Bradley Manning sentence

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Yep...no matter how you slice it, indiscriminately putting 3/4 of a million classified documents online without knowing what was in them or how bad they could be for national security was unforgivable.
Especially since he didn't do it out of some sort of crisis of conscience like he did the attack helicopter video, he just did it to be a dick.

Thanks for the in depth analysis, prove he did not know the consequences and you may have a point.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well if information that could result in physical harm to friendly forces was not designated as top secret then Manning was the last link in a chain of bad decisions, the guy would have known His own clearance level and it is a stretch to say that He could not have known the consequences to His fellow servicemen and women, everything Manning revealed was hi ...[text shortened]... rassment suffered by not very nice people in not very nice governments including the Whitehouse.

Manning had a Top Secret (CSI) clearance, which is as high as you can get.

By doctrine materials that can do "serious" harm to should be marked Secret. For top secret the criterial is "grave" harm.

What Manning excuse are you going to give now?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No one is disputing that Manning broke His obligation to the military machine He voluntarily became a part of, the question is 136 years too much for a man who claims He broke that obligation as a matter of conscience.

I could be wrong but haven't there been whistleblower's surrounding the Govts actions concerning a dead diplomat in Lybia?

As a matter of conscience? The toolbag leaked 750,000 documents he couldn't possibly have even read. What is with people thinking that woman beater is some paragon of virtue?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
As a matter of conscience? The toolbag leaked 750,000 documents he couldn't possibly have even read. What is with people thinking that woman beater is some paragon of virtue?

I don't remember saying Manning was a paragon of virtue or that he doesn't deserve to go to prison, I would like to see some of the child and woman murdering scum flying US gunships to serve some time, of course some people will come up with some excuses about the fog of war and collateral damage.

But the question is would 136yrs for Bradley Manning, who never killed, or caused anyone to be killed, be too much. I think the answers may illuminate the degree to which absolute morality takes second place to 'My country right or wrong'

Also what about a theoretical whistleblower who informed their nations citizens that their government was responsible for the killing of it's own citizens under the auspices of national security

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I don't remember saying Manning was a paragon of virtue or that he doesn't deserve to go to prison, I would like to see some of the child and woman murdering scum flying US gunships to serve some time, of course some people will come up with some excuses about the fog of war and collateral damage.

But the question is would 136yrs for Bradley Manning, who ...[text shortened]... as responsible for the killing of it's own citizens under the auspices of national security

How I hate the false analogies you people come up with.
Reminds me of an episode of "Cops" where a burglar was caught red handed then tried to justify his crime by exclaiming "oh youz be arrestin' me while other peeples be doin' ral bad sheeit".

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I don't remember saying Manning was a paragon of virtue or that he doesn't deserve to go to prison, I would like to see some of the child and woman murdering scum flying US gunships to serve some time, of course some people will come up with some excuses about the fog of war and collateral damage.

But the question is would 136yrs for Bradley Manning, who ...[text shortened]... as responsible for the killing of it's own citizens under the auspices of national security

I'm one of those people who will talk about collateral damage, which isn't a crime, but if we start getting into that then the thread will get way off topic.

Also, it would be impossible to know if anyone got killed as a result of the leak.

Espionage is a very serious crime and it should be punished harshly.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No one is disputing that Manning broke His obligation to the military machine He voluntarily became a part of, the question is 136 years too much for a man who claims He broke that obligation as a matter of conscience.

I could be wrong but haven't there been whistleblower's surrounding the Govts actions concerning a dead diplomat in Lybia?

136 years is an irrelevant statutory maximum and thus a red herring. The media loves to talk about "maximum sentences" as if they're really possibilities. If a person tells 12 lies in a confidence scheme, that could theoretically make him eligible for 60 years (5 years for each fraud). Obviously, that's not going to happen; just as Manning is obviously not getting 136 years, or even 36.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I'm one of those people who will talk about collateral damage, which isn't a crime, but if we start getting into that then the thread will get way off topic.

Also, it would be impossible to know if anyone got killed as a result of the leak.

Espionage is a very serious crime and it should be punished harshly.

I think most people see Manning as a whistleblower as opposed to someone involved in classic espionage, but my problem is the very people, ie 'The People' are the ones calling for a harsh sentence for people who inform them about what the government is doing, now I can see why the govt might want deter whistleblowers but are The People not 'cutting their nose off to spite their face'.

We are talking about a democracy which requires active decision making on the part of The People but an uninformed decision is no decision at all.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
How I hate the false analogies you people come up with.
Reminds me of an episode of "Cops" where a burglar was caught red handed then tried to justify his crime by exclaiming "oh youz be arrestin' me while other peeples be doin' ral bad sheeit".

To be fair you hate a lot of stuff.🙂

Originally posted by sh76
136 years is an irrelevant statutory maximum and thus a red herring. The media loves to talk about "maximum sentences" as if they're really possibilities. If a person tells 12 lies in a confidence scheme, that could theoretically make him eligible for 60 years (5 years for each fraud). Obviously, that's not going to happen; just as Manning is obviously not getting 136 years, or even 36.

So as someone who thinks He is a traitor and a dick, what would you like to see Manning get?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So as someone who thinks He is a traitor and a dick, what would you like to see Manning get?

Personally I'd like to see him get 20+

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think most people see Manning as a whistleblower as opposed to someone involved in classic espionage, but my problem is the very people, ie 'The People' are the ones calling for a harsh sentence for people who inform them about what the government is doing, now I can see why the govt might want deter whistleblowers but are The People not 'cutting their no ...[text shortened]... decision making on the part of The People but an uninformed decision is no decision at all.

I don't care what "most people" consider him.

The people don't need to be informed of everything, and shouldn't be.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

He also said:

"As a result of the Afghan logs I know of one individual killed – an Afghan national who had a relationship with the US government and the Taliban came out and said publicly that they had killed him as a result of him being associated with information in these logs," Carr said.

So Bradley Manning has 'blood on his hands'.

But he doesn't matter because he's not an American, right?

Also, it would be incredibly difficult to prove a direct correlation to American deaths. Getting inside information on how Americans conduct their operations, the ROE, etc. is certainly beneficial to them. But even as the Taliban adjusts their operations accordingly the causation is next to impossible to prove. What you're looking for a direct tit-for tat "this specific guy was killed" and I'm looking at things from a much broader, more nuanced point of view.