BREAKING: Bradley Manning Sentenced to 35 Years for WikiLeaks Disclosures

[Hissyspit]

Source: NBC News / The Verge

@BreakingNews: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years for WikiLeaks disclosures - @verge http://t.co/8qFMoqLARQ

m.twitter.com/BreakingNews

@BreakingNews: More: Bradley Manning prison sentence to be reduced by time served to date plus 112 days, judge says - @Reuters

m.twitter.com/BreakingNews

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison for WikiLeaks disclosures

By Jesse Hicks 7 Minutes Ago

Bradley Manning's court-martial reached an end today, with Army Colonel Denise Lind sentencing him to 35 years in prison. She also ordered a reduction in rank to Private, a forfeiture of all pay, and a dishonorable discharge. He will receive credit for 1,294 days for time served.

The WikiLeaks source, arrested in Iraq in 2010 for releasing nearly 700,000 government documents to WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of the most serious charge of "aiding the enemy," which could have resulted in life imprisonment. Manning was found guilty on virtually all other charges under the Espionage Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the code of military justice. The verdict left him facing a maximum 136 years; Lind later found the government had overcharged Manning and reduced that number to 90 years. Within the military justice system, Colonel Lind does not have to explain the reasoning behind Manning's sentence. She did not.

MUCH OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE TOOK PLACE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN ORDER TO PRESENT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

During the sentencing phase of the trial, prosecution and defense jousted over the question of consequences. The prosecution sought to demonstrate that Manning's leaks had damaged relationships between American diplomats and their foreign counterparts, for example, but could present only speculative evidence in open court. Colonel Lind rejected testimony about alleged "ongoing" damage from the leaks. Much of the prosecution's case took place behind closed doors in order to present classified information.

Read more: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/21/4642816/bradley-manning-sentenced-wikileaks-case

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Ridiculous: Five years with time served was perhaps appropriate

35 years? It's a ludicrous sentence.

Hopefully, this will wake people up to the outrageous sentencing going on across the board in the United States.

Outrageous and stupid.

[Hissyspit]

2. He had to be made example of.

That's why he was not allowed to justify his actions.

[jmowreader]

71. How could he justify the diplomatic cable mass dump?

The Apache video, I can see releasing that. And maybe the Afghanistan and Iraqi war logs.

The diplomatic cables? That's the kind of thing that gets sources killed; dictators really don't like knowing that their minions are working undercover for the US Government, and your standard dictator has no problem with disappearing people in the middle of the night along with their whole families.

[BadtotheboneBob]

82. Exactly...

... and I've said that here (more or less) before. If she would have stuck to the Apache video, she could have possibly claimed a 'whistle blower' defense. By stealing the diplomatic cables, it only proved that she was on a lark and did it because she could. She didn't peruse them, she just handed them over en mass to Assange et al without a care whether they could be damaging to the US or not. She's lucky she didn't get more than 35 years and with her time already served, she could be eligible for parole in about 10 years. What I'd like to know if any of her present supporters will make a note to themselves to be around to help her then. Life will probably be pretty well dismal with a DD and federal felony record. What then?

[flpoljunkie]

3. NBC Pentagon correspondent said Manning could be out in 10 years with good behavior and time served

As, he is eligible for parole.

Just hear now on MSNBC.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Hopefully with three years banked he could be out in seven

Pretty obvious they are using him as an example. The more leaks, the more likely he will serve a longer sentence. I know that's not how it's supposed to work, but...

[BainsBane]

16. Where does he serve his sentence?

Are there military prisons or will he go to a federal prison?

[telclaven]

22. Leavenworth

Military Disciplinary Barracks

[BainsBane]

24. That's got to be better than a state prison

I would think. Not that I know, but I would think there would be more discipline and less violence.

[telclaven]

26. It's actually very nice

You used to be able to take tours. The prisoners used to run an auto detailing shop, a hair salon/barber shop, and some other works facilities. Don't know if they still do that anymore. Sadly, they've moved into a modern facility and the original prison is being converted into a museum.

As for safety and security, it's probably the safest prison in America for inmates. None of that gang nonsense or guard abuse is tolerated. Whether that's due to the complex sharing the same post as the Command and General Staff College I don't know, but there's a ton of senior officers hanging around all the time.

[BainsBane]

29. So Manning should be able to get out in 10 yrs

If there isn't lots of bullshit for him to get mixed up in.

[telclaven]

49. It's possible

I doubt he'll get out any sooner, but maybe 8-10 years in he might.

[Rhiannon12866]

58. Thanks for the information!

Can't help feeling bad for the guy.

[Big_Mike]

41. The correspondent is wrong.

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)

The standard is {5 days per month (around 16.667%) sorry, that is only less than 1 -3 years. More than ten years is} 9 days per month of total time. He got hit with 35 years (420 months) minus time served (43 months) for a total of 377 months (31 years, 5 months). Possible good time credit would leave him with 263 months (21 years, 11 months) so he is below the defense attorney's request for 25 years.

Edited with information found at Military Sentences to Confinement

[Socal31]

52. Other people are doing the exact opposite.

Saying you can serve out 1/3 time for good behavior.

But that doesn't sound right.

[Big_Mike]

70. As many have said, he is eligable to go in front of

the Clemency and Parole Commission after 5 years. Many seem to think that it is a slam dunk to get released as soon as he is eligible. Let me remind you of two others, one of whom was military, the other a contractor, but both handed over secrets: Jonathan Pollard to the Israelis, and John Walker to the former Soviet Union. This happened in the early to mid '80s; both are still in jail. And the Israelis are practically begging each and every year for Pollard's release. Clemency is VERY unlikely, unless the President uses his powers for executive clemency. I could see the President doing this on his way out the door in early 2017. Other than that, I don't see him getting out any earlier than 2034 or 2035, depending upon when the paperwork on his conviction and sentencing is completed by the convening authority.

[iandhr]

4. I have mixed feelings about Manning

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

But I think 35 years is too much.

[Sky Masterson]

62. Same here

I have mixed feelings about Snowden too.
But My feelings toward our government who gives everyone and their cousins access to top secret information bothers me more.

[Cronus Protagonist]

74. And feelings are more important than truth

This is a modern myth; so much so, we don't even question it.

In a world of propaganda the only thing you know for sure is your gut feeling... and even that... well... it's not really certain either... "Am I being manipulated?" comes to mind, or it should.

Welcome to the real 21st century world and it's stranger than George Orwell or Aldous Huxley ever imagined. It's more Matrix than a Brave New World.

Truth is truly irrelevant, and that is just a fact of life these days.

[YOHABLO]

5. 35 yrs? Wow .. I wonder if he could possibly get out earlier ..or maybe he can appeal?

[Lochloosa]

10. 10 Years w/ good behavior.

See flpoljunkie's post up ^

[heaven05]

6. surprised?

no

[onehandle]

8. No skin off of Julian Assange's nose. nt

[Hissyspit]

19. Right, he's in ideal situation right now.

@bloggerheads: Bradley Manning gets 35 years, more than 3 times the maximum sentence faced by anyone involved in Abu Ghraib torture

@ggreenwald: Obama admin: we aggressively prosecute those who expose war crimes, and diligently protect those who commit them.

@theCCR: This show trial was a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment, meant to send clear warning to potential whistleblowers & journalists. #Manning

@theCCR: Gov used #Manning trial to stretch discredited Espionage Act and send unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers & journos.

[BainsBane]

47. Evading sexual assault charges ain't easy

[Hissyspit]

51. As recent events show, evading persecution of journalists by

government ain't either.

Grand jury against Assange in N. Va. Has pretty much been confirmed.

Although that really doesn't have anything to do with what I and the poster were talking about.

[BainsBane]

53. It has everything to do with Assange

I don't like rapists, regardless of who they are. I'm not going to excuse his evading prosecution for sexual assault because some people on DU happen to like him. I understand that many here don't give a fuck about violence against women, but I do.

[Hissyspit]

54. Needlessly insulting in addition to beside the point. nt

[BainsBane]

55. When people time and time again

insist that Assange should not be subject to prosecution for sexual assault, the point is clear enough. I would also assert that your continual insistence that it's beside the point makes indicates to me you don't see it as important. Assange is hiding out because of sexual assault charges. He and his supporters consider him too important to stand trial for the charges against him. After all, women lie about rape all the time, so the anti-feminists claim.

[Maedhros]

64. Assange has not been charged with sexual assault.

Please find a link to back up what you are posting.

[BainsBane]

65. He certainly has been

Why do you think he's hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy? What do you think his fight over extradition to Sweden was about? The charges involve incidents with two separate women.

On 18 November 2010 the Stockholm District Court upheld an arrest warrant against Assange on suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and three cases of sexual molestation.[2] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three, [3][4] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[5] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months. An extradition hearing took place in an English court in February 2011 to consider an application by Swedish authorities for the extradition of Assange to Sweden. The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld. Assange appealed to the High Court, and on 2 November 2011, the court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds for the appeal as presented by Assange's legal representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Documents from the British court regarding extradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

[Hissyspit]

66. "Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations,[64] including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions.

[BainsBane]

72. That is a procedural issue. There are formal indictments

The guy is on the lamb, just like the Max Factor heir rapist. The charges have gone to court and been reviewed in both Sweden and the UK, as the documents I linked to show. You can see that. The question is why you don't care. Do you think only men you don't admire should be subject to sexual assault charges? Only Republicans should be charged with rape? Or all men should be able to force women into sex without legal repercussions? Or are these women just lying about your hero because women lie about rape all the time? Or is it as simple that the lives of women simply don't matter compared to a "great man"?

[Swagman]

77. yes trials and such are just a mere "procedual issue" ..but call me old fashioned

[Maedhros]

75. Yes, this has been discussed before.

A warrant was issued to bring him in for questioning. Any law officer from Sweden could, at any time, travel to the UK and question him at their leisure. They chose not to.

Issuing a warrant is not nearly the same as charging with a crime. Your excerpt proves my point. Assange certainly defied the warrant and extradition request. But no charges were filed. Even if they were to have been filed, American jurisprudence holds that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It would be counter to decades of lessons in civics classes to take the leveling of charges as proof and then proclaim him guilty.

Judging by the exorbitant sentence given to Manning, Assange certainly had grounds to fear returning to Sweden and being subject to a U.S extradition and/or rendition action.

[Swagman]

78. I would say Julian Assange has everything to fear and that a vindictive US

government would most certainly make his life a living hell and many DUers would applaud it.

[Hissyspit]

67. Wrong on almost all points.

[BainsBane]

73. You do not have authority to tell me what I have seen

N Proclaiming me "wrong" when you don't know what I've read is sheer hubris.


As for you, why do you insist on fixating on a procedural point in the Swedish legal system to justify his hiding out and refusing to face up to the charges? You may make a point of insisting the issue of sexual assault isn't relevant, when it's the very reason he is held up in the Ecuadorian embassy. I've seen plenty of people dissemble and deny for that accused sexual assailant. If someone hides out from charges, it's an indication of a consciousness of guilt. Assange thinks he's too important to face charges for sexual assault or wait for a woman's consent to have sex, and his worshipers enable his violence against women, which likely continues. These men are nearly always serial offenders. But the lives of women he destroys are obviously inconsequential in comparison to the worship of the man-god that is Julian Assange.

I don't care who a person facing indictment for sexual assault is, whether he's someone I previously admired or despised. All those accused are due their day in court, yet Assange has chosen to evade prosecution. That makes him trash as far as I'm concerned. Hell will freeze over before I defend any rapist or sexual assailant.

[Swagman]

79. Swedish prosecutors traveled to Bosnia in 2010 to question an alleged

war crimes murderer.

No such niceties for Assange on very dodgy sex assault claims previously investigated and dismissed by Swedish prosecutors.

[rtracey]

9. Sorry

Sorry kid.. this verdict is for all the Assange supporters. Your guy screwed Manning, while he gets to walk free..... Assange....F.U.

[blackspade]

23. Assange is not 'free' in any sense of the word.

He is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy and has been for a long time.
Jeez, do a little research before posting.....

[rtracey]

84. I know

I know my research thank you, and compared to the kid Assange screwed, he walks free, he may be in an embassy now, but mark my word, he will be breathing free air, vs 35 years of 6x9 cell... thanks

[JoeyT]

27. Supporting leakers seems to really

irritate the people that think it's worse to expose war crimes than commit them.

Can't imagine why.

[randome]

33. Assange's view on informants, which I guess Manning kind of fits: "They deserve to die."

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

40. Hunh?

[randome]

43. Seriously?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

50. Uh, I remember that.

Doesn't really have anything to do with Manning, even if it is true.

[Kolesar]

80. "The pioneer of a new age of transparency" was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths

Wow

[Hissyspit]

39. You do know that Manning revealed himself, right?

And Assange is hardly walking free.

You know who walked free? Torturers. People who covered up torture.

Dick Cheney, George W. Bush.

Etc.

Give me a break. Come up with something better.

[Ash_F]

11. Sexual enslavement of children goes unpunsihed

That's A-OK with the US government

WikiLeaks: Texas Company Helped Pimp Little Boys To Stoned Afghan Cops
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php

WikiLeaks Reveals That Military Contractors Have Not Lost Their Taste For Child Prostitutes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-reveals-that-mi_n_793816.html

Still waiting on that prosecution. Who's government is this?

[davidwparker]

20. +1

[KansDem]

12. Give him the same sentence Cheney got for leaking classified information...

Seems only fair.

[polichick]

30. "with liberty and justice for all" - what a quaint idea!

[SnakeEyes]

63. You mean Richard Armitage?

[bettydavis]

13. time to start lobbying for a POTUS pardon NOW

get the LGBT leaders involved, everybody and shame him and the entire party into pardoning him. How many countless other young men have been forced into the service to make "men" out of them only to be met by god only knows what kind of abuse and humiliation. All he wanted to do was tell the truth because he saw innocent children getting killed. Poor poor thing. it makes my heart hurt. Probably never happen though.

[BainsBane]

15. That is not going to happen

[littlewolf]

44. I think it will happen ... nt

[BainsBane]

45. Why would the President allow a prosecution only to later pardon Manning?

and what message would that send to others who would release classified information? I'm not going to debate whether the release was good or not, but we know the White House didn't like it. Therefore they do not want more instances. They have no reason to pardon Manning.

[ZombieHorde]

56. Unfortunately, there is a lot of logic in your post.

I don't like the point you're making, but it seems to be true to me.

[FairWinds]

17. Bradley Manning "Presente!"

Veterans for Peace stand with you . .

[handmade34]

18. F@*K!!

not right

[blackspade]

21. A hideously long sentence.

Meanwhile, the servicemen and women that killed and tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan are walking free.
And BushCo are getting a pass and support from the DOJ.

What utter bullshit.

[warrant46]

35. Totally !!

[Turbineguy]

25. A real shame.

But another belated "Mission Accomplished!" for the Bush admin.

Maybe Obama can put him on the Presidential Pardon list.

But then again, a conviction of Manning legitimizes the information which could be used for a war crimes trial in the future.

[FairWinds]

28. Blaming Julian Assange . .

is beyond stupid - gotta be an NSA troll.

[ButterflyBlood]

31. What Assange did was quite reckless

Some of what Manning turned over like the infamous helicopter video should've been leaked. Not all of it shouldve. The diplomatic cable transcripts caused some diplomatic friction for no real benefit but was relativity harmless. But things like publishing the names of Afghan informants actually put people's lives in danger. Assange did not have to release everything in one giant batch.

[Hissyspit]

38. Nonsense.

The usual. Much of what was revealed was reckless.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3684828

Bradley Manning Trial Witness Says Zero Deaths Linked To Names In Afghan War Diary Release

Matt Sledge
Jul 31, 2013

FORT MEADE, Md. -- The Defense Department task force that scoured WikiLeaks' Iraq and Afghanistan war logs did not find any deaths of people identified in the leaked reports -- discovering only that the Taliban claimed credit for the death of one person not named in the massive cache of files.

That revelation came as the sentencing phase of WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning's court martial began on Wednesday, a day after he was convicted on charges that carry a maximum sentence of 132.5 years. The prosecution's first sentencing witness, a former U.S. Department of Defense official, spoke to one of the most hotly contested elements of Manning's legacy -- whether his leaks put any American intelligence sources at risk.

Ret. Brig. Gen. Robert Carr testified that his task force identified more than 900 Afghan names as potentially at risk in the 70,000-plus leaked files. But only a single death -- of someone not actually named in the logs -- was ever linked to WikiLeaks.

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/06/as-debate-continues-what-manning.html

What Manning Revealed

The debate in the media, and in political, circles over Edward Snowden--Right or Wrong--often doubles back on references to Bradley Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison this morning. Too often (that is, most of the time), the value and import of the Manning/WikiLeaks disclosures are ignored or dismissed, just as Snowden's NSA scoops often derided as "nothing new."

So for those who either suffer from memory loss or ignorance on this particular score, here is a partial accounting of some of the important revelations in the Manning leak, drawn from my book (with Kevin Gosztola) on the Manning case, Truth and Consequences. The book was updated to this past June but the revelations below all came before March 2011--many others followed.

First, just a very partial list from "Cablegate" (excluding many other bombshells that caused a stir in smaller nations abroad):

-U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is.

-Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by U.S. All part of giving U.S. full rein in country against terrorists.

-U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition.

-Egyptian torturers trained by FBI—although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.

-State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'”

-Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country's ruling elite described as “The Family,” with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country's First Lady may have made massive profits off a private school.

-U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.

-Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect U.S interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.

-Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.

-Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie's cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.

-The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the U.S. is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.

-New York Times: “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

-Afghan vice president left country with $52 million “in cash.”

-Shocking levels of U.S. spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.

-Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the US when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

-U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

-Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland.

-Hundreds of cables detail U.S. use of diplomats as “sales” agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.

-Millions in U.S. military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov't uses (or stolen) instead.

-Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the ”brink of collapse.”

-The U.S. secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

O

[LiberalLovinLug]

59. thanks for that summary

Its appalling to know there are some on DU who demonize Manning, Assange, Snowden, Greenwald ....and staunchly proclaim how "dangerous" it is that these truths have now seen the light of day, and are thrilled that Manning will rot in jail, and Assange and Snowden must run and hide and live in fear.

[ButterflyBlood]

69. Not the point

I said a lot of the stuff released should've been. However not only did Assange release all of it, he clearly didn't even bother to review everything. Some of the info indeed did endanger peoples' lives and wasn't even an expose on the type of activities listed above. If Assange had proved that he had actually reviewed any of the info instead of just releasing it all in one giant dump or even simply redacted certain names from certain documents, he'd have a much more of a moral high ground. But not bothering to do so and openly publishing the names of informants is reckless and threatening.

[Hissyspit]

81. "Bradley Manning Trial Witness Says Zero Deaths Linked To Names In Afghan War Diary Release"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/bradley-manning-afghan-war-diary_n_3684828.html


Wikipedia:

On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57]


"High moral ground," "reckless:"

In one incident, a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers.[33]

On 4 March 2007, in the Shinwar shooting, U.S. Marines opened fire on civilians after witnessing a suicide bombing and supposedly coming under small arms fire. The Guardian reported their actions: "The marines made a frenzied escape [from the scene of the bombing], opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in the fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded." The military report of the incident (written by the same soldiers involved in it) later failed to make any reference to the deaths and injuries and none of the soldiers involved were charged or disciplined.[34]

On 21 March 2007, CIA paramilitaries fired on a civilian man who was running from them. The man, Shum Khan, was deaf and mute and did not hear their warnings.[32][35]

In 2007, documents detail how US special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. A senior U.S. commander reported that 150 Taliban had been killed. Locals, however, reported that up to 300 civilians had died.[36]

On 16 August 2007, Polish troops mortared the village of Nangar Khel, killing five people – including a pregnant woman and her baby – in what The Guardian describes as an apparent revenge attack shortly after experiencing an IED explosion.[32][37]

[Zorro]

34. Good

Manning deserved it.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. 35 years is way too much IMO

[Socal31]

37. I am reading as low as 8 years with time served.

A long time, but he will be out in his early 30s possibly, which is awful...but not as bad as it could have been.

[Big_Mike]

42. No. See my #41 above.

NT

[truth2power]

46. Shameful!! The enemy of the Obama Administration is the American people...

Al CIAda is how we fight our proxy wars.

War criminals walk free. "Dick" Cheney walks free. With a new heart, yet.

The American Government kills innocent 16 year old's and then the person who speaks for the President says, "He should have had a more responsible father". Shameful. Ugly. Disgusting.


The US drones those it "suspects" of wrongdoing, and then double-taps those who try to help the survivors.

And someone with a conscience, who discloses the evil and rot that is our government gets 35 years in prison.

Tell me that those who claim to rule America are NOT some reptilian life-form. Go ahead!

[polynomial]

48. Hear ye, hear ye declareation by We the People

Whereas we the people here by proclaim in evidence that is supported by popular opinion, do with the power of the Democratic majority as outlined in the constitution to pardon by popular vote Mr. Bradley Manning of military justice charges and convictions.

Where as we the people in this declaration release Mr. Bradley Manning immediately to be a citizen in good standing with a full military pension healthcare with benefits due to a retired citizen this day forward.

America, if we the people could actually imagine the renewed Democratic social power the Constitution of the people by the people and for the people really will continue, because the way our Democracy is operating it is, it already has perished.

[man4allcats]

57. Sign the Bradley Manning pardon petition at

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/manning-pardon

[Jamaal510]

60. I actually have

more respect for Manning than I do for Snowden. Like others have said, at least he didn't duck his punishment, and he did offer an apology. Though, I will add that 35 years is probably a bit too harsh.

[cstanleytech]

61. Ouch, 35 years?

I thought at most 25 maybe though I was hoping for no more than 5 years

[Pterodactyl]

68. Not surprising considering the seriousness of the charges.

[blkmusclmachine]

76. The Innocent Must Be Punished.