Manning Sentenced to Thirty Five Years

[Jack89]

Harsh to be sure, but I don't feel sorry for him.  Exposing the military's cover-ups of killings was one thing, and if he had left it at that I don't think the government would have made him a martyr.  Releasing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic documents was completely a different matter entirely.  It did not have the moral imperative of his disclosure of the killing coverups.  It was clearly illegal, stupid on his part, and disloyal to his oath as a soldier.

I agree, considering he's a soldier, I thought the penalty would have been more severe.  No sympathy for the guy whatsoever.

[SGOS]

I agree! It was being disloyal to the uniform and his fellow soldiers releasing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic documents that could give enemies of the United States advantages. I think his punishment is a little extreme though. But who knows, it could result in deaths because he did. Our Embassies have been getting hammered lately. Of course that is Obama's fault.  :roll:  Solitary

Other than to the egos of those in power, it's unlikely that Manning caused any damage.  It would be very hard to attribute one American death to anything Manning did, while both Obama and Bush (mostly Bush) are directly responsible for many American deaths.

At best, there is but an outside chance that Manning may have fired up some terrorist and increased bin Laden's influence, but it's probably unlikely.  Terrorists don't need Manning's leaks to dislike the West.  Any influence he has over them is practically nil.  Manning pissed off Americans and practically no one outside of America.

He broke the law, and for that he should be punished, but his ethical dalliance is more like shoplifting than murder.

[Nonsensei]

Agreed. The punishment does not fit the crime. Child rapists get more lenience.

[Jack89]

I agree! It was being disloyal to the uniform and his fellow soldiers releasing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic documents that could give enemies of the United States advantages. I think his punishment is a little extreme though. But who knows, it could result in deaths because he did. Our Embassies have been getting hammered lately. Of course that is Obama's fault.  :roll:  Solitary

Other than to the egos of those in power, it's unlikely that Manning caused any damage.  It would be very hard to attribute one American death to anything Manning did, while both Obama and Bush (mostly Bush) are directly responsible for many American deaths.

At best, there is but an outside chance that Manning may have fired up some terrorist and increased bin Laden's influence, but it's probably unlikely.  Terrorists don't need Manning's leaks to dislike the West.  Any influence he has over them is practically nil.  Manning pissed off Americans and practically no one outside of America.

He broke the law, and for that he should be punished, but his ethical dalliance is more like shoplifting than murder.

I disagree.  If he endangered just one soldier or allied person through his acts, his crime was much more severe that shoplifting.  WikiLeaks reportedly (eventually) withheld names and other information from the hundreds of thousands of classified documents that Manning provided for fear that some people may have been put in harms way.  It was also reported that people had to be moved for fear of their safety.  His indiscriminate release of information could have cost lives, and very well may have.

[SGOS]

I disagree.  If he endangered just one soldier or allied person through his acts, his crime was much more severe that shoplifting.  WikiLeaks reportedly (eventually) withheld names and other information from the hundreds of thousands of classified documents that Manning provided for fear that some people may have been put in harms way.  It was also reported that people had to be moved for fear of their safety.  His indiscriminate release of information could have cost lives, and very well may have.

If these reports are true, it would change my opinion, but I would read the reports with my usual skepticism, watching specifically for who released these reports.  To date, the only such report I have seen was made by the prosecution in the Manning case, but without specifying the nature of anything.  It went something along the lines of "might have could have."  That doesn't mean much. I would take it with a grain of salt as part of closing arguments, where lawyers can say just about anything.  If Wikileaks  eventually withheld these names, why didn't that information become public?  There would be a historical record that could not be removed from public knowledge.  It would be recorded somewhere.

In the case of Scooter Libby, there was an actual public record of who would be potentially harmed by such leaks.  Scooter got 30 months in prison, but his term was commuted by George Bush.

Now I realize justice has little to do with fairness or consistency, but at this point, I still feel a moral right to object to this sentence.  And I believe this sentence was based mostly on political indignation of the big boys who got caught making private statements like "Mubark is a slimy dog that can't be trusted," or "England has a Queen and that's so silly."

No one seems to know for sure if any harm was done.  The prosecutor only surmised that harm could have been done.  35 years seems excessive to me, but I know others think it should have been more.

[aileron]

Terrorists don't need Manning's leaks to dislike the West.

No, but they can use them to do thinks like help piece together who in an embassy is an actual clerical worker vs. who is working under the cover of a clerical worker.

The DoD knows the importance of what it calls OPSEC.  Even seemingly innocuous things like ordering pizza delivery to the Pentagon was found to have tipped off the press core that a military operation will soon occur.  If people can learn important information about DoD activities by noting unclassified information such as higher than normal pizza deliveries, imagine what they can learn from reading hundreds of thousands of classified State Department documents.  The documents don't have to say "This guy is listed as a visa liaison officer, but he's actually field collection for the CIA."  As with the pizza example, people are smart and can piece together information based on poor OPSEC let alone a massive breach of classified information.

[Nonsensei]

Could haves, might haves, and maybes arent quite good enough for me when it comes to making a man spend the best years of his life in prison. I need examples where people were actually put in danger, otherwise its just the same sort of assertion as the NSA listening to all our phone calls to prevent a possible terrorist attack.

The threat he supposedly created by releasing this information has not been substantiated, existing entirely within the realm of theory and supposition.

I also think it worth mentioning that the federal government's primary motivation for making an example out of him is not out of concern for the lives of their personnel. Programs like the NSA information gathering insanity and the drone program in the middle east show me a callous disregard for the same values people like you and me hold. They are ruining his entire life to send a message and scare any other leakers. Its vindictive and shows a total lack of consciousness that perhaps the federal government is doing the wrong thing if its own people are willing to break the silence.

Thats not a good enough reason to sentence Manning to 35 fucking years in prison. Where are the 35 year sentences for the people responsible for violating our constitutional rights or the deaths of countless thousands of people in the middle east - some of which have been american?

Its very hard for me to feel good about this "justice". Manning is just another poor sap who doesn't have the political pull to be above the law, which is more than you can say for the people responsible for his prosecution.

[aileron]

Could haves, might haves, and maybes arent quite good enough for me when it comes to making a man spend the best years of his life in prison.

So why punish people for attempted murder?  If I shoot at someone and miss, no harm done.

[SGOS]

So why punish people for attempted murder?  If I shoot at someone and miss, no harm done.

Yes, it's only attempted murder, not actual murder, because they deduct points for being a piss poor shot.  :-D

[Nonsensei]

Could haves, might haves, and maybes arent quite good enough for me when it comes to making a man spend the best years of his life in prison.

So why punish people for attempted murder?  If I shoot at someone and miss, no harm done.

Analogy fail. The correct analogy would be is Manning took a bunch of guns and gave them to wikileaks and then got arrested for attempted murder.

Theres no evidence that anyone was actually put in danger by Manning. Its a presumption that nobody seems willing to demand proof of.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Manning knowingly and willingly broke the law for better or worse. He took an oath to duty and betrayed it. You can justify law breaking anyway you like, but it's still breaking the law and now Ms Manning wants to be called Chelsea.. Irrelevant, but the guy can't break laws merely for disagreeing with them.

[aileron]

Analogy fail.

It's not an analogy.  It's an example.

Theres no evidence that anyone was actually put in danger by Manning.

There doesn't need to be.  A lot of crimes have only vague and low risk potential for causing harm, but they're nonetheless illegal.

Its a presumption that nobody seems willing to demand proof of.

It's not a reasonable expectation for laws to demand proof of harm.  Potential for harm is enough to make activity illicit.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Just to throw more fuel on the fire..
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us ... m=homepage
Bradly>>Chelsea

[Nonsensei]

It's not an analogy.  It's an example.

No, that was an analogy.

There doesn't need to be.  A lot of crimes have only vague and low risk potential for causing harm, but they're nonetheless illegal.

Those crimes do not generally result in prison sentences greater than rape, murder etc.

It's not a reasonable expectation for laws to demand proof of harm.  Potential for harm is enough to make activity illicit.

It is reasonable to demand proof when the consequences are putting a man in prison for 35 years. Reasonable punishment for unsubstantiated danger can only be so great before it becomes cruel and unusual.

Manning sent files to wikileaks. As far as anyone can tell me, nobody has been killed as a direct result of that. Nobody has been reported as being endangered as a result of that. People seem to think its a reasonable presumption that people would be, but that isn't good enough.

What we are essentially saying here is that it seems possible that what he did might potentially have been somehow dangerous to some unknown group of people that may or may not even exist and that it is a good enough reason to treat him as though he did in fact put them in danger.

Not good enough for me. Get one of these people on TV and they can tell us all about how Manning's actions specifically put them in danger, then I'll feel like this sentence is just.

[Jack89]

Consider that the maximum punishment for a soldier who falls asleep while on guard duty, in time of war, is death.  No one need be harmed from his action for the penalty to be applied, it is the potential harm that could happen if any sentry falls asleep, in time of war, that justifies the harsh punishment.
Manning's actions were, potentially, far more damaging than a sleeping sentry's and I don't think we've seen the last of the fallout from this yet.