backtop


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: BradleyManning.org]

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

questionables
By superstition on 8/21/2013 8:47:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
many self-proclaimed "whistleblowers"

This is an example of the questionable ways whistleblowers are referred to in the media. I suppose it's a bit better than leakers, which the especially slavish outfits like to use. But, how exactly does one differentiate between a self-proclaimed whistleblower and an official one?

quote:
But all in all it seems that Mr. Manning got of relatively light

Yeah, torturous solitary (extended period, forced mind-bending meds, forced nudity, exercise refusal, refusal of basic comforts) without being charged is light. Being caged for letting America see the wanton murder of journalists and the corrupt activities of the government (like pressuring Haiti to exempt Levi Strauss and Hanes from a pathetically small increase in the minimum wage) is relatively light. Let's compare everything to murder by the state to make whatever heinous actions the state takes seem benign.

It certainly makes me feel good the gunmen in the helicopter who thought it was cool to kill Reuters journalists are free as birds but Manning has been forced to use homophobia to seem sympathetic.




RE: questionables
By Ammohunt on 8/21/2013 9:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
One mans whistleblower is another mans traitor he is very lucky.


RE: questionables
By Lord 666 on 8/22/2013 7:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
He's going to blow some whistles in prison.


RE: questionables
By superstition on 8/22/2013 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Write to them and maybe they'll send you the video.


RE: questionables
By GotThumbs on 8/22/2013 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
We need to petition the WH to parole this guy in two weeks.

No time to stick the surgery bill on the US Citizens and he's now only qualified to pump gas IMO. (No pun intended)


RE: questionables
By GotThumbs on 8/22/2013 8:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
No pardon if that will re-instate military benefits.


RE: questionables
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 9:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
You're talking about a video that was proven to be altered. Alterations that Bradly Manning actually approved, even though he knew it to be a lie. The entire thing is a fabrication, no innocent people were killed. And "journalists" don't carry around RPG's and AK47's.

Sorry but arbitrarily dumping hundreds of thousands of stolen documents on a known anti-American website, lying about our servicemen and accusing them of murdering "journalists", and trying to remain anonymous the entire time falls woefully short of a "whistleblower".

If his confidant never turned him in, Manning would have done all of the above in anonymity. But you people want to make him seem like he's some heroic person and champion of justice.


RE: questionables
By Samus on 8/22/2013 5:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly haven't seen the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw

It is not altered and the journalists are not armed with "RPG's and AK47's" it's pretty clear in the video (and the extended footage proved) they are carrying cameras.


RE: questionables
By room200 on 8/22/2013 10:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Shhhh, don't confuse him with facts; he doesn't know what to do with them.


RE: questionables
By maugrimtr on 8/22/2013 8:50:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're talking about a video that was proven to be altered. Alterations that Bradly Manning actually approved, even though he knew it to be a lie. The entire thing is a fabrication, no innocent people were killed. And "journalists" don't carry around RPG's and AK47's.


Reclaimer, I know you can be extreme, but lying in public? That's an amateur move. It's also pathetic, cowardly, despicable and unbelievably stupid. What's wrong, Reclaimer? Can't you handle the truth? Do you spend your days suspending reality and fabricating a make believe universe for yourself?

If you had an actual intelligence, you'd have seen the video. I really loved the part where they shot up the people who risked their lives trying to help the JOURNALISTS.

Don't mind reality. Killing innocent people is absolutely required for your security. The more the merrier, right?


RE: questionables
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 2:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are we talking about the "Collateral Murder" video that Assange doctored with Mannings help and put on his site?

Sorry but the only lie here is that video. It's a matter of record that he doctored it, it's a fact. If you're too cowardly to look up the facts and put your ideology aside, that's on you.

http://collateralmurder.wordpress.com/

Hell even Stephen Colbert called out the video for being an doctored up editorial and not real reporting.


RE: questionables
By room200 on 8/22/2013 10:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
You already know that site does not host the original un-doctored video. THAT site you referenced is nothing but a government propaganda site (which shocks me coming from YOU).


RE: questionables
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 10:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
While Manning did not deserve the "aiding the enemy" charge, his actions are worse than whistleblowing. Instead of selectively leaking the most sensational bits (because, face it, over 90% of the stuff are mild and are more boring than the Steve Jobs "biopic"), he dumped it all to Assange.

Skilled jewelry thieves don't rob every jewelry store they see, they go after certain stores and places with weak security, because then their chances of successfully evading the cops are higher. Manning is like the small-timer who goes into the first store he could find, because that store has something that screamed "PLEASE TAKE ME AWAY", not knowing it's a trap.


RE: questionables
By superstition on 8/22/2013 2:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
Daniel Ellsberg leaked massive amounts of top secret files and yet he is called a political hero.

Explain that, preferably without analogies that aren't analogous.


RE: questionables
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 3:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ellsberg leaked all those top secret files that clearly showed the Johnson Administration and the Pentagon lied to the public re: Vietnam War. They knew the war couldn't be won at all, but they kept up the lie since everything was seen as just numbers, and human suffering meant nothing to generals at the top.

Manning leaked all those top secret files to the wrong groups, namely, those that are willing to re-spin the stuff into something anti-American. WikiLeaks spilled it all for the world to see, because Assange & Co. don't care whatever happens to informants supplying intel to Americans, amongst other things. Responsible members of the press won't monkey around with this stuff, but Assange would have dismissed you with his middle finger.

About the only sensational bit about Manning's leaks was the video about journalists being killed via friendly fire by the US military, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't doctored in the first place.


RE: questionables
By tamalero on 8/24/2013 10:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
except they didnt, the UK media did FIRST, unfiltered, unaltered and uncensored.
Wikileaks leaked the filtered documents.

Its amazing how they all point to wikileaks as the culprit.. they did show what happened.. and noone seems to be blaming the guy who did it..


RE: questionables
By superstition on 8/26/2013 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Manning leaked no top secret documents.

Judging by the fact that you think he did, the rest of your post is automatically judged unworthy of further reading.


...wut?
By Motoman on 8/21/2013 8:08:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the sentence may well be the very embodiment of justice -- compromise


Um, no. The "embodiment of justice" is not compromise. Justice is doing the right thing. If it was compromise...

"We the jury find the defendant not guilty of murder...on the other hand, we do have a grieving widow to consider who wanted the death penalty...therefore we recommend to the court that the defendant be half-killed."




RE: ...wut?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/22/2013 6:33:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
"We the jury find the defendant not guilty of murder...on the other hand, we do have a grieving widow to consider who wanted the death penalty...therefore we recommend to the court that the defendant be half-killed."
You're confusing guilt (which should be true or false in ideal scenarios) with sentencing (a key part of justice, which takes into account prior history and intent).

Murder does indeed seem very black and white.

Most cases... e.g. intellectual property, secrets leaking, embezzlement, money laundering, drug cases, divorce law, etc. are very ambiguous. In these kinds of cases, the defense tries to make their client look like a saint, while the defense tries to make them look like a villain.

It's often the best case when the verdict and sentencing acknowledges both arguments if there's truth in them -- hence a compromise , as sentencing is not fixed, but variable within a range based on a judge's interpretations of intent/prior history.

Hey, even in a murder case this sometimes applies... sure guilt is non-variable, but sentencing is still very variable. Imagine a teenage gang enforcer who was coerced to kill and is only 14... if a judge thinks there's hope they'll reform themselves, they may not get life in prison.


RE: ...wut?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2013 10:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Laws are written with a specific sentence in mind. While it can be necessary to compromise in the trial and conviction phase in return for a lesser more concrete sentence, it sets a bad standard. Personally, I want to see this punk serve every minute of his 35 year sentence. He is a disgrace to the US military and everyone that wears the uniform. He signed the same papers, and took the same oaths as everyone else, he should be held to the same standard as everyone else.


RE: ...wut?
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 2:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He signed the same papers, and took the same oaths as everyone else, he should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Pray tell, what oath did he swear by?

- That you will maintain confidentiality regarding all sensitive information

OR

- That you will defend the US Constitution from all foreign and domestic threats

Manning's motives were sound. It was his handling of the data leaks that ultimately landed him 35 years.

In other words, you are wrong.


RE: ...wut?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2013 10:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be confusing the oath of military service with the one taken and signed when given access to classified information. The two are VERY different.


RE: ...wut?
By superstition on 8/26/2013 5:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nazis at the Nuremburg trials:

"I was just following orders."


RE: ...wut?
By PaFromFL on 8/23/2013 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Manning should get the Nobel prize for peace for defending the US Constitution from domestic threats in spite of the risks. The USA is crossing the line into rogue nation territory. When you fight terrorists for a decade, it is hard not turn into one yourself.


RE: ...wut?
By superstition on 8/26/2013 5:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
Argumentum ad baculum, as with other posts from you on this subject.

You're going to have to do better than the "because I said so" argument.


What Manning did was wrong ...
By ZorkZork on 8/22/2013 3:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
... and he deserved to be sentenced.

However the problem remains, why did the US military cover up these things? Why did it let people off the hook who had clearly done something wrong?

As I see it, the US entered into Afghanistan to stop the terrorists. However there was also a mission in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build working regimes that would support the US in the future.

Assuming that is the case, then soldiers who deliberately (and those by mistake) harmed civilians were acting directly against the interest of the US. If that was avoidable then they should be tried for treason (and aiding the enemy). If it wasn't then the people who sent them should be tried.

Manning was the easy part of the problem ...




RE: What Manning did was wrong ...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
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 (blog) 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
quote:
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
quote:
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.


Consequences
By Grit on 8/22/2013 3:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
There are consequences for every action you take. Why does our society now complain when we attempt to enforce those pre-prescribed consequences?

He knew what he was doing when he did it, and what the consequences could be. That he does not have to pay them in full is a gift that should never have been given.

Being bullied doesn't justify what he did either. If he deserved some compensation for any mistreatment, he should have perused that appropriately.




RE: Consequences
By PaFromFL on 8/22/2013 8:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
More specifically, there are consequences for actions that threaten the power and wealth of the one percenters, and there are seldom consequences for actions that increase their power and wealth. The main purpose of modern wars is to make money and grab power, at the expense of the lower classes who die or are maimed for the cause. When a small minority of greedy bastards ruin the economy, loot corporations, stuff classified documents down their pants in a cover up, assassinate American citizens with drones with no due process, lie to Congress, start a war for completely false purposes, etc., the only consequences are bailouts and book deals.


RE: Consequences
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2013 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what the upper 1% has to do with breaking one's oath, or breaking the bond of trust that existed between this individual and his superiors, nor his country.

Manning signed paperwork when he was granted special trust by the US government. That paperwork clearly outlined he would face a minimum of 20 years in prison if he was found to have broken that trust at any point. Someone who can't keep their word has no honor or integrity. If he didn't like what he did, he was perfectly free to not re-enlist, and pursue other employment once his term of service had ended. Instead he chose to do the wrong thing and he is going to pay for that choice. No different than paying for having shot someone in cold blood, or hitting a pedestrian with a vehicle. You do the crime, you will do the time.

As for the sentence itself, 35 years was a light sentence. Given the nature of the crime I doubt Obama or any president would pardon him. That would set a bad precedent. On the positive side, when he does get out, no respectable organization will ever employ someone that has demonstrated no honor, no integrity, and has a nice large dishonorable discharge pinned to his shirt. Life as he knows it, is effectively over.

The only tragedy is that by the time he gets out, publishers will be lining up for book deals. He will have a nice comfortable retirement after one of those things hits the market. Hell there might even be a movie about it, the "brave struggle by a lone sexually confused boy in a war zone, and his desire to spread truth to the world".


RE: Consequences
By PaFromFL on 8/22/2013 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was just pointing out that when the ruling class breaks their oaths or the bonds of trust there are seldom consequences, other than getting richer or more powerful. The real crime here is the abuse of power by the USA. Manning's actions did not hurt the "war" efforts, but they did threaten the ruling class by exposing the futility, cruelty, fraud, and underlying motives of the "wars". If you peer under the whitewash, many laws are written and enforced to keep the playing field tilted toward the rich and powerful.


RE: Consequences
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/23/2013 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd throw their asses in jail too. Break the oath or the paperwork you signed, instant jail time. People would stop breaking it pretty quick once they couldn't get away with it anymore.


RE: Consequences
By superstition on 8/22/2013 2:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are consequences for every action you take. Why does our society now complain when we attempt to enforce those pre-prescribed consequences?


argumentum ad baculum


By GotThumbs on 8/22/2013 8:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
doing what he did in the first place.

Nothing like getting free medical along with free room and board.

I say we have him paroled in two weeks.

He's learned his lesson and is now only qualified to work fast food IMO.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki