ShareThis Page

Army gives whistle-blower Manning 35-year sentence

| Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013, 8:48 p.m.

FORT MEADE, Md. — Bradley Manning, the junior Army analyst convicted of espionage for leaking thousands of classified documents, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday, reigniting a debate over how far the government should go to punish those who disclose secret information.

The sentence was far less than the 60-year imprisonment military prosecutors had sought and the 90-year maximum sentence the 20 convictions against him carried. Manning will appeal the ruling and will be eligible for parole once he serves seven years in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., his attorney said.

Prosecutors said the 700,000 war logs and diplomatic cables as well as battlefield video footage the former Marylander released to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks jeopardized military operations. They said a stiff sentence would send a message to others thinking about releasing classified information.

Government watchdog groups said the case may have instead sent a more muddled message.

“If anything, I think the government's overreaction, overcharging and selective prosecution of Manning has encouraged other people to blow the whistle,” said Jesselyn Radack with the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that advocates for whistle blowers. “It doesn't seem to be having the chilling effect that the government wants it to.”

Army Col. Denise Lind, who heard the case at Fort Meade without a jury, offered no explanation of the sentence. Speaking for less than two minutes, she reduced Manning's rank to private and said he would be dishonorably discharged. Manning's prison time will be cut by 1,294 days for the time he has served since his arrest in May 2010, she said.

Witnesses in the courtroom said spectators shouted “We'll keep fighting for you, Bradley,” as Manning was whisked from the room by military police.

Defense attorney David Coombs said it was Manning who consoled his legal team after the sentence was delivered.

“Myself and others were in tears because this means a lot to us,” Coombs said. “He looks to me and he says: ‘It's OK. It's all right. I'm going to be OK.' ” The sentence capped a nearly three-month court-martial, but it fit into a broader debate in Washington about government secrecy versus national security that has only grown more intense in recent weeks. That discussion is being driven by another young intelligence worker, Edward Snowden, who revealed domestic spying programs at the National Security Agency.

Coombs described Manning's case as a “watershed moment” for freedom of the press, and he argued that the sentence would send a “chilling” message to potential future leakers. He noted the broader concern watchdog groups have raised for years about the overclassification of government documents.

Advocates for government transparency offered mixed predictions about the impact the court-martial will have on deterring other leaks.

“When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system,” said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

Military legal experts described an appeals process that would take years and that could, potentially, be heard by the Supreme Court. Manning's first post-court-martial appeal will be for clemency from the Army official who convened the trial.

Manning addressed the court-martial Aug. 14, saying he was “sorry that I hurt the United States.” He did not speak on Wednesday, but Coombs quoted from a statement Manning will send to Obama as part of a request for a pardon.

“The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in,” Coombs read. “I only wanted to help people, out of a love for my country and a sense of duty for others.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.