Who should get the longer sentence, Manning or Bales?

[Andalublue]

Simple question. Who do you think deserves to serve the most jail time, Bradley Manning or Robert Bales? Both will be sentenced this week, do you think that one's crime is comparable in severity with the other's?

Have at it!

 

[KevinKohler]

One is actual loss of life, but not of Americans, the other is potential loss of life, but of Americans.


Obviously, Manning will get the harsher sentence. As for who SHOULD, that's obvious. The person who committed mass murder.

 

[joG]

One is actual loss of life, but not of Americans, the other is potential loss of life, but of Americans.


Obviously, Manning will get the harsher sentence. As for who SHOULD, that's obvious. The person who committed mass murder.

Interesting view and sounds obivous. I am not sure, however, that I agree.

 

[Andalublue]

Interesting view and sounds obivous. I am not sure, however, that I agree.

With which part of Kevin's post do you not agree? Please explain.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Bales, no question. However, if he was acting out of mental illness, he should be put in a mental hospital rather than prison. But he should definitely get life in prison. He's a danger to society.

Manning should get a couple years, plus probation. His actions were reckless, but ultimately harmless.

 

[Gathomas88]

Bales will probably get life in prison, whereas Manning will get a couple of decades behind bars at the very worst.

I don't see any reason to assume that Manning would get any harsher a sentence than a mass murderer like Robert Bales, especially not when the anti-American propaganda value a light conviction would give to organizations like the Taliban is taken into consideration.

 

[Andalublue]

Bales, no question. However, if he was acting out of mental illness, he should be put in a mental hospital rather than prison. But he should definitely get life in prison. He's a danger to society.

Manning should get a couple years, plus probation. His actions were reckless, but ultimately harmless.

If he was acting out of mental illness, then yes, he should be confined in a secure psychiatric facility for life. He has pleaded guilty however, and he has not sought to claim insanity.

 

[OscarB63]

If he was acting out of mental illness, then yes, he should be confined in a secure psychiatric facility for life. He has pleaded guilty however, and he has not sought to claim insanity.

It is my understanding that he plead guilty as part of a deal to avoid the death penalty. personally...I'd rather face the death penalty than 50+ years in prison

 

[Andalublue]

It is my understanding that he plead guilty as part of a deal to avoid the death penalty. personally...I'd rather face the death penalty than 50+ years in prison

Yes, that's my understanding of it too. He would have avoided the death penalty by arguing insanity too, wouldn't he? As far as the old, 'I'd rather be dead than incarcerated for life' argument, I can't really imagine how I'd feel in those circumstances, it seems that alien an idea to me.

 

[OscarB63]

Yes, that's my understanding of it too. He would have avoided the death penalty by arguing insanity too, wouldn't he? As far as the old, 'I'd rather be dead than incarcerated for life' argument, I can't really imagine how I'd feel in those circumstances, it seems that alien an idea to me.

he would have only avoided the death penalty if they had bought an insanity plea. this way it was guaranteed to be off the table.

as for death v life in prison....I've been an MP for over 10 years, seen my fair share of what life is like in military prisons. I still think I would prefer death over spending 50 years in lockup

 

[Andalublue]

as for death v life in prison....I've been an MP for over 10 years, seen my fair share of what life is like in military prisons. I still think I would prefer death over spending 50 years in lockup

Fortunately, I don't have the life experience you have had to be able to imagine myself into that situation, so I'll bow to your greater insight.

 

[OscarB63]

Fortunately, I don't have the life experience you have had to be able to imagine myself into that situation, so I'll bow to your greater insight.

yeah, having a conversation with a 50 y/o man who has been in prison for the past 30 years and is looking at 25-30 more is a real eye opener.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If he was acting out of mental illness, then yes, he should be confined in a secure psychiatric facility for life. He has pleaded guilty however, and he has not sought to claim insanity.

Well, life in prison it is then.

 

[joG]

With which part of Kevin's post do you not agree? Please explain.

I am not sure that mass murder of 16 is worse than treason.

 

[soot]

I am not sure that mass murder of 16 is worse than treason.

I'm not either.

But Manning wasn't convicted of treason (UCMJ Art. 104).

Ya can't exactly sentence a guy based upon charges that didn't stick, or take those charges into consideration during sentencing.

Anyhow, looks like Manning got 35 years less (time served + 112 days), eligible for parole after serving one third of that sentence.

Pretty safe to say Bates is gonna get slapped on the dick a lot harder than that.

 

[Andalublue]

Thirty-five years! Wow! That's exactly ten times the sentence served by Lt. Calley for the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians back in the Seventies.

I guess there's very little likelihood that President Obama will step up and permit a clemency action on behalf of a whistleblower, as Nixon did on behalf of a mass murderer.

O tempora! O mores!

 

[soot]

... on behalf of a whistleblower...

Let's not get carried away and start pretending that Manning isn't a pice of **** lowlife who got off light here.

 

[Andalublue]

Let's not get carried away and start pretending that Manning isn't a pice of **** lowlife who got off light here.

You may think of him that way. I think of him as a bit of a hero, and now, certainly a martyr. Why? Because he has done what he has done for excellent, democratic reasons, namely:

1. Providing the individual citizen with the knowledge s/he requires in order to restrain state power.
2. He challenges unchecked government secrecy. The checks and balances on the power of the state to cover up and control information is no longer subject to any realistic checks and balances. The sacrifice of people like Manning and Snowden is a service to the entire nation. and to those beyond who look to the US for political and moral leadership.

For us to buy into the demonisation of Bradley Manning we'd have to believe that the secrets that he passed to wikileaks were legitimately-held secrets, things that the public had no right to know. Things that would prove injurious to the US were they made public. There are many, many people, not just your leftist bogeymen, who believe that this is simply not the case.

The rapid growth of secrecy matches the rapid growth in bad ideas and administrative incompetence, as overclassification protects “the delicate ego of the foreign policy elite, whose performance in the past decade has been so lethally sub-par...

Examining at some length the material Manning is alleged to have leaked, Madar compares the claimed harm and the known harm from several leading examples. A classified list of “vital strategic interests” compiled by the State Department reveals such sensitive information as the fact that the Strait of Gibraltar is “a vital shipping lane” and that the Congo is “rich in mineral wealth.” Secrets like these, he writes, may as well have been “tabulated by a reasonably capable undergraduate intern” but their release prompted agonized howling from government spokesmen. “Have we in America become so infantalized that tidbits of basic geography must now be state secrets?” Madar asks. “Maybe better to leave that question unanswered."

The American Conservative - In Defense of Bradley Manning.

 

[OscarB63]

You may think of him that way. I think of him as a bit of a hero, and now, certainly a martyr. Why? Because he has done what he has done for excellent, democratic reasons,

I have to disagree. I don't think he had any such lofty reasons for his actions. he was a sad troubled individual and he did what he did in an attempt to "get back" at those whom he felt had mistreated him. he is neither hero nor villian. just a sad confused kid who made a stupid mistake. and now he is paying for it.

 

[soot]

Examining at some length the material Manning is alleged to have leaked, Madar compares the claimed harm and the known harm from several leading examples. A classified list of “vital strategic interests” compiled by the State Department reveals such sensitive information as the fact that the Strait of Gibraltar is “a vital shipping lane” and that the Congo is “rich in mineral wealth.” Secrets like these, he writes, may as well have been “tabulated by a reasonably capable undergraduate intern” but their release prompted agonized howling from government spokesmen. “Have we in America become so infantalized that tidbits of basic geography must now be state secrets?” Madar asks. “Maybe better to leave that question unanswered."

The American Conservative - In Defense of Bradley Manning.

If that were the sum total of the secrets Manning leaked, secrets that "may as well have been tabulated by a reasonably capable undergraduate intern", I might be inclined to agree with you.

If Manning had shown some degree of restraint, or organization, or if anything he did even hinted at the fact that he had some noble (in addition to it being criminal) motive I might be inclined to agree with you.

But that wasn't the case.

Manning's leak was an unorganized, grabasstic EFF YOU to "the man" because he was unhappy. He was a grown man who made a grown man's commitment and later found that he didn't really want to live up to the word he gave. So he figured, "If I can't be happy, I'll just burn this place down and I don't care, haven't even bothered to learn, who or what I'm going to take with me".

It was not Manning's intention to deliberately provide secrets to the enemy.

But neither was it Manning's intention to engage in some altruistic act of providing the American public with the knowledge they'd need to better inform their decisions in respect to government.

Manning did what he did because he was a spoiled child.

 

[Andalublue]

It was not Manning's intention to deliberately provide secrets to the enemy.

But neither was it Manning's intention to engage in some altruistic act of providing the American public with the knowledge they'd need to better inform their decisions in respect to government.

Manning did what he did because he was a spoiled child.

I have to disagree. I don't think he had any such lofty reasons for his actions. he was a sad troubled individual and he did what he did in an attempt to "get back" at those whom he felt had mistreated him. he is neither hero nor villian. just a sad confused kid who made a stupid mistake. and now he is paying for it.

I know that that is the populist spin on his motivations, I just happen not to buy it. Nothing I have read would lead me to believe it either. I also think that what he did is much more relevant than what anyone surmised were his reasons for doing it. What he did was provide evidence that the government were keeping secrets that it had no business keeping. He informed the public of facts that it deserved to know. He did no harm to US interests nor did anyone come to harm as a result. In other words, what he did was a victimless crime and a public service.

 

[soot]

In other words, what he did was a victimless crime...

I bet that GM, Monsanto, and the DOS would beg to differ.

Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with you.

I think the conviction and the sentence were both fair so I'm pretty happy with the way things have worked out.

 

[OscarB63]

I know that that is the populist spin on his motivations, I just happen not to buy it. Nothing I have read would lead me to believe it either. I also think that what he did is much more relevant than what anyone surmised were his reasons for doing it. What he did was provide evidence that the government were keeping secrets that it had no business keeping. He informed the public of facts that it deserved to know. He did no harm to US interests nor did anyone come to harm as a result. In other words, what he did was a victimless crime and a public service.

yeah, we know what the results of his actions were. we just happen to disagree with you on his intent for doing it. yes, what he did may have been a victimless crime and a public service but that, IMHO, is not why he did it.

 

[Dapper Andy]

If that were the sum total of the secrets Manning leaked, secrets that "may as well have been tabulated by a reasonably capable undergraduate intern", I might be inclined to agree with you.

If Manning had shown some degree of restraint, or organization, or if anything he did even hinted at the fact that he had some noble (in addition to it being criminal) motive I might be inclined to agree with you.

But that wasn't the case.

Manning's leak was an unorganized, grabasstic EFF YOU to "the man" because he was unhappy. He was a grown man who made a grown man's commitment and later found that he didn't really want to live up to the word he gave. So he figured, "If I can't be happy, I'll just burn this place down and I don't care, haven't even bothered to learn, who or what I'm going to take with me".

It was not Manning's intention to deliberately provide secrets to the enemy.

But neither was it Manning's intention to engage in some altruistic act of providing the American public with the knowledge they'd need to better inform their decisions in respect to government.

Manning did what he did because he was a spoiled child.

I agree with everything except the last line.

Manning did what he did because he was EXTREMELY unstable. I don't know how he made it into the military, much less given access to sensitive information, but this alone should be a clear indication that the United States has to do a better job of evaluating personnel. The United States probably got lucky with Manning. He seems like the type of guy who would have blown up a base or something.

 

[OscarB63]

I agree with everything except the last line.

Manning did what he did because he was EXTREMELY unstable. I don't know how he made it into the military, much less given access to sensitive information, but this alone should be a clear indication that the United States has to do a better job of evaluating personnel. The United States probably got lucky with Manning. He seems like the type of guy who would have blown up a base or something.

I agree, someone humped the bunk big time. There is no way a guy like Manning should have ever been issued a security clearance and given access to sensitive information. But that's what you get when you "pussify" basic training to the point where in no longer weeds out those unfit for service.