No, it’s not.
No kidding. :rolleyes:
Read for comprehension. In no way was I calling Manning a rapist. I was responding to John Mace’s post with a hypothetical question.
If you can’t keep up just don’t post to the thread.
If one believes that Manning is a whistleblower, how does that square with his apology to the United States? Private Manning said: “I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I’m sorry that they hurt the United States. . . . I did not fully appreciate the broader effects of my actions. Those factors are clear to me now. . . . I am sorry for the unintended consequences of my actions. When I made these decisions I believed I was going to help people, not hurt people. . . In retrospect, I should have worked more aggressively inside the system, as we discussed during the provenance statement. I had options, and I should have used these options.”
Why do you suppose Manning made such a complete apology for his actions? Was he being insincere? Or does he now actually believe that his actions hurt people and the United States, in contrast to the opinion of most of his supporters?
Leavenworth is going to be just no end of fun, isn’t it?
Possibly because he has been tortured for the last year. Solitary confinement is torture, and torture has a way of making people say things.
Manning got off light. He will never be pardoned. The idea that a Private can decide to leak classified material will never be sanctioned or condoned. If anyone was thinking of pardoning him, the military would howl and democrats would be labeled soft on defense for the next twenty years. Manning is where he belongs.
OK. I wasn’t quite sure what your point was.
Debaser: Manning is being sentenced to 35 years, and may get off (or so I hear) in as little as 9. That’s in addition to time served, much of it in solitary confinement. So, no, I don’t think we’re letting him off. He is being punished, but I think serving 10 or 11 years total (I can’t recall how long he’s been in jail, but I know it’s more than a year) is adequate punishment. If he were a rapist, I’d consider him a danger to society. But he’s not, and I don’t consider him a danger to society.
Yeah, I wouldn’t put too much stock in his “apology”. He’s obviously a very troubled young man, and he knows he’s fucked, so it’s just as likely that he’s lying thru his teeth to get a more lenient sentence. He may or may not have actual remorse-- I don’t think there’s any way for us to tell.
Well put. He got off WAY too easily. He’s a thief and a traitor. And anytime you have a traitor he needs to be used to send a message to future would-be traitors.
If you’re using the term “traitor” loosely, in the lay sense, then OK.
As a matter of law, he is not a traitor-- that is, someone who has committed treason. For purposes of sentencing, it’s simply not true that he is “a traitor”.
In my book, stealing classified information and giving it to a third party with the reasonable expectation that our enemies will see it is traitorous. The only iota of leniency I see maybe giving him is due to the fact that he seems to be a a pretty troubled guy. But still, too lenient a sentence. If he had to be in for the full 35 years, that feels much better.
So why didn’t he just give it right to the enemy? Or are you being obtuse?
The Army knows better than I, but why are Privates handling classified information?
I was not aware that a military court lets you serve only part of your sentence.
Because he’s fucked in the head.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Leavenworth is going to be just no end of fun, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
True dat, for a variety of reasons, some of which are unfortunate.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know. Do you? My guess is that 1) he didn’t know WHO to give it to and 2) Wikileaks would give him so immediate star status among the mushheaded leftists. And that seems to have worked perfectly.
Her name is Chelsea. And she is a hero.
The idea that a general can classify information solely because it illustrates the extent of his organization’s crimes will never be right, no matter who holds the power in theses situations. That’s called withholding and/or tampering with evidence in law circles.
Manning didn’t release dangerous government secrets, she released evidence of war crimes by the people she worked for. The very definition of whistle blowing. The people prosecuting her should be tried and hung, and statues should and soon will be erected in her honor.
Let’s not underestimate how much 10 years in prison would suck. I don’t know about you, but 10 years of my life would be a huge deal. I have plans; places to go, things to do. I think for most crimes, that’s plenty of deterrence.
Now I really do question her sanity, you can go for any name you want and you choose ‘Chelsea’? Ugghhh…(apologies to all the Chelseas out there!) 
Seriously though, as I commented on a related thread, “The 35 year sentence with possibility of release in around ten years was probably the best outcome he and his defence could hope for, its long enough for the authorities to send a message to other potential whistleblowers but potentially short enough not to be considered excessive. I can see him being released at the first opportunity when all the publicity and interest has died away.”
I don’t think she’s a hero or a traitor, I think she’s a very troubled young person and the key phrase of the reports on the trail I read for me was the comment from her lawyer, “He didn’t realise how much trouble he’d get into” (paraphrased)
Thats not an excuse but it does provide some explanation.
*yes I realise the above is a pronoun mess but the ‘Chelsea’ story broke after I wrote the original post.
No it isn’t, and no he’s not. Neither I nor the Army are under any obligation to start calling a prisoner by his silly little nickname.
He got off easy. People have gotten the chair for less than what he did.