Projections of Manning

The 35-year sentence today seems to give Bradley Manning a chance at being free in ten years and seems to have been what the defense realistically wanted. It seems why they did not purse arguments as outlined in "Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes" by Marjorie Cohn for example. 

Manning's short statement toward the end of his trial -- and the associated defense strategy -- have prompted some heartache and soul searching among his supporters. Having been alternatively in the courtroom and in the adjacent trailer with a video feed of the trail the day of his statement, it certainly hit me with a mixture of feelings still to complex to communicate effectively. 

But the thing that struck me most that day was the little discussed government line of argument. It was a case study in projecting the faults of the government on to Manning. The prosecution sought to disparage Manning as someone who was "narcissistic," who thought he was "special," lacked "empathy" and blamed his "problems on others." 

This from a government whose leaders have openly espoused U.S. "exceptionalism," calling it "the indispensable nation" which can use violence and violate international law largely at whim, deny or minimize the carnage it inflects on innocent civilians -- and, on those rare occasions when confronted with said violations, does not take responsibility, but demonizes those who expose said wrong doing -- for example the record number of whistleblowers the Obama administration has prosecuted, such as Manning. 

The prosecution, when pushing for a 60 year sentence for Manning stated: "There is value in deterrence, Your Honor. This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information. National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously. Punish Pfc. Manning’s actions, Your Honor.” So, the military is incapable of maintaining discipline except upon threat of penalty of decades behind bars.