Charlie Savage & Scott Shane, "Top-Secret Court Castigated NSA On Surveillance: E-Mail From Americans," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A1. (I cannot send or receive e-mail, no images can be posted by me at these blogs, my calls are monitored and my television signal is periodically interfered with for no reason that is made known to me. This alleged "castigation" of the NSA is intended to convey the message that there is real monitoring. In fact, the suspect NSA surveillance was allowed to continue. No one was punished for violations of Americans' privacy.)
Charlie Savage & Emmarie Hutteman, [Julian Assange?] "Manning Sentenced to 35 Years For a Pivotal Leak of U.S. Files," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A1. (Bradley Manning revealed heinous U.S. war crimes for which action he received a harsher sentence than most murderers in military courts. The average convicted murderer serves 15 years in prison before release. Manning was sentenced to 30 years and will almost certainly serve all of that time.)
Melissa Eddy, "At Dachau, Merkel Warns of Extremism," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A11. (The rise of Right-wing fanaticism in Europe compares to U.S. phenomena.)
Jack Healy, "Defense Tries to Soften Image of Soldier Who Killed 16," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A13. (Staff Sgt. Robert Bales killed many innocent persons, but is not a homosexual nor a transgendered person. As a result, the Defense Department -- and not only his lawyers -- is seeking to "minimize" Mr. Bale's "peccadillos." What the hell? Boys will be boys. Bradley -- a.k.a. "Chelsea" -- Manning is not so fortunate as to receive Defense Department protection after revealing irrefutable evidence of U.S. war crimes. Mr. Bales has received a 30 years to life sentence which will allow for parole after 30 years. This amounts to slightly more than 2 years per person killed.)
"Bradley Manning's Sentence is Excessive," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A26.
"The 35-year sentence a military judge imposed [upon] Pfc. Bradley Manning Wednesday morning is in some sense a vindication of his defense: following his conviction last month on charges of violating the Espionage Act, Private Manning faced up to 90 years in prison. He had previously pleaded guilty to lesser versions of those crimes that exposed him to 20 years behind bars. For a defense lawyer, [who doesn't have to do the time!] not a bad outcome. But from where we sit, it is still too much, given his stated desire not to betray his country[,] but to encourage debate on American aims and shed light on the 'day-to-day' realities of the American war effort."
Private Manning's sentence is harsh and excessive, cruel and unusual so as to be violative of the Constitution. More worrisome, however, than the length of the sentence is the disproportion and, hence, inequality of treatment suggesting bias based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation in violation of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. _____ (2013). (The so-called "gay marriage" case.)
At page 25 of the slip opinion and elsewhere in Windsor, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that, where the state "demeans" a person because of same-sexual orientation and ignores his or her human "dignity," the "equal protection" of the laws is OFFENDED and the victim's "liberty" under the due process clause is VIOLATED. These are powerful words with wide scope in American Supreme Court jurisprudence. ("Is there a gay marriage right?" and "Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
One reason for the excessive sentence for Pfc. Bradley Manning is his identity: not something that he has done, but what he is. This basis for sentencing decisions is clearly unconstitutional in addition to the "cruel and unusual" aspect of the sentence. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
There is an even more disturbing aspect to this sentence, however, because the anger of the U.S. government is motivated by the content of the revelations to Wikileaks (which were first offered to, and rejected by, the Times and The Washington Post). There are First Amendment issues as well. Will Mr. Manning's experiences "chill" First Amendment rights for all others? I suspect so.
The videos and other materials released to the world clearly "depict" U.S. war crimes. A good soldier is enjoined by the military code of conduct not simply to refrain from committing war crimes, but to report such crimes and, if necessary, to make them public. Please remember the Mai Lay massacre and Pentagon Papers cases.
The grainy quality of computer game-like videos of U.S. pilots shooting unarmed civilians were duplicated in the hit film "Elysium." (''Elysium': A Movie Review.")
" ... much of what Private Manning released was of public value, including a video of a military helicopter shooting at two vans and killing civilians, including two Reuters journalists."
Soldiers MURDERING innocent Iraquis and Afghans, soldiers who are not gay and do not embarrass officers and politicians, get a slap on the wrist. Bradley Manning is looking at an effective life sentence for telling the truth about U.S. war crimes.
Providing irrefutable evidence of indifference to human life and crimes against humanity, based on racism, by entire branches of the military, lies, cover-ups, incompetence and stupidity is treated much more harshly by military courts than murder of innocent civilians. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
I have established, conclusively, the existence of unethical conduct by N.J.'s legal establishment and judiciary which is why efforts to cover-up the crimes committed against me persist along with hypocritical pronouncements by Garden State officials about my "ethics." These pronouncements have become "laughable" in the world, thanks to the Internet. ("New Jersey's Unethical Judiciary" and "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit" then "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics.")
"In their attempt to put Private Manning away for most of the rest of his life, prosecutors were also trying to DISCOURAGE other potential leakers, but as the continuing release of classified documents by Edward Snowden shows, even the threat of significant prison time is not a deterrent when people believe their government keeps too many [convenient] secrets." (emphasis added!)
Is the disclosure of criminal conduct committed by persons in authority something prosecutors should "discourage"?
