• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should get the longer sentence, Manning or Bales?

Who should serve the longer sentence?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
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.

I think you have to consider during the height of the "war on terror" the standards were relaxed and people slipped through the cracks that normally wouldn't have.
The standards were much higher when I came in in 1997. They almost didn't let me in because I took Ritalin as a child, despite very high scores, and being in great physical condition.

You will start to see that again as downsizing kicks in.

They will also be more critical in evaluations for clearances after recent instances.

That said I saw many a young infantryman decide they didn't want to play army anymore and try to pull shenanigans to get kicked out. You do sign a contract when you join and if they think you are just messing around they are going to tell you to suck it up and serve your time.
 
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!


Manning.....he put others lives at Risk moreso than Bales.
 
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.

Okay, we can disagree on what it was, but why does motive matter? If someone lets off a firecracker at a sports game, but he intended to blow up the whole arena, he gets prosecuted for unauthorised use of a firework, not for attempted mass murder.
 
Manning.....he put others lives at Risk moreso than Bales.

I think Bales did a bit more than putting lives at risk. He took 16 innocent lives. Is risking a life a worse crime than taking one?
 
I think Bales did a bit more than putting lives at risk. He took 16 innocent lives. Is risking a life a worse crime than taking one?

Manning put other soldiers lives at risk that were on a Battlefield.....especially those over the helicopter crash and where the Rueters reporter was killed. Then Manning put others lives at Risk that were in the Military that were involved in Intel OPs. In which he admitted he did not know all that he was downloading. Which means contacts, locations, possible safe-houses and other facitilites. In other countries. Besides Afghanistan.
 
Okay, we can disagree on what it was, but why does motive matter? If someone lets off a firecracker at a sports game, but he intended to blow up the whole arena, he gets prosecuted for unauthorised use of a firework, not for attempted mass murder.

The difference between the two is that you can directly see what Bales did, just do a body count.

What Manning did was absolutely damaging just harder to measure.
We do know that BinLaden had that information in his house so clearly he deemed it useful.

How do you count such instances of raids, rescue missions not performed because informants lost confidence in our abilities to keep their identities confidential?

Less tips= less action= potential for lost lives due to action we could have taken but didn't.

Manning's incident was not an "oops" moment, he didn't release one item he had a problem with, he clearly and intentionally tried to do as much damage as he possibly could.
 
Okay, we can disagree on what it was, but why does motive matter? If someone lets off a firecracker at a sports game, but he intended to blow up the whole arena, he gets prosecuted for unauthorised use of a firework, not for attempted mass murder.

If you look at what Manning was prosecuted for, most of it was of the "unauthorised use of a firework" nature.

Transferring classified information to non-secure systems; modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using a compute system for 'unintended' purposes; circumventing security mechanisms; improper storage of Classified information; theft of records; taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'; knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.

He was found innocent of the treason count, which I would liken to extrapolating the above "use of fireworks" charges into an "attempted mass murder" charge.
 
Okay, we can disagree on what it was, but why does motive matter? If someone lets off a firecracker at a sports game, but he intended to blow up the whole arena, he gets prosecuted for unauthorised use of a firework, not for attempted mass murder.

You let off a firecracker and you injure someone then your motive would matter.

I find the comparison between the two guys unfair however. To Godwin a bit, I'd have trouble thinking that someone who shared secrets with the Nazis with the intent of exposing Allied war crimes was more "evil" than someone who murdered more than a dozen people in cold blood. However the cumulative effect of treating such actions lightly would probably do more harm, because even if the consequences arent as great now they may be in the future and have been in past. It's a consequence of the human lifespan that we can't assign proportional sentences to every crime even if such a thing were calculable.
 
The difference between the two is that you can directly see what Bales did, just do a body count.

What Manning did was absolutely damaging just harder to measure.
We do know that BinLaden had that information in his house so clearly he deemed it useful.

How do you count such instances of raids, rescue missions not performed because informants lost confidence in our abilities to keep their identities confidential?

Less tips= less action= potential for lost lives due to action we could have taken but didn't.

Manning's incident was not an "oops" moment, he didn't release one item he had a problem with, he clearly and intentionally tried to do as much damage as he possibly could.

Even in his sentencing he was more concerned about those whom he has placed at risk without knowing he had done so. He admitted to such. Course he could be playing for sympathy to downgrade the time. But most tend to think he was genuine about that part of it.

Bales is correlated to Afghanistan and what he did, could be seen as personal.

Whereas Manning actions were not. It was beyond himself.
 
I find the comparison between the two guys unfair however. To Godwin a bit, I'd have trouble thinking that someone who shared secrets with the Nazis with the intent of exposing Allied war crimes was more "evil" than someone who murdered more than a dozen people in cold blood. However the cumulative effect of treating such actions lightly would probably do more harm, because even if the consequences arent as great now they may be in the future and have been in past.
Except that the consequence of Manning's action may well, and I'd argue would be more likely to, prove to save lives rather than endanger them. How could one judge?
It's a consequence of the human lifespan that we can't assign proportional sentences to every crime even if such a thing were calculable.
I don't understand that point. What has the human life-span got to do with it?
 
Except that the consequence of Manning's action may well, and I'd argue would be more likely to, prove to save lives rather than endanger them. How could one judge?

The point is you couldnt calculate mannings effect anymore than the hypothetical unwitting nazi collaborators effect. There's no balance sheet when it comes to this.

I don't understand that point. What has the human life-span got to do with it?

That great crimes get great sentences even though some are worse than others due to the nature of human existence. Somebody who murders one thousand people is in effect no likely to receive a greater sentence than someone who murders ten. If we sit around and compare the two lawbreakers we'll agree one is worse but the comparative extent of punishment is disproportionate.
 
That great crimes get great sentences even though some are worse than others due to the nature of human existence. Somebody who murders one thousand people is in effect no likely to receive a greater sentence than someone who murders ten. If we sit around and compare the two lawbreakers we'll agree one is worse but the comparative extent of punishment is disproportionate.
So, are you saying we should accept that as a fact of life? I'd agree that is how things tend to work, but I'd balk at calling it anything remotely akin to justice. Would you?
 
Even in his sentencing he was more concerned about those whom he has placed at risk without knowing he had done so. He admitted to such. Course he could be playing for sympathy to downgrade the time. But most tend to think he was genuine about that part of it.

Bales is correlated to Afghanistan and what he did, could be seen as personal.

Whereas Manning actions were not. It was beyond himself.

If he was smart enough to become an intelligence analyst, then he was smart enough to know the consequence of release that much classified material. Ofcourse he is going to come across as concerned he wants to get the shortest sentence he can.

He knew well the consequence of his actions, it would have been briefed to him repeatedly during his advanced individual training as well as his mandatory annual training.

There is simply no way someone could do this without knowing that.
 
If he was smart enough to become an intelligence analyst, then he was smart enough to know the consequence of release that much classified material. Ofcourse he is going to come across as concerned he wants to get the shortest sentence he can.

He knew well the consequence of his actions, it would have been briefed to him repeatedly during his advanced individual training as well as his mandatory annual training.

There is simply no way someone could do this without knowing that.

I agree.....I don't think Bales can even compare when it comes to the scale of things.
 
Manning.....he put others lives at Risk moreso than Bales.
Not really..no...he didnt. Bales took 16 lives but his actions created a far more hostile environment for soldiers in an already ****ty situation. He put far more soldiers at risk than did Manning. In fact, so did the prison guards at Abu Ghraib and the marines who pissed on the dead Taliban. well...not so much them as the douchebag that videotaped it and/or took pictures and posted them.
 
Not really..no...he didnt. Bales took 16 lives but his actions created a far more hostile environment for soldiers in an already ****ty situation. He put far more soldiers at risk than did Manning. In fact, so did the prison guards at Abu Ghraib and the marines who pissed on the dead Taliban. well...not so much them as the douchebag that videotaped it and/or took pictures and posted them.

Heya VM. :2wave: I would disagree. As Manning not only put all operations in Afghanistan in jeopardy. But he put sources, Intel, and even from other Countries. From Command Officers Schedules.....security measures and protocols. Intel would include all Armed Forces and even others in any connection. Really they still don't know all of what he has done.

Which this is just off the top so far.
 
Not really..no...he didnt. Bales took 16 lives but his actions created a far more hostile environment for soldiers in an already ****ty situation. He put far more soldiers at risk than did Manning. In fact, so did the prison guards at Abu Ghraib and the marines who pissed on the dead Taliban. well...not so much them as the douchebag that videotaped it and/or took pictures and posted them.

Interesting that it does appear that those revealing horrible abuse, criminality and corruption are worse 'douchebags' than those actually committing the abuses. Where's the logic in that?
 
Interesting that it does appear that those revealing horrible abuse, criminality and corruption are worse 'douchebags' than those actually committing the abuses. Where's the logic in that?
Pissing on a dead Taliban...meh...politically incorrect but he's dead. Taking pictures of it and putting them on the internet? Thats just plain stupid and it put many more people at risk. If you cant see that you dont want to.
 
Heya VM. :2wave: I would disagree. As Manning not only put all operations in Afghanistan in jeopardy. But he put sources, Intel, and even from other Countries. From Command Officers Schedules.....security measures and protocols. Intel would include all Armed Forces and even others in any connection. Really they still don't know all of what he has done.

Which this is just off the top so far.
And it may have had little to any impact. We still just dont know.
 
And it may have had little to any impact. We still just dont know.

Well.....we do have somewhat an of an idea from Julian. As he still has more.

Which we have made no move on him. Makes me wonder all that much more.
 
Well.....we do have somewhat an of an idea from Julian. As he still has more.

Which we have made no move on him. Makes me wonder all that much more.
Im not suggesting his actions had zero impact and I think his sentence is pretty close to right. In another year or two he will a footnote and in three or four he will have vanished entirely. I just worry more about the boots on the ground and the direct impact actions take. Funny that when it was me there I didnt give it a second thought. With my son on his second tour right now...I very much do.
 
robert is gay too ? if so they both may be sentenced to death

the army wanted to insult bradley by releasing his private pics on media
 
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!

Bales without a doubt. Hell, I'd give Manning a medal.
 
Back
Top Bottom