The message seems to be that if you leak classified data to the American people you get a big punishment, whereas if you leak classified data carelessly (Clinton) or for your girlfriend's book (Petraeus) the most you can expect is a slap on the wrist. That's f ed up.
(I'm not defending Chelsea's treatment here. I just think it's odd that grizzles has singled out this particular aspect of the situation as worthy of outrage.)
The message is that if you're a powerful person in DC, and if your leaks are not intended to embarrass or shame the big power structures of DC, you can expect a slap on the wrist.
I'm not defending her decisions to use private email servers, but using the phrase "leak classified data" when speaking of her is not accurate.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classi...
> More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most emails were retroactively deemed to contain classified information by the U.S. agencies from which the information originated.)
> Some of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified. Comey did not provide a specific number.
> "Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information," Comey said. "But even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
It's also entirely possible that of the thousands of emails that were not turned over, some of them contained classified information. We know there were a non-zero number of these:
> Among those several thousand work-related emails that were not provided to the State Department, Comey said, "three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received; one at the secret level and two at the confidential level. There were no additional top secret emails found."
https://www.chelseamanning.org/learn-more/write-to-chelsea-m...
The letter I mailed to Chelsea this weekend said "you have not been forgotten". That's it. One sheet of paper and a sharpie. Nothing that could give whoever censors her mail an excuse to throw my letter out.
Her birthday is December 17th. I added a reminder to my calendar to send one each December 1st, to allow for processing time through the prison mail. One stamp and one letter can make a difference in someone's life, and Amnesty International has recommended mailing prisoners on their birthday.
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/asia/on-your-birthday-you-are-not...
Something that has nothing to do with her and her current situation, something that allows her to escape her situation at least in her mind for a little bit, would probably be welcome. If I were in that situation, I believe I would appreciate that anyway.
Well, a lot of the mechanisms of prison seem pretty counterproductive... 23 hours in the same room.
My understanding is that members of the military sign away a bunch of their rights but I don't understand how throwing somebody in jail for 20 years is a thing we came up with.
Of course, if you go back further, punishments were invented by the ruling class to keep everyone else in line. The king could pretty much have anyone hanged if he wanted to and it took sometime before there were enough smart people in society to suggest that this was maybe not the best way to live.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/gwbush-pardons#nov24-08
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/gwbush-commutations#novone
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton-pardons#november21200...
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clinton-commutations#novtwo
If you want to encourage Obama to do this, contact information for the White House can be found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call
I thought she was out of solitary?
Is that not why she's come into the public eye? For releasing private information that some people would have preferred to keep private?
This isn't a comment on whether her leak was the right thing to do or not, just the whole "Treat others like you want others to treat you".
Then ask, what value does broadcasting her health status everywhere provide society?
Hopefully this will help inform you of the differences in these separate acts, since it seems to have blown right by you at light speed.
(Not who you replied to, but...)
I believe Chelsea Manning deserves privacy for an issue such as this, but also hope that the situation will (at least) make more people contemplate the extreme nature of solitary. I would be undone fifty times by now if I were isolated by force.
"Information that some people would have preferred to keep private" is a general statement that could be applied to anything from a teenage girl's diary to an impending nuclear attack. To handwave that away is to make the entire matter meaningless.
Did we all need to know salacious details about Muammar Gaddafi's "voluptuous" Ukrainian nurse? That seems very much the same kind of data to me.
Yeah, for releasing someones health info. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before commenting on a public forum.
