Manning is facing the possibility of 136 years in prison.

[Thorne]

at most, they were sometimes embarrassing to the US and its allies.

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

[js207]

Which, to my mind, does not justify those documents being classified. Which seems to be the way things happen anymore. If a politician does something wrong, or stupid, or embarrassing, it gets classified so that he or she won't have to face responsibility for it.

One of the classification levels is 'confidential', for exactly that sort of thing, and rightly so IMO: not "national security secrets", but "stuff that shouldn't be public": troops' personal details, notes about other people. Some of the 'embarrassing' bits to come out involved assessments of other countries' politicians: this one being a drunk, that one being a bit unstable but not likely to get very far... Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

I'm not all that familiar with the kinds of things Manning revealed, but exposing documents which show that, for example, some high ranking official ordered an illegal drone strike on a non-military target resulting in civilian casualties, I wouldn't consider revealing those documents to be treason. The person who authorized the strike, then tried to cover it up, is the one who has committed treason, in that he involved his country in an illegal act. THAT person should be held accountable, not the person who revealed his actions.

I think the nearest anyone's found in the vast pile he dumped was a video of a helicopter shooting at some people who may or may not have been pointing rocket launchers at them at the time, plus reports about some Iraqis mistreating other Iraqis. Treason ... no (as the court martial ruled), because what he leaked wasn't really very useful to anyone - just illegal, stupid and a breach of his orders. Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

[Thorne]

Leaking that stuff didn't really help anyone.

Perhaps not, but did it really hurt anyone? I mean, other than foreign drunks?

Treason, by the way, is not about involving the country in an illegal act, but aiding the country's enemy.

I would think that implicating your country in an illegal act would, ultimately, aid your enemies. Covering up that act provides ammunition for your enemies to use against you, and could even make someone a target for blackmail by those enemies. Let's face it. The chances of a general being fired for bombing enemy civilians, legally or not, are remote. At worst I would suspect he'd get an early retirement with full benefits, and the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing speaking tours and Fox News analyses.

[thir]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/los...ctually-leaked

[thir]

decided to leak these documents after he became disillusioned with the Iraq war. He described how reading classified documents made him, for the first time, aware of the breadth of the corruption and violence committed by his country and allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...serves-a-medal

[Thorne]

Thanks for the links, thir.

And it seems to be consistent with what I noted. The only "secrets" he revealed were records of atrocities and potential war crimes, military indifference to civilian casualties, corruption up and down the chain of command, the kinds of things that the taxpayers SHOULD know about. Yeah, maybe leaking state department documents detailing the politicians disdain for anyone not American would prove to be embarrassing, but so what? If it would embarrass you to have someone find out you did something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place?

So yeah, they seemed to get it right that he did not commit treason. He did break the law, so he should be punished. But if the punishment should fit the crime, maybe he should only be 'embarrassed' by those he outed. Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

[thir]

Thanks for the links, thir.

So yeah, they seemed to get it right that he did not commit treason. He did break the law, so he should be punished. But if the punishment should fit the crime, maybe he should only be 'embarrassed' by those he outed. Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

You are welcome, I only hope others will read them as well..

Sending him to prison for exposing criminal acts while letting the perpetrators of those acts go unpunished is a flagrant injustice.

You said it.