Slashdot Mirror


Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

An anonymous reader writes with bad, but not unexpected news: "The U.S. soldier convicted of handing a trove of secret government documents to anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks has been sentenced to 35 years in prison. Pte First Class Bradley Manning, 25, was convicted in July of 20 charges against him, including espionage. Last week, he apologized for hurting the U.S. and for 'the unexpected results' of his actions. He will receive credit for three and a half years, but be dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army."

41 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a legitimate secret. It's a coverup of war crime. They are not the same thing.

    1. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a legitimate secret. It's a coverup of war crime. They are not the same thing.

      Manning released over 10,000 documents. Are you sure he read them all and confirmed that every single of the 10,000 documents contained evidence of a war crime and made sure that the release would not help the enemy?

      Don't get me wrong, if he read and verified every document he sent out, fine. That's not the case here.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's right. If the NSA wants to know who posted that comment, they will know.

      AC is fine to hide your identity from your fellow posters. If you think AC hides you from the Lidless Eye, you're fooling yourself.

      On the bright side, I don't think we have a thing to fear from the NSA. It's the other TLAs you need to worry about.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether Bradley Manning deserves to be punished is something reasonable people can disagree about. What reasonable people cannot disagree about is that those responsible for the crimes he did expose deserve to be punished.

      No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Manning.
      No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Snowden.
      No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Kiriakou.
      No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Binney.
      No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Drake.

      All these people reported on crimes committed by the government and government officials. Crimes ranging from fraud, to wiretapping, to murder. In none of these cases have any of the true criminals been tried, and in every one of these cases the whistleblowers have been the subject of harassment by the government, or worse.

      If you're going to fall back on the "it's the law" excuse for prosecuting whistleblowers, you have to apply the law to everyone. Anything else is despotism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Manning."
      what crimes?
      "No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Snowden."
      it's on going, and he uncovered very few crimes.
      Asking a company for documents is not a crime.
      Keeping warrant secret for an investigation is not a crime.
      As a culture we haven't even decided if information sent though multiple servers around the globe IS private.

      You can repeat what you here in your echo chamber, that doesn't make it true.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You overestimate our protection of State secrets. You would be shocked to find out how poorly-managed access to these kinds of resources is. That breaches of this magnitude are so rare, honestly, speaks more to how overblown some of these accusations are, rather than to the security tasked with protecting the data.

    6. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prison. Death.

      The NSA has no agents and no guns. Just information.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Manning."
      what crimes?

      Torture, bribery of foreign officials, child sex trafficking.

      "No one has been tried for the crimes uncovered by Snowden."
      it's on going, and he uncovered very few crimes.
      Asking a company for documents is not a crime.
      Keeping warrant secret for an investigation is not a crime.

      Eavesdropping without probable cause is a crime. Issuing warrants that do not specifically describe the places to be searched or things to be seized is a crime. The NSA cannot even abide by the unconstitutionally lax privacy rules it sets for itself, breaking those rules over 2000 times per year. Every one of those overreaches is a violation of the CFAA, those NSA analysts deserve the same treatment Aaron Swartz got.

      As a culture we haven't even decided if information sent though multiple servers around the globe IS private.

      Somehow it's private when one individual reads the emails of Sarah Palin, but when the NSA reads all of our emails it's not private anymore?

      You can repeat what you here in your echo chamber, that doesn't make it true.

      The echo chamber is within the US government. Espionage against US citizens is forbidden by the constitution. That the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have all conspired against the American people to ignore the constitution doesn't change that fact.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by zarthrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they can pass that information to those other agencies that do. "Parallel construction" is their weapon against the masses.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    9. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Torture was in fact illegal. It was just approved by the government.

    10. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal.

      Yes it was. The US is signatory of several treaties saying so, and that makes it the "law of the land" according to the Constitution. We executed Japanese and Germans in 1945 for doing the same things that you are saying we don't consider illegal.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His disclosure was not indiscriminate. He gave it to journalists who were trusted to only publish parts that it was reasonable to publish.

      It's not a perfect situation, but when the US decides to cover things up what other option is there? Hand it to the military police and hope they arrest the generals responsible? What about the politicians involved?

      There is no evidence at showing harm to anyone, other than the reputation damage done to the US. You can be damn sure that if there were they would have charged him with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Soviet Russia is your benchmark for good practice in government, then fair enough.

    13. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you had so much access, then why is Bradley Manning the only one who did the right thing with that access?

      In no uncertain terms, as far as I am concerned, the only people who ere betrayed were the American people's enemies. The enemies who take our money with lies of necessity, and then turn around and use it for their wars, even lieing to us about the purpose of those wars.

      He is a hero, and this sentence only makes it more so, and sets him apart from everyone else who works for these traitors.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mistakes are forgiveable. The scandal is that war crimes are US policy. Torture is US policy. We suspected it but thanks to Manning we have proof.

      No-one expects perfection from the US, they just expect it to at least try to act lawfully. Not just under US law, but international law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone forgets the minor detail that Manning dumped everything to Wikileaks, not the internet, and Wikileaks repeatedly asked for help from the US Govt to redact and vet for safety the documents, and the US Govt refused.

      Then the Guardian's reporters revealed documents, and Domscheit-Berg betrayed Wikileaks and then, after everything was already out in the open, Wikileaks dumped the unredacted cables.

      And then, maybe, some Afghan informants died.

      While all the time you forget that had there been no fabricated war in Iraq, had Manning's chiefs just listened to his repeated requests to be sent home, he would not have even been able to see those documents, let alone dump them.

      So for your own mistakes in strategy, and to divert attention from your own crimes, you sentence a sincere young whistleblower soldier, who does the right thing - as he is taught as being the American way - you sentence him to 35 years after 3 years in torture - solitary, sleep deprivation, waterboarding and everything else you can try without permanently damaging him in an obvious way.

      And there are idiots out here who sound informed while defending this continuing travesty of justice.

    16. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan the recent actions of our government (recent being, depressingly, the last 40 years or so), and I am in favor of transparency, whistle-blowing, and calling out our government on its bad behavior. I also think Manning did a good thing, though I also feel his actions should have consiquences since he did still break the law, laws that at least partially these days, exists for a very good reason (some secrecy will always be necessary, especially about military matters and intel).

      That said; Manning didn't reveal any war crimes. Embarrassing information, sure. Even ethical breaches by soldiers, or perhaps even their commanders... but no war crimes. I'm pretty mixed in my feeling on him, to be honest. I support his actions, but they might not spring from noble goals, even if they met noble ends. It seems they sprung from his angst arrising from his conflicted sexuality, and the abuse and threat surrounding it in his environment (the DADT military), coupled with dealing with some unscrupulous characters (Assange)... Snowden is a better example of a noble leaker, further Snowden is very careful with his information.. Where Manning handed it over whole-hog. Again, I still support him. And I find that this sentence is a bit obscene, since nothing terribly dangerous got out, and there were no consiquences from his leak. No one got demonstrably hurt (not even, sadly, the government).

      Me supporting consequences for him isn't me being against his actions, btw. The same went for other peaceful protesters of the civil rights era, and of followers of Ghandi when they were throwing off British colonialism. People participating in sit-ins and protests expected arrest and potential abuse. This is what made them noble. This gave their actions more meaning, than if there were no consequences for these actions.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    17. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We don't do X because it is bad and wrong. Is is BAD. It is WRONG. Whoever does it must be condemned."

      "OK, we did X, but at least we admitted it"

      "OK, we sort of didn't tell the whole truth, but at least now it's out there"

      "OK, we actually shot the messenger, but hey look, just look at this loser. Country Y is worse than us, they did bad things before. Like 30 years ago."

      "OK, Country Y may not be doing that now, I mean, what we did even makes them look good in comparison. But, you know, they're really the Bad Guys, trust us. We even made a dozen movies about how bad they are."

      "OK, the whole world disagrees. So what? They are all against freedom and democracy. They are all terrorists. We are the good guys. All the good guys are on our side. It's not like the other side matter anyway. What can they do about it? We'll just invade whoever dares stand up against us. IN YOUR FACE LOSERS!!"

    18. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Giving little boys over to Afghan warlords to be raped is just the "way to get things get done over there" and should be an acceptable action to take, with US tax dollars no less? Well...shit man... <:-(

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your personal reading of the 4th amendment is neat and all, but the SCOTUS' reading is the one that matters, legally, and those guys are nothing if not creative. We're in a sorry situation, to be sure, but "plain reading" of the constitution is grounds only for moral outrage, not claims of illegality.

      And anyhow, the 4th isn't a law. Laws are made by congress, and stand unless a particular law is not to the personal taste of enough of the SCOTUS. I'd bet the NSA, for example, was in fact strictly following the laws (especially the secret ones!). I hope those laws make it in front of the SCOTUS soon, because they seem quite keen on following popular opinion these days and might overturn a few of them, but that has little to do with whether e.g. the NSA is following the law as written.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The NSA uses automated scanners to read every e-mail that passes through one of their scanning points (that they have points at all connections outside the US is confirmed) and save the ones that match certain criteria. An agent isn't reading them, but the NSA is scanning the contents. Further, the NSA defines what the filter criteria are, and can change them at any time without oversight. The NSA claims to typically save only metadata (sender, recipient, time sent, size, etc,) but with their history of lying one would be foolish to trust these claims.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    21. Re:When a secret is a criminal act, it's evidence. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm quite certain I have read those books and more.

      The Battle of Trenton took place on the morning of December 26, 1776. It was not fought at night. Most attacks in that time period (or even today) are fought around dawn. All that happened at night was an unexpected movement into position. But you are talking about tactics, not conventions. Night attacks were most certainly possible, they just were not very practical for large armies in the 18th Century. Indeed, they still aren't practical without a lot of night fighting gear even today.

      As for the lining up aspect, that wasn't a "fairness" thing, that was because muskets were smoothbore weapons that only came into their own when fired in volleys. If volleys were not being fired, they would go to bayonets and melee. Rifles were too expensive and slow to load to put in the normal soldier's hands. The American irregulars happened to have them because they were often hunters who had a lot of experience with them, and they'd fight from cover because, again, they had no training and their rifles loaded too slowly to go toe to toe. These were not regular Continental troops, they were at best militia.

      So yes, there were riflemen in the bushes, but Continental Army fought in lines, and they really weren't all that successful against the British in pitched battles until they learned their drill in line formation. The Continential regulars were mostly equipped with the British standard Brown Bess musket and would have fired in line, because they had to. That's why we really liked von Steuben, he got the army up to fighting form at Valley Forge. The bush fighting was just that, out in the bush. We would have never won the war is that is all we ever did. The fighting at Yorktown, Saratoga, Cowpens and Trenton were all in fairly normal line order set piece battles with perhaps some American features.

      As for pay or starvation, starving troops doesn't make you less of an army, it just means your supplies are deficient or cut off.

      Compare to the "insurgency" and you are trying to compare the fighting style on the very fringes of the Revolution with how the insurgents are going up against regular troops. Washington and his troops were as uniformed as they could be and in as good an order as you would expect from an ad hoc army. Where uniforms did not exist, marks of rank and unit were contrived. As the war went on, all of that was normalized as best as it could be. More to the point, they were always operated as an actual army with a complete organization and rules of war. As in most wars, things happened on the edges between irregulars like militia, Tories, and Indians, but that was not major operations of the rebels.

  2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reporting on war crimes should be considered a service to his country.

  3. Justice Has Been Served? by Apharmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, and a whole line of people that authorized or performed torture remain free. People who murdered innocent civilians and laughed about it, free. It's all a big joke.

    1. Re:Justice Has Been Served? by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never understand why people leave the current Obama administration out of these lists. He has taken what Bush did further than Bush ever dreamed (which is normal. The next president usually adds to their power/abuse instead of reducing it.)

  4. Twisted "Justice" by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    William Calley, the officer in charge of the My Lai massacre (murder of 304 civilians) server 3 1/2 years house arrest.

    Bradley Manning has been sentenced to 35 years, and must server 1/3 to get parole which they will of course deny him.

    President Obama authorized the killing of Americans without trial, something illegal under the very rules of the U.S. (constitution)

    One of those Americans killed was a 16 YEAR OLD BOY who was murdered by his own government, without trial.

    The United States no longer pretends to be the land of the free, it now openly favors corporations (Apple given presidential override of import ban), rich individuals and political cronies.

    Today is a very sad day. The truth is the enemy, justice inconvenient, and money/power the one true ruler of this country.

  5. Can't say I'm surprised. by korbulon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Merely disgusted.

  6. I'd have less of a problem with this by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if the government's idea of "secret" weren't complete and total BS. Today, "secret" simply means "stuff that would embarrass us". The only context that getting most of today's government "secrets" into the public's scrutiny would qualify as "aiding an enemy" is if they consider the American people to be their enemy. Which is, sadly, closer to the truth than it ever should be.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. sharing info is worse than killing people... by at_slashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ACLU's Ben Wizner: "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system."

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  8. Re:Good by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why people have such a problem with the fact that he was in the army, supposedly serving his country, and did something that he was forbidden to do, and so should face the consequences? .

    Because "I was just following orders" should never, ever, ever be a legitimate reason for committing crimes against humanity.

  9. Re:Good by 0a100b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Serving your country and serving your government are not necessarily the same thing. I think Manning was serving his country but not his government.

  10. Re:Good by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's a traitor, he deserves it.

    I don't think anyone can argue with the fact an offence was committed. But the punishment should fit the crime. It is on that basis I object to this sentence. The sentence is so long that I feel this punishment violates your constitution. It is cruel and unusual.

    We're talking about locking this guy up longer many rapists or murderers. You're even talking about executing him. How is that a sensible level of punishment?

    At the end of the day, nobody died from this leak. Nothing of any substance has changed in geo-politics either. The cable leaks had a tendency to show that US foreign policy behind closed doors was pretty much the same as it was on the public sphere. As a Brit, I thought they actually came out of it looking quite good. It was the other countries were made to look like asshats.

    Manning is a bit of an idiot and should serve some time but taking his entire life in forfeit for his stupidity is totally disproportionate and in my view unconstitutional.

  11. I'm sorry for this guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have respect for this man. He broke the law for the sake of what is right.

  12. Re:Good by hjf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny, isn't it? How rednecks are considered ignorants, but most of them have a clear definition of what is "government" and what is "america". Amazing how patriotic they usually are (flags, american pride, traditions), and yet they hate the "gub'mint". They're considered crazy paranoids because of that hate, and how the gub'mint tramples on their freedom.

    And here we are, educated people, confusing government with country.

  13. Re:This is A Distraction From the NSA Scandal by NEW22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are these sociopathic tendencies? He wanted to expose wrongdoing and did not do it in the best way.

    Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

    I don't see how you could claim he lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. It seems he may have them in more abundance than the average person.

  14. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Empire was a legal entity created through a vote in the Senate.

    So, yeah the rebels were terrorists.
    Oh wait, they won..I mean freedom fighters.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Re:Good by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He did, arguably and depending on your perspective, as much harm as the original "crimes" he revealed.

    No, the State has admitted that his disclosures did not lead to any deaths.

    You don't just share 10,000 secret documents without at least reading them first.

    Manning left that job up to journalists. He first tried to leak directly to the NYT, as Ellsberg had done and they rebuffed him. He then went to Wikileaks, which arranged a consortium of newspapers (El PaÃs, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Guardian and The New York Times) to analyze, redact, and publish the information responsibly.

    Snowden, perhaps reflecting his age and experience, is doing exactly that.

    Why is Snowden more qualified to determine what's right and wrong to publish than a group of experienced journalists?

    So while I feel strongly that any crimes revealed by Manning should be prosecuted, I also feel that he needs to go away for a while.

    But that's not how it works. If Manning revealed crimes, then he is to be afforded, by law, whistleblower protection. In fact, he did reveal crimes, has been denied those protections, and those who committed the highest crimes are walking around with huge pensions and stock options for doing so.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "but most of them have a clear definition of what is "government" and what is "america""
    no, they don't.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When Bush was president, any criticism of him was seen by the "rednecks" as an attack on America. "Why do you hate America?" was pretty much a cliche.

  18. Other people who did jail time.... by Dareth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ghandi.

    Nelson Mandela.

    Not saying Bradley Manning is in the same category. But sometimes people in prison do end up as powerful symbols.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  19. WINSTON SMITH HAS GOODTHINK by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Plusgood. He is given 35 years helpwise for Big Brother.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."