Kaplan: Myths About Manning, Why Chelsea Manning may get out of jail sooner than you think

[flpoljunkie]

Myths About Manning
Why Chelsea Manning may get out of jail much sooner than you think.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, at 6:12 PM

Let’s puncture a few myths and misunderstandings about Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning’s 35-year sentence.

First, the entire Manning case, from start to finish, has nothing to do with the Obama administration’s avid pursuit of leakers. The military courts operate independently of the Justice Department. If the most purebred civil libertarian were president of the United States, the Army would have gone after Manning no less relentlessly.

Manning’s leak is unprecedented, not only in its volume (700,000 classified files) but also, at least potentially, in its seriousness (the inclusion, in these files, of raw reports detailing combat operations).

I asked two eminent scholars of military law—Gary Solis of Georgetown Law School and Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School—whether they could recall any parallels in the past century. They could come up with only one: John Walker, a U.S. Navy chief warrant officer who, in 1985, sold highly sensitive secrets to the Soviet Union. He was court-martialed and is still serving a life sentence. In another notable case, Samuel Morison, a former Navy intelligence officer, leaked classified photos of Soviet ships, taken by a secret U.S. spy satellite, to a British defense publication. But Morison had left the Navy by that point and was a civilian Defense Department official. A civilian court convicted him under the Espionage Act and sentenced him to two years in prison. Bill Clinton pardoned him on the last day of his presidency, in part because that World War I–era law had been enforced so rarely and inconsistently.

These comparisons, of course, are far from precise. Manning neither supplied a cache of documents to an enemy entity nor made any money from the deal. But this only highlights how brazen the Manning case looms in the annals of American military history. This is not “another case” of the Obama administration chasing down the source of a national security leak; it is a massive and extremely unusual violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

more...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/bradley_manning_sentenced_to_35_years_the_private_s_prosecution_has_nothing.html?wpisrc=flyouts

[KittyWampus]

1. I suggest DU'er read the entire article before posting on this. I'm not commenting because it might

give a clue what the meat of this article gets to.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Would also definitely recommend reading the entire article

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/bradley_manning_sentenced_to_35_years_the_private_s_prosecution_has_nothing.html?wpisrc=flyouts

[KittyWampus]

3. anyone professing to care about Manning should read it all. Maybe repost using different

paragraphs from later in the article? The OP isn't "provocative" enough.

Or it starts out sounding like it's going to be nothing but diatribe against Manning.

[one_voice]

4. Very interesting...

thanks for posting.

edited to add: agree with Kitty, it's definitely worth the read. As the article goes on...it gets to the nitty gritty, so to speak.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. The key passage, in my view

Of course, applying for clemency or parole doesn’t ensure getting it. But there is another card up Manning’s sleeve. According to Section 3-2.a(4), the Army Clemency and Parole Board may consider, among other criteria, the prisoner’s “psychological profile” and “medical condition,” including “the prisoner’s need for specialized treatment.” (Italics added.)

If the Army doesn't provide needed specialized treatment, that's a case for clemency on its face.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Just as a note on the Walker case

1) Walker was retired from the Navy at the time of his arrest. He was neither tried nor sentenced by a military court, nor charged under the UCMJ. He pleaded guilty in federal court, and was sent to federal prison. Kaplan's odd attempt to create a parallel with the Morison case seems, for this reason, incorrect.

2) The article states "John Walker, a U.S. Navy chief warrant officer who, in 1985, sold highly sensitive secrets to the Soviet Union." John Walker had been selling classified military (mostly Navy) information to the Soviets since 1967/68. He was caught in 1985, but his crime had been ongoing, and involved multiple people in its conspiracy, including, of course, Walker's own son. The statement is, at best, poorly written.

[brooklynite]

6. I fear this will be an affront to liberal orthodoxy...

Too many espouse the "MIC" mantra that the Administration (irrespective of Party) and the Military (with capitalism thrown in for good measure) are engaged in a decades long conspiracy to promote endless war for the sake of profit-making, and the legal response to Manning is simply an effort to hide "the truth".

[KoKo]

7. Interesting.... Worth the read.

Not sure if this isn't wishful thinking on Fred Kaplan's part or that he had "sources" who felt that this is the way it could go.

At any rate he seems to be saying that POB could still have an influence on the outcome of Manning's fate if he so chooses.

Still...it would be nice if it works out for Manning the way Kaplan theorizes.

[Mustellus]

9. It would have been easier to make the Whistle blower case...

if Manning had only dropped the ugly videos of laughing in combat onto Wikileaks. That alone would have ensured the military's avid pursuit of a conviction, but made the case for clemency all the easier.

But Manning could not have ever checked all the diplomatic correspondence he leaked for problems.... nor, really, could Wikileaks. Its the job of diplomats to report gossip tidbits, rumors, and scuttlebutt about foreign governments, and lots of that should stay secret, sometimes forever.

(For example, the Brits have admitted that our Paris embassy during the Revolution had a British spy. Suspicion centers on Benjamin Franklin, who's son was a British naval officer. The Brit's aren't gonna tell... )

Manning's leaks make it harder to operate even the expected parts of diplomacy. Sigh.

[mimi85]

10. Does anyone

know why Manning joined to begin with?

[deurbano]

12. I think as a route to college.

[jeff47]

14. An article the other day said it was to help push away gender issues

Basically, go "super-manly" to try and drive away his gender dysphoria.

(Using male pronoun because she was trying very hard to be male at the time.)

[dionysus]

15. i thoughti read somewhee his dad encouraged him to to do it to "toughen him up"

not sure if I remembered correctly.

[mimi85]

18. Well, he'll learn (hopefully)

that women can be pretty good at saying NO.

[mountain grammy]

11. Very interesting. This is the view I've had for a while

This is complicated. Manning is a sympathetic person.
She did what she thought was the right thing, and much of what she exposed needed to be exposed. This is the dilemma. For the safety of troops and civilians, secrets are necessary, but not everything should be secret. I don't think it should be that hard to tell the difference, but the military and our elected government has always struggled with this concept.

So I had to go back and change all the he's to she's, and does that matter? Not one bit. Manning is first and foremost a person, a human being, and a soldier. Manning did the wrong thing for the right reasons. I hope the sentence ends at 7 years.

[Rebellious Republican]

13. John Walker is a poor example....

not apples for oranges so to speak. Not even close. Lame argument, Walker was a paid for SPY, traitor that had nothing to do with Manning and his/her actions. Pffft!

[KittyWampus]

16. if that's the only thing you came away with from the article I suggest you read the whole thing.

[Rebellious Republican]

17. I did read the entire article.....

I look at it from a layman's point of view. I worked in the Intelligence/Spook community in the US Navy. Not the same, one was a bought and paid for profiteering traitors spy. The other was a humanitarian whistle blowing patriot. Protecting the masses from injustices from our current subversive government. They can not be compared, simple as that. However if you have an argument from your own personal experience, I would be happy to hear it. Until then, I despise John Walker and his entire family, and support Bradley Manning.

RR

[malaise]

19. Excellent post

Hope the Obama haters read this
Rec

[freshwest]

20. Yes, it is an interesting detailed piece. And they've bashed Obama unfairly for it and other stuff.

[Cha]

21. From your link.. thanks flpoljunkie..

"But there are several reasons why Manning will likely see wide-open skies well before 2048. First, Lind ruled that the 3½ years of time served would count against the sentence. Second, as in all court-martial trials, Manning’s sentence will automatically be examined by a review board, which has the power to reduce—but not extend—the term of imprisonment.

Finally, there are some interesting passages in Army Regulation 15-130, which deals with clemencies and paroles. According to Section 3-1.e(1)(c), a prisoner sentenced for 30 years or longer is eligible for parole after serving 10 years—or, subtracting the time Manning has already served, 6½ years. Even more alluring, Section 3-1.d(5) states that a prisoner sentenced to 30 years or longer can apply for clemency (a pardon or reduced sentence) a mere three years “from the date confinement began”—in other words, Manning could apply for clemency now—and can reapply “at least annually thereafter.”