Johnw1104 said:
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. |
..."unapologetically and unfairly hostile towards Assange and Snowden"; that would be correct if Snowden and Assange were praying and all of a sudden they got framed.
If you're gonna fight for transparency, mind that you're not gonna be met with roses when you meddle in government business. Their business are not black and white. You're talking about secret files and unclassified sensitive files, even though they're not the most important documents, they're not something you get out of with a slap on the wrist.
Mind you that Republicans wanted their head on a stick. And I'm pretty sure the intelligence agencies were requesting harsh punishments for all the involved. It's not something a president would just get up and do it without some heavy consultation.
