Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

[daily]

He didn't realize this would be the outcome of what he was doing? He leaked government secrets, you are going to jail. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and you which you don't. I feel bad for him but didn't he commit the crime of which he's going to jail for?

yep.

People saying what he leaked didn't hurt people are missing the point. He leaked classified government information. This is not a gray area that some classified information is ok to leak as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

[RidonKs]

here's a terrific graphic detailing the verdict

that comes from Alexa O'brien, whose been covering the trial since it began. her archive for the trial is sorta legalistic but pretty clear and at least you know you're getting the facts.


i should also note, and i didn't realize this until i just went ever it, the prosecution did fail to get an espionage charge to stick... it was the only one Manning's defense refused to enter a reduced plea for, the Granai Airstrike in Afghanistan that killed ~100 ppl. i'm not exactly sure what the difference is between that and say the logs or the diary and i'm too tired to try and figure it out.

So he could have faced 20 years on these charges alone. I find that serious.

well it's serious if you take it at face value and don't evaluate its grounding as well as its implications. 20 years... on what charges? those he plead guilty to? you're the one emphasizing the humanity of the Bradley Manning that leaked the documents. at the same time it only makes sense to emphasize the humanity of the Bradley Manning that is currently standing trial... obviously in an even more confusing and overwhelming position than he was when he stabbed his stepmom or solicited online dates or whatever he did according to that nymag article you posted.

his back is totally up against the wall. he's been maliciously subjected to abuse by guards... highly sexual and humiliating abuse actually, even worse given his background. he's up against the most overwhelmingly powerful institution in the world, in a military courtroom that at least his defense would claim totally biased -- biggest complaints being totally ignoring motive (a factor you ironically brought up in this thread) and using 'potential harm' for the trial and relegating provable harm to the sentencing part. another facotr that comes into play is the concealed nature of the trial itself -- there have been claims that the judge would have felt pressure to treat the whole debacle entirely differently had it been totally open to public access.

of course there was no expectation for complete exoneration, the entire deck was stacked against him. his defense has been playing a violin with its teeth just trying for anything that might work. at least thats my reading.

[MavsSuperFan]

However, you're correct, they have been several leaks recently favorable to the administration and they will not be prosecuted.

That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

He did at the very minimum 6.2 million dollars worth of damage.

please give me a source for this

Dismissing his statement at trial is again, dismissing his agency. He said something you disagree with, therefore, he must not mean it. It's only because he broken.

You think its ok to hold a person for 3 years and 9 months of which were in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day? Making them strip naked and sleep naked in a cold cell and all before being convicted of anything?

The sixth amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

3 years is speed to you?

please state the name of the person harmed by Manning's leaks, or admit that the prosecution could not prove in court any specific american had been hurt by manning's leaks.

In short, I don't want a 22 year-old private making foreign policy and deciding upon his own authority to release 700,000 documents.

But you are ok with the 50+ year olds in the US government holding people indefinitely at gitmo on almost no evidence, the pentagon hiding civilian casualty figures (explain how that is operationally sensitive), the military refusing to prosecute the perpetrators of the collateral murder video. All of which Manning's leaks exposed. None of which will ever be punished.

Where is the outrage at those crimes?

yep.

People saying what he leaked didn't hurt people are missing the point. He leaked classified government information. This is not a gray area that some classified information is ok to leak as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Ok, i think he has already suffered enough and the stuff he leaked had a lot of benefits in informing the American public about our government. We are not supposed to a nation where the government keeps everything a secret from our citizens. We are not supposed to be north korea. What is the problem with Americans knowing that we dont have any evidence on most of the detainees in gitmo? What is the problem with Americans knowing that the pentagon has hid the fact that they keep track of civilian casualty figures? What is the problem with Americans seeing video tape of American soldiers killing iraqi civilians (is seeing it the offensive part)?

But lets for the sake of argument assume he deserves his sentence. Why isnt dick cheney and scooter libby in jail for disclosing Plame's identity? Why isnt the administration official that disclosed the CIA's kill list in jail? Why is it ok for the administration to leak political favorable classified information, but not ok to leak politically unfavorable information?

[KevinNYC]

So the specific section of espionage act is this

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it;

[falc39]

KevinNYC, it's one thing to pick sides (and you choose the one pretty much everyone would expect you to), but to try to play both and feign empathy here when clearly you show by your posts that you don't have any for him is a bit much. You're the only poster here that I can imagine who would defend and cheer if he got a harsher sentence like 60 years to life. And the fact that you turn a blind eye and ignore discussion to stuff like when he was tortured just makes your empathy come off as really fake, man.

I cant believe some people argued he should have stayed in America to face "Justice".

I know, huh? Given a choice: get tortured and spend most of your life in jail, or not get tortured and not spend most of your life in jail... who would in their right mind choose the former option? And nope, choosing the latter option does not make you a traitor, it means you are sensible and not out of your ****ing mind.

[falc39]

Supposedly this is Bradley Manning's pardon letter to Obama:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...014_story.html

[KevinNYC]

That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

please give me a source for this

You think its ok to hold a person for 3 years and 9 months of which were in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day? Making them strip naked and sleep naked in a cold cell and all before being convicted of anything?

The sixth amendment


3 years is speed to you?

please state the name of the person harmed by Manning's leaks, or admit that the prosecution could not prove in court any specific american had been hurt by manning's leaks.



But you are ok with the 50+ year olds in the US government holding people indefinitely at gitmo on almost no evidence, the pentagon hiding civilian casualty figures (explain how that is operationally sensitive), the military refusing to prosecute the perpetrators of the collateral murder video. All of which Manning's leaks exposed. None of which will ever be punished.

Where is the outrage at those crimes?


Ok, i think he has already suffered enough and the stuff he leaked had a lot of benefits in informing the American public about our government. We are not supposed to a nation where the government keeps everything a secret from our citizens. We are not supposed to be north korea. What is the problem with Americans knowing that we dont have any evidence on most of the detainees in gitmo? What is the problem with Americans knowing that the pentagon has hid the fact that they keep track of civilian casualty figures? What is the problem with Americans seeing video tape of American soldiers killing iraqi civilians (is seeing it the offensive part)?

But lets for the sake of argument assume he deserves his sentence. Why isnt dick cheney and scooter libby in jail for disclosing Plame's identity? Why isnt the administration official that disclosed the CIA's kill list in jail? Why is it ok for the administration to leak political favorable classified information, but not ok to leak politically unfavorable information?

Hypocritical. Yes, but not surprising.

6.3 million dollars is how much they just investigating the damage Manning did. I'm sure a lot more was spent actually changing practices and methods througout the military and the state Department. One reason Manning was able to get so much material, was security information used to be siloed, security was greater, but the downside it made it much harder for analysts to get the information they needed. After 9/11 they recommended much more openness and information sharing, this has had a lot of benefits of getting useful information back to the front lines quicker. After Manning, they had to start putting walls back up.

I never said one thing about how long Manning was held or his conditions.

Manning was in protective custody/solitary because he was considered a danger to himself, after he fashioned a noose while in custody in Iraq. When he told his guards he could very well choke himself with his underwear they took his clothes away at night.

As for "the perpetrators of the collateral murder video" even Manning believed that was an accident. He was upset that the government was keeping the video from Reuters and the comments of the pilots, but didn't think it was cold blooded murder.

GTFO with North Korea.

Libby's not in jail, because his jail time was commuted by the President of the United States. He still had to pay a fine though. Cheney's not in jail because there was no evidence against him. There was more evidence against Rove.

Manning's time in custody will count against his sentence an he is eligible for parole in about 8 years.

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC, it's one thing to pick sides (and you choose the one pretty much everyone would expect you to), but to try to play both and feign empathy here when clearly you show by your posts that you don't have any for him is a bit much. You're the only poster here that I can imagine who would defend and cheer if he got a harsher sentence like 60 years to life. And the fact that you turn a blind eye and ignore discussion to stuff like when he was tortured just makes your empathy come off as really fake, man.

Utter bullshit.

You can have empathy for someone and still realize they are guilty and must pay the penalty. It's a pretty significant part of Christianity. He was a ****ed kid going through a lot of shit, and he bought into the hacker ethic of there should no secrets ever and he made terrible decision and it cost him. But let's be clear. He's guilty.

[falc39]

Utter bullshit.

You can have empathy for someone and still realize they are guilty and must pay the penalty. It's a pretty significant part of Christianity. He was a ****ed kid going through a lot of shit, and he bought into the hacker ethic of there should no secrets ever and he made terrible decision and it cost him. But let's be clear. He's guilty.

Bought into "no secrets ever" ethic? Are you joking? He felt what the government was doing was morally wrong. You know, he has something called a conscience, even if people like you try to paint him as mentally ****ed up. Maybe if the government didn't do morally wrong things we wouldn't have leakers like him... ever think of that?

[KevinNYC]

Bought into "no secrets ever" ethic?

"Information should be free" - Bradley Manning

He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?

[daily]

He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?

He'll have plenty of time to catch up on his reading now

[RidonKs]

He leaked in bulk. Do you think he read all 700,000 pages of what he released?

he leaked in bulk, but if we're talking about the Manning trial -- and not the Wikileaks trial that's surely on the USG agenda -- he certainly had no reason to predict the entire cache would be leaked. which meant that he did not intend whatsoever to harm national defense (or security to be more accurate), he intended to reveal what he believed should be subject to public scrutiny.

it's in the public domain now only because of a journalistic error, months after which Wikileaks decided there was no point in holding back anymore. but initially, only few thousand cables, literally 1% of them, were made available.

[KevinNYC]

he leaked in bulk, but if we're talking about the Manning trial -- and not the Wikileaks trial that's surely on the USG agenda -- he certainly had no reason to predict the entire cache would be leaked. which meant that he did not intend whatsoever to harm national defense (or security to be more accurate), he intended to reveal what he believed should be subject to public scrutiny.

it's in the public domain now only because of a journalistic error, months after which Wikileaks decided there was no point in holding back anymore. but initially, only few thousand cables, literally 1% of them, were made available.

I'm not following your logic. He gave away a giant pile of information. To reverse your question, why would he have any assurance the entire cache wouldn't be leaked?

[RidonKs]

I'm not following your logic. He gave away a giant pile of information. To reverse your question, why would he have any assurance the entire cache wouldn't be leaked.

poor job phrasing -- he had no reason to believe the entire cache would be revealed to the public. if he intended to reveal all of it to the public, there were a hundred ways to do it. namely the internet. boom, all of it is available, no questions asked.

rather, he went out of his way to ensure the cables were sent to an organization that he believed would analyze them and reveal only that information that warranted no secrecy but that the public deserved to know.

and using the espionage act language you quoted and i paraphrased in this thread, the standard isn't having total assurance that the cache wouldn't be leaked in its entirety. the standard is having a reason to believe national security wouldn't be harmed. i believe, at least without any legal expertise to justify my opinion, that that standard was met. quite easily in fact.

edit: in fact, the real standard is that "united states" wouldn't be injured. which is even more interesting because "the united states" is not defined as the united states government or its own security concerns... it's just "the united states". presumably, the people of the united states. exactly whom bradley manning intended to help.

[johndeeregreen]

Leavenworth too. Any time he does there sure as shit won't be easy time.