Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 11:52 PM Aug 2013

NYTimes Editorial: Bradley Manning’s Excessive Sentence

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: August 21, 2013

The 35-year sentence a military judge imposed on Pfc. Bradley Manning Wednesday morning was in some sense a vindication of his defense: following his conviction last month on charges of violating the Espionage Act, Private Manning faced up to 90 years in prison. He had previously pleaded guilty to lesser versions of those crimes that exposed him to 20 years behind bars. For a defense lawyer, a sentence of one-third the potential maximum is usually not a bad outcome. But from where we sit, it is still too much, given his stated desire not to betray his country but to encourage debate on American aims and shed light on the “day to day” realities of the American war effort.

Certainly, Private Manning faced punishment.

In providing more than 700,000 government files to WikiLeaks — extensive excerpts of which were published in The New York Times and other publications — he broke the law and breached his responsibility as a military intelligence analyst to protect those files. It was by far the biggest leak of classified documents in U.S. history, and thus it is not surprising that the punishment would be the longest ever on record for leaking such information.

But 35 years is far too long a sentence by any standard. In more than two weeks of hearings, government lawyers presented vague and largely speculative claims that Private Manning’s leaks had endangered lives and “chilled” diplomatic relations. On the other hand, much of what Private Manning released was of public value, including a video of a military helicopter shooting at two vans and killing civilians, including two Reuters journalists. By comparison, First Lt. Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years for the 2008 killing of an unarmed Iraqi man who was being questioned about suspected terrorist activities. Lieutenant Behenna’s sentence has since been cut to 15 years. Private Manning has already been held for more than three years, nine months of which were in solitary confinement. It is some comfort that he has several opportunities to avoid serving out his full term — including a sentence reduction by a military appeals court; the possibility of parole, for which he will be eligible in about eight years; or a grant of clemency by a board that considers requests from service members.

Army Col. Denise R. Lind, the judge who sentenced Private Manning, also reduced his rank to the lowest in the military and dishonorably discharged him. Those are appropriate punishments. But the larger issue, which is not resolved by Private Manning’s sentencing, is the federal government’s addiction to secrecy and what it will do when faced with future leaks, an inevitability when 92 million documents are classified in a year and more than 4 million Americans have security clearance.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/bradley-mannings-sentence-is-excessive.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

snappyturtle

(14,656 posts)
1. I hope Denise Lind has difficulty sleeping for the next
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 12:21 AM
Aug 2013

35 years. I know that is mean but it's how I feel tonight.

Hokie

(4,288 posts)
2. Lind is a good and fair Judge
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 12:34 AM
Aug 2013

I followed her rulings during the Terry Lakin court martial trial. I have the utmost respect for her. Manning had no idea what was in all the stuff he leaked. The military cannot operate if every solider can decide when to disobey regulations on their own. I think Lakin was a despicable coward and I have not much more respect for Manning. Both sentences were in line with the gravity of the crimes and in the middle of the range of what could have been given. In Lakin's case sentence was imposed by the members instead of Judge Lind.

snappyturtle

(14,656 posts)
3. I have no knowledge of the other case which has no bearing
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 12:38 AM
Aug 2013

on Manning's. I thought Nuremberg taught us something about
following orders.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
4. If some had their way we wouldn't know anything the gov't doesn't want us to know.
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 02:01 AM
Aug 2013

We wouldn't be talking about any of this because we'd be ignorant.
We'd have no idea that there are ethical questions regarding a world power deciding that it's a global police state.
We'd have no idea that a "global police state" requires the identical "policing" must be most rigorously enforced in the "homeland" or "fatherland".
We'd be as clueless as they want us to be.

Hokie

(4,288 posts)
6. Lakin was the crazy Birther LTC who questioned President Obama's legitimacy to issue orders
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 07:53 AM
Aug 2013

Former LTC Terry Lakin was a doctor who refused to deploy to Afghanistan until he had seen Obama's long form birth certificate. He was charged and tried for missing a movement. Judge Lind presided over that court martial and kept Lakin from turning it in to a Birther circus.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»NYTimes Editorial: Bradl...