Manning is facing the possibility of 136 years in prison.

FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - The trial of Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier found guilty on 19 counts of handing over classified data to WikiLeaks, is scheduled to move into the sentencing phase on Wednesday.
Manning, 25, escaped a life sentence with no parole when Colonel Denise Lind acquitted him of aiding the enemy, the most serious of 21 criminal counts brought against him in the court-martial. He still faces the possibility of 136 years in prison on the other counts.
..................................
The verdict should be interesting.

Be well Ian

I actually feel for the soldier! And to be honest, 136 years? That.................IS.......a life sentence! And for what, his freedom of expression. To expose in some parts, gun fire that killed and injured innocent people! America is supposed to be the land of the free, well that's up for debate really! Similar to this great nation, its free, only when we all fall in line!

By the way Ian, its great to see you and be back here again!

Best wishes,
rocco.

Thanks rocco, I am not sure where I stand on this, because he did in the end betray the oath when joining the forces. I do think though that 135 years is a little harsh as he supposedly gave no information away that could harm troops and lives directly. The sad fact is he is still Guilty.


Be well Ian

By the way, welcome back to you rocco

Ian

I agree with you Ian, it is a very grey area indeed. Then again, I suppose it was something that perhaps affected his conscience. Could it happen to anyone of us? Maybe so. That's what makes each individual different.

I think the army though has been a little too harsh in its judgement of this soldier, and perhaps the court marshal verdict should of been humiliating enough. As he would then have to go home and face the ridicule from his family and friends. But to add a prison sentence, that practically seems like a death sentence. Well. A tad over the top!

I hope his seniors show at least some pity on him, there must be records detailing his courageous side, as all soldiers that go into battle are. He's obviously seen some action, showed bravery of sorts, maybe even saved others! But.............I can't see this being a good advertisement for "recruiting" in the near future, if they don't act wisely on this case!

Take care Ian.

rocco. :peaceful:

35 years he will be out in 9...I suppose he had a result. at the end of the day it is still treason. I think you can still be hanged in the UK for treason and piracy on the high seas.


Be well Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocco

I hope his seniors show at least some pity on him, there must be records detailing his courageous side, as all soldiers that go into battle are. He's obviously seen some action, showed bravery of sorts, maybe even saved others!

---

Any source indicating he went into battle? All I've seen indicated his Baghdad deployment was desk duty within the Green Zone, no battle involved. If there had been any courageous incidents, wouldn't the defense have raised that in mitigation, or at least in public discourse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Thanks rocco, I am not sure where I stand on this, because he did in the end betray the oath when joining the forces. I do think though that 135 years is a little harsh as he supposedly gave no information away that could harm troops and lives directly. The sad fact is he is still Guilty.
Be well Ian

---

Of what? Exposing faults made by the military?

And I too am glad to be back here in the good company, and hope everybody turns up :-))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Of what? Exposing faults made by the military?

---

thir, nice to see that you and Leo9 are still around. In answer, He took the oath and signed the American equivalent of the official secrets act. Sorry, but guilty as charged.

Be well Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

35 years he will be out in 9...I suppose he had a result. at the end of the day it is still treason. I think you can still be hanged in the UK for treason and piracy on the high seas.

Be well Ian

---

I do hope he will be out in 9 - or 7 years!

I am not sure I understand the argument here - if a person is aware of criminal behaviour within the military, should they not be obliged - under the oath and for love of core and country - to stop what is going on?

And yes, so nice to see you too :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

if a person is aware of criminal behaviour within the military, should they not be obliged - under the oath and for love of core and country - to stop what is going on?

---

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

Well, I suspect that to the rest of the world he is a hero!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

That's the trouble really: he wasn't "whistle-blowing", just dumping a vast cache of the secrets he was able to get hold of. He didn't pick out actual wrongdoing, he didn't go to someone in authority - he just dumped a pile of stuff on the Internet. Even if the whole military chain of command was "compromised", there are other avenues: the Inspector General, DoD reporting lines, his Congresscritters... mad Australian rape suspects aren't exactly the first port of call for genuine whistleblowing. Indeed, most of the secret documents he published weren't even military, let alone related to his own chain of command - at most, they were sometimes embarrassing to the US and its allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

at most, they were sometimes embarrassing to the US and its allies.

---

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

---

One of the classification levels is 'confidential', for exactly that sort of thing, and rightly so IMO: not "national security secrets", but "stuff that shouldn't be public": troops' personal details, notes about other people. Some of the 'embarrassing' bits to come out involved assessments of other countries' politicians: this one being a drunk, that one being a bit unstable but not likely to get very far... Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

Quote:

---

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

---

I think the nearest anyone's found in the vast pile he dumped was a video of a helicopter shooting at some people who may or may not have been pointing rocket launchers at them at the time, plus reports about some Iraqis mistreating other Iraqis. Treason ... no (as the court martial ruled), because what he leaked wasn't really very useful to anyone - just illegal, stupid and a breach of his orders. Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

---

Perhaps not, but did it really hurt anyone? I mean, other than foreign drunks?

Quote:

---

Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

---

I would think that implicating your country in an illegal act would, ultimately, aid your enemies. Covering up that act provides ammunition for your enemies to use against you, and could even make someone a target for blackmail by those enemies. Let's face it. The chances of a general being fired for bombing enemy civilians, legally or not, are remote. At worst I would suspect he'd get an early retirement with full benefits, and the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing speaking tours and Fox News analyses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3788126.html

Some info about what he disclosed, mainly war crimes made by military. He also let out some diplomatic post which was embarrassing but not harmful.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/los...ctually-leaked

decided to leak these documents after he became disillusioned with the Iraq war. He described how reading classified documents made him, for the first time, aware of the breadth of the corruption and violence committed by his country and allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...serves-a-medal

Thanks for the links, thir.

And it seems to be consistent with what I noted. The only "secrets" he revealed were records of atrocities and potential war crimes, military indifference to civilian casualties, corruption up and down the chain of command, the kinds of things that the taxpayers SHOULD know about. Yeah, maybe leaking state department documents detailing the politicians disdain for anyone not American would prove to be embarrassing, but so what? If it would embarrass you to have someone find out you did something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

So yeah, they seemed to get it right that he did not commit treason. He did break the law, so he should be punished. But if the punishment should fit the crime, maybe he should only be 'embarrassed' by those he outed. Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Thanks for the links, thir.

So yeah, they seemed to get it right that he did not commit treason. He did break the law, so he should be punished. But if the punishment should fit the crime, maybe he should only be 'embarrassed' by those he outed. Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

---

You are welcome, I only hope others will read them as well..

Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

You said it.