caretaker

35 years because he made a deal to avoid the death penalty. I know some people who would rather be executed than serve a sentence like that. Prosecutors were asking for 60 years. He should have made a run for it like Edward Snowden - exposing his government for lying about the things it does worldwide in the name of the American people won't be easily forgiven. The US has lost a lot of credibility because of punishing a whistleblower, as far as I'm concerned. Obviously a lot of Americans disagree since there were only a couple of dozen pro-Manning protesters outside Ft. Meade waiting for the sentence to come down. How many years will the helicopter crew that murdered the civilians and reporters on the leaked video get? Wikileaks reaction is coming up next on the news and I think I know where they'll stand. What about you?

Former Lancastrian

He should have done a runner or become a quarterback like his brothers Eli and Payton.

Almost Canadian

He was convicted and sentenced according to the appropriate law. If he wasn't, there will be an appeal. Are you arguing that he wasn't?

From what I have read, he came across as extremely naïve and one wonders how he was every assessed as being an appropriate person to whom access to such information should be given.

I really don't care what Wikileaks has to say about it. The founder(s) of that have repeatedly shown that, while they are willing to "whistle blow" about others, they are not prepared to have such a beacon of light shone upon their own conduct.

caretaker

The law is what it is, and theft, and possibly treason charges may have been appropriate, but does that mean that the US government has the right to break the law all it wants so long as they don't get caught at it? Of course not. Your reference to wikileaks' reluctance to face the music I assume refers to JA dodging sexual assault charges so he won't get snatched by the US and put on trial for stealing secrets the same way as Manning. The alleged victims only stopped refering to Assange as great and fascinating and decided to pursue charges after the US wanted him so I think they may have been part of a covert kidnapping plan or a plan to get him on territory from which he could be extradited. The actions of our big neighbour mean a lot here because it's easier for Harper to sell co-operating with Obama than it was with Bush.

Almost Canadian

I don't believe I said that anywhere. I haven't seen the video so I can't comment upon what it shows. If the soldiers behaved inappropriately, they should be subject to the law too.

I have no particular issue with what Mr. Snowden did, just the way he did it. Please explain why you believe he should not return home to face the music.

There has been endless debate about this particular issue previously on this site. The transcripts of the English hearings show that you are mistaken. He cannot be extradited from Sweden.

I was actually referring to the steps he took to prevent the publication of his auto/biography. He didn't like what was going to be published. Those in glass houses and all that.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

BristolUK

I recall reading the max was 90 years. What possible purpose could that serve?

You have to wonder what sort of crime not involving harm to others (considering he was acquitted of aiding the enemy) is worth 35 years or the 60 sought, let alone the 90.

Oink

No one likes a grass.

caretaker

I know you didn't say that, I read your post. The video is on youtube, look up 'Collateral Murder. The soldiers should be subject to the law too, that's partly why Manning gave up the documents. I believe Snowden should not return home to 'face the music' because he might spend the rest of his life in jail, and what he did in exposing the degree of surveillance the NSA is up to is morally right. The government can't deny it, they only try to justify it. The fact there is no extradition treaty with Sweden wouldn't stop the US from grabbing him illegaly, they have a proven track record for abduction and torture, often in foreign nations. I didn't know about his biography, I'm sure it will be a great read, but subjects disagreeing with their unofficial biographers is hardly unique. If you have no idea what I'm referring to by our PM's relationship with the White House, I'm sorry. Bristol UK, Manning will be eligible for parole for the first time in 9 years, but whether that means anything will likely depend on the political climate in the US in 2022. Oink, you're right, nobody likes a grass.

JonboyE

I think there is a world of difference between spying, or aiding the enemy, and whistleblowing. Who does a solder owe his loyalty to? The chain of command or his country? Has it not been established that his his primary loyalty is not to his chain of command? For example, following orders is not a justification for committing an illegal act.

If a soldier's primary loyalty is to the country he serves then I believe there is legitimate justification for exposing wrongdoing. I don't see a problem with making public the video showing a helicopter gunship shooting up civilians and journalists. US Citizens need to know this is being done in their name.

In any free society the powers that be must be held accountable for their actions. We hope a responsible free press can fulfil this role. I am concerned when a governments decides what information is or isn't in the public interest. When a court hands down such a harsh sentence "to encourage the others" not to disclose information that is in the public interest then a bit more freedom is lost.

However, I don't see such a compelling public interest in some of the other material he leaked. Hopefully this is what he was sentenced for.

BristolUK

Sure, but that would be the same for other sentences of the same length which, one imagines, would be for crimes that most people would think far worse.

Just been looking at 'spies' who sold stuff to foreign powers and while there are some life sentences, many have received far lesser sentences for actual espionage.

Almost Canadian

Thank you. I have now viewed the video. I have no idea what the civilians had been informed about being seen with weapons but some of the group quite clearly had weapons and the one with the "RPG" appeared to point it at the helicopter. Those in the helicopter sought authorization to fire and received it. When the injured journalist was crawling, they didn't simply shoot him.

How were the soldiers to know children were in the vehicle?

What rules of engagement do you believe the soldiers ignored?

I am confident that any defence he has will be available to him. I am also confident that many believe their actions are morally right, even though the law says otherwise.

Many would state that castrating paedophiles with jagged bricks would be morally right. Are they correct?

Again, you are arguing without any knowledge. If the UK sent him to Sweden, Sweden would not be permitted to send him anywhere without the UK's consent.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US won't "grab him" from where he currently is, or where he was (not forgetting that, in the UK, he was on bail) but would "grab him" from Sweden?

You may believe that those accused of sexual offences are justified in avoiding having to face the crimes they are accused of, others believe the exact opposite.

Again, I suggest you look into this a little more.

Here you go: Why we are publishing Assange's (unauthorised) autobiography

Assange's spin: Assange's statement

What relationship and how is it relevant to what we are discussing here?

JonboyE

People who do wrong things don't like a grass. I wish there were more about.

Almost Canadian

You won't get any disagreement from me. The issue is: whether there was any wrong doing. What your piece also needed to refer to was the fact that some of them were armed.

For example, would soldiers have been justified in engaging armed members of the IRA with "others" in NI?

JonboyE

I doubt I am properly qualified to answer that. As a civilian who has never held a weapon in anger there appears to be a prima facie case of, at best, getting your defence in first.

However, if the shooting was justifiable then the US authorities can justify it. Unless I have missed it they haven’t, just gone after Manning.

Almost Canadian

I have to admit to not understanding what you are saying here.

I thought the video stated that an investigation into the shooting was conducted and it was determined that the actions were in accordance with the terms of engagement in operation at the time.

I have no idea whether this is correct and I appreciate that some will see a cover up by the military. I accept that this may be the case.