Wednesday, August 21, 2013

In Re: the Manning Sentence

The WikiLeaks files have been a useful and important part of what had been about a dozen underdeveloped debates about our wars and foreign policy. The prosecutors, despite using words like betrayal frequently, had trouble, at the sentencing, showing specific harm, as opposed to diffuse embarrassment. And against thirty-five years, a hundred and twelve days seems like a paltry penalty for Manning’s extreme solitary confinement and his abuse. Where is the deterrent for that?

Was the deterrent meant to be the number of years—because twenty is already a lot—or the threat of the Espionage Act itself? There are laws against giving away classified files, including those Manning offered to plead guilty to. Why was it so important to call him a spy? An answer is that we have reached a point where our government, and allies like Britain, can’t tell the difference between leak investigations and espionage and terrorism.

  New Yorker
No. They know. They’re just hoping to make sure that we can’t tell the difference.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

No comments: