IMO the case was overcharged in the matters of "aiding the enemy" and the espionage statute. I think Manning is too trivial a person for that to have been his goal. Nevertheless, the BBC and other unfriendly propaganda organizations are drooling over the chance to bash the US for prosecuting a sworn member of the US Army for having massively broken his oath of enlistment and all the undertakings that he made to safeguard classified information.
He felt the army reveled in its role of killing? What did he think he was joining when he voluntarily enlisted, the Boy Scouts? I think that you Australians and Canadians and Brits would feel quite different if this were one of your "soldiers." Do you think that your people do not kill and keep secrets?
IMO opinion he will receive twenty years, will be given a dishonorable discharge and transfered as a civilian prisoner to the Federal Bureau of Prisons where he will do "hard time."
He will have lots of friends there.
Good. pl
Col: The oath breaking is a big problem. This minnow is no Alcibiades, but without the law we are left with chaos.
Posted by: Matthew | 30 July 2013 at 06:28 PM
20 years with no parole would probably be suitable, I'd like to see a little longer sentence, maybe 30 years.
I think he should do his time in the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and not as a civilian in the regular Federal Prison System.
Either way, once he's put away he'll be out of contact with the fools who seek to deify him as a hero.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 30 July 2013 at 06:30 PM
JM
The DB is for people who can be rehabilitated into the army. He is not that. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 July 2013 at 07:21 PM
matthew
The law was served. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 July 2013 at 07:21 PM
I don't know how to post something other than as a comment. But, I wanted you all to enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xogiUUMy_RU I'm fed up with all of the $%#^@& bullshit!
Posted by: Mark Gaughan | 30 July 2013 at 07:33 PM
mark gaughan
What bullshit is that? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 July 2013 at 07:41 PM
I agree with Colonel Lang. The espionage and aiding the enemy charges were meant to intimidate all others, including journalists, from further exposing administration and national secrets. It was a modern form of Roman decimation.
Manning was naive to think he would get away with breaking his security agreements in such a deliberate and massive way. Those secrecy agreements are pretty damned clear in spelling out that the USG may make your life a living hell if you violate those agreements. A dishonorable discharge and time in a federal prison will be his fate. I hope he feels it was worth it.
If the USG ever gets its hands on Snowden, he'll suffer the same fate. I think he knows that.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 30 July 2013 at 08:44 PM
Dear Sir,
It is a bit rich for the Brits to circle in such a manner. How quickly they forget their dirty war in Ireland and their shoot to kill operations.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | 30 July 2013 at 09:34 PM
No dispute.
Posted by: Matthew | 30 July 2013 at 10:35 PM
Abu Sinan,
Monumental hypocrisy is the shared trait of all governments.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 30 July 2013 at 10:45 PM
AB,
If Manning had been British, you'd have some inquiry led by a Retired Met commissioner or lord justice, lots of polite questions, maybe an office fire or two at a secure police station, a few disgruntled memoirs by those exposed by Manning and seeking 'compensation' from the UK govt and a White paper no one will ever read. Assange would also have been revealed to be Jimmy Savile's pimp.
But Manning is a taff, so that explains everything......:)
Posted by: Tunde | 31 July 2013 at 01:09 AM
PL, TTG, MM and others whom have signed NDAs
How, materially, is what Snowden did different from what Sabrina De Sousa has done in the interview linked below ;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/27/197823/us-allowed-italian-kidnap-prosecution.html#.UfifYBG9KSM
Don't mean to be a snark, just curious how you view her plight in which she seems trapped and unable to defend herself because of her NDAs. Has she broken the law by naming names ?
Posted by: Tunde | 31 July 2013 at 01:48 AM
"What did he think he was joining when he voluntarily enlisted, the Boy Scouts?"
No he was probably naive enough to think he was joining an organization that took their oath seriously. When your leaders violate basic tenets of that oath such as lies to enter a war, extrajudicial killing of Americans, and massive violations of the Fourth and First Amendments of maybe all Americans, oaths tend to be treated as "just a piece of paper" by members able to do simple comparative analysis.
Posted by: marcus | 31 July 2013 at 05:35 AM
marcus
"that took their oath seriously" And how do the armed forces of the United States not tke their oaths seriously. what are you looking for a military coup and a dictatorship? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 08:02 AM
tunde
An NDA is a business agreement. an obligation to the US government over classified information is a criminal matter if violated. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 08:29 AM
Matthew you must remember that: "but without the law we are left with chaos.", is true with regards to governments also.
I would say, with out fair, and evenly applied laws we are left with chaos (and economic stagnation and decline first)
Posted by: Farmer Don | 31 July 2013 at 10:02 AM
Farmer Don
If you are referring to Manning's case the law has been fairly and evenly applied. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 10:14 AM
Col Lang,
You are quite happy that Manning got what he deserved.
Please remember just a few days ago you posted:
"Let us remember that Lieutenant General James Clapper USAF (ret.) admitted to having lied under oath to the US Senate in the matter of this program. This is the felony crime of perjury. He will not be prosecuted because he slavishly supports the Obama Administration"
Justice is a farce if it does not apply to all
Posted by: Farmer Don | 31 July 2013 at 10:17 AM
How do we get from citing Constitutional violations by the uniformed and civilian leaders in the military to "military coup and a dictatorship?"
Generals Clapper and Alexander have lied before Congress, with no consequences, about the extent of domestic surveillance. A President led a conspiracy to enter our country to a (illegal?) war, with no charges. The CIA under the over-site of the military tortured prisoners.
These and other violations of law and don't render their oaths non-serious? We have a two tiered legal system now? The leaders are allowed to violate their oaths with no penalty but the rank and file are supposed to follow their oaths and do long prison terms if they try to expose perceived violations?
Posted by: marcus | 31 July 2013 at 10:26 AM
Farmer don
Clapper should be charged. I made that clear. justice is equally applied in Canada? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 10:27 AM
marcus
You are an anarchist who attacks order in government on the basis of injustice in the application of the law. Which form of government if any would you prefer? What would you like the armed forces to do? "The CIA under the over-site of the military tortured prisoners." This is untrue. The CIA is not under the oversight of the military. This level of ignorance usually means "student." pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 10:30 AM
"A President led a conspiracy to enter our country to a (illegal?) war, with no charges."
President Bush used the legal authority under the authorization for the use of military force which was passed overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate. Both political parties in the US have had a decade to change or ammend that law. Perhaps the voters should stop listening to thier incumbents and vote them out of office instead.
Posted by: Fred | 31 July 2013 at 10:46 AM
Col Lang
So far -it looks like former CIA Field officer Kirakou is the only one that has gone to jail for the CIA's torture of detainees - . Apparently its OK to torture detainees but not okay to go public about that torture. Several veterans I know have all said that the torture program initiated by Bush Cheney and not prosecuted by Obama Biden has had very deleterious and corrosive outcomes on our ability to fight terrorism . Furthermore these veterans also have said that the Military was always opposed to the rendering & torture of suspected terrorist .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 31 July 2013 at 11:24 AM
AE
I am an expert witness in several cases that bear on the issues you raise and so cannot comment. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 July 2013 at 12:03 PM
No particular issue with the primary point of the post, but a small quibble from a reserve component MP. Virtually no one is rehabbed back into service out of USDB any longer - Manning is, imo, overwhelmingly likely to wind up there for a variety of reasons. The regional confinement facilities are for less serious cases and its possible for a service member to return to duty from one of those - one of these is also at Leavenworth but is very much a separate facility. Corrections Command can and does send the true hard cases (and all females) to BOP, but USDB is getting those with sentences above a threshold of somewhere between 5-10 years, most of the officers, plus the special cases such as military death sentences and national security cases, I.e. Manning.
Reasonable overview is here - http://www.army.mil/article/55146/ - disclaimer - I've never done the corrections mission, but this fits with what I've heard from those that have and what we're briefed.
Posted by: Hotrod | 31 July 2013 at 12:07 PM