About right considering that I doubt he’ll serve the whole 35 years. IIRC, he’d be eligible for parole in less than 10 years, which seems to me to be consummate with what he did.
She’s a woman likely to be classified as a man, and thus sent to a prison for men, where she’ll be at increased risk for sexual violence. The sentencing is too harsh, IMO, given what she revealed:
Link.
He’s a man claiming to be a woman, who’ll be sent to a prison for men. If he’s smart he’ll keep his mouth shut about his sexual fantasies once he gets there, but he’s shown no signs of intelligence so far.
He disobeyed orders and stole classified information to give to a foreign entity. The content of the revelations is irrelevant.
Right. I’m not blaming you, I’m blaming the laziness of the international press. Nonetheless, this is wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong.
ABB was sentenced to “forvaring”, which could be translated as custody or detention. It means, essentially, that he will remain in prison as long as the court system sees reason to believe that he remains a danger to society. The initial period of forvaring cannot exceed 21 years, by law. However, assuming he has not changed, the court is free to determine that he needs to stay locked up for additional 5 to 10 year periods, indefinitely.
Basically, a life sentence with mandatory parole hearings.
Yikes.
War crimes are far from irrelevant.
“War crimes” is not a statute that is defined in federal law. You cannot be arrested or put on trial in this country on a charge of war crimes.
Espionage is.
Ignorance fought; I was going off this article. I take it, given the nature of the crime, there will be 0% chance of Norway actually releasing him after 21 years?
I think what he did wasn’t that bad. He should be punished as it didn’t seem like he was exactly whistleblowing a specific instance of illegality, he just took a bunch of random files and gave it out, property that didn’t belong to him. Then again, I don’t consider espionage to be that big of a deal so maybe just let him go for time served.
Between the people who wanted death or life without the possibility of release even for burial, and the people who would want Manning acquitted to a homecoming parade and the key to the city, I find myself not too upset with the actual sentence.
And I shall stop now before I am forced to use a pronoun when referring to Manning. 
That isn’t true. Title 18, Section 2441 of the US Code defines a war crime as a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions, a prohibited action under the Hague Conventions, a violation of the Ottowa landmine treaty, or any activity taking place overseas that is very strongly disagreed with by a person who reads the news and has strident opinions about everything.
Oh, wait, forget that last clause. That’s not actually in the law.
Huh. Fascinating. I stand corrected.
That being said, the possibility that war crimes were exposed (and IIRC nobody has been prosecuted for any such crimes to date) doesn’t change the fact that stealing the papers and handing them over to Wikileaks was also a crime and that Bradley Manning should be punished to the full extent of the law.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi]
Ignorance fought; I was going off this article. I take it, given the nature of the crime, there will be 0% chance of Norway actually releasing him after 21 years?
[/QUOTE]
Given the way norwegian politics work, it is likely that the people determining that will include several of his surviving victims. If you’re a fan of poetic justice, this case is quite interesting (although they’ll likely excuse themselves for conflict of interest, when it comes to it.)
He has a penis and testicles, which makes him a biological male. I don’t give a shit about what he believes himself to be; while he still has the equipment, he’s still a “he”. Also, he did the crime, knowing full well what the consequences could be. No sympathy for the traitorous little shit.
Except the information Manning put out was then made available to our enemies, and put our soldiers in jeopardy. I have no problems with whistleblowers, but the way she went about it was fucked up. I say she gets what she deserves. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. And I don’t look too kindly on treason.
(And just because someone else got too light a sentence is another issue – it doesn’t justify letting Manning off scot free.)
Unfortunately, prison policy seems to agree with you. But Chelsea Manning’s gender is female, whether you like it or not.
I wonder: do you extend this same level of vitriol to the crimes committed by the US, which Manning brought to light?
She was found not guilty of treason.
I think of Manning as more of an idiot rather than a traitor. He had no right to over rule our military and our elected government but his motivations were just naivete rather than actual malice. But the sentence is probably too harsh. Ten years or twenty years seems more appropriate.
I’m trying to decide between ten years in Leavenworth, or eleven years in Twelveworth.
C’mon, you knew I had to say that, right? 
Seriously, I’d say time served plus six months. While he committed a crime and deserves punishment, unlike Smapti, I can’t see why this shouldn’t get something near the minimum possible sentence, rather than being “punished to the full extent of the law.”
I’m a small-d democrat. I believe that it is essential for the proper working of a democracy that we, the people, must be reasonably well informed of what sorts of things are being done in our name. How else are we going to take responsibility for them, to decide whether we want to do these sorts of things or not, if the government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ hides what it does from us, mooting the ‘by the people’ part?
On balance, Manning has done far more aid than harm to our democracy.
I put about right. He is eligible for parole in about 7 years, and he should serve at least that. 35? Too long, but it is doubtful he will be in that long. He broke the law. I wish him a long and happy life being the next generation’s Daniel Ellsberg.
Manning was a very troubled person who should not have been in the military at all, let alone handling sensitive material. The army bears a certain amount of blame for this. I think the sentence is appropriate, but I hope he does the bare minimum before parole. I feel sorry for the poor kid, though I don’t excuse his actions.
I keep hearing this. What war crimes did he expose?