# Manning's sentence **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 22, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878 "2013-08-22T15:24:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/61 "2013-08-23T15:46:10Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > (b) Yes. I’ve mentioned that Manning, like [Ron Ridenhour](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ridenhour), should have chosen a Member of Congress to make these revelations to. The Member has very wide powers under the Speech or Debate Clause to avoid prosecution for disseminating that information during debate or other legislative conduct. See, _[Gravel v. United States](http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/606/case.html)_, 408 U.S. 606 (1972). Granted, the Pentagon Papers had already been leaked by the time Senator Gravel read parts of them into the Congressional Record. It’s an open question whether the Member could initiate disclosure under the Speech or Debate Clause. These [two](http://www.pointoforder.com/2013/08/09/congressional-release-of-classified-information-and-the-disciplinary-power/) blog [posts](http://www.pointoforder.com/2013/08/06/congressional-release-of-classified-information-and-the-speech-or-debate-clause/) are fairly concise descriptions of the issues that would arise. I would personally love to see the Executive Branch try to arrest or restrain the Member for doing so. Perhaps doing so will motivate Congress into asserting some of its authority for reining in the Executive? > > More importantly, disclosing to a Member actually stands a chance of getting something done about the acts that Manning found so objectionable. I think that in wake of the Snowden business, we can say this theory’s been disproven. Members of Congress, including some pretty liberal members, have known a lot of the NSA stuff we just found out recently, but haven’t been willing to spill the beans, and still aren’t willing to do more than hint. I’ve been pretty upset lately about the unwillingness of Congresscritters to take advantage of their apparent immunity under Article I, Section 6. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/62 "2013-08-23T16:01:53Z")
> [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](#): > > Unfortunately, prison policy seems to agree with you. But Chelsea Manning’s gender is female, whether you like it or not. Liking has nothing to do with it. Are you personal friends with the guy, his friends or family? Neither am I, so I have to go with physical equipment. At this point, you (and others here) are buying his story without questioning his possible motivation. Are you always that gullible? ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/63 "2013-08-23T16:19:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The existence of double tap drone strikes, and deliberate attacks on funerals and wedding, for two. I was displeased too, when I first heard about the practice of ‘double tapping.’ It sounds horrible to deliberately target first responders, paramedics, and doctors. But is that who’s the first to get to the site of a missile attack in a place like the Northwest Tribal Areas of Pakistan, or the hinterlands of Yemen? Not according to the Pakistani journalist, Mushtaq Yusufzai, quoted [here](http://digitaljournal.com/article/355694). (Aside, **AK84** , or anyone else, what’s your opinion on the veracity of this Yusufzai guy, if you’ve heard of him before?) > [@](#): > > Mushtaq Yusufzai, a respected Pakistani journalist, claims 53 people were killed and another 57 wounded in these ‘double-tap’ strikes. > It is not known whether any innocent civilians were killed in these attacks. > “It is possible some civilians were killed, but we don’t know,” Yusufzai said… > … **Yusufzai said that civilians rarely participate in rescue operations and are often prohibited from doing so by militants, for their own safety.** [Emphasis added.] > But the Obama administration’s dubious practice of classifying all military-aged males in a drone strike zone as ‘militants,’ even when they are not, in an attempt to artificially lower the drone death toll makes it even more difficult to discern whether or not any innocents have been killed or injured. The fire department isn’t responding when a house gets hit with a missile. It’s all of the other guys who are next door, and they are often militants. How does the drone operator know this? One, s/he’s helped by the very generous decision that any military-age armed male in the area must be a militant until proven otherwise, and Two, because the drone’s been flying for hours, days at a time, determining who the neighbors are allied with. If you can show me that double tapping is aimed at guys driving ambulances, placarded with the Red Crescent, then that’s a war crime and the perpetrators need to fry. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Similarly, Taliban funeral processions and gatherings, like they were for the Provisional Irish Republican Army, are often heavily composed of other militants. Like the [strike on the funeral procession for Khwaz Wali Mehsud](http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/) that was aimed at Baitullah Mehsud. As such, they’re a legitimate target, despite their practice of often having noncombatants like their women and children around them. Like the 10 kids that got blown up in the strike. Ditto for weddings that are deliberately targeted. I’m sure they have been, though I didn’t find an example in my cursory search. (As opposed to accidents, like the AC-130 crew that misinterpreted celebratory gunfire from a wedding party as an attempt to shoot the airplane down, and took umbrage.) If there’s a gathering of militants, and the U.S. is in a state of war with those militants, then the gathering is a legitimate military target. Despite all of the innocent people also standing around. The U.S. shouldn’t be there. The U.S. should not be playing kingmaker in the domestic politics of Central Asia and Southwest Asia. It is impossible to kill or convince to quit, all of the Taliban, and it is a fool’s errand to even try. But if the current misguided goal is to kill Taliban and other hostile militants, then, within the laws of war, that is what the U.S. is going to do. The examples you’ve mentioned don’t fall outside those laws, from the information I’ve seen. Perhaps there are examples of those strikes that do. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/64 "2013-08-23T16:41:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes, we all know that Manning was tortured and threatened into saying some things she almost certainly did not believe. Perhaps you can explain to me why Manning pleaded guilty to some charges and not others. Was the torture insufficient to plead guilty to everything? If Manning is now so maladjusted that apologies are not genuine, does that mean that everything Manning says now is also of dubious credibility? Like, for example, Manning’s statement AFTER the apology that Bradley is now Chelsey – is that a genuine statement, or more evidence of torture? I’m just endlessly fascinated by some people’s ability to determine the precise effects of torture, and how some people just instinctively know when a criminal is telling the truth and when they’ve been coerced into saying something untrue… and all of this just by reading the newspaper! ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/65 "2013-08-23T16:42:03Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > That still doesn’t excuse what Manning did (the whole “two wrongs don’t make a right thing?”). > > I’m all for whistleblowing. Exposing war crimes is a good thing. Manning’s crime is HOW she chose to do it. Hello, you don’t just go on fucking WIKI LEAKS. > (Sorry I was mistaken on the treason thing. As for being transgender, I don’t give two shits about it.) If war crimes were happening, wouldn’t you agree that exposing them the wrong way should be a significantly less severe than the crimes themselves? A couple years with time served, that’s all she should have gotten. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/66 "2013-08-23T17:49:09Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes, we all know that Manning was tortured and threatened into saying some things she almost certainly did not believe. More shameful conduct by our government. Thanks for bringing it up! Is it possible that he was tortured and threatened by our evil government into telling the world that he wants to be a girl? Or do you assume that that’s the unvarnished gospel truth because it’s politically convenient for you to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/67 "2013-08-23T18:11:59Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’ve got to admit I’m stumped by the ‘what should Manning have done instead’ part. > > 1. Can we agree that nothing would have come of it if Manning had ‘gone through channels’ to let higher-ups know of the bad stuff s/he’d seen? Not necessarily, no. Several Americans who have been tried and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for murdering civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan were apprehended, investigated, and prosecuted entirely through normal channels. Just because in some instances (Abu Ghraib for example) proper channels did not work doesn’t mean we can or should just default to leaking classified information without even trying to go through proper channels. The combination of “smart and appropriate” for Manning would have been to make a copy of the video and put it somewhere no one else could get to, and then raise his concerns with his superiors through appropriate channels. If they ignored him, or even worse tried to retaliate and cut off his access to the video he’d have his secret backup he could then (justifiably) leak to the press. That being said, and it’s beside the point here, that video documents something that _might_ constitute a war crime. Dead civilians are not always a war crime. It’s also worth mentioning under American law it’s irrelevant what people do in courts in Europe that have no jurisdiction over our soldiers, we try our own war criminals and all that. But I do agree the video needed looked at, and if the authorities were not willing to conduct a proper investigation I’d be okay with someone breaking the law for a “just cause” to try and force an investigation. > [@](#): > > 1. So revealing the documents, videos, etc. to an outside source was Manning’s only option. He should have at least tried option one, it would have strengthened both his legal and public opinion case in my mind. > [@](#): > > 1. That means the only questions up for grabs are: (a) should Manning have been more selective with the documents s/he chose to publicly reveal, and (b) should Manning have gone through a better intermediary than Wikileaks? This gets to the crux of it for me. If Manning had tried to raise this with superiors and gotten nothing, and then just released the helicopter video I’d put him in the same vein as Ellsberg. Not as important as Ellsberg, who was a higher up releasing a secret policy document that showed American leaders basically had deceived the public in what their broad views on the Vietnam War actually were versus the views expressed in public, but still of the same vein. I view the particulars of a “singular crime” to be less important than Ellsberg’s document which revealed a large scale high-level deception. Where he fell from that is: 1. The aforementioned not going through channels at all. 2. He did not really discriminate in what he released. He basically appears to have released everything he could. Since it was such a large cache of documents we can be all but certain he has never read more than a very small percentage of it. Having access to classified information is a trust, and it can and does mean life or death sometimes. We can’t have people who get mad over something just release a mountain of the stuff–with no discretion as to what they are doing, and not punish them. 3. That being said, much of what he released appears to be State Department cables, and much of it falls into the category of things that are classified just because they’re classified and not because they represent anything that intrinsically _needs_ to be secret. So by and large his release didn’t really hurt anyone or any strategic or tactical initiatives. Someone leaking say, weapons designs or troop movements to the enemy that’s as serious as it gets–Manning didn’t do that. So taken all together, I think there was a small bit of what he did that was laudable–if he had tried going through channels first. The rest of it was just stupid, and represents reckless behavior that should be punished. I personally think 35 years is too much, and I hope he is paroled in his first hearing which I believe means he’ll have served a total of 12 years. I’d have been fine if he’d received an even shorter sentence…I don’t think time served is appropriate. But given his information leak didn’t actually harm anyone, and given he appeared to be unstable and of only partially sound mind to me 5-6 years total incarceration (so a couple years more than he’s been in jail already) would have been fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/68 "2013-08-23T18:31:40Z")
I’m on the fence as to Manning’s sentence. On the one hand, she \*did \*knowingly release secret information, and that’s a Bad Thing in the military and/or the Intelligence agencies. On the other hand, it appears that she did it as a matter of conscience, and murderers and child molesters have received lesser sentences. In other news, I propose that we henceforth refer to \*\*Smapti \*_as a female_. I disagree with her arguments, so therefore I’m right in calling her whatever I want. \*Or male, you get where I’m going with this. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/69 "2013-08-23T19:18:11Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > In other news, I propose that we henceforth refer to \*\*Smapti \*_as a female_. I disagree with her arguments, so therefore I’m right in calling her whatever I want. > > \*Or male, you get where I’m going with this. You can call me whatever you want. Calling someone something doesn’t change the biological fact of what they are. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/70 "2013-08-23T19:28:36Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Is it possible that he was tortured and threatened by our evil government into telling the world that he wants to be a girl? > > Or do you assume that that’s the unvarnished gospel truth because it’s politically convenient for you to do so? I don’t much care about Manning’s sexuality. It’s a moot point to me. Manning has expressed a desire to identify as female, that’s fine with me. Has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand, as far as I’m concerned. Manning’s torture, of COURSE, brings all his statements in court about how guilty he was and what he regretted into doubt. What sane person would think otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/71 "2013-08-23T19:33:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You can call me whatever you want. Calling someone something doesn’t change the biological fact of what they are. Is that just the PMS talking? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/72 "2013-08-23T19:37:35Z")
Manning is essentially (or actually) a public figure at this point. Engrained in the public mind as a male, if you want to be polite in person sure, refer to him by whatever he wants to be referred to as. But for purposes of detention and especially based on years of media coverage I wouldn’t get too hung up on the he/she issue especially since none of this will be read by Manning and none of us are speaking with the expectation we are speaking to Manning. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/73 "2013-08-23T19:39:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Manning’s torture, of COURSE, brings all his statements in court about how guilty he was and what he regretted into doubt. What sane person would think otherwise? If the government was able and willing to torture him into saying whatever they wanted, how come he was acquitted of the most serious charge? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/74 "2013-08-23T20:28:32Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If the government was able and willing to torture him into saying whatever they wanted, how come he was acquitted of the most serious charge? Because they didn’t want to make a martyr of him. Alive, he’s an annoyance. Dead, he’s a saint killed by the beastly government thugs. Strictly a political decision, like most cases of military “justice.” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/75 "2013-08-23T20:39:54Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Because they didn’t want to make a martyr of him. Alive, he’s an annoyance. Dead, he’s a saint killed by the beastly government thugs. Strictly a political decision, like most cases of military “justice.” Your inner monologue must be so entertaining… ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/76 "2013-08-23T20:44:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Because they didn’t want to make a martyr of him. Alive, he’s an annoyance. Dead, he’s a saint killed by the beastly government thugs. Strictly a political decision, like most cases of military “justice.” So the evil government can force him to say whatever they want, but they can’t force the military judge (who is an officer of said evil government and was appointed by said military government) to not sentence him to death, and they can’t control the appeals process so that he never gets executed anyway? Seems like we’ve run into the age-old conundrum of the secretive evil conspiracy which is simultaneously all-powerful and completely incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/77 "2013-08-23T20:52:17Z")
Well, how was My Lai exposed? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/78 "2013-08-23T21:00:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your inner monologue must be so entertaining… You. Have. No. Idea. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/79 "2013-08-23T21:01:18Z")
You got to hand it to the government, though, they really plan ahead. Had Manning been sentenced to life in prison, he might be a martyr when he passes away from natural causes in 2062. It is really amusing to hear how the Army, in particular, is a Borg-like organization of complete and secret discipline to carry out hidden agendas of ruthless political ends with brutal efficiency. Let me tell you, I’ve seen quite a bit of how the Army leadership works, and you get a pretty good idea of what it’s like by watching the movie the Pentagon Wars. [Brief summary] Project Manager: “Generals, here is the design for the newest Army troop carrier. It’s fast, agile, and carries 20 soldiers, all for $1 million a copy.” General 1: “We should put a big cannon on it, so it’s got some real firepower.” General 2: “Good idea! We should put portholes in it, so the troops inside can shoot out!” General 3: “Let’s make it amphibious!” General 4: “I’m worried about protection – let’s add 10 tons of armor and speed it up by 20 mph.” [Project Manger resigns in disgrace after the vehicle becomes too big, slow, unwieldy, expensive, and prone to sinking in water… but it had portholes.] Seriously, that’s your United States Army right there. And it’s also the one which put a psychologically distressed young man in a position he had no business being in, and was able to steal hundreds of thousands of documents under the cover of copying them to CDs that Simon Cowell wouldn’t listen to. And yet somehow, they are also the puppetmasters in this disgustingly corrupt and evil world we live in? Really? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878/80 "2013-08-23T21:02:21Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So the evil government can force him to say whatever they want, but they can’t force the military judge (who is an officer of said evil government and was appointed by said military government) to not sentence him to death, and they can’t control the appeals process so that he never gets executed anyway? > > Seems like we’ve run into the age-old conundrum of the secretive evil conspiracy which is simultaneously all-powerful and completely incompetent. No conspiracy needed, everybody knows how the game is played. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mannings-sentence/666878.md?page=5)