Do you think we should leave a mint on his (non)pillow every night? The accusations against this military person, who voluntarily violated his oath to protect the nation's secrets, are very serious, and PRIVATE, not Mister, Manning is being held to the same standards any other military person is liable to, and is quite likely to face execution by firing squad.
Execution for treason is less morally offensive than psychological torture. That's why cruel and unusual punishment is expressly forbidden by the constitution.
EDIT: To say nothing of the fact that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Even in the modern political climate, it's going to be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate that Wikileaks constitutes an enemy of the United States.
Still, it’s a nice illustration that treacherous behavior is not inherently immoral. I think you can generalize that to “Illegal behavior is not inherently immoral.”
This discussion is making me uncomfortable, though. Besides not really being HN material, I really in no way intended to compare Manning to the Founding Fathers. That would be ridiculous. I don’t think what he did was heroic, I think it was mostly stupid, probably immoral.
But I cannot understand that hunger for blood (I have never been able to understand that, no matter the crime). Locking him up for a few years (in a normal prison) and destroying his career will be pretty certain to discourage anyone who could be discouraged (those willing to violate the law in general don’t expect to be caught). Why punish someone without any positive effect, just for punishment’s sake? That’s what I don’t get.
Suppose that the American public only supported the wars because it believed some of the lies that the cables revealed to be false.
If that were the case, then all the collateral damage caused by the wars happened against the will of the American people while at the same time it was done in the name of the American people.
So if Manning believed that to be the case, then he acted heroically. If you don't believe that to be the case, then it's reasonable that you don't consider his actions heroic.
I suppose that if the sort of leak Manning did isn't a good reason to risk life in prison, nothing is.
The most recent incarnation of German government wasn't started by traitors. It was started by essentially the people who were chosen by the winners of the last war.
And how about conquerors? Or the first government in a place? Or survivors of the old government (see the history of the Turkish Republic, which was founded after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in WWI). Traitors are only one kind of people to start a new government.
The oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, not the nation's secrets (except as follows under general orders and the UCMJ).
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Is it necessary to leak these cables to support and defend the Constitution? Probably not. But there is clear precedent that illegal orders (contradicting either the UCMJ or the Constitution) are not supposed to be obeyed.
Espionage charges are laid out in 10 USC 906a: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000...
and conviction has to prove "intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation", and the death penalty requires one of a number of aggravating circumstances that don't seem to apply.
He certainly will be locked up, undoubtedly for quite some time, but he's not going to be executed (if the law is followed).
Hasn't he in fact disobeyed the orders of his superior officers by leaking the cables (which were marked "CONFIDENTIAL")?
There are a few reasons why disobeying such an order would be acceptable, but I doubt the military will take it easy on him unless it his obvious that every bit of info he leaked was directly related to some kind of war crime being carried out by his superiors.
I'd argue that due to the leaked cables revealing lots of US Government propaganda, that his act served the constitution by allowing the democratic process to act after it had been hijacked by corrupt leaders.
He's being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In case anyone had doubts who had the moral high ground (Manning or the US Government) this proves it was not the US Government.
In general, prisoners should not be treated inhumanely. It's well known that many in prison are beaten and/or raped by other inmates (which itself is inexcusable) but this mistreatment is directly at the hands of those in charge of the prison. Manning has not been violent or dangerous and so there is no need for him to be treated this way.
