Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

Reuters Article

What are some opinions on this? I'm torn; while I'm glad he got off relatively light (emphasis on relatively), and having already served 3 years, could be out in 8 (see tweet embedded below), and while he did technically break the law, he did NOT endanger any lives with the information he leaked. He did not steal from the public like all the executives and bankers (who 96% of them got away with nothing, some even still getting bonuses), he did not murder anyone...I think you get my point. 35 years is a long time; there have been tons of military cases where men convicted of rape or murder got less (if you need sources, I'll have to find them later).

I think this is pretty damn sad, but I am glad it is not as bad as it could have been. I also think this serves a terrible precedence and will scare the shit out of anyone who may have knowledge of corruption in speaking out. While he is not protected under whistleblower laws due to being active in the military, it is still a huge setback in how the U.S. government appears to the rest of the world.

Some notes: He will have to server 1/3 of his sentence before he is eligible for parole.

Tweet I referred to above:

#Manning sentenced to 35 years. Means he'll likely serve about 8 to 8.5 yrs more in confinement and be out by the time he's 33 or 34.

— Col. Morris Davis (@ColMorrisDavis)

August 21, 2013

[Griswold]

Reuters Article

What are some opinions on this? I'm torn; while I'm glad he got off relatively light (emphasis on relatively), and having already served 3 years, could be out in 8 (see tweet embedded below), and while he did technically break the law, he did NOT endanger any lives with the information he leaked. He did not steal from the public like all the executives and bankers (who 96% of them got away with nothing, some even still getting bonuses), he did not murder anyone...I think you get my point. 35 years is a long time; there have been tons of military cases where men convicted of rape or murder got less (if you need sources, I'll have to find them later).

I think this is pretty damn sad, but I am glad it is not as bad as it could have been. I also think this serves a terrible precedence and will scare the shit out of anyone who may have knowledge of corruption in speaking out. While he is not protected under whistleblower laws due to being active in the military, it is still a huge setback in how the U.S. government appears to the rest of the world.

Some notes: He will have to server 1/3 of his sentence before he is eligible for parole.

Tweet I referred to above:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>#Manning sentenced to 35 years. Means he'll likely serve about 8 to 8.5 yrs more in confinement and be out by the time he's 33 or 34.</p>— Col. Morris Davis (@ColMorrisDavis) August 21, 2013</blockquote>

All I can say is that he is lucky that the information he leaked didn't contain any materials that would have put U.S. Service Members in danger. Cause then I would have approved of his execution for treason against the U.S.

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

Reuters Article

What are some opinions on this? I'm torn; while I'm glad he got off relatively light (emphasis on relatively), and having already served 3 years, could be out in 8 (see tweet embedded below), and while he did technically break the law, he did NOT endanger any lives with the information he leaked. He did not steal from the public like all the executives and bankers (who 96% of them got away with nothing, some even still getting bonuses), he did not murder anyone...I think you get my point. 35 years is a long time; there have been tons of military cases where men convicted of rape or murder got less (if you need sources, I'll have to find them later).

I think this is pretty damn sad, but I am glad it is not as bad as it could have been. I also think this serves a terrible precedence and will scare the shit out of anyone who may have knowledge of corruption in speaking out. While he is not protected under whistleblower laws due to being active in the military, it is still a huge setback in how the U.S. government appears to the rest of the world.

Some notes: He will have to server 1/3 of his sentence before he is eligible for parole.

Tweet I referred to above:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>#Manning sentenced to 35 years. Means he'll likely serve about 8 to 8.5 yrs more in confinement and be out by the time he's 33 or 34.</p>— Col. Morris Davis (@ColMorrisDavis) August 21, 2013</blockquote>

All I can say is that he is lucky that the information he leaked didn't contain any materials that would have put U.S. Service Members in danger. Cause then I would have approved of his execution for treason against the U.S.

I know I read in some place that he had information that would have resulted in that which he choose not to leak, for exactly those reasons. I'll try to find the source when I have time, but agreed...had he done that, deserves death.

[Takel 1st MRB]

sends a pretty horrible message to anyone else sitting on evidence of a few war crimes and some good ol' fashioned torture.

[Logue 1st MRB]

He exposed a bunch of very questionable practices employed by US diplomats. I can't say whether those practices are actually commonplace or if America's foreign relations have actually been damaged.

But for the public, it's most definitely an eye opener. As is the mass surveillance exposed by Snowden. So just for giving us a chance to form a more realistic opinion and perspective within our respective democracies backed up by evidence, they're kind of heroes. So he might be in prison for 11 years but he's got well wishers all over planet earth.

[Stroops]

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

you can not equate what he did to murders and rapes or corporate greed. He leaked classified information including thousands of Diplomatic dispatches to an outside fringe quasi news organization. The diplomatic dispatches alone put many of out diplomats and their intel units at risk. I honestly wonder if the attack on our Ambassador in Benghazi was not the result of intel breaches in that country from just 2 years earlier due to this leaker? In essence could they have learned of our Ambassador's travel habits or whom he was meeting with and that compromised his security. The information that was leaked discussed what the Diplomats were working on as well as who they were paying for intel. These were supposed to be private with their US counterparts and not for any outside intel units working against the USA. Leaking or taking any classified information is illegal and needs to be punished.

The funny thing is that he signed his life away when he gained the classified security clearances. He signed off on what could happen to him if he leaked any classified information that came across his computer screen. Every time your clearance goes up you have to resign that you know the consequence of of not only deliberate leaking but also of accidental leaking of classified information.

What he did was illegal and against anything he swore to uphold. He deserves to rot in that prison for every day he has earned with his actions.

P.S. A whistle blower is not the issue here at all (not that you said it was blowing the whistle directly). If this was simply about blowing the whistle on corruption both he and Snowden could have easily taken an easy route which would have given them full immunity as long as they did it under the constitution of this great country. They simply could have approached one or many Congressmen or Senators and explained who they are and the scope of the corruption. The Senate and Congress have separate committees that are on the lookout for this type of information and would have actively investigated it (especially in light of the politically charged election in the last few years). They would have found an ear that would have listened.

This was about making a name for themselves and them thinking they knew better than the chain of command. There is no gray area here.

One mans opinion.

JP

Edited August 22, 2013 by O'Gara 1st MRB

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

He should be executed. He leaked classified United States Government documents. That in its self is an act of treason. That's the very reason we have a classification system. This idiot deserves to be executed.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

If history has taught us anything, treason is not so black and white. Tons of the freedoms that we (Americans, of all races) enjoy in this country are a result of treason. Imagine if all of those instances were handled in this manner. You may not agree with what he did, but you also cannot know the entire story of what happened, so I really don't see how you can decide the man's death when there are still variables that could very well illustrate that this is one of those treason's that had to happen, that improved the world, that made this country what it is today and why it is so worth defending.

Edited August 22, 2013 by T. Brown 1st MRB

[Morton]

Exposing war crimes is obviously treason guys. He should be executed.

Honestly he did the right thing in the wrong way. He should've gone the legal route, but however he chose to do it his way. I think he should be let off with time served.

As for Benghazi... that horse has been beaten enough already.

[M. Johnson 1st MRB]

Exposing war crimes is obviously treason guys. He should be executed.

Wow. just wow.

That is a ridiculous statement right there.

[Peaker]

The problem is that the military-industrial complex is so pervasive in America. Say he had gone the Congress route. A committee would have convened, discussed the matter to death for 3 years and nothing would have happened. I see it all the time here in Canada, when they "expose" corruption in the public services. The fact is, we need whistle-blowers, because our governments don't tell us the truth, and when we catch them in a lie, they don't do anything.

I'm not going to say Manning was a "hero" for what he did, but I will say he did what he had to do, because when a people has no control over their foreign policy or the acceptable level of surveillance they want in their own country, there's something wrong with democracy.

If this guy gets 35 years, I would love to see those responsible for the 2008 crash held accountable as well, instead of bailing them out with billions of taxpayer money. I would love white collar crime to be prosecuted more aggressively, because while it might not be as sensational as leaked information, the loss of jobs and ressources for the Average american worker does end up claiming lives through poor health and poverty. I would also like it if our governments didn't constantly start wars under false pretexts, and those responsible for lying to us were prosecuted. That, and more, should be the priority, over a single whistleblower.

But hey, I guess it doesn't make good press.

[Perrone]

Exposing war crimes is obviously treason guys. He should be executed.

Honestly he did the right thing in the wrong way. He should've gone the legal route, but however he chose to do it his way. I think he should be let off with time served.

As for Benghazi... that horse has been beaten enough already.

He didn't expose any war crimes. He exposed questionable behavior, but nothing that can be considered a war crime.

That being said, I can't tell you how many pundits and commentators have claimed that Manning would never get a fair trial, be in prison for the rest of his life, etc. etc.. Instead, what we see is that he did get a fair trial, and he got only 35 years, 8 years with parole if he's on good behavior. Not to mention it's possible for him to get a pardon.

Frankly, I believe what he did was "right", but he did it wrong. He should've tried to go through proper channels, like his CO, or those further up the chain, then tried reaching out to members in Congress, and if he was ignored, then find a reporter.

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

Hey guys, just a quite note. Let's remember to be respectful. I really would like to have a civilized discussion on this matter, and the CS will have it closed if there are personal attacks. Debates CAN be respectful, and more often than not, your viewpoint will be better understood when done so.

: )

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

We definitely know that he compromised over 10,000 diplomatic messages buy releasing confidential material. That is a fact and is punishable by life in Leavenworth.

Peaker, they would have immediately investigated the issue in a partisan Congress and Senate, there are many Republicans that would have been happy to give this legs.

Benghazi happened because they knew the Ambassadors route of travel and that he was staying at the remote unguarded embassy and not the regular Marine protected embassy. That only comes from intel from those that knew his schedule and that came from people that the Ambassador was dealing with on the ground. It is only logical to think that they turned people that were dealing with our Ambassador who were exposed in those dispatches. To think otherwise is naive.

Treason has nothing to do with corporate greed. Swearing an oath to your country has nothing to do with being a capitalist which the basic goal is to get all of the boardwalk properties and win the game.

JP

[Morton]

Exposing war crimes is obviously treason guys. He should be executed.

Wow. just wow.

That is a Intentionally ridiculous statement right there.

Fixed it.

And yes Manning did expose warcrimes. Unless you don't count the murder of innocent civilians, and the torturing and abuse of prisoners as warcrimes.

If this guy gets 35 years, I would love to see those responsible for the 2008 crash held accountable as well, instead of bailing them out with billions of taxpayer money. I would love white collar crime to be prosecuted more aggressively, because while it might not be as sensational as leaked information, the loss of jobs and ressources for the Average american worker does end up claiming lives through poor health and poverty. I would also like it if our governments didn't constantly start wars under false pretexts, and those responsible for lying to us were prosecuted. That, and more, should be the priority, over a single whistleblower.

Agreed.

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

We definitely know that he compromised over 10,000 diplomatic messages buy releasing confidential material. That is a fact and is punishable by life in Leavenworth.

Peaker, they would have immediately investigated the issue in a partisan Congress and Senate, there are many Republicans that would have been happy to give this legs.

Benghazi happened because they knew the Ambassadors route of travel and that he was staying at the remote unguarded embassy and not the regular Marine protected embassy. That only comes from intel from those that knew his schedule and that came from people that the Ambassador was dealing with on the ground. It is only logical to think that they turned people that were dealing with our Ambassador who were exposed in those dispatches. To think otherwise is naive.

Treason has nothing to do with corporate greed. Swearing an oath to your country has nothing to do with being a capitalist which the basic goal is to get all of the boardwalk properties and win the game.

JP

[Peaker]

Treason has everything to do with corporate greed, because the people deciding what treason is are the same people that protect America's corporate paradise, and believe me, they primarily act in their own interest.

And OGara, if the Congress and Senate are so efficient at pursuing breaches of ethics, how come nobody was ever punished for starting a war in Iraq under false pretences? There were no WMDs after all, nor any evidence of there being any in the first place, when the decision to invade yet another country was taken. How come congress doesn't talk about the CIA training deaths squads in Argentina? Do you believe that congressmen and senators alike were unaware of what happened in Guantanamo? Even though it happened over multiple administrations, both republicans and democrats? What about the outsourcing of torture to Egypt, or other less "righteous" countries?

You ask us to trust the government channels, but what has the government done to earn that trust?

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

Treason has everything to do with corporate greed, because the people deciding what treason is are the same people that protect America's corporate paradise, and believe me, they primarily act in their own interest.

I am sorry it has nothing at all to do with that. The constitution decides what treason is and those people who wrote it are long dead. The people who decided his fate was a Military court and the presiding Judge and they really have no power at all and are completely removed from any corporations. The only people that protect this great Nation and the freedom we all have is the millions of young men and women in our Military. The sacrifices they (and their families) make on a daily basis is truly humbling! God Bless each and every one of them!

And OGara, if the Congress and Senate are so efficient at pursuing breaches of ethics, how come nobody was ever punished for starting a war in Iraq under false pretences? There were no WMDs after all, nor any evidence of there being any in the first place, when the decision to invade yet another country was taken. How come congress doesn't talk about the CIA training deaths squads in Argentina? Do you believe that congressmen and senators alike were unaware of what happened in Guantanamo? Even though it happened over multiple administrations, both republicans and democrats? What about the outsourcing of torture to Egypt, or other less "righteous" countries?

Congress and the Senate are not efficient and I never claimed they were. What is brutally efficient in this Nation if the hatred of one political party for the other political party. This wanting to make the power that sits in the Oval Office look bad is exactly what would have made it easy to get his claims investigated. Regarding the war in Iraq, the entire coalition of Nations and forces all agreed that that leader was a threat and something needed to be done and they all did the job. Monday morning quarterbacking of a war is never a good thing.

You ask us to trust the government channels, but what has the government done to earn that trust?

I don't ask you to trust our Government to do anything. Politics would have been more than enough to get this into a minority controlled sub committee. As an adult I fully understand that my country may at times have to do questionable things to keep each and everyone here safe. I understand this and if that means that they read my emails and listen to my phone call then so be it! How many Americans would be disgusted to find that we were hit again by Terrorists only to find that we could have stopped the attack by simply listening in on cell phones and emails. I know I would. I make this exception to my Liberties only for the reason that it could save many American lives.

Great discussion guys

JP

[Parker 1st MRB]

Treason has everything to do with corporate greed, because the people deciding what treason is are the same people that protect America's corporate paradise, and believe me, they primarily act in their own interest.

Possibly the most moronic thing I've ever read in the politics section. Did you take off your tin foil helmet to write that? LOL!

[Penkauskas 1st MRB]

Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be known as Chelsea

Edited August 22, 2013 by Penkauskas 1st MRB

[Penkauskas 1st MRB]

Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be known as Chelsea

This just shows how the media will sidestep the main issue and focus on something that is entirely irrelevant.

[Logue 1st MRB]

That's because they know that most people haven't nor ever will actually investigate what was in these leaks. Can't say whether that's a result of media strategies or just a sign of the times.

There's a quote from Yes Minister, what upsets people isn't knowing that there's something wrong going on. It's being told about it.

[Peaker]

Treason has everything to do with corporate greed, because the people deciding what treason is are the same people that protect America's corporate paradise, and believe me, they primarily act in their own interest.

Possibly the most moronic thing I've ever read in the politics section. Did you take off your tin foil helmet to write that? LOL!

Of course, the judges have absolutely no impact on who gets convicted or not. And those who pull strings to get said judges appointed have absolutely no influence on the decisions of those judges. Of course, it could easily be said that calling something moronic without offering a shred of argument or logic is pretty idiotic as well, so I think I'll spare myself the pain of writing a detailed explanation pertaining to political science that you won't read anyway.

As for your points O'Gara, I will address them each in turn, though some of them are of course a question of personal beliefs and preferences:

I am sorry it has nothing at all to do with that. The constitution decides what treason is and those people who wrote it are long dead. The people who decided his fate was a Military court and the presiding Judge and they really have no power at all and are completely removed from any corporations. The only people that protect this great Nation and the freedom we all have is the millions of young men and women in our Military. The sacrifices they (and their families) make on a daily basis is truly humbling! God Bless each and every one of them!

Again, as I quickly mentioned above, the judges are appointed by individuals, and there is a very real influence game that is played in the appointment of judges, especially on the Supreme Court. It's the same thing in Canada, judges that were appointed using political capital from a certain party or individual tend to favor said entities, and those same parties and entities get money for their campaign from corporations as well as rich and influent people. The relation is quite easy to make. While I have nothing against the people who enlist for the sake of their country (I am joining my country's military myself), the security and wellbeing of a nation depends on more than the soldiers beneath it's standards. However I am certain you did not mean to disparage the other organizations responsible for the continued well being we enjoy on the North American continent.

Congress and the Senate are not efficient and I never claimed they were. What is brutally efficient in this Nation if the hatred of one political party for the other political party. This wanting to make the power that sits in the Oval Office look bad is exactly what would have made it easy to get his claims investigated. Regarding the war in Iraq, the entire coalition of Nations and forces all agreed that that leader was a threat and something needed to be done and they all did the job. Monday morning quarterbacking of a war is never a good thing.

On the contrary, examining past events (Especially wars) and their effect on the current political climate is pretty much the basis of any meaningful politico-historical analysis. The "Coalition" you speak of counted a vast number of small nations that have very little weight in NATO, and only three countries contributed troops to the actual invasion (The UK, the US and Australia). Canada didn't participate, nor did France. In fact there was no evidence of Saddam planning any hostile action against the United States, or of a build up of WMDs. While Saddam was a pretty horrid dictator, and I don't miss him one bit, I hope no one here is under the illusion that ridding the world of a dangerous dictator is the reason the Iraq war happened. The US supported murderous juntas, dictators and regimes throughout the entire 20th century, and still does. I didn't see the Coalition of the Willing spearhead an invasion of Saudi Arabia, or of Bahrein. They backed Mubarak until he was thrown out by the pissed off populace. Torturing people does that.

I don't ask you to trust our Government to do anything. Politics would have been more than enough to get this into a minority controlled sub committee. As an adult I fully understand that my country may at times have to do questionable things to keep each and everyone here safe. I understand this and if that means that they read my emails and listen to my phone call then so be it! How many Americans would be disgusted to find that we were hit again by Terrorists only to find that we could have stopped the attack by simply listening in on cell phones and emails. I know I would. I make this exception to my Liberties only for the reason that it could save many American lives.

My issue with that line of thought is basically: Where do you draw the line? How much freedom are you ready to sacrifice in order to have peace of mind? It's remarkably similar to the gun issue, which is why I advocate something of a middle ground. What is definitely wrong however is intelligence services doing those things off the radar, without any accountability except to themselves, which is why I approve of what Snowden and Manning did. If they had released tactical information, or things that had endangered operatives in the field, then I would definitely say that they have committed treason. Again, I think it's rather hypocritical that exposing illegal practices inside the US government is judged worthy of a prison term, but that starting an illegitimate war that ended up costing thousands of American, Canadians, English etc... lives is not even worth a prosecution. That's probably because the US doesn't recognize the international tribunal though.

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

This will be my last post on the topic. Peaker, your missing the point here. Manning was tried in a Military court. No judge was appointed he is a JAG carrier military Soldier. No boogy men behind him getting his position and no one pulling strings over his decisions. He was convicted buy his peers only.

As for your points O'Gara, I will address them each in turn, though some of them are of course a question of personal beliefs and preferences:

On the contrary, examining past events (Especially wars) and their effect on the current political climate is pretty much the basis of any meaningful politico-historical analysis. The "Coalition" you speak of counted a vast number of small nations that have very little weight in NATO, and only three countries contributed troops to the actual invasion (The UK, the US and Australia). Canada didn't participate, nor did France. In fact there was no evidence of Saddam planning any hostile action against the United States, or of a build up of WMDs. While Saddam was a pretty horrid dictator, and I don't miss him one bit, I hope no one here is under the illusion that ridding the world of a dangerous dictator is the reason the Iraq war happened. The US supported murderous juntas, dictators and regimes throughout the entire 20th century, and still does. I didn't see the Coalition of the Willing spearhead an invasion of Saudi Arabia, or of Bahrein. They backed Mubarak until he was thrown out by the pissed off populace. Torturing people does that.

Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion 40 Countries is hardly a small number.

No Hostile action against the US? How about this nice fact. American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily. (over 8 years). The operation continued until it transitioned to Operation Southern Focus in June 2002. They began to carry out offensive sorties, not only against targets that had fired on them, but upon installations that had demonstrated no hostile intent. The U.S. claimed that these increased attacks were the result of increasing Iraqi provocations, but later, in July 2005, the British Ministry of Defense released figures showing that the number of provocations had actually dropped dramatically prior to and just after the increase in allied attacks. Their records indicate that in the first seven months of 2001, there had been 370 provocations on the part of Iraq. 370 attacks on US and Coalition aircrews protecting the 2 no fly zones (that were protecting the Kurdish population) is an act of war each and every time.

My issue with that line of thought is basically: Where do you draw the line? How much freedom are you ready to sacrifice in order to have peace of mind? It's remarkably similar to the gun issue, which is why I advocate something of a middle ground. What is definitely wrong however is intelligence services doing those things off the radar, without any accountability except to themselves, which is why I approve of what Snowden and Manning did. If they had released tactical information, or things that had endangered operatives in the field, then I would definitely say that they have committed treason. Again, I think it's rather hypocritical that exposing illegal practices inside the US government is judged worthy of a prison term, but that starting an illegitimate war that ended up costing thousands of American, Canadians, English etc... lives is not even worth a prosecution. That's probably because the US doesn't recognize the international tribunal though.

My line is Protecting Americans from Harm, the greater good. Period

Edited August 22, 2013 by O'Gara 1st MRB

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

Where is the files that Manning released is anyone knowingly targeting innocent civilians? Did i miss something? I spent a couple hours looking through summaries of what he released, and i don't remember there being much about torture comitted by US forces or deliberate executions or targeting of civilians. I remember reading that Iraqis tortured prisoners captured by Americans, or that America turned over prisoners knowing that the Iraqis were torturing people, but i dont remember any details of US soldiers torturing prisoners was released?

And where is the deliberate killing of civilians? It exposed that we we under reporting civilian casualties but its not like we were going door to door executing people? there are civie casualties in war and naturally the party causing those casualties is going to under report it, just as the affected side is going to over report it.

I guess my point is, Bradley Manning i characterized as a whistle blower exposing corruption and government malpractice, but i just dont really see that in the information he released..none of it benefitted the American people. It really just seemed to confirm what most people know in that we fucked up in Iraq and our diplomats are smug. None of it as grounding breaking, and he DEFINITELY committed a crime by releasing classified documents as a member of the US armed forces. I dont see why people are framing him as some sort of hero. He's not Snowden, these guys aren't even in the same league.

TL;DR: Maybe i missed something in my research on Cablegate and the Iraq and Afghan War logs leaked by Snowden, but i didnt see anything that would classify him as a whistleblower, so i don't see why he is hailed as some hero who deserves to get a light punishment.