
Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years - antr
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-sentence-bradley-manning-today/2013/08/20/85bee184-09d0-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html
======
zeteo
>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.

~~~
pinaceae
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.

~~~
zeteo
After WW2, the Allies condemned and executed a number of German and Japanese
officers who had done little more than follow orders. What they had done was
not against any laws at the time, and definitely within their organizations'
code of conduct. I think that was a good thing because it established the
principle that joining an organization does not absolve you from higher duties
towards your fellow citizens or humanity at large. By exposing questionable
decisions and arguably a number of war crimes, Manning broke his oath with the
US Army but did a much greater service to the rest of us. By choosing to make
an example out of his punishment, the US has struck a huge blow to its claims
of moral superiority and American exceptionalism.

~~~
enoch_r
People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful
orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war.

They do _not_ have the right to unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order
because _they think_ it is better for humanity at large. They do _not_ have
the right to expose classified information because _they think_ it shouldn't
be classified. They do not have the right to violate orders because they are
stupid, or because they're bad policy.

They do not have the right to make those decisions because, in the US, the
military is supposed to be _entirely subordinate_ to the laws enacted by our
elected officials. Not "subordinate as long as it's for the best overall."
This is a good thing--when enough members of the military decide to do what's
better for the country _against the lawful orders of the elected government
that they serve_ , we call it a coup.

Obviously there are grey areas. After all, the Nuremburg trials punished
people for violating laws that didn't exist during the commission of the
crimes. If Manning had, say, only released _extremely strong evidence_ of war
crimes, I might agree that hiding that evidence was itself unlawful. But he
didn't--he released a giant trove of classified diplomatic cables and military
logs. These may have been unnecessarily classified, but were not unlawfully
classified. Releasing them put Manning _firmly_ in the "violating lawful
orders" camp.

~~~
zeteo
>when enough members of the military decide to do what's better for the
country against the lawful orders of the elected government that they serve,
we call it a coup

I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military. But calling his
actions an incipient coup is laughable. In a world in which the worst
offenders at Abu Ghraib got ten years (and were released much sooner),
sentencing him to 35 years (as a deterrent!) is a disgrace. I don't see how
you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization where it's much
better to commit a crime against humanity than to publicize one and err on the
side of too much info.

~~~
briandear
Abu Ghraib a crime against humanity? Yes, that's similar to ethnic cleansing
in the Balkans. That's nearly exactly the same thing as the genocide in
Rwawanda. That's definitely on the same level as Pol Pot.

The difference however is Abu Ghraib didn't put intelligence sources at risk,
it didn't endanger the lives of people. How many people died in Abu Ghraib
from being photographed with underwear on their head? How many innocent lives
were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? I am certainly not defending the
soldiers involved in that situation but to try and draw some moral relativism
between the two cases is absurd. You likely have no idea how Americans are
treated by the Taliban and Al Q when they're captured.

Ask Daniel Pearl:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl)

By the way, the guys in Abu were fighting on the same side as the guys that
beheaded Daniel Pearl. They were combatants. They weren't innocent little
girls walking to school. The irony is if the US soldiers at Abu had shot those
prisoners on the battlefield, nobody would have complained, but they put
underwear on their heads and the world freaks the hell out, yet quietly
forgetting about cases like Daniel Pearl. We could argue Geneva convention all
day long, but until the Taliban is a signatory to that convention or wears
uniforms declaring themselves as part of a legitimate military force, the
Geneva Conventions never applied, though of course we (meaning the US
military) still follow those rules. And those that didn't -- were punished.

While we're so busy being outraged, let's get outraged about the Taliban
stoning women to death. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
asia-15688354](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15688354) Bradley Manning
helped the Taliban find informants.
[http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-
wi...](http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-
hunt-informants/?_r=0)

One specific and direct result of Manning is the case of Shakil Afridi, the
doctor in Pakistan that helped find Bin Laden. He's in a Pakistan prison for
30 years after ostensibly being tortured.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
asia-18175964](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18175964)

Since Mr. Manning directly made his discovery possible, what punishment should
Manning receive? There are dozens and dozens of intelligence sources and
relationships that were significantly harmed because of Manning.

If you have ever spent any time with a security clearance, you'd know that
there are countless unintended consequences that result from revealing a
source or a collection method. Being morally outraged over Bradley Manning
puts you in the same shoes as a Taliban sympathizer because not only was
Manning a soldier, sworn to uphold the Constitution, the lives of his fellow
soldiers, allies and others were in his hands. He was given a position of
public trust and the responsibility that goes with it. Yet because he had
emotional and personal problems he chose to do what he did.

[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/psychologist-
wikile...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/psychologist-wikileaks-
source-manning-gender-id-disorder-article-1.1426760)

A raw information dump isn't "blowing the whistle," it's an intent to inflict
harm on the United States and allies. If you wanted to expose a security hole
in Gmail, for example, you wouldn't expose every single gmail user's
information. You'd expose the amount necessary to reveal the problem. The
simple truth is that Manning is a kid, he's intelligent to some degree, but he
certainly isn't an Edward Snowden. Manning had no idea what he was doing. By
his own words he said he didn't intend to harm the United States. Either he's
a liar or a complete fool.

There are countless intelligence and diplomatic relationships that have been
harmed, in addition to people who have been directly killed, captured or
targeted as a result of Manning.

Snowden on the other hand, released information about illegal activities
against US citizens that were in direct violation of the law. The Snowden
releases, while potentially compromising national security from a strategic
standpoint, didn't put any lives at direct risk. Manning's releases however
put dozens of people directly in the line of fire. I am not going to defend
Snowden, however a better case could be made for him than Manning and
certainly no comparison could be made to Abu Ghraib. That's just tomfoolery.

~~~
zeteo
>You likely have no idea how Americans are treated by the Taliban and Al Q
when they're captured [... T]he guys in Abu were fighting on the same side as
the guys that beheaded Daniel Pearl. [... I]f the US soldiers at Abu had shot
those prisoners on the battlefield, nobody would have complained, but they put
underwear on their heads and the world freaks the hell out

Your obsession with terrorists' lack of scruples is causing you to become what
you hate. You think it's OK to humiliate and torture them because they're
terrorists, they think it's OK to behead us because of religion and
nationality. How about a little show of strength and dealing with them without
lowering to their level?

~~~
smsm42
>>> Your obsession with terrorists' lack of scruples is causing you to become
what you hate

Did it? Did he already cut off people's heads, blow up markets and issued
fatwas calling for murdering infidels? Or did he just express an opinion that
maybe war prisoner abuse, while being undeniably bad, is not the same as
murdering innocent people or perpetrating genocide? If in your eyes that makes
one the same as terrorist, your priorities are seriously messed up.

------
flexie
This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for
uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle.

He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle.

Oh really?

[http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-
ma...](http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-manning-
leaks-to-be-shown_48100432)

"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"

~~~
pandeiro
Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us"
do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals?
Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments?

The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its
ethics. Quite the opposite.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>>The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for
its ethics. Quite the opposite.

I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I
guess this $28 million was wasted then huh?

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-
demo...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-democracy-
activists-evade-internet-crackdowns.html)

"The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help
Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict
e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter
Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)"

"The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has
produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-
democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary
of state for democracy, human rights and labor."

~~~
cinquemb
I wonder how many billions go to helping subvert other sovereignties? Can we
have some cherry picked examples for that?

~~~
aspensmonster
Well, you can start with Iran. The reason it's such a mess today is because of
our own meddling in 1953. Well, meddling isn't really the right word. More
like a CIA-backed coup to overthrow Mossadegh and install a brutal dictator,
all because BP didn't like Mossadegh's decision to push legislation
nationalizing the oil fields. There's also Indonesia. We weren't exactly doing
the communists any favors there either. We didn't mind that hundreds of
thousands of people were being slaughtered then. We tacitly accepted it at
best, because we didn't want another domino to fall in the wrong direction.

------
rdl
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.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I completely agree. It does a disservice to people like Snowden to have
Manning lumped in the same pile as them.

~~~
rdl
And Binney, Drake, Wiebe are even more unambiguously moral than Snowden
(although I think Snowden is closer to them than he is to Manning). Those 3
deserve a Nobel.

------
dombili
ACLU's response: [https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-
mannin...](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-manning-
sentence)

> "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
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".

------
Zikes
> including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to at
> the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va.

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
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.

~~~
jellicle
Why would you be sure of that? No one involved in mistreating Manning has had
any charges brought against them, nor will there be.

------
jamesroseman
"He faced up to 90 years in prison."

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.

~~~
clarky07
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.

~~~
rayiner
Motive isn't taken into account, intent is taken into account, which is a
narrower concept. "Intent" goes to whether you did something by accident or on
purpose (or something in-between). "Motive" goes to the "why."

So killing a person with your car may be no crime at all if you were driving
carefully and he jumped out of nowhere, if you do run over someone on purpose
than it doesn't matter _why_ you did so. Maybe he's a doctor who performs
abortions and you believe that you're saving babies from being murdered by
killing him.[1] That doesn't make it any lesser degree of murder.

[1] I purposefully use that controversial example to make the point that not
everyone agrees on the purity of Manning's conduct, just as not everyone
agrees on whether abortion is murder or not. Many people believe that
indiscriminately leaking hundreds of thousands of documents goes far beyond
"whistle-blowing" into conduct intended to maliciously embarrass the United
States in diplomatic relations.

------
f1nch3r
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.

~~~
tomjen3
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.

~~~
Frozenlock
"second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind
freedom"

Wow. Just wow.

'Murica, much?

~~~
tomjen3
Actually Dane, but yeah I like the US. I don't often agree with their
government in the things that end up in the media, but I like the country and
I have a serious and profound respect for the genius of Jefferson.

------
octo_t
Pvt Manning has received more time in prison than the entirety of the
Collateral Murder crew combined (0 years).

------
grandalf
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.

------
selectstar
Land of the free, home of the brave.

Let's hope that Snowden never gets caught/detained.

------
gbog
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.

~~~
jpttsn
> These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even)
> to the rest.

That sounds like a dangerous way to think about things.

~~~
oskarth
Quite the opposite. The dangerous people are the ones who think morality is
something you can negotiate about. That's a recipe for unethical behavior.

Ethical principles != Fundamentalism.

~~~
jpttsn
If you don't reason about things, how can you know you are right?

~~~
gbog
That's true for up to some level, but above that you arrive to some ether
where rationality is useless or even dangerous.

You see a little girl running toward a minefield, you jump and save her, there
is no reasoning. For many who believe in God (not my case) it is something you
know is right, but has no reasoning behind.

But here it's just some moral principles that are above the law, above the
country, and sometime even above oneself. That's what Snowden and Manning
teach us (or me, at least)

~~~
jpttsn
(I know this is dragging on)

> You see a little girl running toward a minefield, you jump and save her,
> there is no reasoning.

You see a little girl standing on top of a tall building, a crowd gathered
below. You grow frustrated, tension rises. You start chanting "Jump! Jump!"
and watch the girl throw herself to her death. There's no reasoning. [1]

I don't think anecdotes like that prove much. Human nature has us do things
without thinking, for better and sometimes for worse. I don't think these
moments of impulse necessarily embody any higher principle, or stand "above"
rationality.

Having moral principles that stand "above" the law is fine: those will let you
decide in favour of what's moral instead of what's legal. But that's still
reasoning.

[1] This is surprisingly common when people jump from buildings.

------
pavanred
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.

------
joering2
His sentencing matrix:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSMgOFYCAAM4aqi.jpg:large)

~~~
susi22
Source? There seems to be more at the bottom.

------
doe88
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.

------
tty
The length of his sentence is similar to that of Jeffrey Carney, who was
sentenced to 38 years for

>espionage, conspiracy, and desertion

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney](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

        “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.

------
Zenst
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.

------
yk
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.

------
milosp
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunals_in_the_United_States)

------
j2d3
Some ways to take comfort here:

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:

[http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-
senten...](http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-sentence-
parole-and-appeal-implications/)

(Edit: formatting)

------
mrt0mat0
I think 35 years is too long. I'm sure he'll get out early on parole, and has
already served 3 years as it is, but he I think his motives were good.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'd put money on his being pardoned in December 2016.

------
fatjokes
Any hope Obama had of Snowden coming back to the US voluntarily just
evaporated.

------
beedogs
Another sad day to be an American. There's been a long string of those lately,
though, so tragedy fatigue has probably set in up there.

------
beachstartup
does anyone know if military prison is like civilian prison, in which you
could be released early for a variety of factors including overcrowding, good
behavior, appeals, parole, just plain ambiguity of sentencing, etc?

from what i read in the media it seems as though civilian sentences for non-
capital crimes are basically flexible.... but i'm no expert.

~~~
mb_72
I was also wondering about these things, as well as wondering whether it's
possible to send him a letter of support - ?

------
susi22
Will likely be out after 8-8.5 years:

[https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512](https://twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/status/370188695833280512)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis)

------
Nowyouknow
Seems like he's being made an example of. A clear and stern warning to others
contemplating similar actions?

------
cstross
What kind of world is this, where Bradley Manning gets a heavier jail sentence
than Anders Breivik?

~~~
anigbrowl
Oh, it's false equivalence time!

What kind of world is this, where a soldier in a war zone indiscriminately
dumps data into the hands of foreign actors and receives a full public trial
and a jail sentence, while a teenage girl gets shot in the head for going to
school?

I feel bad for Manning, but he at least opted to join an organization with a
conspicuously poor human rights record at a time when it was many years into a
bloody moral and legal quagmire.

------
veritas20
Bradley Manning would have gotten less time if he:

Robbed a bank: 20 year max Knowing spread AIDS: 10 year max Sold child
pornography: 10 year max Sold slaves: 20 year max and many more....

Will this cause action or uproar among civilians or military personnel? We'll
see...

------
Mordor
OK, so that's 26 minutes per file.

------
simias
I must say I didn't follow this trial closely but:

"According to the military, Manning is required to serve one-third of the
sentence before he becomes eligible for parole."

That's... brutal.

~~~
jug6ernaut
I have zero knowledge as far as sentence's go. So with that said, how is being
required to only server 1/3 of a sentence brutal? What am i missing?

~~~
sillysaurus2
Well, for one, he's transsexual, which may or may not indicate he's less of a
threat to society.

If he's not a threat to society, and won't do what he did again, then it seems
like the motive is to make an example of him.

~~~
kintamanimatt
I'm under the impression he's transgender, not a transsexual. I'm not sure how
being transgender makes one more, or less of a threat to society. People are
people regardless of sexual orientation, physical gender, or the gender they
identify with.

That being said, I don't think Manning is (or has been) a threat to society at
all. Perhaps he should have been a little more careful about what he released
but I feel he's done the world community a net good by exposing war crimes,
etc[0].

I do agree he is being made an example of, and this sentence and his treatment
is intended to be a signal and a warning sign to would-be leakers. I hope they
still come forward and behave more like Snowden than Manning.

[0] [http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-
wikileaks-...](http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-
reveal)

~~~
sillysaurus2
I was unaware of the distinction. Thank you for pointing it out.

As for why I brought up his transgenderism, it was one of those unexamined
beliefs based on hearsay that seemed natural to believe, and wasn't obvious
how absurd it was until it was pointed out. Specifically, the idea that
transgender people are less likely to engage in crime like murder or theft,
and hence would be less dangerous to society after spending time in prison.
But that logic doesn't really follow, and the assumption was probably false
anyway. Apologies. I meant no disrespect.

------
vijayboyapati
This young man had the courage to expose the war crimes committed by America,
and now will essentially spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. More
than anything this is an indictment of America as a nation, and the American
people who could tolerate this and allow it to happen, under a President who
won the Nobel "peace" prize.

As Orwell wrote: "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will
hate those who speak it".

------
joering2
Question: are there any chances to visit this guy behind the bars? I am eager
to take a trip and pay him a tribute, shake his hand.

------
btucker
I'd highly suggest anyone who hasn't already, go back and read the
Manning/Lamo chat logs: [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-
lamo-logs](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs)

------
magoon
I don't want what Bradley Mannig has done to be compared to what Edward
Snowden has been doing.

------
mgpetkov
I don't think that Manning deserves to go to jail.This sentence must be for
the ones that allowed one ordinary soldier to access thausands ot highly
classified documents.

------
drill_sarge
No surprise. My opinion on the US gov is even lower than it was on Bushs
period with his whole patriot act and Afghanistan/Iraq war crap. I expect
nothing positive.

------
eyeareque
I feel what he did was morally correct, even though it was against the law. My
only wish is that he would have been able to do this anonymously and not get
caught.

------
splrb
In the United States of backasswardness, we punish those that reveal war
crimes, not those that commit them.

------
monsterix
Very sad.

So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns
sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. While the guys who stood
up for humanity and true spirit of serving forces for good is sentenced 35
years. And I know a lot of people would troll me on this opinion itself.

~~~
kevincennis
I totally understand that sentiment, but at the same time, the whole concept
of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's
okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules.

There are always paths to responsible disclosure. From what I understand, many
of them are pretty badly broken, and we certainly need to fix that.

But ultimately, you really don't want to set a precedent of "well, if you leak
something and you really believe in your heart that it was morally justified,
then we won't send you to jail."

Anyway, I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, so I shall now
let the sea of downvotes wash over me.

~~~
revelation
What he leaked was available to 1.5+ million people in the USA. It is not by
any reasonable meaning of the word classified, it is the proceedings of a
seperate class of society.

~~~
jws
Your assertion ignores the "need to know" aspect of classified information.
Just having a clearance does not give you permission to access arbitrary
secret data any more than having a driver's license lets you drive backwards
down a highway.

~~~
revelation
That's nice, but obviously there was no oversight, no logging, not even simple
rate monitoring. That is, after all, why Manning was able to wget this massive
cache of data, and they would be none the wiser had he not revealed his
involvement to people or systems he falsely deemed trustworthy.

~~~
vonmoltke
> That's nice, but obviously there was no oversight, no logging, not even
> simple rate monitoring.

All of the above exists. In fact, it's required to exist, along with various
access controls in the system depending on the protection level. All is
specified in DCID 6/3.[1] That is not to say the requirements were implemented
properly, or that the oversight was fully competent. It does, however, exist.

[1]
[https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/DCID_6-3_20Manual.htm](https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/DCID_6-3_20Manual.htm)

------
LekkoscPiwa
And for ruining the US Economy you get bailout money. What an awesome system
and country! How they call it? Fascism?

------
Helianthus
Every time I think I have it bad, I realize that this hero has it worse.

