Sentence in WikiLeaks case may be handed down Tuesday
FORT MEADE, Md. — More than three years after he was placed in handcuffs in Iraq, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is likely to learn next week how much longer he must spend in prison for the largest breach of U.S. classified material in the nation's history.
The 25-year-old soldier, who apologized that he “hurt” the United States, could be told as early as Tuesday whether he will face the maximum sentence of 90 years in prison and not be eligible for parole or clemency until he is in his 50s.
In court here on Friday, the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, issued a “Special Findings” report explaining why she convicted him last month of most of the charges against him, including six counts of violating the Espionage Act.
“Pfc. Manning's conduct was of a heedless nature that made it actually and imminently dangerous to others,” she said. “His conduct was both wanton and reckless.”
Lind will hear closing arguments on Monday afternoon from military prosecutors and defense lawyers. She will then begin deliberating on a sentence for the former junior intelligence analyst who was stationed southeast of Baghdad.
The judge acquitted Manning of the most serious charge against him — aiding the enemy, which could have sent him to prison for life. But her report did not explain how she reached that conclusion.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Santorum charter flight tab broke $400K
- $18.7B record-breaking deal clears path for BP to put Gulf Coast oil spill in rearview mirror
- Soldiers’ families awarded $134.2M in Afghanistan grenade attack
- New York’s fracking ban starts clock for lawsuits
- Illegal immigrants stay in shift of policies
- Measles death 1st known in U.S. in 12 years
- Kentucky clerk sued for denying license to wed to any couples
- Sex offenders say Indiana curbs religious freedom
- Thefts, foul-ups by employees cost TSA $3M in 5 years
- Counterterror efforts making U.S. any safer?
- Heat records smashed across West