Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:28 PM Aug 2013

Why I think Bradley Manning should do time.

I imagine this post will offend both sides of the argument, but so be it. Now that the trial has been terminated and sentence awarded, I think it is permissible to offer my thoughts on the subject. First of all, I wouldn't have awarded him 35 years. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The argument for cutting him lose amounts to roughly this: as a courageous whistleblower, he exposed wrongdoing by the government and that this end justifies the illegality of the means. I agree that such exposure is of high value, but question that this value outweighs the illegality completely.

The argument for throwing the book at PFC Manning is the converse: he broke the law, he should pay his pound of flesh. As the Court dismissed any question of his actions putting allies or friendly personnel at risk, we can set aside that question ourselves. Thus we are left with an illegal act, and must weigh whether the benefit of said act outweighs the violation of the law.

Comparisons are often made to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (including by Mr Ellsberg himself). I submit that there is a difference: Mr Ellsberg was acting as a private citizen, whereas PFC Manning was acting while a member of the armed forces. Mr Ellsberg violated no trust of position when he released the information. This is not the case with PFC Manning.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that a soldier is obligated to disobey unlawful orders, furthermore it states that a soldier has the obligation to report any unlawful activity to the proper authorities. Wikileaks, however laudable an organization it may be, is not a proper authority, and thus the actions of PFC Manning were not in accordance with the UCMJ and he gets no slack there.

Another argument made in support of PFC Manning is that he was acting in accordance with the principles of civil disobedience, but here we have the same problem that PFC Manning was not a private citizen but a member of the armed forces, entrusted with the processing and maintenance of sensitive information. By disseminating such information he did not merely violate a statute, he violated a trust. Arguably, he exploited his position to violate the statute. It is a nice question, I think, whether the violation of trust should be forgiven, even if we may forgive the violation of statute. In any event, "Civil Disobedience" does not relieve the disobedient one from the force of law; quite the converse, one who engages in Civil Disobedience must be prepared to submit to the force of the law if he is in violation. Thus with PFC Manning, then, if we choose to employ the Civil Disobedience defense.

Enemies of freedom will argue that the end justifies the means. But by arguing that the information provided by PFC Manning justifies the method employed in disseminating it, are we not arguing exactly the same thing? Does, then, the end justify the means so long as it is our end, and not someone else's?

So, if I had been the judge, I would have awarded PFC Manning a DD and 3-5 for misappropriation (and misuse) of information. Acknowledging that he performed a worthy service, I still must question whether, in a nation of laws, we should encourage lawbreaking for any reason, however benign or laudable it might be. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

-- Mal

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why I think Bradley Manning should do time. (Original Post) malthaussen Aug 2013 OP
I tend to agree with you, good post and analysis quinnox Aug 2013 #1
I agree and disagree. denverbill Aug 2013 #2
What bothers me is the violation of trust. malthaussen Aug 2013 #3
Yeah, I agree he should do time Blue_Tires Aug 2013 #4
No offense taken... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #5
When I say Mr Ellsberg violated no trust of position... malthaussen Aug 2013 #7
Very thoughtful post. I agree with you. nt kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #6
 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
1. I tend to agree with you, good post and analysis
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:32 PM
Aug 2013

In my opinion, a light prison sentence would be appropriate, if only to show that solders need to be reminded there are consequences of disobeying rules, even if the intentions are good. I can understand the need for discipline in the military and so on, in other words.

denverbill

(11,489 posts)
2. I agree and disagree.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:55 PM
Aug 2013

If Manning committed an offense, I think it was the rather over-broad nature of what he exposed. He didn't just release the videotapes. He released TONS of documents, many of which I doubt he had even read. If he had limited the scope of what he released to only documents of illegal acts by the US and/or US employees, I would say he shouldn't have served any time. Given that he seemed to release everything to Wikileaks and leave it to Wikileaks to decide what they would publish, I think makes him guilty to some degree. But given that what's been released so far has done very little harm to the US except for to our image, it's hardly a 35 year crime. I would say a DD and time served.

As a poster noted on another thread, William Calley wiped out an entire village in Vietnam, and spent 3 years in house arrest. Can you imagine if whoever reported that had gotten it from secret documents and been sentenced to 35 years?

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
3. What bothers me is the violation of trust.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:11 PM
Aug 2013

This is complicated by PFC Manning being an enlisted man. If he had been an officer, or a bureaucrat in a position of trust and authority, then he could have simply resigned, and in his capacity as a private citizen exposed the wrongdoing to which he was witness. Unfortunately an enlisted man does not have that option, which does serve as some amelioration of the act: what was the poor boy to do? Ultimately, IMO, this is one of those unsavory situations to which no solution can be found that is truly palatable. I could be much more easily argued to a position of greater leniency than otherwise, and arguably the conditions under which PFC Manning served his pre-trial incarceration, and other extenuating circumstances could reduce the sentence to time served, or argue for a later commutation. I was expecting the Judge to award 10-20 myself, unless the High Command had decided to make an example. The sentence as awarded is odd, IMO, since while severe, it is much less than could have been awarded had the Court decided to crucify the young man.

As for Lieutenant Calley, there is no doubt that justice miscarried there, IMO. Had I been the judge, I would have ordered him to be hanged. Speculation as to what injustice might have been perpetrated in the case suggested is rather pointless, IMO, as it is wholly counter-factual.

-- Mal

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
5. No offense taken...
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:21 PM
Aug 2013

...yours is a reasoned position. One that I disagree with but certainly not offensive.

One thing you said, however, is flat out wrong: "Mr Ellsberg violated no trust of position when he released the information." Now it is true he was not in the military; however, he did have a privileged position as someone with a Top Secret clearance and he did swear an oath to honor those classifications and not reveal any information so classified. Also I think it is fair to point out that Manning's clearance level was not that high, and none of the information he revealed was Top Secret, only Secret. So from that point of view, Manning's violation was less than Ellsberg's.

Anyway, Manning was kept in very inhumane conditions for the first 8 months and has now served 3 years in total (*). So I think it would have been appropriate to let him go with time served. Well that was probably not in the cards no matter what, but I wish it had been.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
7. When I say Mr Ellsberg violated no trust of position...
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:36 PM
Aug 2013

... I mean that very specifically. Mr Ellsberg was not acting in any official capacity, or using information to which he had access as a result of a position then held. It's a nice point: he knew about the PP because of work he did previous to release, and he had an "in" at the RAND corporation (which, while not a public agency, was under contract to the government at the time. Still is, I think). As a comparison, if PFC Manning had waited until separation from military service to expose what he knew, I would not have a problem. Of course, arguably without such access he would have had nothing to expose.

As for the conditions of PFC Manning's pre-trial incarceration, I addressed that in a reply infra: I agree that it may be persuasively argued that his sentence be commuted to DD and time served. Lord knows, those conditions should serve adequately pour encourager les autres. I'm not completely satisfied on this point atm, but in any event 3-5 should include some portion of time served.

-- Mal

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why I think Bradley Manni...