Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[clevergirl]

I thought manning released far more info than just war crimes though. In the manner that he released the information – en mass without regard to content – I can’t honestly say that I think he should have cover. He really was going for releasing war crimes then he would have selected the particular information and released just that. I have a feeling that he released information out of malice and if that is true then he deserves what he got. If he was blowing a whistle, then I would think differently.

Either way, I would prefer that these things be mandated to a civilian trial. there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest in these trials when a whistleblower is tried by the entity that they blew the whistle on. It I would be akin to having a company that you work for preside over your criminal trial for blowing the whistle on their practices that cost them millions. I cannot in good faith call the trial even remotely fair as long as the military takes care of whistleblower cases. I am really confused why no one has challenged that premise before now anyway. With all the whistleblower protection laws that are out there you would thing that something like that would be an obvious thing to cover.

He was not a "whistleblower". First and foremost a whistleblower goes through proper channels afforded to them.

 

[Katzndogz]

Manning was not a whistleblower. He was active duty military. He wasn't a contractor. He wasn't a civilian. He was a gay soldier who was angry because he was dumped by another gay soldier.

Let's here it for gays in the military! Can we get at least one Rah?

He didn't release information on war crimes, but troop movements and military strategy.

 

[deltex1]

Did he name himself Chelsea so he can get pardoned by his mommy?

 

[clevergirl]

A relatively short sentence, he will be eligible for parole in 8 years, will get him a tax funded sex change and all the male attention he can handle. He's settling in by demanding that he be called "Chelsea". He is expected to start hormone therapy shortly.

Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman* - TODAY.com

Coombs said he is "hoping" that Fort Leavenworth "would do the right thing" and provide hormone therapy for Manning. "If Fort Leavenworth does not, then I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure they are forced to do so

The Army denies that it will provide hormone replacement therapy but maybe they can be forced to do so.

Manning expects a presidential pardon.

OH GAWD...to hell in a hand-basket~

 

[Amelia]

Manning was not a whistleblower. He was active duty military. He wasn't a contractor. He wasn't a civilian. He was a gay soldier who was angry because he was dumped by another gay soldier.

Let's here it for gays in the military! Can we get at least one Rah?

He didn't release information on war crimes, but troop movements and military strategy.

Now that gays don't have to hide, maybe people like Manning can get help before they go off the deep end. And maybe not as many will be pushed to the deep end because hiding won't feed latent paranoia.

Why didn't he trip any psychological tests which would have prevented him from having his hands on sensitive material?

I'm glad about the sentence he got. A long time but he can get out before he's an old man. In the meantime, hopefully the military and NSA will get their act together about who they let have access to vital information.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Either way, I would prefer that these things be mandated to a civilian trial. there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest in these trials when a whistleblower is tried by the entity that they blew the whistle on..."

Disagree.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with your concern over conflict of interest.

But the interests of the nation and the service must remain paramount, and it is in the best interests of the nation to continue to maintain a separate justice system for its armed forces.

When you enter the US Military, you agree to be governed by the U(niform) C(ode) of M(ilitary) J(ustice).

He acquired that documentation under the aegis of the UCMJ...

He released that documentation into the wild under the aegis of the UCMJ...

Consequently, the venue for his trial was a military courts martial, under the aegis of the UCMJ...

There are time-tested and good and true reasons why the Military has its own justice system...

And NO case... NO case... is important enough to set aside the separate military justice system nor important enough to set-down precedents and exceptions which might lead to the abolishment or fatal weakening of a separate military justice system...

Rightly or wrongly, I firmly believe that a properly functioning and separate justice system for our military personnel is an essential element in our nation's ability to cultivate and project military power when needed...

Rightly or wrongly, well-intentioned or otherwise, the brutal truth is, Manning broke the faith... he breached security... he violated the UCMJ in a great and varied number of ways...

And now it's time for him to pay the price for that breach of faith...

What was that old theme-song line from the 1970s TV show Baretta, as sung by Sammy Davis, Jr.?...

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... no, no... don't do it!"

Manning knew what he was doing.

He made his choice.

Choices have consequences.

And sometimes, you just can't escape those consequences, no matter how hard you wiggle and twist and squirm on the hook.

The venue for Manning's trial was correct.

I'm not as certain about the verdict, but I'm guessing that somebody or another up-and-down the Military Food Chain probably arranged for him to get off with a lighter sentence than the hardliners might have served-up without some outside restraint.

If this were true war-time... ala WWII... he would be getting measured for a coffin right about now.

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Was he competent to judge if-and-how-and-when that duty conflicted with his obligations under the UCMJ?

Or was he a naive, gender-confused and pliant little twerp who was easily cajoled and manipulated by higher-order minds, to do something in the name of The People, when, in truth, it was merely to advance the agenda of a third-party?

I really don't know... but all these things are possible.

Apparently, regardless, none of that signified, to a Military Courts Martial.

Perhaps, in the context of the US Military Justice System, none of that should have signified, and a correct verdict was returned.

Or not.

 

[Vox]

I've been curious about something. Some people claim Manning had a duty to bring to light what he saw as abuses by the military -- and he did indeed have that duty.

What these same people are unable to explain is why giving his information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization was part of that duty, as opposed to going through well-established channels.

Anyone like to give that a shot?

money, I suspect. He definitely knows that Assange is very well to be off his project.

 

[dblack]

I've been curious about something. Some people claim Manning had a duty to bring to light what he saw as abuses by the military -- and he did indeed have that duty.

What these same people are unable to explain is why giving his information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization was part of that duty, as opposed to going through well-established channels.

Anyone like to give that a shot?

Sure. I'd guess it's because he concluded that such abuses were being systematically covered up by just such "well-established channels".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Did Manning have an obligation to fulfill his oath to uphold the constitution? Were the crimes he exposed made legal after his conviction of exposing them? Is there any accountability being exacted from the crimes he exposed?

The last i checked, exposing crimes isn't against the law. And our military details allegiance is to the US constitution, not the bureaucracy of military compartmentalization on its crimes classified so that no accountability needs to take place. Which is exactly what was done. Is being done, and will continue to be done by government/military personel.

These people are not above the principles of the nation. They do not have any right to commit crimes and then secretly hide them in classified fields away from public scrutiny. This applies to all government agencies. There is no punishment fitting for Manning. Because he's not the one who should have been on trial here. The people he exposed, however, should be on trial.

Forget about philisophically. That is simply the law and common sense.

 

[FA_Q2]

Manning was not a whistleblower. He was active duty military. He wasn't a contractor. He wasn't a civilian. He was a gay soldier who was angry because he was dumped by another gay soldier.

Let's here it for gays in the military! Can we get at least one Rah?

He didn't release information on war crimes, but troop movements and military strategy.

I happen to agree in this case but that does not change much of what I said. His status though is meaningless to me. Active or civilian is not the point.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought manning released far more info than just war crimes though. In the manner that he released the information – en mass without regard to content – I can’t honestly say that I think he should have cover. He really was going for releasing war crimes then he would have selected the particular information and released just that. I have a feeling that he released information out of malice and if that is true then he deserves what he got. If he was blowing a whistle, then I would think differently.

Either way, I would prefer that these things be mandated to a civilian trial. there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest in these trials when a whistleblower is tried by the entity that they blew the whistle on. It I would be akin to having a company that you work for preside over your criminal trial for blowing the whistle on their practices that cost them millions. I cannot in good faith call the trial even remotely fair as long as the military takes care of whistleblower cases. I am really confused why no one has challenged that premise before now anyway. With all the whistleblower protection laws that are out there you would thing that something like that would be an obvious thing to cover.

He was not a "whistleblower". First and foremost a whistleblower goes through proper channels afforded to them.

No, proper channels are pointless for military members who are ignored. He should have utilized those first as Snowden claims to have done and to be honest, I am not really sure if he did not. I can tell you though that the reality here is that ‘official’ channels will simply ignore him. What avenues do you use when those that are given to you fail?

Then you go to the public. Again, my problem is that he did not release war crimes afaik. He didn’t target anything. He simply let it all go. That says to me that he had no intention of outing war crimes but rather was getting even with the military. As such, I think that he deserves the sentence. IF I thought he was trying to expose war crimes though, I would disagree with the sentencing.

 

[Vox]

Manning was not a whistleblower. He was active duty military. He wasn't a contractor. He wasn't a civilian. He was a gay soldier who was angry because he was dumped by another gay soldier.

Let's here it for gays in the military! Can we get at least one Rah?

He didn't release information on war crimes, but troop movements and military strategy.

I happen to agree in this case but that does not change much of what I said. His status though is meaningless to me. Active or civilian is not the point.

it does give an idea on the possible motives, which are very far from honorable

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet no accountability for the exposed war crimes. We simply shot the messenger and went back to business as usual. I think that really says it all.

 

[Pete7469]

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Did Manning have an obligation to fulfill his oath to uphold the constitution? Were the crimes he exposed made legal after his conviction of exposing them? Is there any accountability being exacted from the crimes he exposed?

The last i checked, exposing crimes isn't against the law. And our military details allegiance is to the US constitution, not the bureaucracy of military compartmentalization on its crimes classified so that no accountability needs to take place. Which is exactly what was done. Is being done, and will continue to be done by government/military personel.

These people are not above the principles of the nation. They do not have any right to commit crimes and then secretly hide them in classified fields away from public scrutiny. This applies to all government agencies. There is no punishment fitting for Manning. Because he's not the one who should have been on trial here. The people he exposed, however, should be on trial.

Forget about philisophically. That is simply the law and common sense.

What manning released wasn't limited to war crimes, if there was anything at all about war crimes anyway. manning released sensitive data without regard to it's content, who it could harm or what consequenses his actions could have. He released it to a leftist agitator who eagerly used the information to embarrass the country. He didn't do it out of a sense of justice, to right a wrong, or "expose" criminals.

He did it out of malice. He was bitter about not being allowed to announce his love for cock while in the military. They should have dragged him out of court and blown his ******* brains out.

 

[FA_Q2]

"...Either way, I would prefer that these things be mandated to a civilian trial. there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest in these trials when a whistleblower is tried by the entity that they blew the whistle on..."

Disagree.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with your concern over conflict of interest.

But the interests of the nation and the service must remain paramount, and it is in the best interests of the nation to continue to maintain a separate justice system for its armed forces.

When you enter the US Military, you agree to be governed by the U(niform) C(ode) of M(ilitary) J(ustice).

He acquired that documentation under the aegis of the UCMJ...

He released that documentation into the wild under the aegis of the UCMJ...

Consequently, the venue for his trial was a military courts martial, under the aegis of the UCMJ...

There are time-tested and good and true reasons why the Military has its own justice system...

And NO case... NO case... is important enough to set aside the separate military justice system nor important enough to set-down precedents and exceptions which might lead to the abolishment or fatal weakening of a separate military justice system...

Rightly or wrongly, I firmly believe that a properly functioning and separate justice system for our military personnel is an essential element in our nation's ability to cultivate and project military power when needed...

Rightly or wrongly, well-intentioned or otherwise, the brutal truth is, Manning broke the faith... he breached security... he violated the UCMJ in a great and varied number of ways...

And now it's time for him to pay the price for that breach of faith...

What was that old theme-song line from the 1970s TV show Baretta, as sung by Sammy Davis, Jr.?...

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... no, no... don't do it!"

Manning knew what he was doing.

He made his choice.

Choices have consequences.

And sometimes, you just can't escape those consequences, no matter how hard you wiggle and twist and squirm on the hook.

The venue for Manning's trial was correct.

I'm not as certain about the verdict, but I'm guessing that somebody or another up-and-down the Military Food Chain probably arranged for him to get off with a lighter sentence than the hardliners might have served-up without some outside restraint.

If this were true war-time... ala WWII... he would be getting measured for a coffin right about now.

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Was he competent to judge if-and-how-and-when that duty conflicted with his obligations under the UCMJ?

Or was he a naive, gender-confused and pliant little twerp who was easily cajoled and manipulated by higher-order minds, to do something in the name of The People, when, in truth, it was merely to advance the agenda of a third-party?

I really don't know... but all these things are possible.

Apparently, regardless, none of that signified, to a Military Courts Martial.

Perhaps, in the context of the US Military Justice System, none of that should have signified, and a correct verdict was returned.

Or not.

With that outlook though there is NOTHING checking the military. IOW, there would be absolutely no way of checking a system that classifies any crimes that it commits. I believe whole heartedly that there are indeed crimes that are so bad that the military justice system should be placed aside for a conflict of interest. The best example I can find is the NSA spying program.

That is a case of the US government literally attacking the rights of its citizens. If the military is perpetuating a program like that then it is intrinsic in the members oath to protect the constitution and I don’t think that we should discourage that by allowing the military to lynch anyone that has the audacity to dissent and uphold that oath.

 

[Vox]

No, proper channels are pointless for military members who are ignored. He should have utilized those first as Snowden claims to have done and to be honest, I am not really sure if he did not. I can tell you though that the reality here is that ‘official’ channels will simply ignore him. What avenues do you use when those that are given to you fail?

Then you go to the public. Again, my problem is that he did not release war crimes afaik. He didn’t target anything. He simply let it all go. That says to me that he had no intention of outing war crimes but rather was getting even with the military. As such, I think that he deserves the sentence. IF I thought he was trying to expose war crimes though, I would disagree with the sentencing.

it certainly looks like it.

 

[Vox]

And yet no accountability for the exposed war crimes. We simply shot the messenger and went back to business as usual. I think that really says it all.

there were NO EXPOSED WAR CRIMES. duh

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I figured 5-10 was about right for what he did. He's eligible for parole after 10 years and I expect the sentence will be reduced on appeal.

Soldiers are a special case. The chain of command has to work.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Did Manning have an obligation to fulfill his oath to uphold the constitution? Were the crimes he exposed made legal after his conviction of exposing them? Is there any accountability being exacted from the crimes he exposed?

The last i checked, exposing crimes isn't against the law. And our military details allegiance is to the US constitution, not the bureaucracy of military compartmentalization on its crimes classified so that no accountability needs to take place. Which is exactly what was done. Is being done, and will continue to be done by government/military personel.

These people are not above the principles of the nation. They do not have any right to commit crimes and then secretly hide them in classified fields away from public scrutiny. This applies to all government agencies. There is no punishment fitting for Manning. Because he's not the one who should have been on trial here. The people he exposed, however, should be on trial.

Forget about philisophically. That is simply the law and common sense.

What manning released wasn't limited to war crimes, if there was anything at all about war crimes anyway. manning released sensitive data without regard to it's content, who it could harm or what consequenses his actions could have. He released it to a leftist agitator who eagerly used the information to embarrass the country. He didn't do it out of a sense of justice, to right a wrong, or "expose" criminals.

He did it out of malice. He was bitter about not being allowed to announce his love for cock while in the military. They should have dragged him out of court and blown his ******* brains out.

You can not prove his motives. Reagrdless of that fact, the FACT is, there were war crimes that were exposed. Apparently you havent been paying attention to anything regarding this topic besides the smearing and shooting of the messenger.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet no accountability for the exposed war crimes. We simply shot the messenger and went back to business as usual. I think that really says it all.

there were NO EXPOSED WAR CRIMES. duh

Yes, there were, duh. Another one too busy waiting to get his licks on the messenger to bother seeing the crimes exposed.