American citizens: do you consider Bradley Manning a traitor? What should finally be done with him?

[Skald the Rhymer]

On the off chance that any of y'all don't recognize the name Bradley Manning, here's the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on him:


Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified information to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source between November 19, 2009, and May 27, 2010. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He is currently awaiting a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]


Here are the questions I'd like to pose. Stipulating for the sake of argument that Manning did everything he is accused of, do you consider him a traitor? If yes, why? If no, why not? If yes, do you think that, as prosecutor, you would be seeking the death penalty for him?

Poll in a moment, but I see no reason for the impatient to restrain themselves while I type.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Ack!

I voted wrong in my own poll. I consider Manning a traitor, but don't want him executed.

Probably. I could change my mind about the second part.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not a traitor. Wikileaks is not the enemy, and no information was disclosed which put US troops in jeopardy. That's not to say he's not guilty of any crimes at all, but "treason" is not the charge. He did not aid or abet or give comfort to an enemy of the US.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Not a traitor. Wikileaks is not the enemy, and no information was disclosed which put US troops in jeopardy. That's not to say he's not guilty of any crimes at all, but "treason" is not the charge. He did not aid or abet or give comfort to an enemy of the US.

I did not ask if Bradley Manning was guilty of the crime of treason. That was not an oversight or mistake. I asked if you (and everybody else who reads the OP) consider him a traitor to this nation.

As you point out, "treason" has a specific legal meaning. "Traitor," by contrast, means one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty.

ETA: I would consider Wikileaks an enemy of this nation, actually.

[Roderick Femm]

Whether he is guilty of treason, in my mind, is dependent on two things:

First (and much the most important) is whether any material he passed on was actually damaging to the US military or citizens, resulting in loss of life, injury, or serious property damage; or if he had reasonable expectation that it might do so. So I would not include those embarrassing, dirty little diplomatic secrets that seemed to be most in the news when this was a fresh story. I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in the legal definition of treason, but if all he did was embarrass some high level officials, I'm not nearly as concerned, and I would rather he were charged with something less than treason.

Second is his motive. If he had done it for money, or notoriety, or to get back at his CO, or some other unhappy reason, no excuses, throw him in prison (unless, see above, in the case of actual damage, execution might be called for). If he did it in the (possibly misguided) belief that he was helping make a better world, then I am inclined to be slightly more lenient in the sentence, if not in the actual charge filed.

The bottom line, to me, is that no-one in his position should be deciding what classified information is passed to non-authorized persons, but there should be a very high standard to try, and possibly execute, someone for treason.


Roddy

ETA: ok, I missed the above correction before I posted. No, I don't consider him a traitor unless condition one above was met. Whether Wikileaks is the enemy is not the point; passing information to Wilileaks means that other people than them will also see it and possibly use it. The issue should be the seriousness of the information leaked, not the person to whom it was leaked. Even if it was leaked to a "friendly power", it's still potentially traitorous. There are legitimate reasons why we don't share everything with our allies.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I did not ask if Bradley Manning was guilty of the crime of treason. That was not an oversight or mistake. I asked if you (and everybody else who reads the OP) consider him a traitor to this nation
If you're not asking a legal question then by what authority are you suggesting he could be exacuted? ETA: I would consider Wikileaks an enemy of this nation, actually.
This would be a factually wrong and ludicrous opionion.

ETA he's not a traitor either. He did not betray the US.

[Skald the Rhymer]

You know, I just re-read the poll, and I see that I neglected to change the wording from "guilty of treason" to "is a traitor," as I thought I had. That was very careless of me, and it makes Dio's response entirely correct (and my response to his response entirely wrong). I apologize.

[Otara]

I read that the military was claiming to need to contact various people in Afghanistan to ensure they were safe.

If so, I would think that qualifies as a reasonably foreseeable risk, even if no-one actually got hurt. So far I havent seen much actual benefit from the whistleblowing as a mitigating factor either, ie it was more of a job lot of telegrams rather than strong evidence of a particular wrongdoing that the person felt compelled to expose.

Otara

[Skald the Rhymer]

If you're not asking a legal question then by what authority are you suggesting he could be exacuted?
This would be a factually wrong and ludicrous opionion.


According to the Wikipedia link, he is charged with "aiding the enemy," a capital offense; the prosecutors have chosen not to put the death penalty on the table. There is, obviously, more than one capital offense on the books.


ETA he's not a traitor either. He did not betray the US.

As I consider Julian Assange and his organization to be acting in ways contrary to the interests of my nation, I judge them to be our foes and assisting them to be a betrayal of the American people.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

According to the Wikipedia link, he is charged with "aiding the enemy," a capital offense; the prosecutors have chosen not to put the death penalty on the table. There is, obviously, more than one capital offense on the books.
He didn't aid an enemy, so that answers that.
As I consider Julian Assange and his organization to be acting in ways contrary to the interests of my nation
This is a ludicrous, borderline fascistic definition of "enemy."

[Smapti]

Personally, I support Wikileaks and think that the divulgence of these cables to the public is for the greater good.

That being said, I also believe that Pvt. Manning is guilty of treason. He divulged hundreds of thousands of documents which he could not possibly have read all of himself. It isn't a private's role in the first place to decide what the public should or shouldn't have access too, and at best he was careless and extremely negligent in releasing information which could or could not have endangered American lives or provided vital information to our enemies.

[Skald the Rhymer]

He didn't aid an enemy, so that answers that.

This is a ludicrous, borderline fascistic definition of "enemy."

It is, in fact, possible to have a discussion, even on the internet, without insulting the person you are talking to. Can I ask you to attempt that?

[Larry Borgia]

For me, treason means aiding a specific enemy, like North Korea or Syria. So I don't think he's a traitor. (Obviously, per the OP, that's just my opinion not my understanding of the law.) However I think he did much more harm than good, and this behavior should not be condoned. I don't think he should get the death penalty, especially when Ames and Hansen--who were traitors--didn't. But I do think he should do a long time in jail. I hope Assange is happy with himself, exploiting this stupid kid.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Few decades in prison will do wonders.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

He didn't aid an enemy, so that answers that.

This is a ludicrous, borderline fascistic definition of "enemy."

Except Pvt. Manning is in the US Army not a private citizen.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Except Pvt. Manning is in the US Army not a private citizen.
This has nothing to do with whether wikileaks is an enmy of the US. For the record, it is not.

[Martin Hyde]

Traitor? No. Guilty of treason? Definitely not. Guilty of various serious crimes? Yes, and he should be punished. Lengthy prison sentence. Anyone who has a security clearance has been well informed of the consequences of abuse of that clearance, I have no sympathy for his plight. He isn't a private corporation whistleblower and people who compare him to them have no understanding of how the military works or has to operate.

[Larry Borgia]

For me, treason means aiding a specific enemy, like North Korea or Syria. So I don't think he's a traitor. (Obviously, per the OP, that's just my opinion not my understanding of the law.) However I think he did much more harm than good, and this behavior should not be condoned. I don't think he should get the death penalty, especially when Ames and Hansen--who were traitors--didn't. But I do think he should do a long time in jail. I hope Assange is happy with himself, exploiting this stupid kid.

To late for Edit: I chose the next to last option, as there was no option for "Not guilty of treason, but guilty of other things and should be prosecuted."

[TriPolar]

Like others I don't know if he what he did was treason or not. I'd prefer he get a fair trial, and then be subject to the penalties. Not execution unless he can be shown to have caused the deaths of others, and that the penalty is fairly applied.

[medicated]

Just curious: for those among you who voted for the death penalty for Manning (assuming he was the one, of course), would you also have favoured the death penalty for Daniel Ellsberg?

[Tom Scud]

As I consider Julian Assange and his organization to be acting in ways contrary to the interests of my nation, I judge them to be our foes and assisting them to be a betrayal of the American people.

By that standard, anyone with whom you have a policy disagreement is an enemy of America; anyone who helps anyone with whom you have a policy disagreement is a traitor.

ETA: I don't think that's your ACTUAL standard for treason; but it is your STATED standard.

[voltaire]

Traitor? No. Guilty of treason? Definitely not. Guilty of various serious crimes? Yes, and he should be punished. Lengthy prison sentence. Anyone who has a security clearance has been well informed of the consequences of abuse of that clearance, I have no sympathy for his plight. He isn't a private corporation whistleblower and people who compare him to them have no understanding of how the military works or has to operate.
This. Fully agree with all this. (so I didn't vote)

On the other hand, for now, all that we can be reasonably *certain* of is that he leaked the 'Collateral Murder' video. If it turns out that was the only thing he can be proven to have actually leaked, then he should not be punished whatsoever. That was some bullshit that needed to be leaked, unlike all the other stuff he's suspected of leaking.

[alphaboi867]

Not a traitor. Wikileaks is not the enemy, and no information was disclosed which put US troops in jeopardy. That's not to say he's not guilty of any crimes at all, but "treason" is not the charge. He did not aid or abet or give comfort to an enemy of the US.

This is my view also. I certainly don't think he's even done anything to merit a life sentence, let alone be executed.

[Kilmore]

Here's the relevant page from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, US military law for those who don't know.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000906---a000-.html

[SecondJudith]

It is, in fact, possible to have a discussion, even on the internet, without insulting the person you are talking to. Can I ask you to attempt that?

I don't think "borderline fascistic" is a meaningless insult for the sake of being an insult in this context. Unless you meant "ludicrous"?

[SecondJudith]

I'm also curious (although this isn't my thread and no one should feel obligated to respond) what people think Manning should have done when he found that video of US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians: what would have been the right, non-treasonous thing to do?

[TruCelt]

I think there needs to be room for men adn women of conscience to make the decision to air the truth. I don' tknow how that can be regulated or controlled. Perhaps it requires a third party? The UN maybe? I dunno, but there needs to be space for filling people in safely; and I don't think any USA court can try him without prejudice.

[WarmNPrickly]

So far WikiLeaks is one big masterbatory exercise. They have yet to expose anything we didn't already know, but they did cause some serious embarrassment. It also let other countries know that our secrets could not be trusted to be secret, and will make negotiations more difficult. In fact, the only real result will be that our diplomats are given less information. This will cost the USA a lot of money, and could conceivably result in the loss of innocent lives.

Lock him up and throw away the key.

[voltaire]

I'm also curious (although this isn't my thread and no one should feel obligated to respond) what people think Manning should have done when he found that video of US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians: what would have been the right, non-treasonous thing to do?

Speaking strictly about the "Collateral Murder" video, he should have done exactly what he did do. Except for the part when he bragged about it to an infamous hacker he met online who had various mental and legal problems - bad idea.

[RandMcnally]

I'm also curious (although this isn't my thread and no one should feel obligated to respond) what people think Manning should have done when he found that video of US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians: what would have been the right, non-treasonous thing to do?

If you're talking about that "Collateral Murder" video he should have kept his mouth shut because at no point was anything illegal done in that video. A PFC does not have that authority to decide what gets released to the public.

[Wesley Clark]

I once heard an NPR story about where the concept of 'states secret priviledge' comes from. Apparently it came from an airplane crash that the gov. wanted to cover up due to negligence. They just used national security as an excuse to cover it up.

I don't think he is guilty of treason. I don't see how releasing documents you feel the public has a right to know about could be considered treasonous.

[puddleglum]

Wikileaks is not an enemy of america, but they release documents to the public that can be read by an american enemy. Releasing documents that put american soldiers and agents in mortal danger is treasonous. He could have gone through the documents and only released the ones that did not put american and allied lives at risk. He did not do so, but instead deliberately chose to endanger people fighting al-queda and the taliban. Whether he gave the material directly to the taliban or gave it to a neutral intermediary does not change his crime.
When he found the video of the Iragi civilians being killed in a strike on armed insurgents he should have realized that war is a horibble thing and sometimes innocents are mistakenly killed. If he no longer felt he could in good conscience serve in the military, he could have come out, got his discharge and gone on his merry way instead of using the position he volunteered to enter to attack his country.

[Gyrate]

Traitor? No. Guilty of treason? Definitely not. Guilty of various serious crimes? Yes, and he should be punished. Lengthy prison sentence. Anyone who has a security clearance has been well informed of the consequences of abuse of that clearance, I have no sympathy for his plight. He isn't a private corporation whistleblower and people who compare him to them have no understanding of how the military works or has to operate.
This as well. I have no problem with civil disobedience as a matter of principle but even Thoreau went to prison. But treason? If we didn't execute Scooter Libby I can't agree with executing Manning.

I also agree with this:So far WikiLeaks is one big masterbatory exercise. They have yet to expose anything we didn't already know, but they did cause some serious embarrassment. It also let other countries know that our secrets could not be trusted to be secret, and will make negotiations more difficult. In fact, the only real result will be that our diplomats are given less information.I keep waiting for WikiLeaks to come up with something a little more damning than the fact that diplomats say different things in private than they do in public. I can't decide whether I prefer lack of accountability in our government or lack of accountability in private organizations like WikiLeaks but it's not much of a win either way.

[awldune]

IMHO the ethics of leaking the airstrike footage are debatable because he presumably was aware of its content and judged it to be important for the world to see.

But leaking more than 250,000 documents whose contents you can't possibly know? Insanely irresponsible.

[JRDelirious]

I'm with Martin. Guilty of serious violations of law and regulation, but not treason; calls for doing hard time, but not capital punishment. If he felt morally or ethically compelled to break the rules, then the moral and ethical thing to do is to be ready for the consequences (and only a fool would not expect to be made an example of how rough can the consequences be).

[TruCelt]

IMHO the ethics of leaking the airstrike footage are debatable because he presumably was aware of its content and judged it to be important for the world to see.

But leaking more than 250,000 documents whose contents you can't possibly know? Insanely irresponsible.

You've changed my mind a bit here. Thanks for this.

[Shodan]

Few decades in prison will do wonders.
At least "to encourage the others" not to betray their duty and their country.

Yes, he is a traitor, and twenty years at hard labor seems about right to me.

Regards,
Shodan

[Aro]

Honest question: Why do people have such a hatred for Wikileaks?

They didn't steal the documents, but are only the messenger, a conduit (or facilitator at best) for others to release (in this case stolen) information. If Manning had gone direct to a newspaper would you hold the editor of the paper in the same contempt for publishing? Or if Manning had set up his own web-site, uploaded the documents and posted a link to it on a message board, then would it all be on him or on the message board that hosted the link and the site?

I fail to see what, if anything, is special about Wikileaks that makes them a target for such vitriol and anger. If they hadn't published the documents, 50 others would have stepped up to do so.

[mckall]

But leaking more than 250,000 documents whose contents you can't possibly know? Insanely irresponsible.

This is a great point and something that I think is being overlooked. While the documents that were released did not contain information that was damaging to military operations; he could not have known that.

Ignorance is not a defense and neither should 'Well, nothing really bad happened.'

[Dr. Drake]

Just popping in to point out that he is also a British citizen. That complicates matters, though not necessarily by much: a dual US-UK citizen (murderer) was executed in Texas in 2003, and another one in Georgia in 2002.

[Rachellelogram]

I think he's a hero. Potentially a traitor, but then I think our government is bullshit and should be circumvented at every opportunity. I want badly to be adopted by Canada.

pleeeeeease?

[Shodan]

Bradley Manning is a British citizen?

Regards,
Shodan

[AClockworkMelon]

Does he have double 0 status?

[Dr. Drake]

Bradley Manning is a British citizen?

Regards,
ShodanYes, under British law (his mother is Welsh). If you google "Bradley Manning British citizen" you'll find plenty of information, including whether it's true (yes), whether he cares (no), whether the British government cares (doesn't seem to), and whether the British public cares (yes, including press, e.g. the Guardian).

[Shodan]

Yes, under British law (his mother is Welsh). If you google "Bradley Manning British citizen" you'll find plenty of information, including whether it's true (yes), whether he cares (no), whether the British government cares (doesn't seem to), and whether the British public cares (yes, including press, e.g. the Guardian).
His attorney doesn't appear to agree - There has been some discussion regarding PFC Bradley Manning’s citizenship. PFC Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen. He is an American, and is proud to be serving in the United States Army. Cite. (http://my.firedoglake.com/trevorfitzgibbon/2011/02/02/statement-from-bradley-mannings-attorney-on-citizenship/)

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What does that have to do with British law?

[Dr. Drake]

Shodan: Your cite does not state that he is not a British citizen. It states that he does not consider himself a British citizen, and that he hasn't taken the obvious steps he might have done to register his British citizenship. It's not really up to him, though.

Wikipedia cite #1: British_nationality_law#From_1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#From_1983) "A child born outside the UK on or after 1 January 1983 automatically acquires British citizenship by descent if either parent is a British citizen other than by descent at the time of the birth."

Cite #2: Bradley_Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning) born on "December 17, 1987"... mother born "in Haverfordwest, Wales."

Since his mother was British by birth (i.e. not by descent) and he was born abroad after 1983, he is a citizen until he officially renounces it to the Home Secretary.

[FairyChatMom]

I'm not sure I'd say treason, but he most certainly broke the law by releasing classified material. I've had a variety of clearances at various times in my career from the time I enlisted in the Navy, and I know full well what the rules are about protecting classified material.

He should be tried, and if convicted, he deserves a long, long prison sentence. I don't know exactly what he released, but the damage certain information can lead to if in the wrong hands cannot be exaggerated. We're not talking about sharing the colonel's 11 herbs and spices here.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There was no damaging information in the files. It was all obsolete as anything that could have been useful to a hypothetical "enemy."

[Martin Hyde]

There was no damaging information in the files. It was all obsolete as anything that could have been useful to a hypothetical "enemy."

But that's not part of the law. There are still statutory punishments for releasing any material that is classified, regardless of how it is later used. He wasn't working for Enron or WorldCom, you sign all kinds of stuff when you get a security clearance that tells you exactly the section of U.S. code that you can find yourself being punished under if you violate it (and equivalent documents exist for people in the military pointing to the equivalent code.)

It's sort of like saying I shouldn't be punished for driving with a BAC of .15 because I didn't hurt anyone. The analogy is a bit of a stretch, but it's the same principle, drunk driving at all is illegal because it is dangerous. It is punishable regardless of whether you actually cause harm to anyone. Releasing classified information is dangerous for a lot of reasons, while not all disclosures are dangerous, the government and society have an interest in being able to protect classified information generally. This means that people should be punished for actions that go against this when they hold classified information because of a position of trust within government, the crime is in their intention to willfully disclose. Whatever happens after that may only be relevant in looking at charging the person with more serious crimes. For example in this case if Bradley Manning had released information to the Taliban about U.S. troop movements and such, the content of that information would make his actions eligible for more serious charges. Just like killing someone while driving drunk makes you eligible for steeper charges/punishments than just driving while drunk. However, there is still valid cause to criminalize the behavior itself.

[Shodan]

What does that have to do with British law?Nothing. Since "he is an American", has broken American military law, while a member of the American military, British law is irrelevant.

I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Martin Hyde]

Nothing. Since "he is an American", has broken American military law, while a member of the American military, British law is irrelevant.

I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

Regards,
Shodan

I think the point is that under British law Manning could still be considered a citizen regardless of what he says or what he claims.

American law is much the same way, if you are a born into American citizenship just the act of living abroad your entire life and never claiming any rights as an American citizen does not erase the citizenship. You'd have to actually go through the process of legally renouncing said citizenship.

[Dr. Drake]

Nothing. Since "he is an American", has broken American military law, while a member of the American military, British law is irrelevant.

I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

Regards,
ShodanHis nationality is not relevant for the criminal aspect of the proceedings, but the poll is about whether he should be executed or not. The UK is a close ally of the USA, and it does not have the death penalty. Britons are watching the case more closely because there is a British connection, and whether he is executed or not will have an impact on the overall state of US-UK relations. A very tiny minor impact, to be sure, but I'd prefer the relationship not be moving in a negative direction.

[The Second Stone]

He's innocent until proven guilty. However his treatment at the hands of his jailers is far more criminal than anything he is accused of. If found guilty he should be sentenced to time served and then sue the fucking government. Everyone in the chain of command up to and including Obama should be tried for torturing him.

[Skald the Rhymer]

He's innocent until proven guilty.


In fact that is irrelevant to the thread.

The reason I said to stipulate that Manning committed the acts of which he is accused is that I was wondering how whether American Dopers feel betrayed by his actions. This ties in to whether said Dopers consider Wikileaks an enemy of this nation (which is why I haven't complained about anybody saying the contrary; attitudes about that are precisely what I wished to probe).

As said upthread, it was careless of me not to edit out the phrase "guilty of treason" from the poll questions, but that horse has left the barn, galloped over the cliff, and been eaten by coyotes at this point.

[The Second Stone]

In fact that is irrelevant to the thread.



Unfortunately it is also irrelevant to his tormentors. But I digress. So I'll go with let's nuke Quantico and let God sort them out.

[Wesley Clark]

In fact that is irrelevant to the thread.

The reason I said to stipulate that Manning committed the acts of which he is accused is that I was wondering how whether American Dopers feel betrayed by his actions. This ties in to whether said Dopers consider Wikileaks an enemy of this nation (which is why I haven't complained about anybody saying the contrary; attitudes about that are precisely what I wished to probe).

As said upthread, it was careless of me not to edit out the phrase "guilty of treason" from the poll questions, but that horse has left the barn, galloped over the cliff, and been eaten by coyotes at this point.

I dont' feel betrayed by his actions. Releasing documents you think the public should know about so they can participate in government isn't treason. Starting a war based on intentional lies (like the Iraq and Vietnam wars were) is far more treasonous, and nobody will ever be held accountable for that.

What did he do that was so bad? He released low level classified documents.

[Jeff Lichtman]

In this country we usually try people a little bit before we hang them.

I'd like to see the evidence against Bradley Manning before I make up my mind about what he's accused of.

[The Second Stone]

In this country we usually try people a little bit before we hang them.

I'd like to see the evidence against Bradley Manning before I make up my mind about what he's accused of.

That's the problem. It's hard to burn the monster or lynch the black guy if you stop, get facts and think about it and make up your mind. It's what's wrong with this country. :rolleyes:

[treis]

What in the world are you guys talking about? What Bradley Manning did is well known and not in dispute. There's no reason we can't discuss his guilt or innocence, and what punishment if any is merited. No one is forming a lynch mob to drag him out of prison and hang him from the nearest tree.

[Jeff Lichtman]

What Bradley Manning did is well known and not in dispute.

What he is accused of is well-known and not in dispute. This does not mean he actually did it.

[YogSosoth]

I voted not guilty of treason. Every government needs whistlblowers

[WarmNPrickly]

What exactly did he blow the whistle on? There isn't a single unknown fact that's been released. What he HAS done is demonstrate that our state department can't keep secrets, and that will haunt our foreign policy for a very long time.

[treis]

What he is accused of is well-known and not in dispute. This does not mean he actually did it.

No, the evidence against him is overwhelming and no one seriously believes that he didn't leak the information.

[Yookeroo]

I'm also curious (although this isn't my thread and no one should feel obligated to respond) what people think Manning should have done when he found that video of US soldiers killing Iraqi civilians: what would have been the right, non-treasonous thing to do?

That's very different. If he was uncovering malfeasance or war crimes etc, breaking the law to do so is defensible. He wasn't. He exposed that diplomats act like diplomats. Prosecute him. Not that the actions were treasonous, nor is he a traitor. He did use poor judgement and will probably pay the price.

Going after Wikilleaks is dumb.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

On the one hand, I think it'd be bad to render the security laws toothless.

On the other hand, I absolutely want people to act on their conscience when they perceive injustice, and I don't want people to be horribly intimidated out of doing so by the law.

Therefore I want the penalty to be proportionate. Releasing state secrets should carry a penalty much less severe than, say, deceiving the country into a war. If he were dishonorably discharged and faced a small prison sentence--say, a year--that should be sufficient to keep everyone except those who are really really motivated from following in his footsteps.

[shiftless]

Treason is a strong word but IMO is appropriate in this case. That doesn't mean that I think he should be executed, something that is rarely, if ever, done for treason in the US. Whether he is a US citizen or not, he is in the US military so the law applies to him plus the Army has its own courts and laws. Manning willingly broke those laws.

This is a completely different question from whether what he did was right or wrong. I am convinced he did something that he thought was right and for the good of the nation. He was willing to pay the price, like anyone else who purposely breaks a law in protest. That doesn't mean we should just ignore the law.