By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Johnw1104 on 18 January 2017
Edit Thread
Goatseye said:
Johnw1104 said:

I would think it is obvious: What took him so long?

It's a duplicitous attempt to change the historical narrative regarding his approach to freedom of information... Perhaps it's just me, but a complete reversal of one's own policies during the last few hours of a final term seems both insincere and self-serving. His modus operandi of the past eight years cannot be undone by a single, contradictory act on his way out the door.

There's no reason Manning had to be in jail, Assange trapped in an embassy, and Snowden living in Russia were this reflective of Obama's true sentiments; rather, he's only in favor of such things when it's no longer inconvenient for him.

Regardless of how you see it, Manning appropriated of some sensitive information and exposed it to the public.

He didn't steal a fruit to feed himself. The repercussions of some of actions, couldn't be assessed after years. Like, if the info he gave out, could've endangered lives. 

And the analogy you made makes no sense cause upon death of a slave owner, law didn't allow the slaves to be free.

Like I said, I had no problem with the arrest of Manning. While the other two made an effort to verify their information and avoid releasing things that might put people in immediate danger, she handed everything over without thought; certainly the most reckless of the three. Personally, I don't think she should be rewarded for blind luck, and ought to remain in jail. It seems to me that he is being too easy on Manning while having also been unapologetically and unfairly hostile towards Assange and Snowden. What bothers me most is the clear reversal in policy on display here, and that people are buying it as being indicative of his true sentiments.

Otherwise, at various times throughout both American and World history it was often popular to have your slaves freed upon death as a final display of magnanimity. It became so common in Ancient Rome, for instance, that they actually had to put a cap on just how many could actually be freed.

The comparison is an apt one, as while it is better than nothing, it is silly to give "credit" to the slave owner who waits until he dies (or leaves office) before allowing his slaves to go free. If it is the right thing to do, one should do it immediately, not once it is no longer inconvenient to do so.