>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.
Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions?
If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?
> “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.
As I posted just recently [1], research has consistently shown deterrence has at best a minor effect. Other personal values and environmental factors are better predictors of noncompliance.
See, e.g., the best review article I've seen on neutralization theory [2][3].
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.
"The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday."
"Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downloaded from a classified government computer network identified people as sources of information that would put them at risk of death, violence or incarceration if their involvement were publicly known"
"Kozak said the greatest damage to State Department human-rights efforts was a "chilling effect" on foreign activists seeking U.S. help."
"They can't be sure now whether what they say to us is going to remain confidential or whether it's going to be broadcast around," Kozak said."
He basically outed a bunch of foreign activists that were helping us and put them in danger. Not exactly what I would refer to as "fiddle-faddle"
He won't get parole in 1/3rd the time - that will be the end of the fourth Clinton administration and they will be sure to send someone to argue against his release, which since it's military, they will all blindly fall in line and obey.
Just imagine the crimes the government will be doing by then given what they are getting away with now. With what it will have to cover up they will need examples of people in prison forever to stop people from even thinking of talking about it.
And what penalty did his superiors receive? Nothing. Privates should never have access to secret information without supervision. If he did someone else should be responsible and take the penalty.
Seing how they treated him pre-trial, I was really thinking this will be Kangoro court with rubber stamp and maximum possible sentencing for all the "crimes" that Bradley did. Glad that the judge was semi-reasonable. Think on the positive side; 1/3 out of 35 years is about 10 years! (he already served 3).
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.
> "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."
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
That's silly. Motive is taken into account for everything else. If you kill someone by accident it's different than if you commit premeditated murder. The person planning to maliciously use classified secrets should expect a stiffer response than a whistleblower like manning.
Edit: Intent, not motive is what I meant to say. Thanks. Point remains though. You can argue that he did deserve something for the reasons rayiner mentions, but you can't argue that he deserves something to make a point to people with malicious intent. If you don't think he had malicious intent, he shouldn't get as much penalty. They should still expect to get the bigger penalty.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
“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.
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.
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.
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_Unit...
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:
[+] [-] zeteo|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lotso|12 years ago|reply
If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?
[+] [-] alttag|12 years ago|reply
See, e.g., the best review article I've seen on neutralization theory [2][3].
1: http://alt-tag.com/blog/2013/08/manning-sentenced-prosecutor... (shameless plug) 2: Maruna, S., and Copes, H. "What Have We Learned in Five Decades of Neutralization Research? ," _Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (32)_ 2005, pp 221-320. 3: http://www.academia.edu/843421/What_Have_We_Learned_from_Fiv...
[+] [-] bhickey|12 years ago|reply
“Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of them, hang them and you save our institutions, our society.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/chicago/peopleevents/e_haymarke...
[+] [-] brown9-2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinaceae|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] flexie|12 years ago|reply
He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|12 years ago|reply
Oh really?
http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma...
"The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday."
"Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downloaded from a classified government computer network identified people as sources of information that would put them at risk of death, violence or incarceration if their involvement were publicly known"
"Kozak said the greatest damage to State Department human-rights efforts was a "chilling effect" on foreign activists seeking U.S. help."
"They can't be sure now whether what they say to us is going to remain confidential or whether it's going to be broadcast around," Kozak said."
He basically outed a bunch of foreign activists that were helping us and put them in danger. Not exactly what I would refer to as "fiddle-faddle"
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
Just imagine the crimes the government will be doing by then given what they are getting away with now. With what it will have to cover up they will need examples of people in prison forever to stop people from even thinking of talking about it.
[+] [-] coldcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aspensmonster|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joering2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lil_cain|12 years ago|reply
If he was uncovering war crimes, did he first try to report them through his chain of command?
If not, then I really don't think this is a defence.
[+] [-] caycep|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dombili|12 years ago|reply
> "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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zikes|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herbig|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesroseman|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rlpb|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] clarky07|12 years ago|reply
Edit: Intent, not motive is what I meant to say. Thanks. Point remains though. You can argue that he did deserve something for the reasons rayiner mentions, but you can't argue that he deserves something to make a point to people with malicious intent. If you don't think he had malicious intent, he shouldn't get as much penalty. They should still expect to get the bigger penalty.
[+] [-] Zikes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesroseman|12 years ago|reply
“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.”
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] f1nch3r|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dwrowe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] octo_t|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] selectstar|12 years ago|reply
Let's hope that Snowden never gets caught/detained.
[+] [-] gbog|12 years ago|reply
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|12 years ago|reply
That sounds like a dangerous way to think about things.
[+] [-] pavanred|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joering2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] susi22|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doe88|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tty|12 years ago|reply
>espionage, conspiracy, and desertion
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.
[+] [-] D9u|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Zenst|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] yk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milosp|12 years ago|reply
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_Unit...
[+] [-] j2d3|12 years ago|reply
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:
There is an article here that explains all the possibilities:http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-senten...
(Edit: formatting)