Chelsea Manning files appeal against 'grossly unfair' 35-year prison sentence

[brooklynite]

Source: The Guardian

Chelsea Manning has formally appealed against her conviction and 35-year prison sentence for leaking a huge cache of government documents, arguing that her punishment was “grossly unfair and unprecedented”.

Describing the sentence as “perhaps the most unjust sentence in the history of the military justice system”, attorneys for Manning complained that she had been portrayed as a traitor to the US when “nothing could be further from the truth”.

“No whistleblower in American history has been sentenced this harshly,” states the appeal, which also alleges that Manning was excessively charged and illegally held while awaiting trial in conditions amounting to solitary confinement. It suggests that her sentence be reduced to 10 years.

The appeal sharply contrasts the government’s punishment of Manning with the two years probation given to David Petraeus, the retired military commander and CIA director, who admitted giving classified information to his biographer, with whom he was having an extramarital affair. While Manning was a whistleblower, Petraeus “apparently disclosed the materials for sex”, say Manning’s attorneys.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/19/chelsea-manning-files-appeal-against-conviction

---

Isn't it a little late to appeal?

[hack89]

1. She was not a whistle blower.

if she had actually complied with the whistle blower laws she wouldn't be in the mess she is in.

[Stryst]

6. Reporters Without Borders disagrees with you.

And how is revealing undisclosed war crimes not whistleblowing? We may never have even heard of the Granai massacre without her.

[hack89]

7. Words have meaning, especially in a legal context.

in the eyes of the law, she is not a whistle blower because she did not take advantage of any of the legal avenues available to her. She could have revealed those war crimes without putting herself into legal jeopardy. Instead she listen to Julian Assange and got fucked.

[forest444]

8. Sounds like a pretext.

A technicality being called on to justify the unjustifiable.

It's not unlike the tactic our GOP friends use to limit voting rights, and frankly it doesn't belong on DU.

[hack89]

9. Laws are not pretexts

she copied reams of classified documents, few of which she had read, and gave them to a foreigner. So why didn't she simply give Assange the documents relating to the war crime? That's is what got her in big trouble - she had no idea what she gave Assange.

[msanthrope]

12. No...it's actual law. Had Manning gone to Sanders or Kucinich, she would have been bulletproof. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

44. Instead of reporting it, he released it.

To a foreign agent. She is lucky she was not executed for treason.

[laserhaas]

56. Like releasing it to WaPo or WSJ would have resulted in "real" investigative journalism.

You guys......

[Drahthaardogs]

57. A security clearance is no joke.

There are proper channels to report. Instead, Manning did not even read it and just handed it over. Traitor not a hero.

[laserhaas]

59. Neither is cover up of mass murder by chicken chit ships in the sky....

We'd give the real murderer of Jimmy Hoffa, a place in Hawaiia, if they would come forth and tell the full tale.

WISTEC for Manning - YES

Life in prison is just regular, par for the course, destruction of the whistle blower.

The cover up that he exposed, resulted in what - exactly - for those who did the murdering?

[msanthrope]

66. Exactly. nt

[cloudythescribbler]

16. are you suggesting that ONLY those already with legal protection in US are whistleblowers?

Think of the Orwellian implications of this position. The US is the party being exposed. There are reams of examples (look at Drake and other cases) suggesting that the avenues available for "legal whistleblowing" within the security state are a farce, to put it mildly.

In the case of Chelsea Manning, we have MURDER of innocents which could easily have been avoided, quite openly exposed. Has there been ANY follow up of these legitimate and proper exposures? Or the lying of M. Clapper before Congress, exposed bigtime by Edward Snowden. Any consequences for Clapper? What is this some kind of joke?

Governments typically don't hold themselves accountable for what whistleblowers, from Ellsberg, to Manning, to Snowden etc etc etc expose. And as in other countries we easily recognize as repressive, the full force of the state (which we call law when done by the West) is mobilized, legally and not, and always let thru by the powers that pee, to do whatever evil they can get away with on those who rat on the powerful and on those carrying out their agenda. Some people support this in principle; others might object to what was exposed and how -- that is an argument. But the fact of whistleblowing in all these cases in the sense understood in society -- PREDATING any supposed 'whistleblower protections' joke that these may so far turn out to be in practice -- IS a characteristic of these individuals

You may still argue that they SHOULD not be protected by law, or that they should be -- but where serious wrongdoing has been exposed, we have a whistleblower, for good or for evil

[hack89]

19. I blame Assange

She made the mistake of trusting him. She threw away her life for nothing

[secondwind]

2. Never too late.

[NobodyHere]

3. Well anyone convicted under the UCMJ gets 2 automatic appeals

They can then appeal to the Supreme Court but that cost would be out of pocket.

[Blue_Tires]

4. Chelsea's just trying to get into the news...

[cstanleytech]

5. I wouldnt be willing to wager any money on this appeal working.

Now if Manning had tried to use the legal alternatives first but been rebuffed then I could see a chance to win on appeal but since Manning made the choice not to even try that route.........................................

[Yo_Mama]

10. Seems like a lot of BS to me.

I don't think this will get much traction in the legal system either.

This is not whistle-blowing - it's a wholesale dumping of classified documents by an insider.

[Agony]

11. Chelsea is a political prisoner.

[TipTok]

18. Disgruntled worker and piss poor criminal maybe...

[msanthrope]

13. No....appeals are never too late. I actually think this was a very harsh sentence. nt

[joshcryer]

49. +1

[FLPanhandle]

14. Sentanced too harshly? The Rosenbergs might disagree.

You don't leak classified information and expect to get off lightly.

[askeptic]

21. Oh, you mean exposing criminal wrongdoing is like the Rosenburgs?

Get your facts straight, please

Nearly three years ago, Manning was convicted of offenses, which stemmed from her decision to provide WikiLeaks with over a half million U.S. government documents and a video of an Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad now known as the “Collateral Murder” video. She exposed war crimes, diplomatic misconduct, and other instances of wrongdoing and questionable acts by U.S. officials.

[calguy]

15. Sorry Chelsea, Bradly dis the crime

Now Chelsea must do the time.

[TipTok]

17. What an ass...

If Manning were an actual whistle-blower there might be a point.

As it stood, he just stole sensitive information willy nilly and distributed without even looking through it.

That's just a regular old crime.

See you in 30+...

[askeptic]

22. sensitive information?...like....crimes?

I know the military wants to keep it's crimes from public view, but that's what was exposed. Are you OK with covering up criminal wrongdoing?

[TipTok]

23. Couple of things...

1) Any convictions ever come out of that? Beyond Manning of course?

2) An actual whistle-blower would have released these supposed crimes through appropriate channels. If that failed then just that 'evidence' could have gone through other channels.

3) Mass distribution of everything you can get your hands on is not whistle-blowing. It was physically impossible for Manning to have even read everything that was put out.

A poor performer lashing out at the organization he had failed at and nothing more. Deserves everything he got.

[Ash_F]

25. 1) Thanks for pointing out the flaws in our justice system

[TipTok]

26. Was there a point?

Or are you just trying to divert attention by bringing up George Stinnett Jr?

A potential miscarriage of justice 70 years ago excuses Manning from following the laws and regulations he agreed to when he took his oath and applied for his clearance?

What exactly are you suggesting?

[Ash_F]

29. See post #24

Where are the indictments against Dynecorp?

[TipTok]

31. More deflection...

In what way does a 70 year old murder case or allegations against Dyncorp excuse Manning from his freely assumed responsibilities?

[Ash_F]

37. Chelsea Manning is a hero for exposing these and other crimes.

[TipTok]

38. Feel free to address the points made....

... Clearly and objectively explaining why Manning does not meet the standard of whistle-blower by any stretch of the imagination.

That... Or feel free to continue stating things that obviously aren't true and hoping things just magically. Change.

[Ash_F]

40. You don't think exposing child sex trafficking is heroic?

That seems like a thing that obviously is true. You might differ, but you would be wrong.

[TipTok]

41. If that was all he had exposed...

... I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Are you suggesting that 250,000 cables and 400,000 reports are all proof of some evil conspiracy?

Oops... 490,000 reports. Forgot to add the Afghanistan ones...

Manning had options and chose not to utilize them.

[askeptic]

27. Crimes were exposed. Whether they remain to be prosecuted is irrelevent

“In no case shall information be classified… in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency… or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

—Executive Order 13526, Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is this awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

—Robert Gates, Unites States Secretary of Defense

During my service, it was the Mai Lai massacre that was covered up but eventually exposed. From Wikipedia:

It was committed by U.S. Army soldiers from the Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the 23rd (Americal) Infantry Division. Victims included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.[2][3] Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

Since it seems to me Manning's "crimes" were much less severe, and not with the intent clearly displayed in Mai Lai, no matter how much of a military apologist you are, you have to a see the injustice of the sentencing by comparison. Manning has been in custody longer than that already....

[TipTok]

28. The point stands...

... That a whistle blower case might have been made if he had just released info on these supposed crimes.

As it stands, he stole as much as he could and distributed it without having even read it.

He deserves what he got and I hope he stays for the whole 35 years.

[askeptic]

30. yep - mine too. The private gets years and the General gets probation

So classified is a BIG DEAL, is it? Except when it's a General named Petraeus. Then it's just "mishandling".

from the Washington Post:

The plea follows a high-profile investigation and prosecution that triggered Petraeus’s resignation from the CIA in 2012. As part of an agreement with prosecutors, he admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave the biographer, Paula Broadwell, to read.

When FBI agents confronted him in his CIA office in October 2012, Petraeus said he had never provided classified information to Broadwell, prosecutors said.

Making a false statement to a federal law enforcement agent during an investigation is a felony, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. On Thursday, ­Keesler told Petraeus that he had been “untruthful” and that his behavior “constituted a serious lapse of judgment.”

The FBI searched Petraeus’s house in April 2013 and found the books in an unlocked drawer in his study. The books contained top-secret information that the Justice Department said could cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if disclosed.

That information included code words for secret intelligence programs, identities of covert officers, war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.

I wonder which one actually had the most sensitive information? Yeah, we know all about RHIP and "making examples". Research will show many more examples. Rape and murder during war? 3 yrs. A general exposing classified info? wrist-slap. A private exposing crimes and mostly inconsequential classified info? 35 yrs

You go ahead with your self-righteous indignation regardless of the facts.

[TipTok]

32. Intent plays a large role in our legal system...

Petraeus was negligent.

Manning's goal was to cause harm. World's apart.

[askeptic]

33. re-read my post. He knew what he was doing. Contradicting yourself

...and provide evidence the intent was to cause harm. In one minute you are saying Manning just exposed everything without looking at it and then you contend there was knowledge that the material would cause harm? Which is it? You are contradicting yourself.

[MH1]

35. I probably shouldn't get into this, BUT

another difference is that Manning gave them to the guy running Wikileaks - a website known for making secrets publicly available. Public as in available to anyone who went to the site.

Petraeus gave the information to one person who was not going to turn around and post all of it on a public website.

Also I think the volume of content was a lot different. A lot less in Petraeus' case.

So we have -

* negligent vs intent to steal and reveal

* exposure to one person not the world

* relatively small amount of classified info vs. a very large set of classified info

I'm not saying even so that it was fair. But that there is at least some basis for different treatment.

[askeptic]

36. I hear ya, but Gates himself said it was not a disastrous breach

and Manning doesn't have the same years of experience as an ex-CIA chief / General, yet HE is still permitted to have extremely poor judgement, but Manning - a newbie by comparison - is not. And, I think the fact that murder, rape, torture and other criminal behaviors were exposed is the elephant in the room that no one wants to see. So the General was only doing it for himself and his vanity (top secret stuff to a person he KNEW shouldn't have it; and not like she was ever authorized in the past). Manning was doing it for others, but it exposed the criminal activity of the institution, which we must always pretend is above reproach, and that is the real crime. If the military isn't going to prosecute these crimes AFTER they're exposed, then it shows clearly they had every intention of covering up. So who's the criminal now? Maybe that's why the video files and the torture evidence were hidden in the same vault as actual classified stuff.

I posted some excerpts from the ACLU's brief that forms the basis of the appeal.

No wonder people have had it up to their necks with the lying, and the special treatment that is actually corruption. Unfortunately, it now seems endemic in many of our societal institutions.

[TipTok]

43. Why would you think those choices...

... Are mutually exclusive?

[askeptic]

20. sentenced to decades in prison for the crime of disclosing truthful information to the public?

I can hardly believe the number of people here who have been sucked in by the propaganda and the MSM. Most of you sound like right-wingers.


As the American Civil Liberties Union argues in its amicus brief [pdf] filed in support of the appeal, “The Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague because it provides
the government a tool that the First Amendment forbids: a criminal statute that allows the government to subject speakers and messages it dislikes to discriminatory prosecution.”

“The military judge’s application of the Act to Pfc. Manning violated the First Amendment because the military judge did not permit Pfc. Manning to assert any defense that would allow the court to evaluate the value to public discourse of any of the information she disclosed,” the ACLU asserts. “The military judge, therefore, failed to weigh the public interest in the disclosures against the government interest in preventing them, as required by the First Amendment.”

The ACLU also maintains “no person in the history of this nation had been sentenced to decades in prison for the crime of disclosing truthful information to the public and press.”

It took nearly three years for Manning’s attorneys, Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward, to compile her appeal.

Back in April 2014, when Hollander first began to put together an appeal, she said at an event at Georgetown Law Center, “It is frightening that the Espionage Act has essentially become a strict liability crime, that intent required is the intent to disclose and we simply cannot let that continue.”


https://shadowproof.com/2016/05/20/chelsea-manning-appeal-espionage-act/

[Ash_F]

24. Manning exposed child sex trafficking by a Virginia based private military contractor

...and the State Department's subsequent cover-up of the story.

Private Manning exposed many crimes. That is just one.

[struggle4progress]

34. Manning could be paroled in 2021. Release before then seems unlikely.

Everybody's going to make damn sure people know you can't dump hundreds of thousands of documents to a foreign national just because you have access to those documents through a security clearance

[laserhaas]

39. All that matters here ..is intent...all the naysayers tech objects

Are disingenuous snipes

Lije everyone in the military is briefed on proper protocols on how to blow the whistle

Puhllleeeaaassseee

[TipTok]

42. So...

Are you suggesting that they Manning was too simple to Google 'DoJ whistle-blower'?

It's literally the first result.

[laserhaas]

45. Now it is.....Im a whistleblower for 15 years

Even having the correct pathway doesnt guarantee

Jack chit

[TipTok]

46. There are few guarantees in life...

That doesn't mean that Manning is excused from even a moderate attempt at utilizing the systems in place for such things.

They had google in 2010 as well. No excuse.

[Octafish]

47. Like the war crimes Manning exposed?

No excuse for what she revealed.

So when are the war criminals going to go on trial?

[TipTok]

48. You'll have to be more specific...

[Octafish]

50. Specifics...

The United States should be in the dock, not Bradley Manning

The whistleblower has allowed us to scrutinise the hidden realities of US power

OWEN JONES
The Independent (UK), Sunday 2 June 2013

It has launched illegal and unjust wars with catastrophic human consequences; it has helped overthrow democratically elected governments; it arms and backs some of the most brutal dictatorships on the face of the earth; and it has a track record of supporting terrorist organisations. Even many of its ardent supporters admit that the US foreign policy elite has a somewhat chequered history.

SNIP...

Manning now begins a military trial, charged with a capital offence, though the prosecution promise not to seek the death penalty, leaving him facing 20 years in prison. As two US champions of the First Amendment on free speech, Floyd Abrams and Yochai Benkler, have written: “If successful, the prosecution will establish a chilling precedent: national security leaks may subject the leakers to a capital prosecution or at least life imprisonment.”

SNIP...

No wonder powerful interests in the US want to make an example of Manning. Among the videos he released was an Apache helicopter conducting a bombing raid that killed Iraqi civilians and a Reuters journalist. “The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have,” Manning has said, appalled by the lack of “value for human life” shown by the pilots’ descriptions of “dead bastards”. Here was the “on-the-ground reality” of both the Iraq and Afghan wars, he claimed.

The truth is Manning has done a great service, both to the American people and to the world as a whole. US foreign policy depends on secrecy, not simply because of fear of US enemies, but because the reality would often horrify the American people.

CONTINUED...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-united-states-should-be-in-the-dock-not-bradley-manning-8641164.html

[TipTok]

51. This Apache video?

With the colorful title of 'Collateral Murder'?

[Octafish]

52. Mass murder as comedy.

War as a profit center.

[laserhaas]

55. You are in your country, surrounded by invaders, revolutionaries and worse; but your guns are a

a friggin Death Warrant - on site.

They could use Apache's to gun down 1/2 million Walmart shoppers with this perverse logic.

WOW! - How obtuse and hateful can one be?

Whistleblower - in jail for life.

Murders and murdering nation - Scot Free.

Tic's sense of justice; and Hillary's welcomed to do more of same!

[TipTok]

58. Do you ever address points made?

Or just move on to your next outrage de jour?

[Octafish]

61. Do I have to explain everything to you? I don't like those who find mass murder funny.

You wrote this:

With the colorful title of 'Collateral Murder'?

and threw in the emoticon.

I don't think war is funny. And I don't think people making money off of it is funny, either.

Sorry if that doesn't address your point they way you wanted.

[TipTok]

62. You could start by explaining something...

Preferably related to what we were talking about.

I'm not greedy.

[laserhaas]

54. Well stated ^^^^ this - times 1000^^^^

[EX500rider]

60. If they were "innocent civilians" the reporters wouldn't have embedded with them.

Insurgents.

[Octafish]

64. Weird seeing hatred for the press on a Democratic site.

First Amendment ring a bell?

What's also weird: reading a DUer put blame on reporters and whistleblowers instead of war criminals.

[EX500rider]

65. No hated of anything...but embedding with insurgents in a war zone is inherently dangerous..

.....as events proved.

[laserhaas]

53. Exactly - 'Octafish' - when is ANY whistleblowing justified, if it is not okay to do so, when murder

is transpiring?

Shheeesssshhh!

[Benitos]

63. The sentence is excessive

in my opinion.