US government requests Bradley Manning be sentenced to 60 years
38 replies, posted
[quote]
The US government has urged a military judge to sentence Bradley Manning to 60 years in prison, arguing that the solider, who leaked a huge collection of classified documents to WikiLeaks, "deserves to spend the majority of his remaining life" in custody.
The request was made by military lawyers on Monday, in the final stages of the soldier's court martial for leaking hundreds of thousands documents to the anti-secrecy website. The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said she will start deliberations at 9am on Tuesday
Manning was found guilty last month of 20 counts, seven under the Espionage Act, but acquitted of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy.
....
He said that the soldier's crimes were "egregious enough to warrant 60 years", adding: "The US does not make this request lightly." He also recommended Manning receive a dishonourable discharge and a $100,000 fine, and a minimum of 60 years in prison. He said Manning "deserves to spend the majority of his remaining life in prison".
Manning faces a maximum possible sentence of 90 years in prison, although few military experts believe he will be sentenced to the full amount.
The soldier is expected to be sentenced in the next few days, possibly as soon as Tuesday.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/bradley-manning-sentence-60-years[/url]
I could understand if, say, he had released positions and unit schedules, but this is ridiculous.
whats the fine for? if i were to go to jail that long, i would flip the judge off rofl
[QUOTE=Xmeagol;41896995]whats the fine for? if i were to go to jail that long, i would flip the judge off rofl[/QUOTE]
Eh you're sending the man to prison for the rest of his life might as well take his money too. He won't need it where he's going.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;41897026]Eh you're sending the man to prison for the rest of his life might as well take his money too. He won't need it where he's going.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather his family or relatives kept it, tbh.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;41896923]I could understand [b]if, say, he had released positions and unit schedules,[/b] but this is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
He did.
I see a person who needs to be taken out of military in the very first place, and helped into a state they would hopefully be more stable in, and perhaps a person who shouldn't be trusted with sensitive information when under pressure. They don't belong to jail.
I also see a system which should make the important secrets more secure, and which should reconsider how many secrets it [I]has to[/I] actually keep.
For example, by taking in account if something should really be done if it has to be kept secret from the world, afterwards. (And no, I am not talking unit positions, here).
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41897135]He did.[/QUOTE]
Could you elaborate?
at least they're not requesting more life sentences
Hes gonna be like that old dude from the Shawshank Redemption when he gets out
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41897135]He did.[/QUOTE]
Well, shit. Lock him up then.
[editline]19th August 2013[/editline]
He risked the lives of other men and women. That's deserving of a light sentence at the least.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;41898335]Well, shit. Lock him up then.
[editline]19th August 2013[/editline]
He risked the lives of other men and women. That's deserving of a light sentence at the least.[/QUOTE]
The way the government treated him for over a thousand days should invalidate any crimes he had committed.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41897135]He did.[/QUOTE]
Persuasive and well formulated argument, I adjust my opinion and concede defeat good sir
How many years do the soldiers who killed that journalist get?
[QUOTE=a203xi;41898925]How many years do the soldiers who killed that journalist get?[/QUOTE]
How many journalists go out into a middle of a battle and not expect to get shot?
Man, in just a few short decades we as a society have gone from idolizing courageous whistleblowers like Ellsberg to pushing for them to be jailed for life for a "crime" that hasn't been proven to have brought one iota of direct physical harm to anyone. Embarrassing the administration apparently carries a life sentence now.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41898986]Man, in just a few short decades we as a society have gone from idolizing courageous whistleblowers like Ellsberg to pushing for them to be jailed for life for a "crime" that hasn't been proven to have brought one iota of direct physical harm to anyone. Embarrassing the administration apparently carries a life sentence now.[/QUOTE]
Attitude towards government was quickly bridged in the Reagan years, irritation towards the Nixon tapes and Carters failures like in Iran were massive sore spots that needed healing. Reagan not only improved the economy but improved the PR. This set the stage for later years in government.
2001 signaled a new threat that was quickly exploited, it's a complex situation because it is a valid concern to a major extent, but it's been abused almost religiously. The TSA, NSA, and wiretapping scandals only serve as confirmation of this.
[QUOTE=Sally;41898964]How many journalists go out into a middle of a battle and not expect to get shot?[/QUOTE]
[I]Soldiers[/I] go into battlefields not expecting to get shot.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41900227]At first, [I]Soldiers[/I] go into battlefields not expecting to get shot.[/QUOTE]
FTFY.
The book version of "Band of Brothers" actually goes through how soldiers operate between time on the battlefield. It's very interesting. The first time they step on the battlefield, most well-trained soldiers are brimming with self-confidence and think that death is something that they won't have to deal with. After their first engagement, their opinions usually take a sharp 180, and they start to realize that any day on the battlefield could be their last.
That's one of the reasons why battlefield heroics are extremely rare. No one wants to get shot, and well trained men are told that heroics impede the objective more than anything. Combine that with the fact that, after their first engagement, most soldiers realize they're extremely vulnerable whenever they go out on the field, and it creates a situation where soldiers understand that battlefield duty is always a risky endeavor.
[QUOTE=a203xi;41898925]How many years do the soldiers who killed that journalist get?[/QUOTE]
An accident =/= consciously releasing secret documents.
They're making an example out of him.
Let it be down that if you commit a federal felony, your prison sentence will not be short.
I dont see anything wrong with 60 years. He leaked secret documents and now he has to do the time for it. No one likes being cheated on, especially the US. Hell, 60 years is the [I]minimum[/I] that he could serve with the max being 90.
Leaking document and endangering the lives of others is not the way to go if you want to reform a system. There are proper legal channels in place for things like this.
Gets sent to prison for doing the right thing......is this what society has come to?..
I never got a complete idea of what he actually leaked, media was always focusing on the person and not the message. [maybe intentionally]
I know the video of a T.V. News Crew was part of the leak, and that in itself was god awful for the government, but what else came out of the woodwork? Are there any top X lists out there?
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41900371]An accident =/= consciously releasing secret documents.[/QUOTE]
They were aiming for the journalists and were commenting on them during the slaughter. There was video footage.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;41900454]Leaking document and endangering the lives of others is not the way to go if you want to reform a system. There are proper legal channels in place for things like this.[/QUOTE]
He tried the "proper legal channels" by going to superior officers and was denied. Releasing it to the media was his only option. Also, the US government could not find a single incident where someone had come to harm from the information he leaked.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;41900454]Leaking document and endangering the lives of others is not the way to go if you want to reform a system. There are proper legal channels in place for things like this.[/QUOTE]
Going through 'legal channels' to air the government's dirty laundry is a great way to commit career suicide, or wind up dead or missing as is often the case.
In order for the government to be held accountable for its transgressions, it must be done without the government's influence, so that a truly impartial investigation into the matter can be made by those most affected by it. By inviting the government into any investigation that threatens its power, you risk the issue being swept under the rug and covered up, accomplishing nothing and putting those who dared to blow the whistle in mortal danger.
I always hear "The US government says..." But who exactly does that represent? The US lawyers, or the law makers, and if its the latter surely they all would have to democratically decide what to say. Would someone mind clearing this up for me?
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41901564]Going through 'legal channels' to air the government's dirty laundry is a great way to commit career suicide, or wind up dead or missing as is often the case.
In order for the government to be held accountable for its transgressions, it must be done without the government's influence, so that a truly impartial investigation into the matter can be made by those most affected by it. By inviting the government into any investigation that threatens its power, you risk the issue being swept under the rug and covered up, accomplishing nothing and putting those who dared to blow the whistle in mortal danger.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you're implying that violating the laws and regulations of a voluntarily joined federal organization isn't commiting career suicide either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.