Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Thomas Kinney
Just an ordinary American citizen trying to insure that the system that I once swore an oath to "Protect and Defend" acts in the best interest of "We The People."
Recent Activity
-
Thomas commented on the article |"In the case of mutiny or sedition, the elements of proof won't match up with what Manning is alleged to have done."
Well........I am not so sure about that. What about the tiny little clause in section (2) of Article 94 that mentions someone attempting the overthrow or destruction of civil authority who creates, in concert with another person, a disturbance against civil authority. Would you say that Manning, in concert with Assange and others, has created a disturbance against civil authority? Of course the UCMJ only applies to Manning but there are other ways to deal with Assange. Any federal prosecutor worth his salt can indict and prosecute a ham sandwich. Of course he runs the risk of making the next USA Today hit parade of prosecutorial misconduct LOL.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
And as for Manning, see the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94 for another possible charge.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
As I said, read the bill. Sex offenders are excluded from consideration and I am not advocating for violent offenders. There are always gray areas, no way to get around it, but, as you said, each case must stand on its own merit. Each ex-offender has to convince the court that they are deserving of a fresh start. Would you deny everyone a second chance because there is a chance that someone who does not deserve it may slip through the crack? Also keep in mind that someone fortunate enough to be granted a second chance and re-offends will have the expungement rescinded and can never be re-considered.
You say that you are frustrated with the courts leniency and I can understand that. Most of us are in some circumstances. On the other hand, I am frustrated with the fact that even though there have been two House subcommittee hearings (07-22-09 & 09-28-10 testimony transcripts available here) on over criminalization and the collateral consequences of a felony conviction nothing has been done Almost every member of the panel, Democrat & Republican, in both hearings agreed that there is a problem. While there were many suggestions to "take a look" at the number of laws and how they are applied, there were no suggestions regarding relief to those who suffer from the consequences. I am frustrated at the reports of case after case of prosecutorial misconduct, especially in the case of federal prosecutors, where anything goes to get a conviction. USA Today among others has documented this travesty pretty well and in a Dec. 9 article point out that they usually get away with it.
Am I saying that every ex-offender is a victim of the system? Absolutely not. Most ex-offenders are guilty as charged but that should not preclude consideration of a second chance. Again, I must remind you that the legislation that I support, H.R.5492 does not, of itself, grant anything. It only allows the ex-offender who meets all of the requirements to "apply" for "consideration".
-
Thomas commented on the article |
Interesting concept Dennis and I am glad that you asked. It is no secret that I was a very strong and vocal supporter of H.R. 1529 the Second Chance Act of 2009 and am now supporting its replacement H.R.5492 the Fresh Start Act of 2010. Both of these bills allow certain first time non-violent offenders to seek consideration by their original sentencing court for expunction of their record. The short answer to your question is yes. Since Manning's offense would probably be considered non-violent, he would also be eligible.
However, there is much more to consider and you must read the full text of H.R.5492 very carefully. First, this legislation does not grant any "leniency" whatsoever. It only allows a first time non-violent ex-offender to ask for consideration by the court. The operative word is "consideration". Second, the ex-offender must have completed all of his/her court imposed punishment before making application for consideration. This includes the term of incarceration as well as any probation, fines and restitution ordered by the court. If all of the requirements set forth are met, the court may grant the ex-offenders request. Bear in mind that the prosecutor gets to weigh in and the court may deny the request.
Therefore, in the case of Manning, if he is tried for treason, as he should be, and convicted, once he fulfills all of the requirements mentioned, he would be eligible for "consideration". Just as would someone like Mr. Madoff once he completes his 150-year sentence.
The reality is that this legislation is intended to offer relief to those who are victims of the lifetime collateral consequences of a federal felony conviction. In many cases, an effective civil death sentence. It is intended to offer relief to those whose offense is many years in the past and who have otherwise lived exemplary lives and to those who are victims of the propensity of the federal government to overcriminalization and over prosecute. Even a probated sentence of a felony conviction will incur the same lifetime consequences.
Let me ask you, for arguments sake, when is the debt considered paid?
-
Thomas commented on the article |
It is good to see a post that gets back to the heart some of the real problems with the criminal justice system in this country. Matt Kelley and a couple more have done a remarkably good job of focusing on these real criminal justice reform issues.
In addition to the support of FedCure & FAMM, there has been a petition on this site since early 2009. The petition was posted by Jonathan Black and is named Co-Sponsor H.R. 1475 Good Time Bill. Visitors may wish to add their names to the more than 12,000 who have already signed the petition.
Another bill being held in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security currently chaired by Congressman Scott is Congressman Cohen's H.R.5492 the Fresh Start Act that will allow certain first time non-violent offenders to petition their original sentencing court to "consider" expungement of their criminal record. This legislation effectively replaced Congressman Rangel's H.R.1529 the Second Chance Act of 2009. There is also a petition on this site supporting H.R.5492 the "Fresh Start Act of 2010. I urge everyone to read the text of both of these bills and add your support.
In truth, neither of these bills is likely to see any further action in this lame duck session of Congress. In addition, the makeup of the House Judiciary Committee and subcommittees will probably change drastically in the new 112th Congress. Congressmen John Conyers will likely be replaced as Judiciary Chair and Congressman Bobby Scott as subcommittee chair. If no action is taken in the current session, both of these bills will have to be re-introduced in the new session in January and Danny Davis, sponsor of H.R.1475, is running for Mayor of Chicago and may not be around to re-introduce '1475. If the bills are re-introduced, the petitions mentioned will also have to be re-posted to reflect the new bill numbers. All of this will make the job of supporters of this legislation much more difficult.
-
Thomas commented on the article |"I've never claimed to be a liberal."
Really!!!!! Sure could have fooled me. Let's see now.....not a liberal, for sure not a conservative so what does that leave left wing radical nut? What is scary is that you may even believe that the drivel that you write supporting other left wing nut cases is true and the right thing to do. What is even scarier is that change.org subscribes to the same belief. Taking a liberal position on things political is one thing but overt support of those who only want to do harm to this country and its allies is quite another. One of this country's staunchest allies, Australia, has now said, "The core of all this lies with the failure of the government of the United States to properly protect its own diplomatic communications". Can we afford to alienate those countries who stand with us? I don't think so and if the position of change.org is that we can and that what you are writing is acceptable "journalism" then perhaps the scope of the “significant” actions related to the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks that AG Holder has authorized should be widened.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
"Ok, you will probably take this as some sign of liberal cowardice or the like but I honestly dont see point in responding to hypothetical battle situations."
Not at all India I simply wanted to see where you place your priority for saving a human life is when someone close to you has his/her life hanging in the balance. You may consider the situation I described hypothetical but in truth it is something that soldiers face quite often.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
And I am still waiting for India to answer my question.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
Awwwww and I was oh so very careful to quote only liberals and I never claimed to be an authority on anything. I could have given many other non-politician examples of folks who think that Assange, Manning, et. al. should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I had only known that you would cover yourself by throwing your liberal kinsmen under the bus I would have. You started a second post on this issue to hide from the questions previously posted on this one and now come back and butt into a conversation here but you continue to deal in diversion and still won't give a straight answer to anything.
-
Thomas commented on the article |
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, during an interview on NBC's "Today," called Assange "somebody that has been an accomplice in a great security breach that threatens the people that do good work on behalf of keeping this country safe."
In a November 29 press conference, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, blasted WikiLeaks for its disclosure of confidential diplomatic cables. Putting distance between actual policy decisions and the private conversations that were made public by WikiLeaks' cable dump, she promised to take "aggressive steps" against those who had disseminated the information. She went on to distinguish the WikiLeaks disclosure from other "examples in history" that brought to light "wrongdoings or misdeeds":
Clinton went on to say, " Now, I'm aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible. So I want to set the record straight: There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases."
I seldom agree with Hillary but she is right on the mark here in making a distinction that you can't seem to grasp Charles.
If Holder, Clinton and Gibbs, the voice of Obama, are correct in their assessment and charges of espionage are brought against Assange and charges of espionage or treason against Manning, then the same charges should be filed against anyone else who supports their efforts to damage this country. And that includes you. Maybe we should start up a petition to that effect on change.org.
There you go. I didn't meet the 2500 character limit but discounting my quotes of others and repetition of your blather, I am well under your 500-word limit. What are you trying to do, restrict free speech? Oh, one more thing.....happy Pearl Harbor day. In case you forgot that sacrifice.
Impact
42 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
40 Actions
|
Organizations
-
Innocence Project and Color of Change1 Action 0 Recruits
