"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.
And Hacker News will downvote tone and civility, regardless of the opinion. It's very easy to see that as an attack when it's happening to you. I see the same behavior on all sides of issues. When I find myself getting particularly heated, I find it better to refrain from commenting at all, not because I'm afraid of getting downvoted, but because I know it's not going to lead to any useful discussion.
Civility is content, language itself is arbitrary. Pretend I were to say, "Sir, the fact that you're a cishet man makes you incapable of rational thought on this matter. I hope that the new administration gives you the electroshock therapy you need to normalize to a rational being and not a dangerous predator."
That is a civil set of words, but a profoundly uncivil and dangerous tone. And that's being repeated over and over in this forum and NOT being rated down.
Further, it's absolutely hypocritical that we cheerfully upvote the most uncivil of emails by Linus Torvalds and banal screeds about "Getting Shit Done" but the instant someone uses energized language when talking about racism or sexism, then suddenly a completely different set of standards apply because this is politics and that's different.
Civility is entirely removed from the playing field when someone's human rights and dignity are in question. That is a final line before we convert someone into something akin to an animal. And that is a very real line that Manning has faced throughout this entire ordeal. In the same sense that were you to try and stab someone, they should not apologize if they hurt you while defending themselves.
Examine who and what you are defending here. You've desperate clung to this driftwood of a "rational" debate, which is of course a complete charade. What "constructive" and "positive" debate can be had here?
I have prepared a nice play which sums up the transphobic part of this thread. Forgive me the formatting, HN is a bit difficult to coerce. Please do consider auditioning for the part modeled after your actions.
C: "Hello. I am attempting to live my life as a woman. To live any other way is unbearable."
HNA: "You are a man and a bad one at that!"
HNB: "Your particular brand of mental illness must be painful."
HNC: "The objective reality is that you have a penis therefore are a man."
HND: "Can you even have a period? Everyone knows all women can have periods. HA!"
HNE: "These snowflakes, we should round them all up."
Someone Sane: "This is vile. This is totally wrong. You are fucking monsters."
You: "Now now, watch your language."
Someone Sane: "Really? My language."
You: "One cannot hope to have a civil discourse with one so emotional and foulmouthed. How can you hope to debate your betters with such language? Tut tut."
Someone Sane: "I wasn't planning on debating them. Their points are beneath contempt, unscientific, and dehumanizing."
You: sighs smugly "That, my little snowflake, is the problem. They've already won by logic, all you bring to the table is curse words. Why can't you be more fair?" sips box wine "Now run along and play."
It is wrong to misgender people. It is unacceptable. Why is it somehow more terrible to point that out than it is to do it in the first place?
Where did I use those words?
Responses like this make it hard for me to learn from the other person. Maybe you feel like we should all already know these things, but that simply is not reality. It is not always because the person is "transphobic", as you put it, but simply uneducated on a particular topic.
I would think anyone who wants to help educate others on these issues would welcome such a discussion.
s/guys here/HN members/
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.