[quaist]

U.S. Political Discussion Thread #11 ~ The Ceiling and the Cliff

Banner by 4N6 DNA

[quaist]

In the last thread, we were discussing the issue of racial profiling and the declassification of Area 51:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Yeah, I don't think any of us will ever be able to discuss racial profiling without emotions getting into play. It's just one of those thing where the unfairness inherent to such a practice will always cause those who are only guilty by association to be justifyingly (in my opinion, anyway) irate at being targeted in such a humiliating manner. Which is why it's probably a good thing that, this time around, it was the courts who opposed the law. No doubt because citizens appealed. But it was never the courts who made the ruling. Not public sentiment. So, in a way, this was a textbook disinterested analysis of the practice's merit to violation of human rights ratio. As for the Area 51... I can't imagine many people are surprised.

Post away!

[sunnykerr]

Thanks for the new thread!

I love the title!

Not sure what I can add to what I said yesterday, though.

[quaist]

I didn't know what to reply either, I guess it's just an issue the both of us agree to disagree upon, at least to some extent.



So maybe it's time to talk about something else:

Judge to sentence Bradley Manning today A military judge on Wednesday morning will sentence Pfc. Bradley Manning for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Manning, 25, was convicted last month of multiple charges, including violations of the Espionage Act for copying and disseminating the documents while serving as an intelligence analyst at a forward operating base in Iraq. He faces up to 90 years in prison. The government has asked Judge Denise Lind, an Army colonel, to sentence Manning to 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, a military prosecutor. “National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” Defense lawyer David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life.” “He cares about human life,” said Coombs as the sentencing phase of the court-martial at Fort Meade, Md., ended last week. “His biggest crime was he cared about the loss of life he was seeing and was struggling with it.” Manning also addressed the court and apologized for his actions, saying he was “sorry that I hurt the United States.” Manning will receive a credit of 1,293 days for the time he has been confined prior to the sentence, including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. Manning transmitted the first documents to WikiLeaks in February 2010, sending what came to be known as the Iraq and Afghanistan “War Logs” — field reports from across both theaters. Manning’s lawyers said he had become disillusioned by what he was seeing in Iraq and hoped that the public release of the secret material would prompt greater public understanding of the wars. Manning established a relationship online with a person who is thought to be Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. As their personal correspondence deepened, Manning continued to transmit more material, including assessments of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and an enormous cache of diplomatic cables. He also leaked a video that showed a U.S. Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of Iraqis, including two journalists and children, that the helicopter crew believed to be insurgents. According to his lawyers, Manning became more and more stressed in Iraq, wrestling with his sexuality and the breakup of a relationship. At one point, in April 2010, he sent an e-mail to a superior with the subject line “My Problem” and a photo of himself wearing a blond wig and lipstick. On May 7, Manning was found on the floor of a supply room with a knife at his feet. After some brief counseling, he was returned to his work station. Later that same day, he struck a fellow soldier and was removed permanently from the secure environment where he worked. Following these events, Manning boasted to hacker Adrian Lamo that he had been working with WikiLeaks. After engaging Manning for several days, Lamo informed Army investigators and the FBI about the breach of information and provided them with his chat logs with Manning. Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 27, 2010. Legal proceedings against Manning began in December 2011 and, in February of this year, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 lesser included charges. The trial portion of the proceedings began on June 3, and on July 30, Lind found Manning guilty of 20 of the 22 charges he faced.

Maybe I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, but somehow I feel sorry for Manning. Don't get me wrong, I still think leaking classified information that can hurt a nation's interests is a crime. But considering the fact that Manning's been struggling with a bunch of psychological problems and obviously just couldn't deal with all the things and information he was exposed to at work... I think 90, or even 60 years is just unproportionally harsh a sentence.

Also, the whole system needs to be questioned in my view when it actually made it possible that a man with so much psychological ballast got to work with classified information of that kind.

[sunnykerr]

He got 35 years and I still think it's harsh.

Not that I really have any concept of what an appropriate punishment would be for what he did.

I'm fortunate enough to live in a world where, from where I'm sitting, transparency and truth are good things.

Obviously, not everyone has that luxury and secrecy is needed in the world of intelligence.

It's just hard to reconcile the sentence with what pedophiles, rapists and murderers get, you know?

[quaist]

Apparently, with good behavior and considering the three years he's already been held, he can get out in less than nine years though -- at least so I've heard.

[sunnykerr]

However long that sentence winds up being, at the end of it, Manning is apparently going to be a brand new woman:

'I am Chelsea Manning.' WikiLeaks source wants to live life as a woman FORT MEADE, Md. -- Three years after rocking the Pentagon by leaking a mountain of secrets, Bradley Manning created a whole new set of potential complications for the military Thursday by asking to be known as a woman named Chelsea and to undergo hormone treatment. Manning's gender-identity struggle -- a sense of being a woman trapped in a man's body -- was brought up by the defence at the court-martial, and a photo of the soldier in a blond wig and lipstick was submitted as evidence. But the latest twist, announced the morning after Manning was sentenced to 35 years in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., surprised many and confronted the Pentagon with questions about where and how the Army private is to be imprisoned. The former Army intelligence analyst disclosed the decision in a statement provided to NBC's "Today" show. "As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible," the statement read. The statement asked people to use the feminine pronoun when referring to Manning. It was signed "Chelsea E. Manning" and included a handwritten signature. The Associated Press Stylebook calls for use of the pronoun that is either an individual's preference or is consistent with the way the person lives publicly. The news agency said in a statement it would let that "be our guide as this story develops." However, Leavenworth spokesman George Marcec said later Thursday that if Manning wants to go by Chelsea in prison, a name change would have to be approved in court and then a petition submitted with the Army to change its records. The AP said it was seeking additional details from Manning's attorney, David Coombs, and until then would use only gender-neutral terms in reference to Manning. Coombs did not respond to email and telephone messages but told "Today" he hopes Leavenworth officials will accommodate Manning's request for hormone treatment, which typically involves high doses of estrogen to promote breast development and other female characteristics. However, George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the Army does not provide such treatment or sex-reassignment surgery. He said soldiers behind bars are given access to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. A lawsuit could be in the offing. Coombs said he will do "everything in my power" to make sure Manning gets his way. And the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and other advocates for gays, bisexuals and transgender people said Manning deserves the treatment. "In the United States, it is illegal to deny health care to prisoners. That is fairly settled law," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. "Now the Army can claim this isn't health care, but they have the weight of the medical profession and science against them."

Source

I don't think this will or should affect her sentence (I'm going by AP guidelines here), but perhaps where she's held. Someone of her notoriety and with that condition would not fare well, I should imagine, in any prison's general population.

And when I said that she'll come out of prison a brand new woman, I wasn't necessarily referring to my assumption that there will be gender re-assignment surgeries while she's incarcerated. Just that, you know, this is a bit of a new wrinkle, that's all.

[quaist]

Well, I've only learnt of her having gender identification issues a few days ago, so this really hit me as a surprise.

And it somehow adds up to me feeling sorry for her.

Bearing in mind that she stated how having to live in a male body for more than 30 years felt like being imprisoned, I'd only have considered it fair to treat this fact as a mitigating circumstance in her lawsuit.

Because all this must surely have accounted for her struggling with psychological problems for a long time.

[sunnykerr]

I only learned about the gender identification recently myself.

And, while I agree that there must be a mitigating factor somewhere in there, I don't think the justice system can take it into account.

I mean, maybe it would be the humane/reasonable thing to do.

But, at the same time, I think the courts would be rather unwilling to create a precedent whereby being transgender would have too much weight in criminal matters.

I don't mean to sound cruel when I say that.

I would hope that, in sentencing and the carrying out of said sentence, every care would be taken to consider and address any and all psychological problems the accused/convict would be struggling with.

It's just my opinion that courts would probably err on the side of being callous rather than open up the possibility that, further down the line, another criminal may use a similar "excuse" (not that I think it is an excuse) to get a lighter sentence.

[quaist]

I don't think that being transgender in and of itself should be enough to make for a mitigating factor. But for all I know, Chelsea went through an especially hard time struggling with wanting to be a woman and even sent an email (I believe) containing pictures of her wearing women clothes and lipstick to a superior, titled 'My Problem'.

I just think we shouldn't tar all transgender people with the same brush, there may well be some of them out there to whom being transgender doesn't pose such huge emotional distress.

Apparently, for Chelsea, it did. That's why I think considering struggles like this in coming up with a proper sentence would be the fair thing to do.

Of course, like with all other potential mitigating factors, you can't totally eliminate the possibility of people using such an 'excuse' just to get a lighter sentence, like you said.

[sunnykerr]

I quite agree with you that, for her, it may have been more of an ordeal than perhaps it is "usually" (of course, there is no "usual" about psychological or emotional distress).

And I do hope that due consideration was given to that in her trial and will continue to be given to her situation going forward.

But I can already imagine how courts would conclude that emotional distress, so long as it isn't mental illness, does not constitute a mitigating factor.

They tend to err on the side of caution on these things, don't they?

[quaist]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) They tend to err on the side of caution on these things, don't they?

I do think so, yes. Emotional distress, at a certain severity, really should qualify as a mitigating factor.

[sunnykerr]

I agree.

I would just think that psychiatric staff would need to make that assessment.

[sunnykerr]

'Revenge porn' law considered by California California is considering a law that would make it illegal to post "revenge porn" in the US state. The state assembly bill would make it a crime to post pictures of anyone online in a state of full or partial undress. Crucially, the latest version of the bill makes it illegal to post pictures even with that person's consent. But prosecutors would have to prove "the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and [that] the other person suffers serious emotional distress". First offenders could expect up to six months in jail, a $1,000 (£645) fine, or both. 'Sexting' Many websites have sprung up devoted to "revenge porn", which consists of intimate pictures of ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends. Many people partaking in "sexting" can find the pictures come back to haunt them. New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner recently found his campaign in trouble after admitting sending lewd images of himself via text - having resigned from Congress in 2011 over a similar scandal. A notorious site, IsAnyoneUp.com, which would publish the unwilling subject's full name and link to social networking profiles, attracted more than 300,000 hits a day. The owner, Hunter Moore, employed four people to help him administer the site and would refuse to remove the pictures, even if threatened with legal action. The site closed last year and its domain was taken over by an anti-bullying group. The picture-sharing phone app Snapchat, launched in 2011, allows users to send and receive images that "self-destruct" after a few seconds. Snapchat users around the world send about 200 million images a day. But in May the company admitted that deleted data could sometimes be recovered. It is also possible to save a photo by taking a snapshot of the screen before it disappears.

Source

I don't know how they would enforce this law, but I do think it's a good idea.

If nothing else, it will hopefully protect the kids who sext and then go on to regret it when their relationships inevitably fall apart.

[sunnykerr]

US income inequality at record high The income gap between the richest 1% of Americans and the other 99% widened to a record margin in 2012, according to an analysis of tax filings. The top 1% of US earners collected 19.3% of household income, breaking a record previously set in 1927. Income inequality in the US has been growing for almost three decades. Overall, the pre-tax incomes of the top 1% of households rose 19.6% compared to a 1% increase for the rest of Americans. And the top 10% of richest households represented just under half of all income in the year, according to the analysis. Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley, one of the economists who analysed the tax data, said the rise may have been in part because of sales of stock to avoid higher capital gains taxes in January. Mr Saez wrote in an analysis that despite recent policy changes aiming at lessening income inequality, the measures were relatively small in comparison to "policy changes that took place coming out of the Great Depression". "Therefore, it seems unlikely that US income concentration will fall much in the coming years." Income counted in the analysis includes wages, private pension payments, dividends and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets, but it does not include unemployment benefits or federal public pension benefits, known as Social Security. While the crash of 2007-09 adversely affected top earners, benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices since then have largely gone to the richest, according to the study. Incomes among the richest fell more than 36% between 2007-09, compared with a decrease of 11.6% for the rest of Americans. But in the last three years, 95% of all income gains have gone to the richest 1%. The top 1% of American households had income above $394,000 (£250,000) last year. The top 10% had income exceeding $114,000.

Source

Of course, this is a British article, but the upshot of it is, for me, that unless the United States embraces some forms of socialist measures sooner or later, that gap will do nothing but widen.



I that by way of offering my opinion.