Print 39 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Aug 26 at 5:47 PM

Mr. Manning -- now the second highest profile leaker -- received a relatively lenient sentence

(Former) U.S. Private First Class Bradley Manning was sentenced on Wednesday to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged after being found guilty of charges relating to the leaking of numerous classified government documents to the site Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

I. The Sentence

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Judge Col. Denise Lind delivered a key win for the prosecution agreeing to merge certain offenses, such that the maximum consecutive sentence Mr. Manning faced was 90 years in prison, rather than the 136 years he initially faced following the guilt determination phase.  In that phase, Mr. Manning notably was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, an accusation that could have carried a death sentence.

At the sentencing hearing prosecutors wanted at least 60 years, while his defense wanted twenty years -- or roughly two-and-a-half times the length of the most severe (10-year individual sentence) offenses he was convicted of.  

Leak -- blood
Mr. Manning escaped a potential death sentence in the guilt ruling and escaped life in prison in the sentencing ruling.

Predictably, Judge Lind decided somewhere in the middle, leaving both sides somewhat dissatisfied.

She ruled that the 3 and 1/2 effective "years" Mr. Manning had already served since his 2010 arrest (a total inflated by time in solitary confinement) would count towards the 35-year sentence.  That leaves Mr. Manning with only 31 and 1/2 years left in the sentence.

II. Release by 2021?

If he does not win an appeal or get parole, he would be 56 years old when he gets out of federal prison.  However, in all likelihood he will get out long before then.

One possibility -- albeit unlikely -- is an appeal or a pardon.  His defense attorney, David Coombs, was not pleased with the verdict and vowed to fight for an even more reduced sentence during the appeals phase.  That phase is automatic (as all such cases receive an appeal) and will be held before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.  Pretrial hearings for the appeal already started in 2012 pending this year's sentencing outcome; the appeals trial itself will start in June.

Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning, 25, was sentenced this week. [Image Source: AP]

Mr. Coombs told reporters he will seek a presidential pardon, remarking:

Pfc. Manning was one of the brave Americans who was not willing to remain silent.  Instead he decided to provide us with information that he believed would spark reform, would spark debate and he provided us with information that he believed might change the world.  The time to end Brad's suffering is now.  The time for our president to focus on protecting whistleblowers instead of punishing them is now.

Regardless of the merit or villainy of Mr. Manning's actions, there is some truth in his lawyer's statement.  The Obama administration has charged more than twice as many self-proclaimed "whistleblowers" with Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 792) offenses as all the previous administrations before him (since the Act was passed in 1917) combined, according to The Guardian.  While some of these individuals are certainly guilty, the sheer number would seemingly suggest that the Obama administration was indeed at times using legal strong-arm tactics to have a "chilling effect" on the reporting of government corruption, a dangerous precedent.

That said, the administration was unequivocal on its view of Mr. Manning.  At a fundraiser in April 2011, Mr. Obama was asked about Mr. Manning.  He commented:

We're a nation of laws.  We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

It seems unlikely that the President would have changed his mind, so a pardon attempt seems mere showmanship.  A sentence reduction in the appeals phase is also unlikely, although within the realm of possibility.

Much more likely is the possibility of parole.  Mr. Manning's lawyer said that with military court parole rules, if Mr. Manning continues his good behavior as a prisoner, he could be eligible for parole in 6 and 1/2 years.  In that circumstance he could see freedom by the age of 32.

Being granted parole is by no means guaranteed, particularly in controversial high profile cases.  But all in all it seems that Mr. Manning got off relatively light, going from a possible death penalty hearing to 136 years in prison, then next from 136 years in prison to 90 years, then from 90 years to 35 years, and finally from 35 years to potentially 6 and 1/2 years with time served and early release for good behavior factored in.

III. Seemingly Sincere Apology Played a Role in Somewhat Lenient Sentencing

Judge Lind clearly factored Mr. Manning's seemingly sincere apology into that significant reduction.   In a previous hearing last Wednesday Mr. Manning stated:

First, your honor, I want to start off with an apology.  I am sorry. I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I am sorry that it hurt the United States.

I did not truly appreciate the broader effects of my actions. Those effects are clearer to me now through both self-reflection during my confinement in its various forms and through the merits and sentencing testimony that I have seen here. I look back at my decisions and wonder, 'How on earth could I, a junior analyst, possibly believe I could change the world for the better over the decisions of those with the proper authority?'

In the military, we have rules and regulations and structures designed to safeguard sensitive information, whether it be classified or unclassified; and I circumvented those … I'm not the right pay-grade to make these decisions or anything.

In retrospect, I should have worked more aggressively inside the system as we discussed during the Providence Statement and had options and I should have used these options.

The Guardian has a full in-depth analysis of the apology and how it compares and contrasts to Mr. Manning's February admission of guilt on certain charges under his plea deal.

Manning wide
Bradley Manning pled guilty to lesser versions of 10 of the 22 charges.  On Wednesday he was sentenced to 35 years in prison -- 31 and 1/2 years with time served. [Image Source: AP]

Some will argue the apology was coerced, but there does appear to be a great deal of truth in the statement.  Mr. Manning was demoted before he leaked much of the information.  He was bullied over his sexuality and harassed by fellow soldiers before he leaked the information.

IV. Compromise May Well be the Meaning of Justice

There are some who argue Mr. Manning's actions are entirely justified and that he should walk free today and that these tribulations may have played an impact on him making the decision to leak -- whether or not it was the right one. And of course, there are many that believe he acted illegally and that he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for treason.

Bradley Manning sign
PFC Manning was allegedly bullied in the armed forces for his relatively open homosexuality. [Image Source:]

Thus whatever your feelings about Mr. Manning remember these facts:
  • He has been found guilty of lesser charges.  
  • He has been found innocent of the biggest charge, aiding the enemy
  • He has been sentenced to prison.
  • He has only been sentenced to 35 years, out of a possible 136 years and may see release within 6 and 1/2 years.
  • His actions were in part motivated by harassment and personal problems, according to his own statements.
  • His actions were also in part motivated out of [his perceived] desire to do good.
Arguably the sentencing and the motivations illustrate a similar dichotomy.  So consider this: although the sentence is unlikely to satisfy his passionate support nor his passionate critics, the sentence may well be the very embodiment of justice -- compromise.

Sources: AP via WRAL, NPR, Manning Apology via The Guadian

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By Master Kenobi on 8/22/2013 9:44:47 AM , Rating: 0
There are all kinds of things that happen in war, unfortunate, but a reality of a warzone. If it was front page news every time it happened, wars would become even more politically unpopular than they already are.

The Amrican public doesn't want to know what happens in war, they prefer to sit at home and talk about Lindsay Lohan in rehab. In all honesty they can't handle the reality of war.

Modern wars are significantly more difficult for our forces because politicians have tied our hands into surgical strikes only. It isn't like WW2 where we could level an entire town with carpet bombing and not worry about having to mop up later. If you want quicker wars with minimal friendly casualties, and a lower overall cost, then take the gloves off and just start annihilating towns/cities and forcing surrenders by the enemy. Sounds cold blooded as hell doesn't it? Exactly. We can't stomach that style of warfare anymore. We don't have the spine to do it. Stop bitching about the incidents in a warzone because honestly they could be a hell of a lot worse than they are.

Why did the military cover it up? Because you don't talk about every screw up that happens in war, it kills morale and causes bureaucratic headaches from halfwits back in the states that wouldn't know a golf ball from a hand grenade.

RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By ZorkZork on 8/22/2013 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 3
But if you don't take your screwups into account then you don't accomplish your goals. Point is, the US didn't go to war to kill Iraqies or Afghans in general. The US didn't go to war to make the arab world enemies.

The US went to war for short and long term security. While it accomplished the first (by destroying bases in Afghanistan), it has created a lot more enemies in the long term.

And if going to war somewhere is making your own world less safe than not, then don't do it. Or at least find a better way - one that enhances your own security. Obviously one could then suggest nuking the rest of the world but that seems kind of extreme.

RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By Master Kenobi on 8/22/2013 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 1
Screwups get taken into account by military leadership in the theatre of operations. No doubt the Secretary of Defense himself received reports on such things.

It remains to be seen if we managed long term security by the wars. Given the shitstorm in the Middle East currently it will be a long time before they get organized enough to do anything.

I do disagree with Obama's reaction to Egypt. I get that their military ousted a "democratic" president, but it was with the support of the population. There shouldn't be any penalties for that.

RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 3:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Screwups get taken into account by military leadership in the theatre of operations. No doubt the Secretary of Defense himself received reports on such things.

Screwups happen. What's needed to be done is prevent those screwups from continuing. Coverups mean not only are they consciously and willfully aware these screwups are taking place, they are also actively misleading the public so these screwups can continue unabated.

No doubt the Secretary of Defense himself ignored the warning signs and nothing was done, until they all blew up in public. Then they shot the messenger while top brass kept their comfy leather seats intact.

As has already happened in years and decades past.

By superstition on 8/22/2013 3:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
That Clapper fundamentally misled Congress is beyond dispute. The DNI himself has now been forced by our stories to admit that his statement was, in his words, "clearly erroneous" and to apologize. But he did this only once our front-page revelations forced him to do so: in other words, what he's sorry about is that he got caught lying to the Senate .

And as Salon's David Sirota adeptly documented, Clapper is still spouting falsehoods as he apologizes and attempts to explain why he did it. How is this not a huge scandal?

Intentionally deceiving Congress is a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense . Reagan administration officials were convicted of misleading Congress as part of the Iran-contra scandal and other controversies, and sports stars have been prosecuted by the Obama DOJ based on allegations they have done so. Beyond its criminality, lying to Congress destroys the pretense of oversight.

Clapper isn't the only top national security official who has been proven by our NSA stories to be fundamentally misleading the public and the Congress about surveillance programs. As Greg Miller this week documented:

"[D]etails that have emerged from the exposure of hundreds of pages of previously classified NSA documents indicate that public assertions about these programs by senior US officials have also often been misleading, erroneous or simply false."

Indeed, the Guardian previously published top secret documents disproving the claims of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander that the agency is incapable of stating how many Americans are having their calls and emails invaded without warrants, as well as the oft-repeated claim from President Barack Obama that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' calls without warrants. Both of those assertions, as our prior reporting and Miller's article this week demonstrates, are indisputably false.

Beyond that, the NSA got caught spreading falsehoods even in its own public talking points about its surveillance programs, and were forced by our disclosures to quietly delete those inaccuracies.

Justice only applies to regular people. Law is a tool designed to maintain elite power/privilege.

RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By ZorkZork on 8/23/2013 4:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
The war in Iraq was lost – it was lost in the first 18 months after the invasion - perhaps it could have been won with a different model of execution. Fact is the US was considered favorably when it invaded Iraq by the vast majority of Iraqis. Whether Afghanistan as a country could have turned out better I don’t know, but before the war they hated the Russians. Now they hate everyone from the western world. Obviously there was a need to stop Osama but that need not make the majority hate us.

Again, it is not enough to say that these things happen. If they happen when the military is used (and I am not convinced that it needs to be the case – take a look at the British), then that should be considered in the planning. Which means that sometimes the right approach is to take more casualties in the short run (because it means fewer in the long run), and sometimes the right approach is something less visible (perhaps something like drones).

The governments of the Middle East have never been a threat to the western world (at least if your definition excludes Israel). If you consider terrorists from the Middle East a threat, then the current turmoil only increases that risk. Terrorist thrives in unstable countries. Obviously if you look at the number of deaths caused by terrorists then they a more of a nuisance (fever deaths than by airline crashes if looked at over any 10 year period) and puts the godzillions of dollars spend and lost liberties fighting terror into perspective. While that is probably not a good way of looking at it, it means that all-out war need not be the only response.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki