Thread: Manning Sentenced to 35 Years

Originally Posted by socal

The military is separate from the bankers and scum. The military is about disapline and honor. Non of which this puke had.

I have to side with Socal here. He is/was a serving member of the military. I assume that at some point he signed a piece of paper something akin to UK's Official Secrets Act. As such he subject to punishment if he contravenes the act.

Secrets are everywhere. Lots of industrial secrets abound. The coca cola formula is secret, KFC sauce recipe is secret et al. Just because something is secret does not mean it should be spread all over. Anything to do with so called freedom of speech does not imply one can run rough shod over any or all other legislation.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Originally Posted by barbaro

How did a guy with low rank get such access to so much info?

I assume thousands? of others had this access.

Basically, a data input clerk. Low-level job for a low-level soldier. Somebody's got to do it. But, as seen, there is a downside.......

Thanks.

I do not have a positive or negative opinion on this case.

He worked for crooks, he was an innocent crook, and the system is full of corrupt crooks.

Little outrage or angst n the mainstream western press really, at least at this point. Many point out he 'could be' out in ten years or so. Several point out the sentence could have been much longer, as the prosecution asked for- but naturally you expect exactly that of a prosecution. Bottom line, they do not appear particularly surprised at the severity of the sentence, whereas I am.

Huffpo points out the sentence is out of context, compared to several other examples involving the US military or State-

8 Real Spies And Actual Bad Guys Who Got Shorter Sentences Than Bradley Manning
8 Real Spies And Actual Bad Guys Who Got Shorter Sentences Than Bradley Manning

These guys had no Brad Manning type defence- they were either selling secrets for money, or directly aiding the enemy out of enmity to the US.

I would add to that the glaring examples of the Neo-con spies in high places, who were just plain let walk while the US security & political apparatus looked the other way and pretended it didn't happen. Their crimes, or alleged crimes, were much more serious, a far worse breach of national security. Yet not even their careers were effected- in fact they were the brains trust behind the Bush administration and it's thoroughly disastrous policies. But lets face it- that's why they got off. Clout. Not least, Israeli clout.

Arguably, it's why Jane Fonda got off with no more than a bit of public outrage too. I mean, talk about aiding and abetting the enemy- a major celebrity visiting them and publicising their cause during wartime. And using it as a platform to expose US human rights abuses too. But little private peewee is no Jane Fonda. And the US government of today seems incapable of being benign, because it is petty.

Yes, the sentence is out of context (at least the Term, rather than the minimum term) but nobody seems surprised, to sum it up. Compliant media? We've certainly seen that in spades. Expect less from the US government these days, certainly when it comes to empathy and broad perspective? Definitely. Comes across to me as a state sector turning in on itself, and turning on and insulating itself from the very people they nominally report to. Bad trends, from an increasingly truculent government. Lickspittle UK in lockstep, almost goes without saying.

Do not ask and do not bloody tell, peasants. Know your place. Well actually, I do- You report to Us.

Originally Posted by sabang

^ That is where I differ. If for every nine that keep their heads down, one defies- well prepare for an avalanche. Defiance is part of the human condition, at least when it is considered justified, or provoked. Authoritarians seem to think the opposite, but they rarely turn out to be right in the long term.

People may act when they think they can do so anonymously. (But can they really stay anonymous these days?)

Remember when we did that article about Thailand once? You as my source wanted to remain unnamed. It went under my byline. My Editor just needed convincing that you were for real (and I hadn't just made it up)

So sure, if material is filtered by journalists, to some extent sources can be protected. A majority of people i've quoted who are on Teakdoor prefer to remain anonymous. People are nervous about putting their name to quotes. (Yet my byline has gone on thousands of published pieces).

But if sources of leaks can be traced electronically, then woe betide them if their lords and masters find out.

Would Manning have done this if he knew he would be found out and get 35 years in jail?

Well, the difference in treatment between Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange is quite telling, isn't it?

One guy is being kept holed up in Embassy indefinitely, by a foreign government, with no charges levelled against him, and for an alleged 'wrongdoing' (dissemination of inconvenient information) not even committed against the country keeping him holed up! Final cherry in the cake- the nation of which he is actually a citizen, is saying and doing nothing about it. Could you see that happening to an actual Journalist, such as Greenwald? Not yet thankfully, although I certainly wouldn't grow complacent about that given current trends, (holy cow, the UK acted as a compliant hired thug on behalf of the USA towards his partner, just a few days ago). A Press card still means something, touch wood- but mere citizens rights are eroding rapidly under our system.

And the citizens are at fault, as well as their governments. Easily fooled.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

I know quite a bit about the military justice system, and I was surprised he got off so lightly. I read an article this morning that said he's eligible for parole in seven years. I fully expected a sentence of 60 years. In many ways, the military failed Manning; he was clearly unfit for military service, and this was very obvious early-on. Tiny, gay, a cross-dresser, suicidal tendancies, lack of impulse control - all were very obvious indicators he should have been kicked out 'for the good of the service'. He's a bit player - the government really wants Assange and, to a slightly lesser degree, Snowdon. As a fag and a convicted traitor, he will certainly do his time in solitary. At least I won't have to look at his rat face, with his beret perched on his head like a pie plate, any more.

Good post, I agree that the military failed Manning by employing him in the first place, it was a recipe for personal failure and breakdown.

Manning as insignificant he is as a person - I agree Sab, did tremendous damage to US diplomatic relations as described by several high ranking US diplomats.
Even if someone ridicules some of the stuff that has come out, it bears no direct comparison to the actual trust lost and real damage done, and the ruin of carefully groomed relations by US diplomats with their targets of interest.
It is not so much all the content of private conversations, but the fact that it reached the media that has done the damage.

Revealing those diplomatic cables served no public interests what so ever, and the public as in you/me /us, had and have no legitimate claim or right to that information, as they do not reflect the final US official policy stance on issues. It was a gross breach of privacy and confidentiality, not only for US officials but also their foreign contacts.

So there is no deserving of any medal here, more like a swift kick in the balls for being an complete destructive idiot, and the 35 years is that kick.

Diplomacy is much more important than most recognise, by far most international issues is dealt with and solved by quiet Diplomacy, long before it (if ever) reaches media or every opinion minority nutjobs attention, and it is good that way because otherwise nothing would get done, but be bogged down in controversy created by fringe nutters.

In some ways you can describe it as close to the private considerations about family members and friends you have with your Wife, you certainly do not want everything out in the open because, in the end it might not have have any influence on how you interact with that particular person, and revealing it could do unwanted and undeserved damage to them and your relationship. Nothing sinister secret about it, but just part of normal considerate polite interacting and relationships with others.

The Helicopter thing with the rag-head Iraq "free lance" photographer, getting shot while embedded on a street corner with an RPG armed gang of terrorists, attempting to make an ambush on a Coalition convoy they knew was heading that way, has been misrepresented and distorted with every trick in the Journalist handbook by the liberal anti war media, and Journalists who wants every action to get a scoop no matter how criminally and morally disgusting - exempt from any kind of responsibility.

It is a clear indication of the moral decline we all are in, the Journalists who under false flag "free information" wants to be exempt from every and all responsibility no matter the method, content or damage done, and us as well for not clearly rejecting it as consumers of media and news, shame on us all.

That "innocent Reuters photographer" as he routinely is called by media not telling the whole story, died while trying to get live shots of coalition soldiers getting killed by an ambush he was part of, so fuck him and may he rot in hell. The US as far as I know has never officially apologised for that one, and with good reason.

And that story is certainly not medal material for Manning either.

Anyway Manning will soon be forgotten about, especially as he loses his propaganda value for his so-called friends in wikileaks, while he slowly is gnawing of time in solitary confinement.