HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Breaking: Judge Reduces P...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:12 PM

Breaking: Judge Reduces Possible Sentence for Manning (Unlawful Pretrial Punishment)

Source: Associated Press

@BreakingNews: Judge reduces possible sentence for Bradley Manning, Army private accused of sending secret information to WikiLeaks - @AP

@kgosztola: Military court grants Bradley Manning 112 days sentencing credit for unlawful pretrial punishment

JUDGE REDUCES POSSIBLE SENTENCE IN WIKILEAKS CASE

By DAVID DISHNEAU
— Jan. 8 4:14 PM EST

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — A military judge has reduced the potential sentence for an Army private accused of sending reams of classified documents to the WikiLeaks website.

Col. Denise Lind ruled Tuesday during a pretrial hearing at Fort Meade for Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Lind found that Manning suffered illegal pretrial punishment during nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. She awarded a total of 112 days off any prison sentence Manning gets if he is convicted. Defense attorneys had sought to have the charges against him dismissed.

Manning was confined to a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials say it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gis-hearing-wikileaks-case-focuses-motive

53 replies, 4380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Breaking: Judge Reduces Possible Sentence for Manning (Unlawful Pretrial Punishment) (Original post)
Hissyspit Jan 2013 OP
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #1
msanthrope Jan 2013 #2
Hissyspit Jan 2013 #33
msanthrope Jan 2013 #34
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #3
Plucketeer Jan 2013 #4
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #49
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #5
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #7
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #13
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #22
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #26
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #28
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #29
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #31
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #32
lovuian Jan 2013 #6
msanthrope Jan 2013 #20
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #44
bemildred Jan 2013 #8
Solly Mack Jan 2013 #16
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #21
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #42
bemildred Jan 2013 #45
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #50
bemildred Jan 2013 #51
guyton Jan 2013 #9
msanthrope Jan 2013 #35
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #10
railsback Jan 2013 #11
msanthrope Jan 2013 #18
railsback Jan 2013 #24
msanthrope Jan 2013 #25
railsback Jan 2013 #27
msanthrope Jan 2013 #30
markpkessinger Jan 2013 #12
ReRe Jan 2013 #14
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #39
Solly Mack Jan 2013 #15
24601 Jan 2013 #17
Dont call me Shirley Jan 2013 #19
Canuckistanian Jan 2013 #23
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #36
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #38
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #37
msanthrope Jan 2013 #40
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #46
msanthrope Jan 2013 #52
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #47
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #48
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #41
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #43
Divine Discontent Jan 2013 #53

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:24 PM

1. How generous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:26 PM

2. Not a single charge dismissed then? Wow...this is a prosecution victory, then. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:24 AM

33. That's what you took away from this?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:11 PM

34. Yes. 22 charges untouched, including the most serious, with an easily-proved intent

standard is a bad outcome for the defense. Really bad.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:28 PM

3. Not nearly enough to serve as a deterrent to others who might do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:35 PM

4. What a preposterous JOKE!

Of course, whether, or HOW MUCH she made this jocular gesture - was most certainly NOT her decision to make. She's just following orders - orders from the highest echelon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:11 PM

49. ... Lind rejected a defense contention that brig commanders were influenced by higher-ranking Marine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:51 PM

5. Did he work at Fort Meade at NSA? Just wondering. There was a book written about that

 

place many years ago called The Puzzle Palace. It was interesting. I remember when I was young going there to take a test to get a job there. What an experience. That place was hugh. They ask you alot of questions and even alot of personal questions. They even asked us to draw a picture of a person. It was funny because my picture was small and my friend's picture was large. I am heavy and she was thin. We got a charge out of that. Plus when they gave us a break we had to be taken by a guard to go to the ladies room. The test was an all day affair. Hell I was only looking for a typing job. I told my friend if I passed I would turn the job down. I just was so uncomfortable. Neither one of us passed and we didn't care. I couldn't work in a place like that, really creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:05 PM

7. Then I wonder how Romney passed his security clearance testing. Surely when they asked him to draw a

picture of a person he scribbled.

INC.


After being told later that he did not pass that portion he was overheard saying,"I should have known, the conservatives told me to draw a zygote."


Sarcasm thingy!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:14 PM

13. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

How funny. You know there must be weird people working there. I remember them asking questions about going to the bathroom. Crazy really crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:03 PM

22. Was it by any chance

"My bowel movements are black and tarry T-F"…?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:43 PM

26. Something like that. Why would they ask such a personal question like that. Funny

 

too was they ask the question again wording it different to see what your answer was. Did you take the test? I'm not joking really. They even asked how often you went. I mean I was 19 yrs old. I wish I could remember some of the other questions but I remember it was about bowel movements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:04 PM

28. That was a question on the old version of the MMPI.

That particular item was intended to pick up general health issues (bloody stool). Many of those items were eliminated on MMPI-2. I've interpreted 2 or 3 thousand of those tests over the years. They are computer scored and, for the most part, nobody looks at individual item responses, but at overall patterns or responses. The test is widely used in all sorts of screenings, for jobs, for clergy, etc. as well as in mental health settings. It provides all sorts of information about psychiatric conditions, things like anxiety and depression levels, antisociality, paranoia, etc., and can be quite accurate when interpreted by a skilled & experienced psychologist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:08 PM

29. Like I said I was 19yrs old. Now am 65 this Friday. So it was a very long time ago.

 

Did you get to read the book The Puzzle Palace? It was very interesting. It was about NSA. I use to live down the road on Ft Meade when my husband was stationed there. But I met my husband while working at Ft Meade at First Army Hqs. I worked in the OER section and he worked for the Chaplains office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:13 PM

31. I'm 68. They gave the test to every entering freshman at Madison

when I started school there.

No, I didn't read the book. I may not get to it in this lifetime either, since my reading list now extends far beyond my projected lifespan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:22 PM

32. Well I read it in my younger days. I don't know if you could even get it today. But it was

 

an interesting read for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:52 PM

6. Manning has won in the eyes of the world The Judge agreed he was

"unlawful Pretrial punishment".... =TORTURED

before his trial
in which the case needs to be thrown out ...the case is tainted .....how can one get a fair
trial when one has gone through "unlawful pretrial punishment"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:57 PM

20. Not a single charge was thrown. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovuian (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:43 PM

44. Judge did not rule Manning was tortured: judged ruled his confinement was "more rigorous

than necessary" but not "outrageous"

The phrase "unlawful pretrial punishment" appears to be the OP's misleading modification of the AP headline: the judge specifically found that the purpose of Manning's treatment was not punitive but was rather intended to keep Manning safe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:08 PM

8. Well, that's an interesting new euphemism for torture.

I don't suppose anyone is going to be charged for those illegal activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:47 PM

16. Are they ever? Well, unless someone needs to make a showing of pretending to be against torture

by claiming it was a just a "few bad apples" and sending those "few bad apples" to prison while turning a blind eye to those who gave the order.

Oh, damn. I said I was going to refrain from snark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:01 PM

21. It's getting worse than that

Brennan one of the poster boys for "torture is good" will be heading the CIA soon.

He likes euphemisms almost as much as the torture program they rode in on, he may even bring back the program he liked so much.

Oh and I learned from him that no civilians are killed in modern drone strikes because it is like as precise as surgery man!

Good times ahead no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:37 PM

42. ... “There was no intent to punish the accused...The intent was to make sure the accused was safe,

did not hurt himself and was available for the trial” she said ...

Military judge shaves days from potential prison term for Army GI who leaked documents to WikiLeaks
Pfc. Bradley Manning’s ‘suicide watch’ treatment, confined 23 hours a day in a windowless cell and sometimes kept naked, was “more rigorous than necessary” in the nine months he was confined in Quantico, Virginia, according to a ruling by Army Col. Denise Lind.
By Victoria Cavaliere / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 12:26 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wikileaks-gi-manning-confinement-tough-judge-article-1.1236370

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:37 PM

45. Oh heck no, of course not, only thinking of what was best for him. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:20 PM

50. That doesn't seem to be exactly what Lind concluded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:26 PM

51. I read it.

I've read it several times now. As I said, I think she is being a bit euphemistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:13 PM

9. what if he's acquitted?

so if he's acquitted, can he turn in the 112 days credit for a cookie? Maybe a nice shiny toy of some kind?

This "illegal pretrial punishment" should have resulted in all charges dismissed. Else there's really no reason for them not to do it again ... and again ... and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guyton (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:12 PM

35. He's already discussing pleading to some of the charges. He's not getting acquitted, and he

knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:20 PM

10. What a cruel joke. He gets credit for the 112 days he's been tortured. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:33 PM

11. 112 days for being water boarded???

 

What an outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:50 PM

18. He wasn't waterboarded. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:27 PM

24. But I was under the impression that Manning has been tortured.

 

Needles under the toenails, force-fed feces and submerged in piss water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:31 PM

25. Why, no. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:58 PM

27. Well, in that case

 

112 days off seems to be terribly overgenerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:09 PM

30. Seems about right to me---he probably should have been put in med sec.

in Kansas a few months before he was, so I think some time off for that is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:36 PM

12. "Military justice" -- oxymoron of the century n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:33 PM

14. 112 days given back since they tortured him..

What price torture? If he did a bad bad thing and they did a bad bad thing, then I say they're even and he should be set free. Let Bradley Manning go! Salute for BM:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:32 PM

39. Judge did not rule Manning was tortured: judged ruled his confinement was "more rigorous

than necessary" but not "outrageous"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:43 PM

15. Oh, the snark I'll refrain from....for now.

"Lind found that Manning suffered illegal pretrial punishment during nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va"



K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:48 PM

17. So what is it, 1 year per document? Final sentence, 250,000 years...less 112 days of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:54 PM

19. Wow, don't outdo yourself, Lind!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:08 PM

23. 112 days off 23 consecutive life sentences

Manning must be pumped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:25 PM

36. ... Lind said Manning’s treatment at Quantico was “more rigorous than necessary” and

“became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests” ...

WikiLeaks case: Judge cuts possible sentence for Bradley Manning
By Andrew Khouri
January 8, 2013, 4:17 p.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bradley-manning-wikileaks-20130108,0,897909.story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:29 PM

38. ... Nonetheless, she said, “dismissal of charges is not appropriate” and would be fitting only

in the case of “outrageous” conduct ...

Judge refuses to dismiss charges against WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning
By Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima
Published: January 8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-charges-against-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2013/01/08/2eab1f62-59cb-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:28 PM

37. Judge Says Harsh Detention Is Not Cause to Drop Charges in WikiLeaks Case


By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: January 8, 2013

FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge on Tuesday declined to dismiss charges against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst accused of providing archives of military and diplomatic documents to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks, despite complaints by his defense team that he had been mistreated while being held at the Marines’ brig at Quantico, Va.

But the judge, Col. Denise Lind, ruled that brig officials had improperly kept Private Manning on stricter conditions, including procedures designed to prevent potentially suicidal detainees from injuring themselves, for excessive periods. As a remedy, she granted Private Manning 112 days of credit against any eventual prison sentence.

That amounted to little more than a symbolic victory for Private Manning, whose supporters had rallied around claims that he had been tortured at Quantico. Prosecutors are pursuing charges, including aiding the enemy and violating the Espionage Act, that could result in a life sentence if he is convicted. His court-martial is scheduled to begin on March 6 ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/private-manning-of-wikileaks-case-must-face-charges.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:32 PM

40. Watch for another delay of trial from the defense....I suspect a plea is in the

works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:04 PM

46. Judge delays Army GI's trial in WikiLeaks to June

Associated Press
Posted on January 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Updated today at 11:34 AM

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — ... Army Col. Denise Lind set the new trial date during a pretrial hearing at Fort Meade on Wednesday for Pfc. Bradley Manning. The trial had been set to begin March 6.

Lind said extra time was needed to deal with classified information.

Also, Manning has offered guilty pleas to reduced charges for two of 22 counts he faces.

Proffers may be considered along with eight others he has offered at a hearing starting Feb. 26 ...

http://www.kvue.com/news/national/186121231.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:37 PM

52. I can call it, can't I? And there are certain posters on this board who doubt if I am an attorney

at all.....

I have a feeling that the once the judge handed down her decision on the standard of intent required for conviction on the most serious charge--aiding of the enemy, serious talks began.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:07 PM

47. ... Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, on Wednesday introduced a revised proposal under which the young

private would plead guilty to 10 charges that would lead to a total of 20 years in prison ...

WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning's trial could wait until June
AFP | Jan 10, 2013, 01.27 AM IST
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/WikiLeaks-suspect-Bradley-Mannings-trial-could-wait-until-June/articleshow/17960642.cms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:10 PM

48. ... Manning seeks to prove at trial that he used his experience to conclude that the documents were

safe for publication, Coombs said. To succeed, the defense will have to argue that the hundreds of thousands of documents Manning is accused of exposing were improperly marked as sensitive. That task will be even more difficult if prosecutors prevail in another motion to preclude evidence, dealing with the general over-classification of government data ...

Wednesday, January 09, 2013Last Update: 8:38 AM PT
Manning's Key Defense Arguments Placed in Limbo
By ADAM KLASFELD
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/09/53739.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:35 PM

41. Bradley Manning granted 112-day reduction in possible sentence

Judge rules that Manning had suffered excessively harsh treatment but reduction falls far short of defence team's hopes
Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade, Maryland
Tuesday 8 January 2013 17.23 EST

... "The charges are serious in this case and there was no intent to punish. There is no argument to dismiss the charges," the judge said.

Beyond dismissal, the defence had called for a diminution of Manning's sentence according to a ratio of 10 days reduction for every day of excessive treatment, to run for the entire duration of the nine months of the soldier's confinement at Quantico. That would have resulted in more than seven years being taken off his sentence.

But in the end, the judge agreed only to a straight day-for-day ratio, and further limited the duration of the reduction to narrowly defined periods where she found excessive treatment had taken place.

Specifically, she granted Manning seven days off any sentence for the seven days when he was kept on the most restrictive regime, known as Suicide Risk, against the advice of psychiatrists – the only Article 13 violation accepted by the prosecution; 75 days off sentence for when he was kept on the only slightly less onerous status of "prevention of injury", also against professional opinion; 20 days for having his underwear removed unduly after he made a joke that he could use that to harm himself; and 10 days for being granted just 20 minutes of recreation outside his cell every day when he should have been given a full hour ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/08/bradley-manning-112-day-reduction-possible-sentence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:40 PM

43. Your modification of the AP headline is misleading: the judge did not find

"unlawful pretrial punishment" and specifically found that the intent of the handling was not punishment but to keep Manning safe; nevertheless, she found that the treatment was unnecessarily rigorous; she also concluded it was not at all outrageous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:17 PM

53. but the judge says he was excessively strong armed, and mistreated it sounds like to me but the best

he can do is say, so because of such, he'll get 100+ days off his massive sentence we'll end up giving him? this is preposterous and shameful. (#%uw(jwjt#(jt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread