Manning is facing the possibility of 136 years in prison.

[IAN 2411]

35 years he will be out in 9...I suppose he had a result. at the end of the day it is still treason. I think you can still be hanged in the UK for treason and piracy on the high seas.


Be well Ian

[thir]

35 years he will be out in 9...I suppose he had a result. at the end of the day it is still treason. I think you can still be hanged in the UK for treason and piracy on the high seas.

Be well Ian

I do hope he will be out in 9 - or 7 years!

I am not sure I understand the argument here - if a person is aware of criminal behaviour within the military, should they not be obliged - under the oath and for love of core and country - to stop what is going on?

And yes, so nice to see you too :-)

[Thorne]

if a person is aware of criminal behaviour within the military, should they not be obliged - under the oath and for love of core and country - to stop what is going on?

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[thir]

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well, I suspect that to the rest of the world he is a hero!

[js207]

Yes, they should be required to stop or report that activity. Manning, though, went to the press instead of using the chain of command. Mainly because the chain of command was occupied by those responsible for the behavior he was reporting on! It's the old Catch 22, unfortunately. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That's the trouble really: he wasn't "whistle-blowing", just dumping a vast cache of the secrets he was able to get hold of. He didn't pick out actual wrongdoing, he didn't go to someone in authority - he just dumped a pile of stuff on the Internet. Even if the whole military chain of command was "compromised", there are other avenues: the Inspector General, DoD reporting lines, his Congresscritters... mad Australian rape suspects aren't exactly the first port of call for genuine whistleblowing. Indeed, most of the secret documents he published weren't even military, let alone related to his own chain of command - at most, they were sometimes embarrassing to the US and its allies.

[Thorne]

at most, they were sometimes embarrassing to the US and its allies.

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

[js207]

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

One of the classification levels is 'confidential', for exactly that sort of thing, and rightly so IMO: not "national security secrets", but "stuff that shouldn't be public": troops' personal details, notes about other people. Some of the 'embarrassing' bits to come out involved assessments of other countries' politicians: this one being a drunk, that one being a bit unstable but not likely to get very far... Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

I think the nearest anyone's found in the vast pile he dumped was a video of a helicopter shooting at some people who may or may not have been pointing rocket launchers at them at the time, plus reports about some Iraqis mistreating other Iraqis. Treason ... no (as the court martial ruled), because what he leaked wasn't really very useful to anyone - just illegal, stupid and a breach of his orders. Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

[Thorne]

Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

Perhaps not, but did it really hurt anyone? I mean, other than foreign drunks?

Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

I would think that implicating your country in an illegal act would, ultimately, aid your enemies. Covering up that act provides ammunition for your enemies to use against you, and could even make someone a target for blackmail by those enemies. Let's face it. The chances of a general being fired for bombing enemy civilians, legally or not, are remote. At worst I would suspect he'd get an early retirement with full benefits, and the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing speaking tours and Fox News analyses.