sharkman Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) A military judge on Wednesday morning sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Manning, 25, was convicted last month of multiple charges, including violations of the Espionage Act for copying and disseminating the documents while serving as an intelligence analyst at a forward operating base in Iraq. He faced up to 90 years in prison. Personally, I think he should have received a longer term before consideration of parole. If you join the army, then do something this stupid while in their employ, then you have deep issues, as suggested by his defense counsel. Defense lawyer David Coombs portrayed Manning as a well-intentioned but isolated soldier with gender identification issues, and he asked Lind to impose “a sentence that allows him to have a life Twenty-five and still a PFC? it depends on when he signed up, but it looks like Manning was not receiving promotions and that speaks volumes too. Edited August 21, 2013 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 He got more than John Walker Lindh. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 He got more than John Walker Lindh. LOL. Known terrorists get less time than Manning? Something is not quite right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) For something not involving the murder of someone, that's a dang long time. Edited August 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Personally, I think he should have received a longer term Its a matter of perspective... If I was the government and wanted to keep being allowed to do absolutely whatever I want in secret, and keep running the GWOT scam that makes me and all my pals rich... Then I would have thrown the book at him. 1000 years! But from the perspective of the public who has an interest in knowing whats really going on, I would have given him a gift certificate for breakfast at Dennys, and sent him on his way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Or as we learned with Mr Snowden... dont stick around to get caught. Manning should have bolted with the data and released it from a country with no extradition treaty with the US. Preferably somewhere with nice beaches, and hot chicks (or maybe good lookin dudes in Mannings case?) Edited August 21, 2013 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Or as we learned with Mr Snowden... dont stick around to get caught. Manning should have bolted with the data and released it from a country with no extradition treaty with the US. Preferably somewhere with nice beaches, and hot chicks (or maybe good lookin dudes in Mannings case?) No, I wouldn't compare Manning to Snowden. Snowden hasn't released thousands of documents without knowing what most of them even were. Snowden was selective and protective of his information and didn't just dump them online. He passed them along to journalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 No, I wouldn't compare Manning to Snowden. Snowden hasn't released thousands of documents without knowing what most of them even were. Snowden was selective and protective of his information and didn't just dump them online. He passed them along to journalists. I wasnt comparing what they released, so not sure what you are on about here. I just said that manning should have bolted before he released the documents, then he wouldnt be in jail for the next 35 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I wasnt comparing what they released, so not sure what you are on about here. I just said that manning should have bolted before he released the documents, then he wouldnt be in jail for the next 35 years. Ok. Well, I'm glad he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 No, I wouldn't compare Manning to Snowden. Snowden hasn't released thousands of documents without knowing what most of them even were. Snowden was selective and protective of his information and didn't just dump them online. He passed them along to journalists. But yet some around here felt the need to rake Snowden over the hot coals and yet barely said a peep about Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Ok. Well, I'm glad he didn't. As are millions of little authoritarian state power sycophants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Known terrorists get less time than Manning? Something is not quite right here. I don't believe the Taliban was on the list of terrorist organizations. Do you have information that says otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted August 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Known terrorists get less time than Manning? Something is not quite right here. Lindh was not in the army, if he would have been his sentence would have been much tougher. People in the army are held to a higher standard, I point that out for those who might not be aware of this. Bradley will be considered for parole before a decade of his 35 yr sentence. It has been reported in the news that he will be asking for a presidential pardon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't believe the Taliban was on the list of terrorist organizations. Do you have information that says otherwise? Irrelevant. I was only speaking about John Walker Lindh. I did not mention the Taliban. You can still be labeled a terrorist aka 'enemy combatant' and not belong to any officially recognized terrorist group. Why was the Taliban ousted again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 How DARE Manning disclose the fact that apache helicopters were mowing down civilians! How DARE he disclose the massacre of over 100 civilians in Granai! How DARE he disclose that US diplomats basically act like a bunch of children on the school ground! We would all be better off if we didnt know about these things! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Lindh was not in the army, if he would have been his sentence would have been much tougher. People in the army are held to a higher standard, I point that out for those who might not be aware of this. Speaking of higher standards, we still have not found those pesky WMDs in Iraq. If Manning gets 35 years, I would expect a few generals and a couple former Whitehouse residents would get at least double that. It's not a higher standard, it's a double standard. Bradley will be considered for parole before a decade of his 35 yr sentence. It has been reported in the news that he will be asking for a presidential pardon. If that happens, then they would have to back off Snowden, and we know that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Why was the Taliban ousted again? So girls could go to school! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Irrelevant. I was only speaking about John Walker Lindh. I did not mention the Taliban. You can still be labeled a terrorist aka 'enemy combatant' and not belong to any officially recognized terrorist group.I know you were, and he was with the Taliban; so unless the Taliban was considered a terrorist organization, he was not a "known terrorist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted August 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Speaking of higher standards, we still have not found those pesky WMDs in Iraq. If Manning gets 35 years, I would expect a few generals and a couple former Whitehouse residents would get at least double that. It's not a higher standard, it's a double standard. The point is, when Manning volunteered for the army he knew the penalties for crime was severe. So whether one likes the standards or not, Manning took the next step and submitted to those standards. Edited August 21, 2013 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 As are millions of little authoritarian state power sycophants Not at all. Snowden's information leak was positive and with discretion. Manning's was irrelevant and done hap hazardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Not at all. Snowden's information leak was positive and with discretion. Manning's was irrelevant and done hap hazardly. I dont think it was irrelevant. It disclosed massacres of civilians, torture and beatings of detainees in Iraq, and gave people a window into how unprofessional, and frankly childish and idiotic state department diplomats act on a regular basis. Seems like stuff that people should know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I know you were, and he was with the Taliban; so unless the Taliban was considered a terrorist organization, he was not a "known terrorist."Lindh received training with Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, an internationally designated terrorist organization in Pakistan. He was charged with aiding the Taliban as well as with aiding al-Qaeda. The charges were dropped when he agreed to plead guilty to carrying an explosive while committing a felony. In my fact-based opinion, he is a known terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I dont think it was irrelevant. It disclosed massacres of civilians, torture and beatings of detainees in Iraq, and gave people a window into how unprofessional, and frankly childish and idiotic state department diplomats act on a regular basis. Seems like stuff that people should know. No, there were no "massacres" or torrure etc. it gave a window into war. War is hell. Everybody knows that already. Oh and wow, diplomats can be unprofessional and childish. Everybody's shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Lindh received training with Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, an internationally designated terrorist organization in Pakistan. He was charged with aiding the Taliban as well as with aiding al-Qaeda. The charges were dropped when he agreed to plead guilty to carrying an explosive while committing a felony. In my fact-based opinion, he is a known terrorist.While he's known as a Taliban fighter, I would agree that his training seals the "terrorist" label. ----------------------------- As to whether "Manning got more" as BD said, that's debatable, as Manning, from what I've read, will be eligible for parole in ten years and Lindh's sentence is 20 years without being eligible for parole. Edited August 21, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.