[reader50]

According to our laws, we are entitled to a trial by a jury of our peers too stupid to avoid jury duty. The official version is worded slightly differently.

Pfc Bradley Manning has received a judgement by a military judge (Col Denise Lind). Who also functioned as a jury of one, and is currently determining the sentence - also normally a jury duty. The result will afterwards be reviewed by another military officer (Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan).

The public, who did not receive any jury summonses on this case, has started a petition. They are willing to take Manning's position in jail, so that he may go free. The people Manning exposed do not require this service - they remain free of any charges.

Source: Huffington Post (and others).

More than 1,500 Bradley Manning supporters have offered to serve part of the WikiLeaks source's potential 132.5-year sentence.
...
So many have signed the petition at this point, Zeese noted, that if each took an equal part of Manning's potential maximum sentence they would serve less than a month.

I dare not volunteer myself - this works somewhat better for retirees. Tricky to explain to the employer why I need the month off. Though the free orange clothes are a plus.

[ghporter]

Defendants in both civilian and military trials can ask for their case to be decided by the judge alone. In military trials, an enlisted defendant also can ask for his/her "jury" (it's called a "court martial board") to include enlisted members, be only officers, or, as Manning requested, just the military judge. I'm told it is best to go with the military judge route, since history shows that those selected for board duty tend to be very unsympathetic to defendants.

As a note, there are essentially only two ways to avoid serving on a court board: you're in the hospital, or you're deployed. This may be the reason for lack of sympathy.

Unfortunately for Manning, the jail time is relatively less important than the rest of the features of the sentence. Reduction in grade to E1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, dishonorable discharge, and the whole process of formally incarcerating him will be, to say the least, challenging for him. I assume he'll be sent to Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, to be confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks. It is a very un-cheery place. Being processed for incarceration is a very un-cheery process, too.

Whether think he was a "whistle blower" or not, he violated his oath, so many rules and regulations as to require reams of paper to document, and the trust everyone around him placed in him. Whatever reason was behind it, he broke a bunch of military laws, and now he has to pay for his decision. Not just with confinement. He will be unlikely to find a "real" job after he gets out, and I'm certain that the Army will move to preclude his making money on book deals. He has gone to a lot of trouble to do what he's done, and in the process he's ruined his chances of having a normal life. I hope he feels that he got something useful out of it.

[Shaddim]

It appears that the judge was quite merciful in his verdict(s), it could have gone much worse for Manning, and many were calling for him to be charged with Aiding the Enemy, especially within the military brass. I imagine to serve as an example. That being said, I think the mercy train has run its course, I believe he'll get 10-15 years, half that with good behavior. 5-7 years in Leavenworth is no picnic, at all, it's a real meat grinder.

[Snow-i]

I have a whole lot less sympathy for Manning then for Snowden.

My reasoning is that Manning did not consider the impact of his release, nor was he fully aware of the actual content of that he published. I don't think you can be a whistleblower when you're wholesale publishing classified communications without vetting what you're releasing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't think you can be a whistleblower when you're wholesale publishing classified communications without vetting what you're releasing.

I think even historically, this distinction does not make sense: if you look at historical leaks (e. g. the leak of the Pentagon Papers), they usually comprise several thousand pages, and it's hard to believe they have been »vetted«. The main distinction is that you have more or less sympathy for the two leakers.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I have a whole lot less sympathy for Manning then for Snowden.

My reasoning is that Manning did not consider the impact of his release, nor was he fully aware of the actual content of that he published.

That's an interesting point, though it perhaps applies more to Snowden. He seems to be the standout in having vetted every doc before release, which I'm not sure any prior large-volume whistleblower has done. There's also the point that two months after release, the NSA is still trying to figure out how Snowden got away with so much. It appears he's smarter than his replacements.

Regarding Manning, Brig. Gen. Robert Carr has admitted to court that Manning's leaks caused no deaths.

Returning to the original subject, I've never heard of anyone willing to take another's place in prison. Maybe a family member. ATM the petition is 2,900+ signatures (it gets sent at 3,000) which works out to about 2 weeks per volunteer. People are voting with their freedom that Manning's releases were worth it.

[subego]

I'll take someone's infraction if it's a really good dig.