24 ms·

Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

640 points by antr 13y ago

monsterix 13y ago
Very sad. So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. While the guys who stood up for humanity and true spirit of serving forces for good is sentenced 35 years. And I know a lot of people would troll me on this opinion itself.
- eli 13y ago
  I agree it's sad. I'm not personally a big Manning fan, but that feels like a stiff sentence. (By the way, I think a lot of people would disagree with you. That doesn't mean they're "trolling" you.)
  - thex86 13y ago
    > I'm not personally a big Manning fan Can you elaborate why? I am interested in hearing your point of view because maybe I just have one side of the story.
    - eli 13y ago
      Sure, but I really only have a few quick minutes so this might be a little scattered. There are some interesting things in some of the cables he leaked (it's going to be great for historians). There were even a few troubling things in there that probably deserve investigation.... but the vast majority of the cables were, at most, embarrassing. They strained foreign relationships and embarrassed allies & various diplomats by name. I don't know if anyone was hurt or killed over them, but I think it's at least plausible. For what? Were there any documents that Manning had access to that he didn't try to take? The indiscriminate nature of what he took makes me seriously question his motives. What specifically was he blowing the whistle on? I admit that whistleblower protection sucks in the military, but he didn't even try to go through the proper channels. I agree the US overclassifies documents and is too secretive. I agree we need more transparency and I certainly agree we need better whistleblower protection and oversight...But I don't think that gives everyone with access the right to unilaterally declassify whatever they want without penalty. The military can't work like that. No organization can work like that.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      What Manning did was stupid. And while I agree that 35 years is harsh (mostly because I don't believe in prison terms above 5 years) he leaked a lot of stuff, not all of it related to warcrimes. The 1.5 gigabyte unecrypted file is in the torrents so you could take a look to see what is inside - if it is legal under your jurisdiction. Also WikiLeaks didn't released all cables that he gave them against - so he failed on that front too. He also didn't make a dead man's switch that he could leak additional material in case he is captured or convicted - that to use as bargaining chip. He called himself Bradass83 as a nickname and approached a hacker on im program. So - he leaked too much, too nondiscriminatory, failed to it properly and was behaving amateurish.
- TylerE 13y ago
  I think, for Manning, it has to be considered a victory, considering he was facing up to 90 years, and the gov't asked for 60. He could be out on Parole as "soon" as 2025.
  - davidjgraph 13y ago
    I think it's earlier than that. The article mentions the time he's already served and a deduction for poor treatment in custody. That comes to nearly 4 years, itself. I'm not sure if has to serve a minimum of (35-4)/3 or (35/3) -4, but I suspect it's the later if common sense is applied (which is often not the case).
  - monsterix 13y ago
    The question is: Why should he be in prison at all? and why the other three murderers in the army who were exposed in the 'collateral damage' video be left free outside untried? The question is why would someone end up leaking state secrets at all?: Hint: Those secrets are about wrong doings!
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      So did you actually watch the video of the "three murderers" and think critically about it, or were you swayed by the heavily editorialized subtitles and its sensational title?
      - monsterix 13y ago
        Let me ask this question to you instead: Did you think critically about the crime and figure out the murderers at all?
        nsxwolf 13y ago
        I'm not convinced I see a crime committed. From what I saw and heard, I don't believe three crew members woke up that morning and decided "let's kill some civilians today". Remember "mens rea"? We HNers all seem to think that's an important concept, except apparently when it's people we don't like (US military).
- dubcanada 13y ago
  I can go kill a few babies in cold blood and get out in less then 10. But releasing documents that are private... well now that's just not very nice.
  - rwmj 13y ago
    I'm fairly sure if you killed "a few babies in cold blood" you would not be out within 10 years.
  - hnal943 13y ago
    That says more about our society's dehumanization of children than anything else.
- kevincennis 13y ago
  I totally understand that sentiment, but at the same time, the whole concept of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules. There are always paths to responsible disclosure. From what I understand, many of them are pretty badly broken, and we certainly need to fix that. But ultimately, you really don't want to set a precedent of "well, if you leak something and you really believe in your heart that it was morally justified, then we won't send you to jail." Anyway, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, so I shall now let the sea of downvotes wash over me.
  - Torn 13y ago
    It's a fair enough opinion, the problem is that there's no public input on whether leaking is justified - those in charge will say it isn't and that's that.
    - jmduke 13y ago
      One of the main reasons the court system exists is to make sure public input isn't part of the process, no?
  - revelation 13y ago
    What he leaked was available to 1.5+ million people in the USA. It is not by any reasonable meaning of the word classified, it is the proceedings of a seperate class of society.
    - jmduke 13y ago
      1.5 million people is less than .5% of the population.
    - vonmoltke 13y ago
      Where are you getting that number from?
      - 13y ago
- mindcrime 13y ago
  So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. You're dead on with that comment. The most galling aspect of this entire story isn't that Manning is going to serve some jail time (although that is absurd in its own right), but rather that all of the real criminals are walking away scott free, with no repurcusions for their behavior at all. This will probably prove to be the case with the NSA situation as well. The people who ordered, and conducted, mass surveillance of people they had not business spying on, will never be punished. And no one will be held accountable even so far as losing their job, or being docked some pay. Keith Alexander and James Clapper and their cronies keep getting paid and probably get nice, cushy government provided pensions and the whole bit. Meanwhile, Edward Snowden is forced to hide out in another country, completely removed from his friends and family, and - for all we know - may ultimately wind up in jail right alongside Bradley Manning. Tell me something isn't badly wrong with this picture?
  - GVIrish 13y ago
    Eh I think it's a stretch to call the pilot and gunner in the Apache video war criminals. There were US personnel nearby, they thought they made a positive ID on guys with weapons and potentially and RPG in that group and they made a judgment call. They opened fire thinking these guys were insurgents and when others came to help, they assumed the same. Not saying that what they did was right, but I don't think it's a cut and dried case where you can say those guys should be in jail. I don't think Manning was wrong for trying to get that particular story out there, but the indiscriminate nature of his leak is what destroyed his whistleblower defense. If someone worked at Lockheed Martin, and had evidence of bribery of defense officials, but then also leaked 100's of thousands of documents that contain the classified schematics of every single weapons system them make, that guy would rightfully be put in jail. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're whistleblowing on classified or confidential information, then you should limit your disclosure to what is relevant to the actual wrongdoing.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Uh, if you actually read up on the helicopter video, you'll see that Assange plays a game of "hide the ball" with what really happens in the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike. Specifically: 1) The company had been under fire all morning and the Apaches were called in by a soldier on the ground under attack at the location where the journalists were; 2) Among the group of men the two Reuters journalists were with, there were armed men an AK-47 and two RPG launchers, one loaded (and if you can tell that what the journalists are carrying are cameras and not weapons from the grainy video, in real time, you've got sharper eyes than me); 3) A portion of the tape is missing in which the helicopters engage armed insurgents that are seen running into a building; this portion precedes a section visible on the tape that shows the Apaches firing at the building with a missile. So no, the soldiers in the helicopter should not be tried. If soldiers are in a theater of war, are called in because other soldiers are under attack, and see people with weapons, they should shoot, and that's what happened here. This was not one of those cases like you saw in Vietnam when soldiers just started shooting up civilians with no threat in sight.
  - dendory 13y ago
    Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy. </sarcasm>
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It's not just "war" in the abstract. The context of the video is that there is literally a firefight going on nearby in which U.S. soldiers are under attack. The helicopters shot at what appeared to be a group of armed men ("appeared" because some of the men actually were armed) and then shot at a van that appeared to be trying to pick up "bodies and weapons" (according to the soldier who radioed in for permission to engage the van). In the context of a firefight, that means the van is a potential threat--those wounded and the weapons could go back to fighting U.S soldiers. This is not a "shoot anything that moves situation." It's a "if you're called in to the middle of a firefight you resolve doubts in favor of whatever protects other U.S. soldiers." """ Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:. It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. """ Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's never appropriate to second-guess a soldier's conduct in war. But "war crimes" are purposefully malicious actions in the absence of a threat. Not bad judgment calls in response to what you can make out from hundreds of meters away in the middle of a firefight. This is a war crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.
selectstar 13y ago
Land of the free, home of the brave. Let's hope that Snowden never gets caught/detained.
jamesroseman 13y ago
"He faced up to 90 years in prison." I think that, all things considered, this is the best possible outcome (realistically). There was no way he'd walk, because he did break laws. In this instance those laws were broken to get information out to the public, but one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes. If you leave this unpunished, they might think this opens up the floodgates. The powers that be would most likely prefer to deter 100 whistleblowers if it means stopping the one person who'd use the information for terrible ends.
- eli 13y ago
  In fact, weren't his lawyers asking for a sentence of 30 years? Sounds like they got almost what they asked for. "Years faced" is a misleading number, though. I think it's pretty rare that defendants get sentenced to the maximum for each charge. The government was "only" asking for 60.
- jamesroseman 13y ago
  To support this stance, this comes from the posted article: “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.”
- Zikes 13y ago
  He did break laws, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. This is why jury nullification exists, though I'm not sure if that even exists in a military court.
- rlpb 13y ago
  > In this instance those laws were broken to get information out to the public, but one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes. If you leave this unpunished, they might think this opens up the floodgates. I'm not going to comment about the length of the sentence itself. But sentencing is supposed to take into account the exact details of the offence. "one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes" is a reason why somebody breaking laws for more malicious purposes should get a longer sentence. So your argument actually works the other way: it explains why Manning might have been expected to get a lesser sentence.
simias 13y ago
I must say I didn't follow this trial closely but: "According to the military, Manning is required to serve one-third of the sentence before he becomes eligible for parole." That's... brutal.
- jug6ernaut 13y ago
  I have zero knowledge as far as sentence's go. So with that said, how is being required to only server 1/3 of a sentence brutal? What am i missing?
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    Well, for one, he's transsexual, which may or may not indicate he's less of a threat to society. If he's not a threat to society, and won't do what he did again, then it seems like the motive is to make an example of him.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      I'm under the impression he's transgender, not a transsexual. I'm not sure how being transgender makes one more, or less of a threat to society. People are people regardless of sexual orientation, physical gender, or the gender they identify with. That being said, I don't think Manning is (or has been) a threat to society at all. Perhaps he should have been a little more careful about what he released but I feel he's done the world community a net good by exposing war crimes, etc[0]. I do agree he is being made an example of, and this sentence and his treatment is intended to be a signal and a warning sign to would-be leakers. I hope they still come forward and behave more like Snowden than Manning. [0] http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-reveal http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-...
      - sillysaurus2 13y ago
        I was unaware of the distinction. Thank you for pointing it out. As for why I brought up his transgenderism, it was one of those unexamined beliefs based on hearsay that seemed natural to believe, and wasn't obvious how absurd it was until it was pointed out. Specifically, the idea that transgender people are less likely to engage in crime like murder or theft, and hence would be less dangerous to society after spending time in prison. But that logic doesn't really follow, and the assumption was probably false anyway. Apologies. I meant no disrespect.
Zikes 13y ago
> including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. They openly acknowledge abusive treatment, but has anyone received criminal disciplinary action over it? 112 days also seems a tad low considering what I've heard of his experience.
- jamesroseman 13y ago
  I'm sure there will be punishment, but that it'll be out of the courts. The last thing they want publicized is a case about American Marines mistreating a convict.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    No one involved in meting out that punishment has an iota of motivation to do anything but reward him. It's a deterrent they have control over.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    Why would you be sure of that? No one involved in mistreating Manning has had any charges brought against them, nor will there be.
- herbig 13y ago
  Credit for abuse served. Maybe one could request abusive treatment and get out in half the time?
mrt0mat0 13y ago
I think 35 years is too long. I'm sure he'll get out early on parole, and has already served 3 years as it is, but he I think his motives were good.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'd put money on his being pardoned in December 2016.
flexie 13y ago
This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  Obama could fix this with the stroke of a pen. Surely he will deliver. I'll wait.
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    I think Obama would open a meth lab before he did that. And if he did it would only be self-serving.
    - wjk 13y ago
      Any US president. Not just Obama.
    - drcode 13y ago
      He would open a self-serve meth lab?
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago
    Tough to say. Although Liberal presidents tend to pardon more than their Conservative counterparts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill... Clinton pardoned 150 people and commuted 39 people and their sentences during his four years. Most of these were done on his last day in office and caused some controversy. Of course his number of pardons paled in comparison to Carter and Reagan who both pardoned over 400 a piece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_H._W._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Geor... By comparison, George H. W. Bush only pardoned 75 people and commuted three sentences.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
beachstartup 13y ago
does anyone know if military prison is like civilian prison, in which you could be released early for a variety of factors including overcrowding, good behavior, appeals, parole, just plain ambiguity of sentencing, etc? from what i read in the media it seems as though civilian sentences for non-capital crimes are basically flexible.... but i'm no expert.
- mb_72 13y ago
  I was also wondering about these things, as well as wondering whether it's possible to send him a letter of support - ?
Nowyouknow 13y ago
Seems like he's being made an example of. A clear and stern warning to others contemplating similar actions?
fatjokes 13y ago
Any hope Obama had of Snowden coming back to the US voluntarily just evaporated.
octo_t 13y ago
Pvt Manning has received more time in prison than the entirety of the Collateral Murder crew combined (0 years).
joering2 13y ago
His sentencing matrix: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large
- susi22 13y ago
  Source? There seems to be more at the bottom.
doe88 13y ago
Nevertheless he still has full respect in my eyes, whatever the gov/justice can say or do, I thank him for exposing the truth. I have no doubt, a time will come when his actions will be seen as positive by most of the people.
zeteo 13y ago
>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terrorize those who might expose the process.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, broke its rules. Knowingly. Hence a court martial. Not so long ago he would have been executed for it, 35 is a soft ruling.
  - igorgue 13y ago
    softer ruling
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.
    - davidcollantes 13y ago
      As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.
      - zobzu 13y ago
        Right because one day someone decided to make those rules and put them on paper. Just like the rules they're putting on paper regarding civilians nowadays. So, uhm, I don't think its right. I think it's following the paper. It's lawful, it's expected, etc. But it's not "right".
f1nch3r 13y ago
Growing up as a conservative, hyper-patriotic American it pains me to say that I hate my country. A young man exposes wrongdoing by the military and gets sentenced to 35 years in prison while the administration that started an illegal war with Iraq, costing untold American and Iraqi lives, are free.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing. Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom. Sure it fails from time to time, but that is just because it is compromised of humans, who are awesome but fallible creatures.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Better than the worst is not good enough.
  - Frozenlock 13y ago
    "second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom" Wow. Just wow. 'Murica, much?
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      Actually Dane, but yeah I like the US. I don't often agree with their government in the things that end up in the media, but I like the country and I have a serious and profound respect for the genius of Jefferson.
  - f1nch3r 13y ago
    If you want to wave the flag that is your prerogative. Today, I hate my country. You can't change my opinion.
dombili 13y ago
ACLU's response: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-manning-sentence https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-mannin... > "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system." Daunting.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  I find this a strange point to make. Neither war crimes nor soldiers' misconduct falls within the boundaries of what we usually call "our justice system".
gbog 13y ago
There has been a long history of people standing against their government at the risk of their lives, because some few principles of morality are higher than governments. We have seen the case of Thoreau and friends, against slavery. And then De Gaulle and friends, against Hitler. In old China, it was also very common for confucean public servant to criticise their emperor and wait for the supplice. Now we have Bradley Manning, we can pin his photography on the board of the braves. And do not get to me on "what is morality?" or "how do you choose your principles?" These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  > These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest. That sounds like a dangerous way to think about things.
  - oskarth 13y ago
    Quite the opposite. The dangerous people are the ones who think morality is something you can negotiate about. That's a recipe for unethical behavior. Ethical principles != Fundamentalism.
    - jpttsn 13y ago
      If you don't reason about things, how can you know you are right?
      - gbog 13y ago
        That's true for up to some level, but above that you arrive to some ether where rationality is useless or even dangerous. You see a little girl running toward a minefield, you jump and save her, there is no reasoning. For many who believe in God (not my case) it is something you know is right, but has no reasoning behind. But here it's just some moral principles that are above the law, above the country, and sometime even above oneself. That's what Snowden and Manning teach us (or me, at least)
pavanred 13y ago
It baffles me, if you look at the bigger picture, had Bradley Manning chosen to abuse human rights, murder a few civilians himself instead, he would have been living a free life now and probably would have been awarded medals too. The law and constitution we hold to such a high standard and protect and hope it protects us, is not working anymore.
Helianthus 13y ago
Every time I think I have it bad, I realize that this hero has it worse.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
And for ruining the US Economy you get bailout money. What an awesome system and country! How they call it? Fascism?
D9u 13y ago
“National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” So when will Clapper, et al, be charged with perjury? I consider lying before Congress to be an attempt to "undermine the entire system," and the truth is something which I take "seriously." Selective application of the law is another symptom of the systemic illness which permeates our government, and this, coupled with the stream of deception flowing from the highest levels of the administration, is rapidly eroding that fabled "moral high ground" which is constantly invoked in justification for abrogations of the public trust. The damage done to the reputation of the USA by the actions of those in high places is much more serious than the release of innocuous documents by Manning.
magoon 13y ago
I don't want what Bradley Mannig has done to be compared to what Edward Snowden has been doing.
veritas20 13y ago
Bradley Manning would have gotten less time if he: Robbed a bank: 20 year max Knowing spread AIDS: 10 year max Sold child pornography: 10 year max Sold slaves: 20 year max and many more.... Will this cause action or uproar among civilians or military personnel? We'll see...
yk 13y ago
For some reason, I think that Manning will be free much sooner, or the US will be in deep trouble. Not so much because of him, but I think that there are only two possibilities, either the US cut the security industrial complex serverly, or the deep state will take over. In the latter case, the US will loose its 'soft power,' and would face an empire breaking apart. On the other hand, if a administration would return to a reasonable security policies, then one of the first things they would do is to pardon Bradley Manning.
Mordor 13y ago
OK, so that's 26 minutes per file.
grandalf 13y ago
I struggle with the way in which no high level officials have even acknowledged that the leaks (by Manning and by Snowden) might have revealed some excesses or abuses that ought to be corrected. How could any leader feel no obligation to address the core issues, or even to acknowledge they exist? It's unlikely Snowden or Manning will be pardoned, and unlikely we'll see anything other than the most superficial reforms. I think the bottom line is that in a state that relies heavily on propaganda, the truth is very dangerous, and we'll see an increasing amount of information become classified and stricter and stricter punishments for leakers. IMHO the most noteworthy aspect of the info Manning leaked was that much of the classified info was simply "bad news" that contradicted the government's contrived story about what was going on in the wars.
rdl 13y ago
It's probably unpopular here, but I think Manning leaked what he did not as a principled whistleblower, but as a confused/spurned/etc. kid. And deserves substantial punishment for betraying his oath as a member of the military and TS clearance holder for ultimately personal reasons (and doing it in a stupid way). Snowden, on the other hand, was quite principled. One might argue he went about it the wrong way (should have gone directly to Congress or a federal judge, or leaked less info), but I think what he did is quite defensible. So, I'd stand with Snowden, but I think Manning deserves to be in prison. I was expecting 20-50 years sentence, dishonorable discharge, etc. He got 35. I think 10-20 would have been fair, but the general sentencing based on other similar crimes pushes for higher. There should have been a greater reduction than 112 days for how he was treated in pre-trial detention, possibly a halving of his ultimate sentence. I also predict PFC Manning will serve less than 5 years, and not because he's released early.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  I completely agree. It does a disservice to people like Snowden to have Manning lumped in the same pile as them.
  - rdl 13y ago
    And Binney, Drake, Wiebe are even more unambiguously moral than Snowden (although I think Snowden is closer to them than he is to Manning). Those 3 deserve a Nobel.
susi22 13y ago
Will likely be out after 8-8.5 years: https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512 https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
beedogs 13y ago
Another sad day to be an American. There's been a long string of those lately, though, so tragedy fatigue has probably set in up there.
cstross 13y ago
What kind of world is this, where Bradley Manning gets a heavier jail sentence than Anders Breivik?
- jonstewart 13y ago
  One where different countries have different criminal justice systems? (Do I win the pedantic literalist prize?)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Oh, it's false equivalence time! What kind of world is this, where a soldier in a war zone indiscriminately dumps data into the hands of foreign actors and receives a full public trial and a jail sentence, while a teenage girl gets shot in the head for going to school? I feel bad for Manning, but he at least opted to join an organization with a conspicuously poor human rights record at a time when it was many years into a bloody moral and legal quagmire.
drill_sarge 13y ago
No surprise. My opinion on the US gov is even lower than it was on Bushs period with his whole patriot act and Afghanistan/Iraq war crap. I expect nothing positive.
joering2 13y ago
Question: are there any chances to visit this guy behind the bars? I am eager to take a trip and pay him a tribute, shake his hand.
eyeareque 13y ago
I feel what he did was morally correct, even though it was against the law. My only wish is that he would have been able to do this anonymously and not get caught.
milosp 13y ago
Its not clear to me what basis there is for any imprisonment in any prison inside of US soil, when there is no war in US soil and all the so called foreign wars are made up bullshit. If his offense stems from a breach of contract, then kidnapping and forced imprisonment and slavery can not be a punishment for that breach of contract except as enforced by civilian courts. He should be able to tell the mercenary group to get lost and sue him in US civilian court. How many years do soldiers get for killing civilians in the civilian courts? The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_Unit...
mgpetkov 13y ago
I don't think that Manning deserves to go to jail.This sentence must be for the ones that allowed one ordinary soldier to access thausands ot highly classified documents.
splrb 13y ago
In the United States of backasswardness, we punish those that reveal war crimes, not those that commit them.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tty 13y ago
The length of his sentence is similar to that of Jeffrey Carney, who was sentenced to 38 years for >espionage, conspiracy, and desertion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney >While working at the Marienfelde Field Site in Berlin, Carney began copying classified documents which he then provided to the East German Ministry for State Security (MfS) by repeatedly crossing back and forth into East Germany. In 1984 he was involuntarily transferred to Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas to work as a technical instructor. Unfortunately, Carney believed, Goodfellow AFB was a training base with no real-world intelligence of any interest to the MfS. He soon discovered that he had been very wrong. He continued providing the MfS with documents, meeting his handlers in Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro In 1985. Carney spent 11 years in prison.
Zenst 13y ago
I very much doubt that he will serve the full 35 years, two aspects being that today it is political and down the line mentalities (govermental and people) change, slowly and generaly for the better. Think of somebody who was in the German army during WWII and tried to kill Hitler and failed. In Germany he violeted the law and would be tried and found guilty and punished with more years than Manning. Manning did not kill or try to kill people and his motivations show no intent of that happening and the opposite in that he was trying to prevent unlawful killing by his actions however right or wrong they were. In the Allies eye's though somebody trying to kill Hitler during the war would be a hero and prasied and on balance not so many years later even the german army as a whole would agree that it was the right thing to do at the time, even if not judged as such. So whats the issue, well it is about milatary or goverments keeping secrets that show them going aginst what is moraly right in the peoples eye's in part. This is why such secrets are classified for a time and then released, albiet some redactions refering to other documents that are more sensitive and have a longer release delay imposed upon them. But most makes the surface in your lifetime, Manning in his part experdited some aspects and the one that we all know and remember would be the helicopter shooting the wrong people, sadly we do not know if those people had been under on the build up to that event, that was not released from what I know. They may of been on tripple shifts or just lost a friend in a similiar situation, everybody is different and humans do make mistakes, some wrong, some very wrong and should not be made. But that is another matter The point I'm trying to highlight is that in say 5 years, 10..15..... would the mentalities of those future times stand by this judgement. Yes it is right to send a message, but over time that message reaches home and people get cases reviewed or paroled, but I just feel he will not serve that full 35 year term, but that wont change tomorrow or soon. If anything the longer this matter and topic is in the news then the longer the time will be that he is released early, that's how I see it.
btucker 13y ago
I'd highly suggest anyone who hasn't already, go back and read the Manning/Lamo chat logs: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs
vijayboyapati 13y ago
This young man had the courage to expose the war crimes committed by America, and now will essentially spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. More than anything this is an indictment of America as a nation, and the American people who could tolerate this and allow it to happen, under a President who won the Nobel "peace" prize. As Orwell wrote: "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it".
j2d3 13y ago
Some ways to take comfort here: 1) This is not the final word on Bradley Manning's fate. His supporters, who have already raised over $300,000 in his defense thus far, will not stop here. 2) 35 years is bad, but not as bad as it could have been. At least his defense successfully got rid of the "aiding the enemy" charge. 3) This will be appealed something like this, IIRC: (a) Appeal to the convening authority (a military officer who has the power to reduce the sentence or overturn the conviction all together). This is the method that has allowed (more than one) convicted rapist go free: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/13/senators-critical-military-convening-authority - so if this were used to free Bradley Manning or reduce his sentence, it could help the Military defend the process in the court of public opinion! (However, this is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!!!) (b) Appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) (c) Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (d) Appeal to the US Supreme Court There is an article here that explains all the possibilities: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-sentence-parole-and-appeal-implications/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-senten... (Edit: formatting)

640 points by antr 13y ago

Very sad. So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. While the guys who stood up for humanity and true spirit of serving forces for good is sentenced 35 years. And I know a lot of people would troll me on this opinion itself.

eli 13y ago
I agree it's sad. I'm not personally a big Manning fan, but that feels like a stiff sentence. (By the way, I think a lot of people would disagree with you. That doesn't mean they're "trolling" you.)
- thex86 13y ago
  > I'm not personally a big Manning fan Can you elaborate why? I am interested in hearing your point of view because maybe I just have one side of the story.
  - eli 13y ago
    Sure, but I really only have a few quick minutes so this might be a little scattered. There are some interesting things in some of the cables he leaked (it's going to be great for historians). There were even a few troubling things in there that probably deserve investigation.... but the vast majority of the cables were, at most, embarrassing. They strained foreign relationships and embarrassed allies & various diplomats by name. I don't know if anyone was hurt or killed over them, but I think it's at least plausible. For what? Were there any documents that Manning had access to that he didn't try to take? The indiscriminate nature of what he took makes me seriously question his motives. What specifically was he blowing the whistle on? I admit that whistleblower protection sucks in the military, but he didn't even try to go through the proper channels. I agree the US overclassifies documents and is too secretive. I agree we need more transparency and I certainly agree we need better whistleblower protection and oversight...But I don't think that gives everyone with access the right to unilaterally declassify whatever they want without penalty. The military can't work like that. No organization can work like that.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    What Manning did was stupid. And while I agree that 35 years is harsh (mostly because I don't believe in prison terms above 5 years) he leaked a lot of stuff, not all of it related to warcrimes. The 1.5 gigabyte unecrypted file is in the torrents so you could take a look to see what is inside - if it is legal under your jurisdiction. Also WikiLeaks didn't released all cables that he gave them against - so he failed on that front too. He also didn't make a dead man's switch that he could leak additional material in case he is captured or convicted - that to use as bargaining chip. He called himself Bradass83 as a nickname and approached a hacker on im program. So - he leaked too much, too nondiscriminatory, failed to it properly and was behaving amateurish.
TylerE 13y ago
I think, for Manning, it has to be considered a victory, considering he was facing up to 90 years, and the gov't asked for 60. He could be out on Parole as "soon" as 2025.
- davidjgraph 13y ago
  I think it's earlier than that. The article mentions the time he's already served and a deduction for poor treatment in custody. That comes to nearly 4 years, itself. I'm not sure if has to serve a minimum of (35-4)/3 or (35/3) -4, but I suspect it's the later if common sense is applied (which is often not the case).
- monsterix 13y ago
  The question is: Why should he be in prison at all? and why the other three murderers in the army who were exposed in the 'collateral damage' video be left free outside untried? The question is why would someone end up leaking state secrets at all?: Hint: Those secrets are about wrong doings!
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    So did you actually watch the video of the "three murderers" and think critically about it, or were you swayed by the heavily editorialized subtitles and its sensational title?
    - monsterix 13y ago
      Let me ask this question to you instead: Did you think critically about the crime and figure out the murderers at all?
      - nsxwolf 13y ago
        I'm not convinced I see a crime committed. From what I saw and heard, I don't believe three crew members woke up that morning and decided "let's kill some civilians today". Remember "mens rea"? We HNers all seem to think that's an important concept, except apparently when it's people we don't like (US military).
dubcanada 13y ago
I can go kill a few babies in cold blood and get out in less then 10. But releasing documents that are private... well now that's just not very nice.
- rwmj 13y ago
  I'm fairly sure if you killed "a few babies in cold blood" you would not be out within 10 years.
- hnal943 13y ago
  That says more about our society's dehumanization of children than anything else.
kevincennis 13y ago
I totally understand that sentiment, but at the same time, the whole concept of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules. There are always paths to responsible disclosure. From what I understand, many of them are pretty badly broken, and we certainly need to fix that. But ultimately, you really don't want to set a precedent of "well, if you leak something and you really believe in your heart that it was morally justified, then we won't send you to jail." Anyway, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, so I shall now let the sea of downvotes wash over me.
- Torn 13y ago
  It's a fair enough opinion, the problem is that there's no public input on whether leaking is justified - those in charge will say it isn't and that's that.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    One of the main reasons the court system exists is to make sure public input isn't part of the process, no?
- revelation 13y ago
  What he leaked was available to 1.5+ million people in the USA. It is not by any reasonable meaning of the word classified, it is the proceedings of a seperate class of society.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    1.5 million people is less than .5% of the population.
  - vonmoltke 13y ago
    Where are you getting that number from?
    - 13y ago
mindcrime 13y ago
So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. You're dead on with that comment. The most galling aspect of this entire story isn't that Manning is going to serve some jail time (although that is absurd in its own right), but rather that all of the real criminals are walking away scott free, with no repurcusions for their behavior at all. This will probably prove to be the case with the NSA situation as well. The people who ordered, and conducted, mass surveillance of people they had not business spying on, will never be punished. And no one will be held accountable even so far as losing their job, or being docked some pay. Keith Alexander and James Clapper and their cronies keep getting paid and probably get nice, cushy government provided pensions and the whole bit. Meanwhile, Edward Snowden is forced to hide out in another country, completely removed from his friends and family, and - for all we know - may ultimately wind up in jail right alongside Bradley Manning. Tell me something isn't badly wrong with this picture?
- GVIrish 13y ago
  Eh I think it's a stretch to call the pilot and gunner in the Apache video war criminals. There were US personnel nearby, they thought they made a positive ID on guys with weapons and potentially and RPG in that group and they made a judgment call. They opened fire thinking these guys were insurgents and when others came to help, they assumed the same. Not saying that what they did was right, but I don't think it's a cut and dried case where you can say those guys should be in jail. I don't think Manning was wrong for trying to get that particular story out there, but the indiscriminate nature of his leak is what destroyed his whistleblower defense. If someone worked at Lockheed Martin, and had evidence of bribery of defense officials, but then also leaked 100's of thousands of documents that contain the classified schematics of every single weapons system them make, that guy would rightfully be put in jail. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're whistleblowing on classified or confidential information, then you should limit your disclosure to what is relevant to the actual wrongdoing.
rayiner 13y ago
Uh, if you actually read up on the helicopter video, you'll see that Assange plays a game of "hide the ball" with what really happens in the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike. Specifically: 1) The company had been under fire all morning and the Apaches were called in by a soldier on the ground under attack at the location where the journalists were; 2) Among the group of men the two Reuters journalists were with, there were armed men an AK-47 and two RPG launchers, one loaded (and if you can tell that what the journalists are carrying are cameras and not weapons from the grainy video, in real time, you've got sharper eyes than me); 3) A portion of the tape is missing in which the helicopters engage armed insurgents that are seen running into a building; this portion precedes a section visible on the tape that shows the Apaches firing at the building with a missile. So no, the soldiers in the helicopter should not be tried. If soldiers are in a theater of war, are called in because other soldiers are under attack, and see people with weapons, they should shoot, and that's what happened here. This was not one of those cases like you saw in Vietnam when soldiers just started shooting up civilians with no threat in sight.
- dendory 13y ago
  Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy. </sarcasm>
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's not just "war" in the abstract. The context of the video is that there is literally a firefight going on nearby in which U.S. soldiers are under attack. The helicopters shot at what appeared to be a group of armed men ("appeared" because some of the men actually were armed) and then shot at a van that appeared to be trying to pick up "bodies and weapons" (according to the soldier who radioed in for permission to engage the van). In the context of a firefight, that means the van is a potential threat--those wounded and the weapons could go back to fighting U.S soldiers. This is not a "shoot anything that moves situation." It's a "if you're called in to the middle of a firefight you resolve doubts in favor of whatever protects other U.S. soldiers." """ Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:. It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. """ Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's never appropriate to second-guess a soldier's conduct in war. But "war crimes" are purposefully malicious actions in the absence of a threat. Not bad judgment calls in response to what you can make out from hundreds of meters away in the middle of a firefight. This is a war crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.

selectstar 13y ago

Land of the free, home of the brave. Let's hope that Snowden never gets caught/detained.

jamesroseman 13y ago

"He faced up to 90 years in prison." I think that, all things considered, this is the best possible outcome (realistically). There was no way he'd walk, because he did break laws. In this instance those laws were broken to get information out to the public, but one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes. If you leave this unpunished, they might think this opens up the floodgates. The powers that be would most likely prefer to deter 100 whistleblowers if it means stopping the one person who'd use the information for terrible ends.

eli 13y ago
In fact, weren't his lawyers asking for a sentence of 30 years? Sounds like they got almost what they asked for. "Years faced" is a misleading number, though. I think it's pretty rare that defendants get sentenced to the maximum for each charge. The government was "only" asking for 60.
jamesroseman 13y ago
To support this stance, this comes from the posted article: “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.”
Zikes 13y ago
He did break laws, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. This is why jury nullification exists, though I'm not sure if that even exists in a military court.
rlpb 13y ago
> In this instance those laws were broken to get information out to the public, but one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes. If you leave this unpunished, they might think this opens up the floodgates. I'm not going to comment about the length of the sentence itself. But sentencing is supposed to take into account the exact details of the offence. "one can easily imagine when those laws could be broken for more malicious purposes" is a reason why somebody breaking laws for more malicious purposes should get a longer sentence. So your argument actually works the other way: it explains why Manning might have been expected to get a lesser sentence.

simias 13y ago

I must say I didn't follow this trial closely but: "According to the military, Manning is required to serve one-third of the sentence before he becomes eligible for parole." That's... brutal.

jug6ernaut 13y ago
I have zero knowledge as far as sentence's go. So with that said, how is being required to only server 1/3 of a sentence brutal? What am i missing?
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Well, for one, he's transsexual, which may or may not indicate he's less of a threat to society. If he's not a threat to society, and won't do what he did again, then it seems like the motive is to make an example of him.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    I'm under the impression he's transgender, not a transsexual. I'm not sure how being transgender makes one more, or less of a threat to society. People are people regardless of sexual orientation, physical gender, or the gender they identify with. That being said, I don't think Manning is (or has been) a threat to society at all. Perhaps he should have been a little more careful about what he released but I feel he's done the world community a net good by exposing war crimes, etc[0]. I do agree he is being made an example of, and this sentence and his treatment is intended to be a signal and a warning sign to would-be leakers. I hope they still come forward and behave more like Snowden than Manning. [0] http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-reveal http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-...
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      I was unaware of the distinction. Thank you for pointing it out. As for why I brought up his transgenderism, it was one of those unexamined beliefs based on hearsay that seemed natural to believe, and wasn't obvious how absurd it was until it was pointed out. Specifically, the idea that transgender people are less likely to engage in crime like murder or theft, and hence would be less dangerous to society after spending time in prison. But that logic doesn't really follow, and the assumption was probably false anyway. Apologies. I meant no disrespect.

Zikes 13y ago

> including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. They openly acknowledge abusive treatment, but has anyone received criminal disciplinary action over it? 112 days also seems a tad low considering what I've heard of his experience.

jamesroseman 13y ago
I'm sure there will be punishment, but that it'll be out of the courts. The last thing they want publicized is a case about American Marines mistreating a convict.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  No one involved in meting out that punishment has an iota of motivation to do anything but reward him. It's a deterrent they have control over.
- jellicle 13y ago
  Why would you be sure of that? No one involved in mistreating Manning has had any charges brought against them, nor will there be.
herbig 13y ago
Credit for abuse served. Maybe one could request abusive treatment and get out in half the time?

mrt0mat0 13y ago

I think 35 years is too long. I'm sure he'll get out early on parole, and has already served 3 years as it is, but he I think his motives were good.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I'd put money on his being pardoned in December 2016.

flexie 13y ago

This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.

aspensmonster 13y ago
Obama could fix this with the stroke of a pen. Surely he will deliver. I'll wait.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  I think Obama would open a meth lab before he did that. And if he did it would only be self-serving.
  - wjk 13y ago
    Any US president. Not just Obama.
  - drcode 13y ago
    He would open a self-serve meth lab?
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  Tough to say. Although Liberal presidents tend to pardon more than their Conservative counterparts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill... Clinton pardoned 150 people and commuted 39 people and their sentences during his four years. Most of these were done on his last day in office and caused some controversy. Of course his number of pardons paled in comparison to Carter and Reagan who both pardoned over 400 a piece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_H._W._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Geor... By comparison, George H. W. Bush only pardoned 75 people and commuted three sentences.
- tokenizer 13y ago

beachstartup 13y ago

does anyone know if military prison is like civilian prison, in which you could be released early for a variety of factors including overcrowding, good behavior, appeals, parole, just plain ambiguity of sentencing, etc? from what i read in the media it seems as though civilian sentences for non-capital crimes are basically flexible.... but i'm no expert.

mb_72 13y ago
I was also wondering about these things, as well as wondering whether it's possible to send him a letter of support - ?

Nowyouknow 13y ago

Seems like he's being made an example of. A clear and stern warning to others contemplating similar actions?

fatjokes 13y ago

Any hope Obama had of Snowden coming back to the US voluntarily just evaporated.

octo_t 13y ago

Pvt Manning has received more time in prison than the entirety of the Collateral Murder crew combined (0 years).

joering2 13y ago

His sentencing matrix: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large

susi22 13y ago
Source? There seems to be more at the bottom.

doe88 13y ago

Nevertheless he still has full respect in my eyes, whatever the gov/justice can say or do, I thank him for exposing the truth. I have no doubt, a time will come when his actions will be seen as positive by most of the people.

zeteo 13y ago

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terrorize those who might expose the process.

pinaceae 13y ago
No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, broke its rules. Knowingly. Hence a court martial. Not so long ago he would have been executed for it, 35 is a soft ruling.
- igorgue 13y ago
  softer ruling
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.
  - davidcollantes 13y ago
    As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.
    - zobzu 13y ago
      Right because one day someone decided to make those rules and put them on paper. Just like the rules they're putting on paper regarding civilians nowadays. So, uhm, I don't think its right. I think it's following the paper. It's lawful, it's expected, etc. But it's not "right".

f1nch3r 13y ago

Growing up as a conservative, hyper-patriotic American it pains me to say that I hate my country. A young man exposes wrongdoing by the military and gets sentenced to 35 years in prison while the administration that started an illegal war with Iraq, costing untold American and Iraqi lives, are free.

tomjen3 13y ago
Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing. Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom. Sure it fails from time to time, but that is just because it is compromised of humans, who are awesome but fallible creatures.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Better than the worst is not good enough.
- Frozenlock 13y ago
  "second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom" Wow. Just wow. 'Murica, much?
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Actually Dane, but yeah I like the US. I don't often agree with their government in the things that end up in the media, but I like the country and I have a serious and profound respect for the genius of Jefferson.
- f1nch3r 13y ago
  If you want to wave the flag that is your prerogative. Today, I hate my country. You can't change my opinion.

dombili 13y ago

ACLU's response: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-manning-sentence https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-mannin... > "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system." Daunting.

jpttsn 13y ago
I find this a strange point to make. Neither war crimes nor soldiers' misconduct falls within the boundaries of what we usually call "our justice system".

gbog 13y ago

There has been a long history of people standing against their government at the risk of their lives, because some few principles of morality are higher than governments. We have seen the case of Thoreau and friends, against slavery. And then De Gaulle and friends, against Hitler. In old China, it was also very common for confucean public servant to criticise their emperor and wait for the supplice. Now we have Bradley Manning, we can pin his photography on the board of the braves. And do not get to me on "what is morality?" or "how do you choose your principles?" These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest.

jpttsn 13y ago
> These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest. That sounds like a dangerous way to think about things.
- oskarth 13y ago
  Quite the opposite. The dangerous people are the ones who think morality is something you can negotiate about. That's a recipe for unethical behavior. Ethical principles != Fundamentalism.
  - jpttsn 13y ago
    If you don't reason about things, how can you know you are right?
    - gbog 13y ago
      That's true for up to some level, but above that you arrive to some ether where rationality is useless or even dangerous. You see a little girl running toward a minefield, you jump and save her, there is no reasoning. For many who believe in God (not my case) it is something you know is right, but has no reasoning behind. But here it's just some moral principles that are above the law, above the country, and sometime even above oneself. That's what Snowden and Manning teach us (or me, at least)

pavanred 13y ago

It baffles me, if you look at the bigger picture, had Bradley Manning chosen to abuse human rights, murder a few civilians himself instead, he would have been living a free life now and probably would have been awarded medals too. The law and constitution we hold to such a high standard and protect and hope it protects us, is not working anymore.

Helianthus 13y ago

Every time I think I have it bad, I realize that this hero has it worse.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

And for ruining the US Economy you get bailout money. What an awesome system and country! How they call it? Fascism?

D9u 13y ago

“National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” So when will Clapper, et al, be charged with perjury? I consider lying before Congress to be an attempt to "undermine the entire system," and the truth is something which I take "seriously." Selective application of the law is another symptom of the systemic illness which permeates our government, and this, coupled with the stream of deception flowing from the highest levels of the administration, is rapidly eroding that fabled "moral high ground" which is constantly invoked in justification for abrogations of the public trust. The damage done to the reputation of the USA by the actions of those in high places is much more serious than the release of innocuous documents by Manning.

magoon 13y ago

I don't want what Bradley Mannig has done to be compared to what Edward Snowden has been doing.

veritas20 13y ago

Bradley Manning would have gotten less time if he: Robbed a bank: 20 year max Knowing spread AIDS: 10 year max Sold child pornography: 10 year max Sold slaves: 20 year max and many more.... Will this cause action or uproar among civilians or military personnel? We'll see...

yk 13y ago

For some reason, I think that Manning will be free much sooner, or the US will be in deep trouble. Not so much because of him, but I think that there are only two possibilities, either the US cut the security industrial complex serverly, or the deep state will take over. In the latter case, the US will loose its 'soft power,' and would face an empire breaking apart. On the other hand, if a administration would return to a reasonable security policies, then one of the first things they would do is to pardon Bradley Manning.

Mordor 13y ago

OK, so that's 26 minutes per file.

grandalf 13y ago

I struggle with the way in which no high level officials have even acknowledged that the leaks (by Manning and by Snowden) might have revealed some excesses or abuses that ought to be corrected. How could any leader feel no obligation to address the core issues, or even to acknowledge they exist? It's unlikely Snowden or Manning will be pardoned, and unlikely we'll see anything other than the most superficial reforms. I think the bottom line is that in a state that relies heavily on propaganda, the truth is very dangerous, and we'll see an increasing amount of information become classified and stricter and stricter punishments for leakers. IMHO the most noteworthy aspect of the info Manning leaked was that much of the classified info was simply "bad news" that contradicted the government's contrived story about what was going on in the wars.

rdl 13y ago

It's probably unpopular here, but I think Manning leaked what he did not as a principled whistleblower, but as a confused/spurned/etc. kid. And deserves substantial punishment for betraying his oath as a member of the military and TS clearance holder for ultimately personal reasons (and doing it in a stupid way). Snowden, on the other hand, was quite principled. One might argue he went about it the wrong way (should have gone directly to Congress or a federal judge, or leaked less info), but I think what he did is quite defensible. So, I'd stand with Snowden, but I think Manning deserves to be in prison. I was expecting 20-50 years sentence, dishonorable discharge, etc. He got 35. I think 10-20 would have been fair, but the general sentencing based on other similar crimes pushes for higher. There should have been a greater reduction than 112 days for how he was treated in pre-trial detention, possibly a halving of his ultimate sentence. I also predict PFC Manning will serve less than 5 years, and not because he's released early.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
I completely agree. It does a disservice to people like Snowden to have Manning lumped in the same pile as them.
- rdl 13y ago
  And Binney, Drake, Wiebe are even more unambiguously moral than Snowden (although I think Snowden is closer to them than he is to Manning). Those 3 deserve a Nobel.

susi22 13y ago

Will likely be out after 8-8.5 years: https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512 https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

beedogs 13y ago

Another sad day to be an American. There's been a long string of those lately, though, so tragedy fatigue has probably set in up there.

cstross 13y ago

What kind of world is this, where Bradley Manning gets a heavier jail sentence than Anders Breivik?

jonstewart 13y ago
One where different countries have different criminal justice systems? (Do I win the pedantic literalist prize?)
anigbrowl 13y ago
Oh, it's false equivalence time! What kind of world is this, where a soldier in a war zone indiscriminately dumps data into the hands of foreign actors and receives a full public trial and a jail sentence, while a teenage girl gets shot in the head for going to school? I feel bad for Manning, but he at least opted to join an organization with a conspicuously poor human rights record at a time when it was many years into a bloody moral and legal quagmire.

drill_sarge 13y ago

No surprise. My opinion on the US gov is even lower than it was on Bushs period with his whole patriot act and Afghanistan/Iraq war crap. I expect nothing positive.

joering2 13y ago

Question: are there any chances to visit this guy behind the bars? I am eager to take a trip and pay him a tribute, shake his hand.

eyeareque 13y ago

I feel what he did was morally correct, even though it was against the law. My only wish is that he would have been able to do this anonymously and not get caught.

milosp 13y ago

Its not clear to me what basis there is for any imprisonment in any prison inside of US soil, when there is no war in US soil and all the so called foreign wars are made up bullshit. If his offense stems from a breach of contract, then kidnapping and forced imprisonment and slavery can not be a punishment for that breach of contract except as enforced by civilian courts. He should be able to tell the mercenary group to get lost and sue him in US civilian court. How many years do soldiers get for killing civilians in the civilian courts? The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_Unit...

mgpetkov 13y ago

I don't think that Manning deserves to go to jail.This sentence must be for the ones that allowed one ordinary soldier to access thausands ot highly classified documents.

splrb 13y ago

In the United States of backasswardness, we punish those that reveal war crimes, not those that commit them.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tty 13y ago

The length of his sentence is similar to that of Jeffrey Carney, who was sentenced to 38 years for >espionage, conspiracy, and desertion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney >While working at the Marienfelde Field Site in Berlin, Carney began copying classified documents which he then provided to the East German Ministry for State Security (MfS) by repeatedly crossing back and forth into East Germany. In 1984 he was involuntarily transferred to Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas to work as a technical instructor. Unfortunately, Carney believed, Goodfellow AFB was a training base with no real-world intelligence of any interest to the MfS. He soon discovered that he had been very wrong. He continued providing the MfS with documents, meeting his handlers in Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro In 1985. Carney spent 11 years in prison.

Zenst 13y ago

I very much doubt that he will serve the full 35 years, two aspects being that today it is political and down the line mentalities (govermental and people) change, slowly and generaly for the better. Think of somebody who was in the German army during WWII and tried to kill Hitler and failed. In Germany he violeted the law and would be tried and found guilty and punished with more years than Manning. Manning did not kill or try to kill people and his motivations show no intent of that happening and the opposite in that he was trying to prevent unlawful killing by his actions however right or wrong they were. In the Allies eye's though somebody trying to kill Hitler during the war would be a hero and prasied and on balance not so many years later even the german army as a whole would agree that it was the right thing to do at the time, even if not judged as such. So whats the issue, well it is about milatary or goverments keeping secrets that show them going aginst what is moraly right in the peoples eye's in part. This is why such secrets are classified for a time and then released, albiet some redactions refering to other documents that are more sensitive and have a longer release delay imposed upon them. But most makes the surface in your lifetime, Manning in his part experdited some aspects and the one that we all know and remember would be the helicopter shooting the wrong people, sadly we do not know if those people had been under on the build up to that event, that was not released from what I know. They may of been on tripple shifts or just lost a friend in a similiar situation, everybody is different and humans do make mistakes, some wrong, some very wrong and should not be made. But that is another matter The point I'm trying to highlight is that in say 5 years, 10..15..... would the mentalities of those future times stand by this judgement. Yes it is right to send a message, but over time that message reaches home and people get cases reviewed or paroled, but I just feel he will not serve that full 35 year term, but that wont change tomorrow or soon. If anything the longer this matter and topic is in the news then the longer the time will be that he is released early, that's how I see it.

btucker 13y ago

I'd highly suggest anyone who hasn't already, go back and read the Manning/Lamo chat logs: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs

vijayboyapati 13y ago

This young man had the courage to expose the war crimes committed by America, and now will essentially spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. More than anything this is an indictment of America as a nation, and the American people who could tolerate this and allow it to happen, under a President who won the Nobel "peace" prize. As Orwell wrote: "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it".

j2d3 13y ago

Some ways to take comfort here: 1) This is not the final word on Bradley Manning's fate. His supporters, who have already raised over $300,000 in his defense thus far, will not stop here. 2) 35 years is bad, but not as bad as it could have been. At least his defense successfully got rid of the "aiding the enemy" charge. 3) This will be appealed something like this, IIRC: (a) Appeal to the convening authority (a military officer who has the power to reduce the sentence or overturn the conviction all together). This is the method that has allowed (more than one) convicted rapist go free: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/13/senators-critical-military-convening-authority - so if this were used to free Bradley Manning or reduce his sentence, it could help the Military defend the process in the court of public opinion! (However, this is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!!!) (b) Appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) (c) Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (d) Appeal to the US Supreme Court There is an article here that explains all the possibilities: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-sentence-parole-and-appeal-implications/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-senten... (Edit: formatting)