1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Meanmotion, 21 Aug 2013.

  1. Meanmotion

    Meanmotion bleh Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    12
  2. Stanley Tweedle

    Stanley Tweedle NO VR NO PLAY

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2013
    Posts:
    1,625
    Likes Received:
    28
    I dun like that country but there are worse ones.
     
  3. meandmymouth

    meandmymouth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    155
    I thought it would be more, not that that makes it any less horrendous for him.

    I understand he committed a crime, but he shed light on some pretty horrific and terrible things.
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Balanced and diplomatic sentencing. Any more would be vindictive and punitive; any less would be challenged by the prosecution. This way he could be out in 11 --by that time all this will be distant memory and he can be quietly discharged and start a new life somewhere --if people leave him alone.

    This means that people also have to stop campaigning for a pardon (not going to happen) and stop making him a figurehead for their crusades, as this will keep making him a target for the government. He has done his martyr bit for us. Let him gently vanish from the public eye. Lobby behind the scenes for humane treatment while in prison, make him feel supported, keep in contact with him, visit him, send him cakes; give him the message that when he gets out he'll have a place to go and people who care about him. But it is time to think of the person now, and not the cause he stands for.
     
  5. narwen

    narwen narwen

    Joined:
    6 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    12
    It would've been kinder to kill him than 11 years in military prison. He'll be a broken man with serious mental health problems. If they're the same has UK military prisons.
     
  6. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    36
    Who guards the guards?

    He did what he thought was right, fully knowing the consequences. It is unfortunate that he has to face a prison sentence for his actions. The situation where people are forced to abandon their morals to keep these kind of secrets should not exist.

    I know it is wishful thinking but hey we have to start somewhere don't we.

    He is ultimatly a product of the situation they themselves have created. He can neither be praised or blamed. This is apparent in his sentencing, it's good to see that the judge has compromised, it must have been a very difficult decision for her.
     
  7. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    Manning / Snowden in 2016!

    Otherwise, I agree with Nexxo
     
  8. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    17
    I know it's everywhere, but he'd have been better off shooting dead an unarmed black teenager. Or committing the crimes he reported.

    Dumb country.
     
  9. lacuna

    lacuna Member

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    639
    Likes Received:
    10
    No he wouldn't because he would then have to personally bear the grief and guilt of committing that particular crime.

    His crime didn't directly cause physical harm to anyone and it would be difficult to feel remorse for doing it but releasing that information had the potential to cause wars. That wasn't his intention but what he did was no accident either.

    I think its important for people to actually realise that humanity is anything but humane. Individually we may act with morality but as a species we are by far the worst. Atrocious crimes are committed daily; always have and always will. The fact that the US government had it documented is pretty much irrelevant because nothing will change other than they might turn the cameras off in future...
     
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    They already do, actually. The US government has learned a lot about the impact of media reporting on the public perception of war since the Vietnam years.

    It is up to whistle blowers now to remind the public that war is a messy business, a very messy business.

    And let's get one thing straight: Manning's actions cannot cause anything. It is other people/nations who decide how to act based on what information was leaked by him. The responsibility for their actions remains theirs.
     
  11. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    349
    Although it is of note that his prison sentence is 10 years longer than the period of time after which most of the documents from the leak would be declassified.
     
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,159
    Likes Received:
    303
    Good job he lives in the US then, because under the UK Serious Crime Act 2007 we could claim he encouraged or assisted others to act based on the information he gave out.
     
  13. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    War is not a nice or pleasant experience - honor? chivalry? - died in years gone , its all about missions , objectives and body counts - do it to them before they do it to you.
     
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    I'm not saying that it is fair sentencing; just the best that the judge could do without being challenged on it.

    That claim would have to be proved.

    War never was. Honour and chivalry, like patriotism and heroism are just propaganda concepts. The most enduring experience of war is fear and shame.

    The army is a machine for waging war. As such it seeks to recruit and promote people whose thinking, behaviours and values most closely align with those of the war machine; in order to function in the army, you have to compromise your humanity and become part of that machine. Manning could not do that, and that had been obvious for months. He should have been discharged, not assigned to one of the darkest places in it. Of course he was going to break. By rights, he should be suing them under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
     
    Last edited: 22 Aug 2013
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,159
    Likes Received:
    303
    No proof needed, the prosecutor just has to argue the balance of probabilities.
    I think anyone would find it easy to postulate that what manning done is more than 51% likely to cause harm.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    A person is not taken to have intended to encourage or assist an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act. The offence is triable in the same manner, summarily or on indictment, as the anticipated offence.
     
  17. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,159
    Likes Received:
    303
    But when taken in context with section 47 all they would have to do is prove that he believed that an offence would be committed. With the amount of data he released i think it would fairly easy to argue that he would have known that an offence would be committed.
     
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    That would be inference (he must have known), not proof (he did know).

    Also keep in mind that with regards encouraged or assisted crimes, the law here talks about specific acts, not a vague "terrorists may do something bad".
     
    Last edited: 22 Aug 2013
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,159
    Likes Received:
    303
    You mean in the same way people got arrested and sentenced to four years for posting on Facebook about the London riots, even though their Facebook activity provoked no actual crimes or riots.
     
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,502
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    In those cases the proof of acts being encouraged was in the very posts, well, literally encouraging them.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page