this technology isn't used or it is really bad at what it purports to do. My guess is on the former, since corporate entities like casinos use it to spot cheats. Yet somehow bad guys evade the FBI and state/local LEO for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elkabong82

elkabong82

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Bad decision. You can't be allowed to use your position of trust to betray trust. The precedent set is that if you think something is wrong you can break the law and complain via the press about what you feel is wrong. 

This is completely false. Every keystroke carried by wi-if? That is tin foil hat **** right here. 

 

"A popular government without popular information or the means to acquire it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both." - James Madison

 

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." - Thomas Jefferson

 

There comes a point in time when violations go against the country and its laws and at that time they absolutely have to be exposed. If not then the wrong doing goes on and on while people stay silently complicit. Expecting people to stay quiet and go along with violations is an ABUSE of trust. It's blatantly taking advantage of the expectation of trust. You're ignoring that entirely and are saying that when it comes to imminent nuclear disaster, child trafficking cover ups, and many other violations, that people should stay quiet. That is absurd! Corruption should be exposed. Those people violated the trust relationship and it was right to expose them. 

 

9 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Ends don't justify the means. He knowingly violated his lifetime obligations. Intentionally committed multiple felonies. 

 

She, not he. 

 

And again, refer to most recent reply. Those people all had egregious violations, thus taking advantage of and abusing the trust relationship. They violated it, so it was right for the whistle to be blown. Many horrible acts have been done in various forms of government because people stayed quiet. There is a major difference between leaking secrets and blowing the whistle but you don't seem capable of acknowledging such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Popeman38 said:

We aren't the U.K.  If this technology existed and was so effective, how do we have a most wanted list? Anytime one went in public they would be caught on multiple cameras. Yet people manage to evade capture in large cities for YEARS. Either this technology isn't used or it is really bad at what it purports to do. My guess is on the former, since corporate entities like casinos use it to spot cheats. Yet somehow bad guys evade the FBI and state/local LEO for years. 

I meant that THEIRS has been doing this been doing this for years.  Their citizens knew.  Because they were told.

It took a couple or dozen leakers to let us know what our government does.  These are the issues...true issues about your constitutional rights (the endeared 4th amendment) that we're tin-foil-hatting about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

Obama needs to give a general pardon to Hillary, like Ford did for Nixon. Else Chaffetz and others will continue to hound her.

 

Why would he do that after she pissed away his legacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

Obama needs to give a general pardon to Hillary, like Ford did for Nixon. Else Chaffetz and others will continue to hound her.

She hasn't been charged with a crime, she can't be pardoned for anything.  You can't "blanket pardon" future offenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...