Not that I have anything against this guy Manning in particular, just asking why is this "tolerable" in a democracy. Isn't it a risk, that the president can pardon whoever he wants?
"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Article II, Section 2
> “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-co...
Actually, murder is a federal crime, see 18 USC Secs. 1111, 1114, and 1118-1121.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
It's not a super long document.
You're probably too young to remember the kerfuffle when Ford pardoned Nixon. Lots of allegations that it had been planned in advance. And it is likely a big reason why Ford lost his election campaign in 1976.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
The interesting thing in that article is that a pardon carries an implication of guilt, and accepting a pardon carries a confession of guilt (Burdick v. United States). So if Chelsea had offered and accepted a pardon, her reputation would have been negatively affected, unlike if she had been found innocent at the courts martial.
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7674/why-is-the-...
Some of the finer points:
- A presidential pardon is for federal crimes. The president cannot pardon someone for a state crime (or a crime committed subject to a local jurisdiction whose power is derived from a state).
- Presidential pardons are reinforced by the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws. Once a person has been pardoned for a federal crime, the federal government (and any territories or districts that derive their power from the federal government) cannot re-try the pardonee for that crime.
As pointed by another person in the same thread which really answers your question:
- Fourth major benefit of pardons: Presidential pardons are about checks and balances. The legislative system has determined a law, the judicial system has determined an infraction of that law, and with a pardon the presidential system can react to a mistake made by either the legislative or judicial branch.
The President in in charge of federal law enforcement; the risk of non-enforcement is already greater than the risk of random pardons.
She was always a woman; she just presented as a man for many years. The NYT presented the information quite well when they said, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13422094
You're also very aware that a lot of people are not on the same page with you. Some are trying to figure it out for themselves, some have made up their mind. I think it's commendable that they're willing to do so in a public forum and for the most part civilly, particularly on an issue that has been historically as divisive as this. Let's encourage this discussion in a constructive manner and leave strong, insulting language out of it, regardless of how strongly we may feel about the issue. I completely understand how frustrating it can be when you feel like you're constantly repeating yourself and no one's listening. It would be great if people could be convinced over the course of 30 minutes, but I doubt that's realistically going to happen.
The consistent use of quotes around pronouns, as in "'she'", and use of 'they', as if there is confusion, is a subtle but deliberate way to indicate that the author thinks gender identity is all a bit fake. Its puerile behaviour from people who should know better.