Some of you couldn't handle the idea of your little friend Manning in jail with tattoed animals. So I changed the picture. Maybe you can deal with the USDB at Fort Leavenworth where he will be.
"Manning, 25, will be dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military and forfeit some pay, Lind said. His rank will be reduced to private from private first class. Manning would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence, which will be reduced by the time he has already served in prison plus 112 days. Wearing his dress uniform, the slightly built Manning stood at attention as the sentence was read, seeming to show no emotion. As he was escorted out of the courtroom, supporters shouted "Bradley, we are with you." Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, called the sentence "unprecedented" in its magnitude. "It's more than 17 times the next longest sentence ever served" for providing secret material to the media, Goitein said. "It is in line with sentences for paid espionage for the enemy."" Reuters
------------------------------------
IMO this is a lenient sentence. He could have been shot for treason and/or espionage. The sentence is subject to review by the convening authority, then to appeal by an appellate court and SCOTUS, but IMO this will stick.
The part of the sentence that allows parole after 1/3 of the sentence has been served surprises me. I thought he would get 20 years without parole. The Dishonorable Discharge is something that civilians will not understand in its importance. It is a handicap that will follow him around for the rest of his life.
He will serve his sentence as a military prisoner. Hopefully he will never be allowed to wear the uniform again. This wiould be a relief to many, especially in the Military Intelligence Regiment and the 10th Mountain Division whose insignia he has disgraced. pl
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-wikileaks-manning-idUSBRE97J0JI20130821
Man, it was a terrible time..no joke Steve, at Lejune...and, as you point out, and as I heard, at Pendleton. Walking around the base after dark at Lejune was a scary thing. Everyone carrying something. One moved quickly...and often in packs.
Posted by: jonst | 22 August 2013 at 02:29 PM
PL and All, are there any examples of situations where you believe it would be OK to disobey orders and break with "good order and discipline" of the military. Or actual historical examples where this was done and OK in your moral/ethical framework?
Posted by: walter | 22 August 2013 at 02:49 PM
walter
Somehow I think you are being a wiseass. A US service member is obliged under US military law to refuse to obey an illegal order and to report the attempt to order something illegal. I have written this many times on SST. Go look at the punitive articles of the UCMJ for examples for the sort of things that you are looking for. Some other examples would be violations of US law concerning US government funds. So far as I know Chelsea never sought to report things she saw in computer traffic that she may have thought to be violations of US law. As I said to someone else, killing is not an offense when it occurs in combat. Unlawful killing is an offense. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 August 2013 at 03:04 PM
Thanks PL AND WILL GO BACK TO TENDING MY GARDEN!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 22 August 2013 at 03:29 PM
It is not hard to find some examples of killing the military finds criminal. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders
I recall Col. Lang commenting on the above story at the time.
One assumes that some men broke ranks in order to inform on the men committing those crimes. It is also not unreasonable to assume that any who disobeyed orders to avoid along with what is shown above would have defensible ground in the military courts.
It seems to me the military has a vested interest in preserving good order whether the subject(s) be naive and careless or crazed and brutal.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 22 August 2013 at 03:51 PM
MM
There were also several such trials that resulted from incidents in the US Army and USMC in Iraq. p
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 August 2013 at 04:02 PM
Col.,
If sentence was "to encourage the others." should not someone at the command level receive punishment? There seems to be a major command/management issue here, too.
Posted by: Tigershark | 22 August 2013 at 04:27 PM
Col Lang
Wasn't Sgt Bales just given in effect a life sentence for murdering civilians in Afghanistan ?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 22 August 2013 at 04:57 PM
Col. Lang-
"Lind is is a charlatan. His generations of warfare crap finally wore thin and he went broke here"
Bravo Sir! From a strategic theory perspective of course. Lind seems to be in the middle of yet another re-launch of his reified and hopelessly confused attempt at doctrinal speculation . . . let the unsuspecting beware!
As to the latest Manning turn, it seems very much calculated to gain the optimal level of pity from this White House . . . changing the focus from "what he did" to "who Manning is" . . . almost tailor-made for a presidential pardon . . . ?
Posted by: seydlitz89 | 22 August 2013 at 05:10 PM
Bales pled guilty. They have to decide if he gets life with or without parole.
Posted by: optimax | 22 August 2013 at 07:19 PM
Poor Billy Budd had to be sacrificed for the discipline of the ship. The necessity of personal tragedy for the greater good. Wouldn't put Manning in the same Christ-like category.
Posted by: optimax | 22 August 2013 at 07:33 PM
optimax
I dunno. Chelsea looks pretty good in a blond wig and makeup. that's an SF joke. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 August 2013 at 07:49 PM
Col
Chelsea will be popular with the men in jail.
Posted by: optimax | 22 August 2013 at 09:16 PM
Not trying to be a smart ass, Im just trying to learn
Posted by: walter | 22 August 2013 at 10:41 PM
Surely there is a point which needs to be made about honour -- as well as simply about punishment. So it would seem more appropriate that Manning be dishonourably discharged now, rather than at the end of the sentence.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 23 August 2013 at 08:21 AM
David Habakkuk
Yes, IMO he/she should be discharged as soon as the appeals process ends and for the reason that you give. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 August 2013 at 08:44 AM
So who leaked the request for a sex change by Manning? And why is intended by referring to Manning as Chelsea?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 23 August 2013 at 10:19 AM
WRC
Chelsea says that is her name and her lawwyer, Coombs, refers to her that way. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 August 2013 at 10:35 AM
I just now read about the sex change thing. Chelsea ... good grief, this is turning into a travesty.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 23 August 2013 at 11:01 AM
Col,
Not knowing where to post this but it has been reported that J J Pollard has written a letter to the J Post lamenting the recent prisoner release (amongst other things). Titled "Restoring Israel to greatness" and dated for 16th august, 2013. Can't seem to find it though. Thought you might find it interesting in the context of betrayal, jail-time, a dd etc.
Posted by: tunde | 23 August 2013 at 11:13 AM
Yes, especially given the games the lawyers are starting to play with regards to requests for hormone therapy to physically change sexes.
Posted by: Fred | 23 August 2013 at 12:00 PM
But tunde, it was just a google search away ^^
http://tinyurl.com/krv5489
Posted by: confusedponderer | 23 August 2013 at 01:01 PM
Fred,
Absolutely. Sometimes I do begin to think the lunatics have taken over the asylum. (This is not British superciliousness -- we have very similar problems, although they manifest themselves in slightly different forms, in the U.K. as in the U.S.)
What I fear will happen is that the case will become, even more than it already is, a kind of bizarre arena for 'culture wars' to get fought out. It could easily end up as a weird kind of 'soap opera' which could run for some considerable time. And it is a can of worms in which the U.S. military really has a strong interest in not getting involved. They really should eject Bradley/Chelsea, as a kind of foreign body, asap.
His/her predelictions and personality really ought to be marginal to the whole affair. The key issue is that military discipline has to be preserved. This ought to be a matter on which all kinds of different people -- whatever their views of gays, transexuals etc etc -- can find common ground.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 23 August 2013 at 01:02 PM
I believe he's "sealing the deal" for protective custody with this.
It's a gamble. Would make getting the earliest release date all but impossible for most people. He has "friends" who he helped to become famous to apply pressure though.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 23 August 2013 at 02:12 PM
Thanks PL but does that mean official records changed NOW?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 23 August 2013 at 02:42 PM