People Who Got Shorter Sentences Than Bradley Manning: Spies Selling Secrets To Russians & Active Terrorists
from the disproportionate dept
By now, of course, you've heard that Bradley Manning received a sentence of 35 years, and lots of people are arguing over whether or not this is reasonable. In fact, we've even seen some people arguing that he got off easy. Okay, well, let's explore that line of reasoning. Over at the Huffington Post, there's a good article looking at the sentences that eight actual spies received from the US. These are people who actively sold or tried to sell key US secrets to enemies, such as the Russians, as opposed to revealing wrongdoing to the public via the press. Guess what? The actual spies got off with lighter sentences.Take, for example, the case of David Henry Barnett, a CIA agent who directly sold secrets to the Russians, including but not limited to outing around 30 active CIA agents to the KGB. Oh, and at the urging of the KGB, he also tried to get a job on Capitol Hill in order to get access to more secrets. He was eventually caught and charged with espionage in 1980... and received an 18 year sentence. Got that? Directly sell the identity of CIA agents to the KGB and you get about half the time that Manning got, not for revealing the identity of any intelligence agents, but basically for embarrassing the State Department and the military. That doesn't seem right.
Okay. And how about people, including Americans, who actively tried to hurt America? Remember, Manning made it quite clear his goal was to help America. But that's not true for these five people who joined the Taliban or teamed up with terrorists working on plans to attack America. Those people actively wanted to harm America. And they got shorter sentences.
Or, for a different type of comparison, how about how other countries have treated leakers of key government information? Once again, we discover people who appear to have revealed much more damaging information... and got off with much lighter sentences.David Hicks: An Australian national who was captured fighting alongside the Taliban and sent to Guantanamo Bay prison in 2002, Hicks plead guilty to material support for terrorism in a Gitmo military commission in 2007 and was sentenced to seven years confinement. That sentence was reduced to nine months given time already served.
John Walker Lindh: Lindh was convicted of a slew of terrorism and conspiracy charges in 2003 for fighting with the Taliban against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Had he been born in Denmark, he might have gotten four months for disclosing information a Danish court found highly damaging to national security. That’s the penalty Danish Defense Intelligence analyst Frank Grevil received in 2005 for disclosing threat assessments concerning Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.In fact, the article notes that, after looking at the laws of 20 European countries, they discovered that while all have criminal penalties for disclosing classified national security info, most have a top penalty of just a few years in jail, so long as the person leaked the information, rather than delivering it directly to a foreign state. In the UK and Great Britain, for example, the longest time allowed under law is two years in prison. France is the most aggressive punisher, where leakers can face up to 7 years in jail.
Or, had he been British, he could have been released after serving seven weeks of a six month sentence, as was David Shayler, the former MI5 member who gave a newspaper 28 security and intelligence files on a variety of topics, including on Libyan links with the IRA, Soviet funding of the Communist party of Great Britain, agents’ names and other highly sensitive information.
Or, given his military status, he might have received a sentence of 12 months in jail – the penalty a British judge gave to Navy petty officer Steven Hayden in 1998 for selling significant security and intelligence information to a newspaper concerning a plot by Saddam Hussein to launch anthrax attacks in the UK. That sentence was the heaviest awarded to any of the eight Britons convicted of disclosing sensitive information since the current Official Secrets Act was passed in 1989.
Now, compare that to the truth about Bradley Manning. There's no evidence he put anyone in danger. Nothing he leaked was "top secret" (even though he had top secret clearance). His intent was clear from the beginning and it was not to aid our enemies or to harm America. Yet guess who gets the longer sentence?
Given all of these comparisons, it's difficult to see how the sentence that Manning received is anywhere even close to proportionate or reasonable. It seems fairly obvious: Bradley Manning was not punished so harshly for harming the US. He was punished for embarrassing the government. That's not how things are supposed to happen in an open and free society.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, leaks, prison, punishment, sentences, sentencing, spies, terrorists
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What the hell...
Are you TRYING to go down as the worst President ever? Because you're WELL on your way to doing so. Right now I'd rather have Zombie Richard Nixon in the White House than you. I'll take Futurama's version of Richard Nixon over you.
Hope and Change?
More like "You better Hope I don't Change how I feel about you right now, because all of you are criminals to me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell...
That point was made, but thanks for your confirmation.
"If we want to go to war, Congress must approve to do so"
Oh Wally - you're so cute
"the buck stops at President Obama"
So the prez should, as part of everyday duties, approve or disapprove of all military court martial sentencing? I find this to be a stretch, by what rational is this reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell...
Maybe — can you provide a justification for your proposal?
"I find this to be a stretch, by what rational is this reasonable?"
If you find your own strawman to be "a stretch," perhaps you should not have constructed it so shoddily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell...
In response to the above allegation that the prez is responsible for the disparity in sentencing of those who divulge state secrets, it was pointed out that the prez does not usually get involved in these matters.
According to you, this is a strawman. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell...
The President also has ultimate pardoning authority. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to use it to release him after he's served another 3 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell...
It was so embarrassing that the Obama administration had to back track on their statement. It's apparently a big deal when the President of the United States does not believe in "innocent until proven guilty". http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53601_Page2.html#ixzz1KMlT6PFZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is only one unforgivable crime
This has always been true -- in all civilizations, going back as far as recorded history allows us. Embarrassing Caesar or forcing Napoleon to look in a mirror, exposing the Emperor's foibles or putting a parking ticket on the Governor's car: all of these will be punished far more ruthlessly than even the most vicious, brutal crime against ordinary citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
for profit = 18 years
outing one active CIA agent to the world
for political gain = no big deal
The blindfolded lady holding a scale symbolizes the complete opposite of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gender+dysphoria
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lindh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lindh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lindh
So long as there is zero regard for the truthfulness/accuracy of the information the victim provides in order to stop the pain/war-crime being done to them — sure, it "works."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lindh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lindh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lindh
Yeah, no.
Mythbusters tested out 'chinese water torture', that involved nothing more than drops of water, and even though the one being tested knew without a shadow of a doubt that they could get out of it at any time they wanted, it still had a profound affect on them.
Conflicted on the second half though. On one hand, no-one should be subject to torture, as the mere practice is an affront to human decency and makes you no better than the worse sociopaths out there, but on the other hand if someone is advocating for it to be done to other people, it would only be fair for them to get a little taste of what they are saying is 'acceptable' and 'no big deal' so they are knowledgeable on the subject next time it comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To clarify:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embarrassed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Things have not yet gotten as bad as the Commie witch hunts of the 50s, but we're getting there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should have sold them
Instead he simply made America look bad, he will rot in jail for that.
This prosecution has never been about the crimes, its because he embarrassed the Administration/Army and they want to make an example of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should have sold them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need for Secrecy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forget my very favourite example!
Dick Cheney gives away sensitive classified information about an American spy abroad (Valery Plame) and he gets... re-elected!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This persecution has never been about the crimes, its because he embarrassed the Administration/Army and they want to make an example of him.
Fixed it for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK and Great Britain?
Great Britain on the other hand could have differing laws to other parts of the UK i.e. Northern Ireland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The message to foreign powers seems to be: we understand that spying is all part of the game and we won't make you or your agents pay for getting caught. Meanwhile, the message to potential whistle blowers is: don't you dare give any information to the American public or we'll label you an enemy of the state and do everything in our power to ruin your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong.
Despite all contorted pseudo-legal arguments about "waterboarding/stress positions/whatever-we-feel-like-doing-because-'terrorism', it's torture, it's illegal, and it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunate reality that people tend to forget is that rules don't work in war.
I'm not trying to justify it by any means. And i'm especially not convinced that this was a necessary war as such. And i believe that officially the US isn't even at war with any of these people/states/countries/groups etc.
But when the blood starts pumping, and you're in a position of power over life and death... written laws mean about zilch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dystopia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even the UN has ruled his treatment was inhumane and unjustified. This was never about justice. This was about embarrassment and setting up an example.
This has been the M.O. for every whistle blower that has had the gall to barrenness this administration and is not a sole glaring example.
More and more it appears we need a new president and impeachment would not be out of the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does NOT equal civilian law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does NOT equal civilian law.
Also, there is no espionage article in UCMJ.
Last but not least, while on the topic if not being disingenuous, being in the military doesn't mean you are stripped of the Constitutional protections that every other citizen has. In fact, in some cases the UCMJ provides extra protections; the Supreme Court has found that the UCMJ's right to a speedy trial creates a more exacting standard than the 6th Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Hicks doesn't belong on that list
It's a mistake and unfair for Mike to include the Hicks example above, and I think a correction is merited.
Overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: David Hicks doesn't belong on that list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: David Hicks doesn't belong on that list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: David Hicks doesn't belong on that list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]