Manning sentence sets discipline precedent

For many members of the Duke community, the verdict in the Bradley Manning case did not come as a surprise.

Manning, a former United States intelligence analyst for the military, was sentenced Friday to 35 years in prison for handing over classified government information to WikiLeaks.

In 2010, Manning released confidential military files regarding actions taken by the U.S. army in Iraq and Afghanistan. Manning was charged with 22 different offenses, the most serious of which was violation of the Espionage Act and aiding the enemy, a crime generally given the death penalty. Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges and was found guilty of 17 but was acquitted of aiding the enemy. His sentence must be approved by Major General Jeffery S. Buchanan, commanding general of the Military District of Washington D.C., before it is official.

Scott Silliman, professor of the practice of law, noted the intrinsic differences between a crime tried in a civilian court and one conducted under martial law.

In a federal court, a judge can choose the most important charge for a trial whereas in a military court the judge is mandated to bring all possible charges against the defendant, Silliman said. In addition, a military jury is not comprised of random civilians but rather made up of college-educated members of the military.

Silliman said the fact that Manning’s trial took place in a military court had a definite impact on the length of his sentence.

“A court martial is one of a series of tools to enforce discipline," Silliman said. "If [I commit] an offense, everyone on the base ought to look at me and say there’s a real penalty to committing a crime like that. In sentencing Bradley Manning, the military judge meant to send a signal.”

Ken Rogerson, a lecturer in public policy, also noted that Manning's sentencing was more extreme than it might have been in a civilian court given the crime.

“Was that particular punishment given because he was in the military?" Rogerson said. "Absolutely. The fact he was in the military does not make [the sentence] more acceptable or unacceptable, it makes it more understandable. It is very possible that if there was a message to the court, the message was to the soldiers.”

Rogerson compared Manning’s leak to that of the Pentagon Papers in the early 1970's which discussed the Vietnam War. He added that the Papers were substantially less classified than the information Manning leaked because the Vietnam War had already ended.

Rogerson also mentioned that Manning’s trial has sparked discussion about government transparency and how much information should be accessible to the public, especially given the ubiquity of the Internet.

“We are a free and open country,” Rogerson said. “We have bylaws in government which are supposed to make information accessible and there are exceptions to that. When things are accessible, you have to protect them as well.”

Junior Adrienne Harreveld, a former intern for the State Department and columnist for The Chronicle, noted the contradictory needs for both classified information and for the public to be aware of government doings.

“I do realize that to explore our national security there is information that needs to remain classified, but…there needs to be a way for the United States to be held accountable for some of its heinous actions,” Harreveld said.

Silliman said that, although the Internet may alter the nation’s accessibility to information, it does not change the illegality of Manning's actions.

“The problem was he didn’t have the authority to make that decision,” Silliman said. “Somebody at a much higher level was going to declassify that information. That’s why he violated the law.”