Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 21 Aug '13 18:58
    MetalBrain, what law did he break?

    http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Manning-faces-sentencing-for-WikiLeaks-disclosures-4748357.php

    FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was sentenced Wednesday to 35 years in prison for giving hundreds of thousands of secret military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks in one of the biggest leak cases in the U.S. since the Pentagon Papers a generation ago.

    Flanked by his lawyers, Manning, 25, stood at attention in his dress uniform and showed no reaction as military judge Col. Denise Lind announced the punishment without explanation during a brief hearing.

    Among the spectators, there was a gasp, and one woman buried her face in her hands. Guards hurried Manning out of the courtroom as about a half-dozen supporters shouted from the back: "We'll keep fighting for you, Bradley!" and "You're our hero!"

    With good behavior and credit for the more than three years he has been held, Manning could be out in a little more than eight years.
  2. 21 Aug '13 19:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentence-birgitta-jonsdottir

    "Bradley Manning's sentence: 35 years for exposing us to the truth.
    There was never a fair trial--Obama decreed Manning's guilt in advance."
    --Birgitta Jonsdottir (21 August 2013)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-wikileaks-sentenced-35-years

    "History suggests Bradley Manning's punishment does not fit his crimes."
    --Adam Gabbatt (21 August 2013)

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentence-unjust

    "Bradley Manning: a sentence both unjust and unfair."
    --'The Guardian' editorial (21 August 2013)

    Obviously (sarcasm intended), according to US military justice, what
    Bradley Manning did was much worse and should be much more harshly
    punished than what American soldiers did when they murdered several
    hundred Vietnamese civilians (mostly women and children) at My Lai.

    Bradley Manning's a UK citizen as well as a US citizen, so it will be
    interesting to see to what extent there will be a UK-based campaign
    (I doubt that the UK government would get involved) for his early release.
    As I recall, some Welsh politicians earlier have expressed concern about
    his excessively harsh treatment by the US military authorities.
  3. 21 Aug '13 21:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentence-birgitta-jonsdottir

    "Bradley Manning's sentence: 35 years for exposing us to the truth.
    There was never a fair trial--Obama decreed Manning's guilt in advance."
    --Birgitta Jonsdottir (21 August 2013)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-wikileaks- ...[text shortened]... ssed concern about
    his excessively harsh treatment by the US military authorities.
    "Obviously (sarcasm intended), according to US military justice, what Bradley Manning did was much worse and should be much more harshly punished than what American soldiers did when they murdered several hundred Vietnamese civilians (mostly women and children) at My Lai." [emphasis added]

    The military side sentenced Calley to life at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth. It was the political side that commuted his sentence. The leniency was protested by Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense.
  4. 21 Aug '13 21:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    "Obviously (sarcasm intended), according to [b]US military justice, what Bradley Manning did was much worse and should be much more harshly punished than what American soldiers did when they murdered several hundred Vietnamese civilians (mostly women and children) at My Lai." [emphasis added]

    The military side sentenced Calley to life at hard labor at F ...[text shortened]... t commuted his sentence. The leniency was protested by Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense.[/b]
    While it might be expedient for a 'patriotic' American (JS357) to blame the
    My Lai Massacre and its cover-up completely upon only one man, Lt. Calley,
    in fact, many American soldiers participated in the mass rape, torture, and
    murder of Vietnamese civilians, and only a handful of them were ever even
    brought to trial under US military justice.
  5. 21 Aug '13 21:27 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    While it might be expedient for a 'patriotic' American (JS357) to blame the
    My Lai Massacre and its cover-up completely upon only one man, Lt. Calley,
    in fact, many American soldiers participated in the mass rape, torture, and
    murder of Vietnamese civilians, and only a handful of them were ever even
    brought to trial under US military justice.
    Your anti-US bias is showing.

    I never thought justice was served by sentencing only Calley. I lived near the place of the trial and we had people collecting candy bars of all things for his support. His commanding officers were complicit in the overall attitude that dehumanized the population and in the attempts to stifle inquiry. I was pointing out that the leniency shown to Calley came from the political side.

    In like Manner, Bradley becomes a sole individual. Wikileaks was involved. Scapegoating's not just the American way, it's the human way. But releasing so much information without filtering or even looking at it, is not excusable.
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    21 Aug '13 22:30
    Originally posted by moon1969
    MetalBrain, what law did he break?

    http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Manning-faces-sentencing-for-WikiLeaks-disclosures-4748357.php

    FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning was sentenced Wednesday to 35 years in prison for giving hundreds of thousands of secret military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks in one of the biggest l ...[text shortened]... ee years he has been held, Manning could be out in a little more than eight years.
    I'm not sure about what law he broke, but getting caught was not a bright move.
  7. 21 Aug '13 22:47
    Originally posted by JS357
    Your anti-US bias is showing.

    I never thought justice was served by sentencing only Calley. I lived near the place of the trial and we had people collecting candy bars of all things for his support. His commanding officers were complicit in the overall attitude that dehumanized the population and in the attempts to stifle inquiry. I was pointing out that th ...[text shortened]... . But releasing so much information without filtering or even looking at it, is not excusable.
    Given that you (JS357) seem to regard--you have denounced me before
    for allegedly being 'anti-American'--me daring to cite any *facts* about
    the many US war crimes or other forms of wrongdoing as 'anti-US bias',
    I am pleased to have made you feel slightly uncomfortable again.

    I watched a rather recent US television documentary, which interviewed
    several American veterans (none of whom had ever been put on trial) who
    had participated in the My Lai Massacre. The US television documentary
    treated all these Americans with great deference, never directing any
    critical questions toward their excuses and rationalizations for their actions.
    Most of these Americans still seemed to believe that they had done nothing
    seriously wrong and that they were being unfairly blamed for losing a war
    that became unpopular. The voices of the Vietnamese survivors were
    not heard--they might have made 'patriotic' Americans (like JS357) feel
    uncomfortable. The US television documentary seemed too one-sided.

    For further reading:

    _Four Hours in My Lai_ by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim

    _Kill Anything That Moves: The Real War in Vietnam_ by Nick Turse
  8. 21 Aug '13 23:56
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Given that you (JS357) seem to regard--you have denounced me before
    for allegedly being 'anti-American'--me daring to cite any *facts* about
    the many US war crimes or other forms of wrongdoing as 'anti-US bias',
    I am pleased to have made you feel slightly uncomfortable again.

    I watched a rather recent US television documentary, which interviewed
    s ...[text shortened]... Bilton and Kevin Sim

    _Kill Anything That Moves: The Real War in Vietnam_ by Nick Turse
    I have never "denounced" you. I believe you have an anti-US bias that colors your reaction to things.

    It is understandable that people will rationalize their behavior and in direct proportion to its heinousness. Example: Cheney.

    I spoke against the war and marched on that basis, after there were four dead in Ohio.
  9. 22 Aug '13 00:11
    Originally posted by JS357
    I have never "denounced" you. I believe you have an anti-US bias that colors your reaction to things.

    It is understandable that people will rationalize their behavior and in direct proportion to its heinousness. Example: Cheney.

    I spoke against the war and marched on that basis, after there were four dead in Ohio.
    I suspect that you (JS357) have an emotional attachment to perceiving the
    United States too much, though not always, though rose-coloured glasses.

    I understand that American veterans who raped, tortured, or murdered
    Vietnamese civilians at My Lai would prefer to rationalize their crimes,
    which would be made easier because there seems to be no significant
    stigma against them in the American public. (If an American admitted
    that he had taken part in the My Lai Massacre, many, if not most, other
    Americans would not think any worse of him.) But it's much less excusable
    for the US television documentary not to ask any critical questions and
    to ignore the contradictions in these Americans' self-serving narratives.
    How would Americans feel *if* there was a German television documentary
    that interviewed German veterans (including in the Waffen-SS) of the
    Second World War and never asked them any critical questions about
    whether they had any knowledge of or participation in war crimes?
    The US television documentary seemed like too much of a whitewash.
    But if that would help make you (JS357) feel more comfortable...

    When the US war(s) in Indochina began to claim too many lives of
    middle-class white Americans (like the four students at Kent State), most
    Americans began to wake up to the (selective) horrors of the war in ways
    that probably would not have happened *if only* millions of Indochinese
    were being killed by the United States.
  10. 22 Aug '13 00:58
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentence-birgitta-jonsdottir

    "Bradley Manning's sentence: 35 years for exposing us to the truth.
    There was never a fair trial--Obama decreed Manning's guilt in advance."
    --Birgitta Jonsdottir (21 August 2013)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-wikileaks- ...[text shortened]... ssed concern about
    his excessively harsh treatment by the US military authorities.
    Because justice was not served with My Lai means justice should not be served in the Manning case? Don't think so. Two wrongs would not make a right. Moreover, The Guardian does not hold some kind of moral high ground or all-knowing insight.
  11. 22 Aug '13 01:19
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Because justice was not served with My Lai means justice should not be served in the Manning case? Don't think so. Two wrongs would not make a right. Moreover, The Guardian does not hold some kind of moral high ground or all-knowing insight.
    With regard to his case, many people (including some Americans) have
    noted that Bradley Manning's punishment seems disproportionately harsh
    when compared to other Americans who have leaked information.

    Why do you (Moon1969) seem to believe it would be an outrageous
    miscarriage of justice if Bradley Manning was sentenced to less than
    35 years imprisonment? (Yes, I know it's possible, though not certain,
    that he could be released earlier.)
  12. 22 Aug '13 02:32
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    With regard to his case, many people (including some Americans) have
    noted that Bradley Manning's punishment seems disproportionately harsh
    when compared to other Americans who have leaked information.

    Why do you (Moon1969) seem to believe it would be an outrageous
    miscarriage of justice if Bradley Manning was sentenced to less than
    35 years imprisonment? (Yes, I know it's possible, though not certain,
    that he could be released earlier.)
    Hopefully other leakers and whistleblowers will take notice. There are legal ways to whistleblow.
  13. 22 Aug '13 04:55
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I suspect that you (JS357) have an emotional attachment to perceiving the
    United States too much, though not always, though rose-coloured glasses.

    I understand that American veterans who raped, tortured, or murdered
    Vietnamese civilians at My Lai would prefer to rationalize their crimes,
    which would be made easier because there seems to be no signifi ...[text shortened]... not have happened *if only* millions of Indochinese
    were being killed by the United States.
    Your indictment is registered.
  14. 22 Aug '13 21:43
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Hopefully other leakers and whistleblowers will take notice.
    There are legal ways to whistleblow.
    No government or any other powerful institution likes to be embarrassed,
    to say the least, by a 'whistleblower', and they usually do everything in
    their power to retaliate.

    In the case of Manning, it seems questionable that an extremely long
    sentence must have deterred him in the first place because his sense of
    judgment might have been influenced by preoccupation with another issue.

    "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel and have
    felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible.
    I hope you will support me in this transition."
    --Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning (22 August 2013)

    Fort Leavenworth military prison has stated that it will not offer Manning
    any support beyond psychiatric services. So perhaps Manning will become
    the focus of another legal battle over whether a person (a US citizen) has
    the fundamental right to change one's gender identity and to what extent
    that claimed right would obligate the state authorities to support it.

    Interestingly enough, Manning might receive more sympathetic consideration
    in Iran--of all places--where a prominent Islamic cleric has declared that
    changing one's gender identity is a fundamental human right and Iran's
    government has subsidized sex change operations for some Iranians.

    Given that Manning has been extremely unhappy in a male identity, I hope
    that she will find more self-acceptance and peace of mind in a new female
    identity as soon as she can.
  15. 22 Aug '13 22:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    No government or any other powerful institution likes to be embarrassed,
    to say the least, by a 'whistleblower', and they usually do everything in
    their power to retaliate.

    In the case of Manning, it seems questionable that an extremely long
    sentence must have deterred him in the first place because his sense of
    judgment might have been influenc ...[text shortened]... find more self-acceptance and peace of mind in a new female
    identity as soon as she can.
    "On 4th September 4 2012, the United States District Court made a landmark decision, ordering an inmate to be provided with a taxpayer-funded gender reassignment operation. "

    http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/transgender-prisoner-reassignment-rights.htm

    The Gender Centre is in Australia.