Bradley Manning Faces Death Penalty

[Dan74]

Manning faces new charges; could face death penalty - U.S. news - Security - msnbc.com

While conviction on the charge of "aiding the enemy" could result in the death penalty, military prosecutors recommended that he be sentenced to life in prison if convicted on that charge alone. But the presiding military judge would have the authority to dismiss the prosecution's recommendation and impose the death penalty.

Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit. I hate the US military. This is not aiding the enemy in any way, shape, or form. No one has been killed EVER as a result of these leaks. If these fucktards in the Pentagon want to save lives so fucking badly, then they should take the fucking troops out of fucking harms way.

I apologize for the language.

[Grogybear]

My disagreement with the notion of a death penalty aside, irrespective of the moral correctness of whistle blowing and ignoring the hypocrisy of claiming to protect lives, a member of a military organisation is bound to his duty and if he breaches the trust placed in him, I see no reason he shouldn't be punished.

[Dan74]

I disagree completely. Shit, Manning should be their HERO. His actions can make them learn from their mistakes. Perhaps if they started to act morally, people would respect them.

[Grogybear]

I disagree completely. Shit, Manning should be their HERO. His actions can make them learn from their mistakes. Perhaps if they started to act morally, people would respect them.

That's a different issue. Citizens elect the president. He's in charge of the military. If you want more transparency elect somebody who'll give it to you.
As a member of the military Manning's supposed to do what he's told. He knew that when he signed up.

What if everybody leaked information? How about if it was sensitive information about a mission that clearly put people's lives at risk?

How can you directly quantify whether something endangered lives or not? Where do you draw the line?

[Thanatos]

I know how important total cohesion can be for a fighting unit, but... come on. Even threatening to kill him sends the wrong message to whistle-blowers everywhere.

[ironeagle]

I'd like to comment but do not have enough info on who or what Manning did to do so.

[Thanatos]

I'd like to comment but do not have enough info on who or what Manning did to do so.

He took a bunch of diplomatic cables home with him. A LOT of cables. Then, they were handed to Wikileaks. Unfortunately the military caught Manning after the release.

After scrubbing the documents of names and information that seemed like it might get people killed, the cables became free for anybody to download. If you can find a stable instance of the Wikileaks website you too can possess classified military documents. In terms of embarrassment and scope the release was comparable to the Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam era.

Mostly they make the U.S. look manipulative and sneaky, but we kind of already knew that. They're diplomats. It's what they do. However, in the internal cables they give a lot of frank assessments of the the situation and reading what was released makes Afghanistan sound... bleaker... than it does on television.

[Dan74]

That's a different issue. Citizens elect the president. He's in charge of the military. If you want more transparency elect somebody who'll give it to you.
As a member of the military Manning's supposed to do what he's told. He knew that when he signed up.

What if everybody leaked information? How about if it was sensitive information about a mission that clearly put people's lives at risk?

How can you directly quantify whether something endangered lives or not? Where do you draw the line?

But to kill him? As thanatos said, that's just sending the wrong message. If Manning were to be executed, that would just prove that the military is so embarrassed about covering up their actions that they would kill a soldier who spoke out. No one, not even in the military, should be required to be silent. That's tyranny.

[rmnunez]

Knowingly disclosing secret, confidential and classified information to cause harm to the US is treason when done by a member of its armed forces, espionage can be punished with execution, this is the law. Whether law should be changed and if Manning deserves leniency are different considerations.

Manning would necessarily have been trained and warned of the sensitive nature of the documents he was handling, he would know they were secret and could not be shared or disclosed to others. He really has no defence for what he did. The scale of his disclosures preclude inadvertent error and the sensitivity of the material strongly suggests the aim was to cause harm.

Some people disapprove of the death penalty, but its what the law specifies for Manning's conduct.

[Dan74]

Cause harm to the US? Good one.

[Jack]

Knowingly disclosing secret, confidential and classified information to cause harm to the US is treason when done by a member of its armed forces, espionage can be punished with execution, this is the law. Whether law should be changed and if Manning deserves leniency are different considerations.

Manning would necessarily have been trained and warned of the sensitive nature of the documents he was handling, he would know they were secret and could not be shared or disclosed to others. He really has no defence for what he did. The scale of his disclosures preclude inadvertent error and the sensitivity of the material strongly suggests the aim was to cause harm.

Some people disapprove of the death penalty, but its what the law specifies for Manning's conduct.

Even worse for Manning's defense is that everyone who is granted Top Secret clearance signs forms stating they are aware of and acknowledge the penalties for unlawful disclosure of the material they work with. While every soldier is allowed to disobey an unlawful order, no such provision is permitted when it comes to disclosing classified documents. He accepted a position with strict rules and prohibitions and would not have been given a clearance had he expressed reservations about the penalties accorded those who violated them. In other words, he put himself in this position.

However, I don't believe at his age he acted out of a mature and informed political position. He acted impetuously and without forethought. I don't believe the government will be able to provide evidence that he had any intention to provide information to our enemies or commit any form of treason. I can see no reason for the government to pursue the death penalty.

[rmnunez]

I don't believe at his age he acted out of a mature and informed political position.

What, he was underage? He was old enough to vote, old enough to enlist, he's old enough to face a firing squad! While I agree his conduct was immature, he is an adult and legally responsible for his actions, he must face the consequences.