38 votes

(Updated) Bradley Manning Sentenced: 35 Years—Will seek pardon from Obama

REUTERS/Gary Cameron




Manning to ask Obama for pardon, [ready to] pay ‘high price’ if not granted

Bradley Manning’s defense team will file a pardon request to US president Barack Obama early next week, or will ask to commute the Private’s sentence.

“Early next week I will file a request to the President for the pardon of Private Manning, or at least [ask to] commute his sentence,” Manning’s lead attorney, David Coombs, said during a Wednesday news conference.



A US military judge has sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison. Manning faced up to 90 years behind bars, while prosecutors sought to put the whistleblower away for a minimum of six decades.

Manning will be credited with the 1,294 days he spent in pre-trial confinement plus an additional 112 days. He was also dishonorably discharged, saw a reduction in rank and was forced to forfeit all pay and benefits. No additional fine, however, were levied against him.

Col. Denise Lind, who on Tuesday began her deliberations in the court-martial case, said she would announce the first sentence for Manning on Wednesday at 10am local time (14:00 GMT). Wednesday’s sentence will be for the army private’s disclosure of classified information through the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Blah, blah, blah

"There you go again, taking things out of context, this time the scriptures! Try reading verse 1 and then proceed. Those verses are talking about the saints, aka church members, not fighting one another in the courts. The saints have the spirit and they should be above such squabbles. The context of judging the world is not in this life, but in the hereafter. The saints in this life are those that will judge the world in the councils of the afterlife."

Take it to mean whatever you want. If you believe the Lord's people only refers to saints chosen from sinners or whether it means people who believe I care not. You asked a direct question and I provided a direct answer. If you don't like the answer you get then don't ask the question. If you think I am going to consult you for spiritual advice ... think again.

"You sir were not there. You sir don't understand the context of what was going on, aren't and weren't privy to their orders ... "

This has absolutely no bearing or relevance to anything. No jury member, prosecutor, or judge, etc. is ever "there." Your point is absurd. A video recording can certainly be relied upon as facts surrounding an event subject to its credibility. At no point in time has the authenticity of the video ever been questioned or challenged. As such I consider the camera in the same light I would a competent witness possessing first hand knowledge of something seen or heard and anything the camera conveys I have no problem relying upon as fact to form any conclusion.

You make a big deal about asking for permission. I was just following orders is the excuse of men who have no moral justification for their actions. Let's take the full version of the video.

One person is initially identified with a weapon in a group of twenty people and what is the comment made to characterize this scene?

"Fucking prick" is what is said in the video. Then:

"Hotel two six, Crazy horse one eight, have five to six individuals with AK-47's, request permission to engage."

Ya, ok buddy. That in and of itself does not justify a use of deadly force. It is shitty judgement. Let's open fire using an Apache helicopter on a group of civilians not engaged in any hostilities or acting as enemy combatants, actually we have no idea what they are doing but one of those "fucking pricks" has a gun so we need to wipe them out. The "fucking prick" who called it in was biased and clearly had a negative opinion of the "fucking prick" not engaged in hostilities or acting as enemy combatants who just happened to be in the possession of weapons. It is well within the right of any civilian to be armed for self defense near any war. Justice would be a NATO helicopter operating over the back yard of the "fucking prick" who called that in and opening fire with permission on his barbeque because a few people were armed.

"There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." -Lietenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl

That is the kind of "fucking prick" who better be paying close attention to politics when the status quo loses power and outright lying "fucking pricks" making generalized intentionally deceptive official statements are prosecuted for war crimes by people who actually give a shit about the justness of the administration of justice.

"Take it to mean whatever you

"Take it to mean whatever you want. If you believe the Lord's people only refers to saints chosen from sinners or whether it means people who believe I care not."

It's referring specifically to members of his church. When Christ came he formed a church, and actual organization with people in specific positions and whatnot. Separate subject, will leave it at that.

"This has absolutely no bearing or relevance to anything. No jury member, prosecutor, or judge, etc. is ever "there." Your point is absurd. "

*shakes head* My point is very simply that you do not have access to all the evidence. Am I wrong? Do you have ALL the evidence? No, you don't. And those who do found no fault on the pilots.

You go off on this long thing - all assumptions. Conjecture. You assume things that you don't know. The pilots were not watching that video, they were watching with their own eyes. They had a much larger field of view. They saw and knew things that you aren't privy to and aren't included in the video. They had to think fast and act fast, with seconds to make a decision, based on everything that was happening right then combined with everythng that had happened previously, hours before, days before, months before, years before. Based on all their training, the orders they had been given earlier. Based on a whole bunch of information that isn't included in that little video they perceived a threat.

*shakes head*

"You go off on this long thing - all assumptions. Conjecture."

There has been no assumptions or conjecture regarding the use of deadly force against civilians not engaged in hostilities or acting as enemy combatants. No facts relied upon have been presumed as they derive from things that have been observed or documents verifying the ethics of war based on international laws and treaties.

"Do you have ALL the evidence?"

I wouldn't make this point in the future if I were you because people on this site aren't your typical uninformed sheeple. Many people around here understand precisely how the disinformation machines of the U.S. military industrial complex work. Keep in mind it was people around here who dug up the congressional testimony of NSA officials lying to congress which found its way back into main stream news. People around here are generally familiar with or have heard of the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, MK Ultra, Iran Contra, and a list of government wrong doing so long they can not be bitten off in one bite.

So when you have to resort to "Do you have ALL the evidence?" it is plain as day you have reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy. Let us be clear and I mean perfectly clear based on the way the United States has conducted disinformation or smear campaigns for the past several decades ... if there was one tiny shred of any evidence to put this video in a better light to make it easier for the public to swallow it would have been made available already.

"Based on a whole bunch of information that isn't included in that little video they perceived a threat."

I hope they perceive any change in political power as a threat because you can bet your ass I would prosecute any day of the week and one can only hope some people of integrity with a strong moral compass find themselves appointed in key positions sooner rather than later.

Quite frankly I am tired of this whole mentality people believe merely because they can claim they perceive anything to be a threat it somehow mysteriously justifies a use of deadly force. I am sick and tired of it going on in the military. I am sick and tired of it going on in police departments. I am sick and tired of it going on in federal and state enforcement agencies. I am sick and tired of it in preemptive Congressional authorizations for a use of force.

Because government is so far off the chain and reservation of the just administration of justice I have no problem seeing the same standards government has been using to send a ... what is the language officials like to use ... oh i got it ... a strong message of deterrence. Sounds great, let's send one. When I say strong I mean very strong. As strong as possible. To send such a strong message let's bring back some barbaric shit like chopping heads off in the town square if someone is convicted of using deadly force without any just cause of substance. That traditional notion of an eye for an eye kind of thing.

So let's get all that so called evidence I don't allegedly have, which likely doesn't exist, and have ourselves a good ol fashion public witch hunt trial where official government actors accused of wrong doing are substituted for the witches ...

Cyril's picture

Check this out, if not done yet:

Check this out, if not done yet:



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Maybe your comment isn't

Maybe your comment isn't appearing as there's quite a lot now. Are you wanting to show me my own comment?

Cyril's picture

Whatever you may say using reason...

... I'm afraid mad23's case is hopeless...

Just sharing.

Bon courage.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Dude needs to

remember he volunteered and there are certain duties and obligations attached to any use of deadly force. No one puts a gun to anyone's head when they sign on the dotted line.

Don't feed the trolls

They become habituated to message boards if you do and can no longer fend for themselves...

They are fighting the war illegally.

Congress doesn't support the war enough to declare it only to fund it.

Free includes debt-free!

I love how people vote down

I love how people vote down my comments but things are suspiciously quiet. Pretty simple guys. You say the war is "illegal." Ok, where's your proof? Congress authorized military action in Afghanistan with SJ Resolution 23. The only "nay" vote was Barbara Lee. Ron Paul voted Yes! Iraq was authorized with HJ Resolution 114. There were quite a few nay votes to this one, but it nonetheless passed.

Congress authorized both wars - period.

Some of you would then say, "they didn't declare war." Uh huh, well what does that mean? Congress authorized the war, is that not a declaration? Oh, you don't like the format of the declaration? Ok, well perhaps you can show me where the Constitution specifies a particular format? Yeah, it doesn't. Moreover, what is the historical precedent? There were TWO, that's right, 2, wars fought against the Barbary Pirates. The first war was led by Thomas Jefferson, the second by James Madison. So right here we've got the author of the Declaration of Independence and the author of the Constitution both declaring war and sending men off to a foreign land to fight and kill people. So did Congress declare war in either of these cases? Nope, Congress didn't, the president did. There was no "declaration of war" in any particular format voted on by Congress. Congress didn't vote on it at all actually, in both cases the President acted unilaterally. So in that sense, Bush actually went further than he needed to. With regards to Afghanistan, he didn't need Congress' permission to start a war. Despite this, he got Congress' permission.

Constitutionally, you have no argument.

Disagree with the war all you want, but do it intelligently. When you call the war "illegal" and soldiers "murders" you make a fool of yourself and scare people who otherwise agree with you off - like me. I would stand right next to you in the booth and vote to bring all the troops home today. But because of what you say, I want nothing to do with you and this is why Ron Paul lost, because he surrounded himself with nut jobs.


So still waiting... lots of empty words in other parts of this thread, is there really nobody here that wants to take this on?

Can you show me a copy of the

Can you show me a copy of the Congressional "declaration of war" against the Barbary Pirates in 1801? You know, the war led by President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of our founding fathers?

Can you show me where in the

Can you show me where in the Constitution it defines the exact "format" for declaring/authorizing a war? Congress clearly authorized both Afghanistan and Iraq. Also note, Ron Paul does not dispute this either. In the case of Afghanistan in particular Ron Paul voted YES - several times.

Hopefully President

Rand Paul will pardon him the day he is sworn in to office and then see that the treasury compensates him for his loss.

Ron Swanson

I have a new nickname for


The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

LOL Touche'



The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Not gonna happen! You might

Not gonna happen! You might as well hope for a unicorn.

If elected president and he doesn't pardon him...

then our constitution is about as real as a unicorn.

Speaking of Unicorns...

I think Obama was in the forest drinking the blood of one last week...

that was photoshopped too.


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

After some rigorous calculations...

that comes out to exactly 35.0 more years than the total amount given to the people who actually committed the war crimes he exposed.

The cost of having a conscience

The cost of having a conscience and exercising personal moral judgement just went up exponentially.

BTW - this is the standard we held others to after WW2 during the Nuremberg Trials:

Nuremberg Principles - Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility..., provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

A make an example punishment,

A make an example punishment, NOT a sentence that fits the crime punishment

But what do they care, they're only playing with our lives

This is one of those things that makes my "frustration" go to its NEXT level(, if they are allowed to take this liberty, then they are guaranteed to take MORE, as they assume this will make people stop, but infact it is the VERY THING that will make people fight harder, and in response to us, as we respond to news like this....is when it is guaranteed, that they will take our liberties, while blaming us for having to take the actions they feel is necassary to take while conviniently forgetting that we spoke up, PEACEFULLY, and yet again were ignored......

Start a ptition on whitehouse.gov

for Obama to pardon him on his last day in office?

A DP'er mentioned in another posting this week

about serving 1/3 of the sentence. If this is possible, he might be able to get out in approximately 7.8 years. A third of 35 is roughly 11.66 with 3.85 acquired time subtracted.

No, he shouldn't of been

No, he shouldn't of been convicted, but all things considering, this isn't horrible.

35 years x 365 days = 12775 days
1/3 of that comes out to 4215.75 days
Subtract the 1293 and 112 days and you have = 2810.75 days
Divide that number by 365 and it comes out to a total of 7.7 years remaining.

Yeah, of course we wanted him to get off, but all things considering, 7.7 years to go isn't too horrible. He'll be to get out and still have a life.

Small consolation

but still worth mentioning. Thank you.

May God bless Bradley Manning's soul

why did you divide that by a third in your 2nd step??


Did you not read the

Did you not read the article?

"According to the military, Manning is required to serve one-third of the sentence before he becomes eligible for parole."