Feeds

back to article Manning's max sentence cut, may only spend up to 90 years in the cooler

Bradley Manning's maximum possible sentence for publishing tens of thousands of American classified documents via Wikileaks has been reduced from 136 years to 90 years. The military judge overseeing his trial agreed that some of the 20 charges on which the army private was found guilty last week were closely related and could be …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Facepalm

As if.

90 years? Imperial Americana ain't gonna keep it together for that long.

8
5
Bronze badge
Facepalm

On the one hand...

...I admire what he did and would have done the same myself.

But on the other hand he did brag about his exploits on line which led the authorities straight to him( wouldn't have done that bit ) so...fuck him!!

2
14
Anonymous Coward

Re: On the one hand...

> I admire what he did and would have done the same myself.

But you didn't.

So please do not be so quick to judge.

6
2

Re: On the one hand...

> I admire what he did and would have done the same myself.

Really? You want to be locked up and pounded in the ass for 90 years?

2
3
Anonymous Coward

I wonder what he would have gotten if he had only released the gunship video of the two Reuters journalists getting mown down.

He was never charged with his main crime. "Embarrassing the US Government by releasing authentic State Dept cables."

12
4
Silver badge

The first rule of embarrassing the people in charge is that you never talk about embarrassing the people in charge.

There was a reason for the "court jester" psychological outlet in times past.

4
2

"picked out things that wouldn't harm anyone or endanger national security"

whatever the rights and wrongs of him releasing the data - its utterly naive for him to believe he was in any way able to make that determination given the volume of data released

As a single person he'd never be able to understand the linkages between all that data - at best he can say I only released things that on their own I didn't expect to harm anyone. All sorts of apparently innocuous things when put together become significant... and some of it may only be possible with data outside of the communication list.

Its not a good legal defence, but the only credible position is that I knew there would be some damage to operations and the possibility that someone may be harmed as a result, but I tried to minimise this and believed it was worthwhile.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: "picked out things that wouldn't harm anyone or endanger national security"

Which just goes to emphasise that there must be a public interest defence and a proportionality test for cost:benefit in any of these situations. It also shows that the whole idea of a separate legal system for one set of citizens (the military) is completely flawed, and military law must be got rid of. All citizens should be entitled to a jury trial, and in these days of rapid transport, there is no justification for it not to happen.

0
3
Silver badge
Devil

Place your bets!

Who do you think will leave their prison first - Manning from Quantico or A$$nut from the Ecuadorean Embassy?

6
14
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Place your bets!

Or you from your fucking high horse?

25
8
Silver badge
Happy

Re: hspasm Re: Place your bets!

"Or you from your fucking high horse?" Aw, is one of the ickle sheeple having a hard time coping with reality? LOL! I don't know why you're getting so upset about, in a few weeks or so you won't even remember who Bradley Manning was. Some other attention-seeking loser will be proclaimed the new Champion of Liberty for some equally stupid stunt and you'll be back to happily bleating at full volume, Manning conveniently forgotten.

5
21
Bronze badge
Alert

Re: Place your bets! @Twat Drypants

Government apologists - every forum should have one!

Btw, you should really stop the name calling.

7
4
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Sandtitz Re: Place your bets! @Twat Drypants

I make that hook, line and sinker on two! It's so funny how difficult you sheeple find facing facts or any form of insult to the heroes of their Faith. Keep on supplying the laughs!

2
13
Silver badge
Gimp

Re: hspasm Place your bets!

Tut tut.

You do seem to have issues with criticism, don't you. Must be past your bedtime.

Perhaps you shouldn't bother your little head with adult topics, you know they upset you so.

Now jump down from your oh so moral giraffe, have another bottle or two of tixylix or whatever it is you are addicted to and get some sleep.

You get such a potty-mouth when you are overtired.

Knob.

10
3
Happy

Re: Place your bets! @Twat Drypants

That's fully one half of his entire modus; childish name-calling. The other half involves cutting and pasting nonsense from right-wing blogs.

Still, everywhere has to have it's pathetic "look at me" trolls.

4
3
Silver badge
Happy

Re: hspasm Re: hspasm Place your bets!

LOL, look at the attempt at a recovery when the sheeple realises his chain has been well and truly yanked! Anyway, in answer to the quiz you so petulantly avoided, the answer is A$$nut if you can manage independent thought, and Manning if you are one of the sheeple. Why? Well, looking at it logically, Manning is going to be locked up full stop, but A$$nut at some point will voluntarily leave the embassy if only to reassert his position of High Lord of Victimhood with the sheeple. Of course, if you're sheeple, the answer is Manning as he will die before completing his sentence, but A$$nut cannot die because he is The One True GOD! Enjoy!

2
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Boring Bernie Re: Place your bets! @Twat Drypants

"That's fully one half of his entire modus; childish name-calling....." Oh sorry, did it make you cry?

".....The other half involves cutting and pasting nonsense from right-wing blogs....." Let's see - in recent threads where I have exposed the stupidity of what you like to consider "thought", I have used links from Wikipedia (run by a load of socialists intent on "freeing" information) and the BBC ( not nicknamed the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing) website, so I assume anything slightly to the right of Trotsky and Stain would be "right-wing" to you? If you wish to try and justify your post, please do show where I ever linked to any "right-wing" blogs, or admit you talked male bovine manure, as usual.

In between, you might consider an attempt at posting some original thoughts on Manning's sentence. Nothing too challenging, of course, we wouldn't want you to strain yourself. After all, when your counting base is "one, two, many" it's probably a bit hard for you to grasp the impact.

2
2
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Trolling @Twat

>I make that hook, line and sinker on two!

Matt,

You shouldn't troll. The forum rules are against that. It'd be so sad to see you get the boot from mgmt...

Besides, trolling is a big no-no. And taking pride of being a troll is beyond stupid - Linus would be happy to coin a Finnish phrase for your ilk - though he probably couldn't care less of anonymous nobodies like you.

0
3
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Sand-in-her-bitz Re: Trolling @Twat

".....It'd be so sad to see you get the boot from mgmt..." More like your fervent wish given how the sheeple just can't stomach any form of dissent. The original post is a straight enough suggestion that people should chip in with their views on whether A$$nut will leave the Ecuadorean Embassy before Manning gets carried out of the stockade in a coffin, and whilst it you may have found the suggestion "unacceptable" to your delicate sensibilities, I'd be most amused if you can find anything in the forum rules that encouraging such discourse is verboten. What I could count on was the immediate and shrieking bleats of the enraged sheeple, but I think you'll find your content-free and reflexive shrieking was closer to rule-breaking material than my invitation to discussion. And keeping count of the number of shrieking sheeple is also not verboten, merely amusing. So, do you want to suggest which of the two will find "freedom" first? Thought not.

1
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: hspasm Place your bets!

" Aw, is one of the ickle sheeple having a hard time coping with reality?"[...]

"[in a few weeks] Some other attention-seeking loser will be proclaimed the new Champion of Liberty for some equally stupid stunt and you'll be back to happily bleating at full volume, Manning conveniently forgotten."

These people contain amongst their midst the freetards, the never disappeared 'want to know state secrets' fools and so on. These people were mostly brought up to believe that everything should be free and accessible, even if it means the death of serving personnel. These people have short memories, are arseholes and have probably never seen active duty, have probably never depended for their survival on the ability of people to keep things secret. They'll probably end up in obscurity or even dying early, some possibly with a Darwin award to their names;.

1
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Boring Bernie Place your bets! @Twat Drypants

" [...] the BBC ( not nicknamed the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for nothing [...]"

It's been mooted several times since the paedophilia scandal that they be called the PBC, but you have a very good point. It's become increasingly clear that they are acting like a political organisation with a mandate for left wing activity. They are no longer neutral and, if this carries on, they will probably be returned to the private market whence they came. That would be a shame and they have themselves to blame; their bonanza of excessive wages, publicly funded jaunts and silly stunts (making it seem as though the Queen had walked out in a temper tantrum, fixing game shows and much more) will come to an end.

The BBC's image is worse than tarnished.

1
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Trolling @Twat

"You shouldn't troll. The forum rules are against that. It'd be so sad to see you get the boot from mgmt...

Besides, trolling is a big no-no. And taking pride of being a troll is beyond stupid - Linus would be happy to coin a Finnish phrase for your ilk - though he probably couldn't care less of anonymous nobodies like you.

Oooh, lots of stuff in here; argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad auctoritatem by proxy (in this case fallacious), plus an attempt to denigrate and reduce everything the poster iterates, an attempt to destroy their worth rather than to address anything they have posted (the poisoning the well fallacy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). These are the marks of trolling, and most odious too.

You want to be careful, or the management might boot you on the very grounds that you indicate that Matt might be, to say nothing of the fact that you are as anonymous as you say he (Matt) is.

HTH.

HAND.

1
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Sand-in-her-bitz Trolling @Twat

"So, do you want to suggest which of the two will find "freedom" first? Thought not."

I expect they'd take the blue pill, were such a thing to exist.

1
0
Unhappy

136 years to 90 years...

It makes me deeply uneasy at how the U.S. judicial system works. I.e. stacking up charge after charge so that even if the dedendant has a good lawyer who can whittle those down, the defendant is still likely to spend a deeply unreasonable amount of time behind bars with little hope of getting out. The sentencing is so off kitler that it beggars belief and it still surprises me that no one has managed to change it. Also the pressure to plea bargain is so intense that I'm sure innocent people do time as well as the guilty.

14
5

Re: 136 years to 90 years...

"It makes me deeply uneasy at how the U.S. judicial system works. I.e. stacking up charge after charge so that even if the dedendant has a good lawyer who can whittle those down, the defendant is still likely to spend a deeply unreasonable amount of time behind bars with little hope of getting out. The sentencing is so off kitler that it beggars belief and it still surprises me that no one has managed to change it. Also the pressure to plea bargain is so intense that I'm sure innocent people do time as well as the guilty."

While I get what you're saying, if it didn't work that way what would be the reasoning for committing one crime vs. many? "If I murder one person, I might as well murder 10."

5
3
Holmes

I believe the phrase is...

I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

3
0

Re: 136 years to 90 years...

" if it didn't work that way what would be the reasoning for committing one crime vs. many?"

A counter argument might be - I've committed several minor offences, but the total sentence is now so big I have nothing to lose, so from here on in kill any witnesses.

8
2
Silver badge

Re: 136 years to 90 years...

In some ways this is actually one of their fairer trials, as there is so much publicity around it. The prosecution hasn't had to resort to some standard-issue dirty tricks often used on lesser criminals. There are a few common ones I know of:

- The overworked public defender: He has half an hour to devote to your case, and he knows that his job depends upon you agreeing to the plea bargin - if he actually gets too many people off, he'll be fired on a pretext for embarassing the department and someone of more flexible morals will take his place.

- Freezing of assets so the defendant can't afford a lawyer. Sure, they may have the money to buy one - but with all their bank accounts frozen, there is no way to pay, and lawyers generally don't work for credit.

- Seizing of all assets that could possibly be related to a crime. Usually applies to either electronic devices of vehicles. Added bonus: Can sell at police auction. That's one reason police in the US love drug prosecutions: If the convicted used a car to drive to a dealing location, then the car has been used in commission of a crime. That means police auction, and money for the department.

The only dirty trick they are using from the civilian world is the pileing-of-the-charges, trying to intimidate the accused with the possibility of severe punishment. In the civilian world it's used to apply pressure for the accused to plead guilty - that's the approach used on Swartz, which instead drove him to suicide. In this case it's being used to make an example - to show any other potential leakers that the government is willing and able to throw the book at them, and they'll be lucky to ever see daylight again.

There's a fair bit of evidence-hiding going on as well - there are claims made by thr prosecution that the leaks have lead to the deaths of some US agents, but as this is all strictly classified stuff they aren't able to say who or how. The judge just has to take their word that the leaks resulted in friendly deaths - and this is a military trial, so the word of the intelligence services is beyond contest.

3
5
Megaphone

Once Apon a Time........

This would make one hell of a movie.

Firstly he gets a job that supplies him with information of crimes against humanity, and he releases the evidence to the public. His bosses slap him into a marine stockade and then subject him to psychological torture by removing his spectacles, making him blind as a bat and causing him headaches. They continue by taking away all his clothes and humiliated him by making him stand every two hours in front of another man. That introduced sleep depravation which continued for months. Then when the media got hold of it his bosses had to put him on suicide watch to cover their backs. His bosses were then forced to transfer him out of a prison run by themselves to a civilian prison. The boss of the civilian prison decided the suicide tag was completely untrue by giving him back his clothes and spectacles, and stopping the sleep depravation and suicide watch.

Once out of his bosses hands his bosses decided to supply the judge, jury, defence lawyer court room, and rules they had to play by. His bosses even paid their wages. If his bosses hadn't stacked the cards enough they then held secret meetings with judges to cement the result.

His bosses then promptly banned the torture from being used as evidence of torture.

...........and all but one lived happily ever after.

7
4
Silver badge

Re: Once Apon a Time........

Radio 4 already did a radio play about it.

It is a very depressing play. The main theme seems to be the utter lack of hope. There is no prospect of escape, or a legal out-manouvering. The only times any other characters speak are to state that they are under orders not to converse with the prisoner. Towards the end he manages to give a short monologue to the officer in charge explaining his actions, and for a moment you think he might have won some leniency - but the officer is one of those uber-patriot types, and gets so offended that the moral character of his country has been insulted that he declares Manning a suicide risk and orders that his glasses and clothing be confiscated for his own protection.

1
3
Flame

Re: Once Apon a Time........

For fucks sake he was a serving mbr of the armed forces, guess what happens when you are court martialed...

Military court, military judge, military lawyers, military jury and military prision...

Don't like it? don't fucking join or DON'T do whats going to get you in front of a court martial...seems pretty fucking simple to me.

6
8
Silver badge

Re: Once Apon a Time........

Exactly and is the big difference between Snowden who I don't think deserves a day in jail and Manning who does. Once you voluntarily take that oath you are no longer a civilian and no longer have the same rights. Being a soldier is more than just another job.

3
7
Bronze badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Once Apon a Time........

Isn't there a difference between:

"I swear to serve my country"

and

"I swear to serve my country and conceal evidence of crimes against humanity"

9
4
Rol
Bronze badge

Re: Once Apon a Time........

It's people like Manning that restore my faith in humanity, by doing what is right rather than following orders.

Seems the only way the good will triumph and the bad get punished is by pinning our hopes on an invasion by Vulcan's who have finally tired of watching our masters kick us around like a smack heads dog.

Sadly, it's more likely the Klingons will be invited to make a substantial investment in our security services.

Renditioning will get very interesting indeed.

2
4
Bronze badge

Re: Once Apon a Time........

@asdf:

"Exactly and is the big difference between Snowden who I don't think deserves a day in jail and Manning who does. Once you voluntarily take that oath you are no longer a civilian and no longer have the same rights. Being a soldier is more than just another job."

This argument didnt work for the Nazis. In fact the ruling being that orders from command must be questioned if they break the rules because if you participate in the crime you are a criminal.

I am less convinced of Manning's righteousness than Snowdon's but the argument 'he told me to do it' was nullified after WW2.

3
2

Re: Once Apon a Time........

"I swear to serve my country" translates fairly accurately as "I become state property".

After all, if you're willing to allow the state to send you to your death at some politician's whim, how can you convincingly complain about a court-martial, be it a fixed or fair one?

I understood this concept very well, which is why I never signed up for military service.

2
1
Bronze badge

Re: Once Apon a Time........

"Exactly and is the big difference between Snowden who I don't think deserves a day in jail and Manning who does."

It is highly unlikely that Snowden's contract with the CIA didn't involve something akin to the 'official secrets act'. If they did not make him sign a document concerning secrecy, you prove it to us all here and now.

1
0

I hope so

I hope Manning has to spend everyone of the 90 years in prison.

5
15
Silver badge

Re: I hope so

I expect he is going to smell real bad after 90 years (age 116 if they count from now)...

This is like "We have reduced your sentence from life + 40 years, to only life +10 years. He must be thrilled.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: I hope so

Fortunately, BTW, no-one give a flying fuck what you hope ...

2
3
Devil

Re: I hope so

He must have done something really fucking serious to deserve that comment? Myself - I'd save the 90 year sentences for war criminals tried in a court of law (must maintain faith etc) with proper oversight!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

War crimes eh?

Not a problem, if the accused are American, obviously.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

America

Why is evawyrone so fuckin' stoopid?

0
1
Anonymous Coward

American justice:

Kill innocent people at a wedding with a drone: get 0 years

Abuse detainees in Abu Grahib: get up to 7 years

Leak information about American abuses of power: get up to 90 years

6
3
This topic is closed for new posts.