The Case of Bradley Manning

TheCase of Bradley Manning


TheCase of Bradley Manning

States develops a criminal justice system as to administer of lawand directive as a deterrence to the persistence of crime (Martin,2014). In this regards, a criminal case involves a sentence to afelonious person upon the pronouncement of a fair and legitimatetrial for full types of crimes such as criminal homicide, sedition,espionage, or rape. Here, the assessment of the discussion revolvesaround the case, United States v. Manning, which revolvesaround espionage.

Summary of thecase

United States v. Manning is the court-martial that involvedBradley Manning (later Chelsea Manning after the case), a formermilitary officer (AP, 2013). The court condemned Manning on chargesof desecrations of the Espionage Act to 35 years in prison,dishonorable discharge from the military. The conviction brought to aclose the government’s resolute quest of the army intelligencespecialist who disclosed the biggest reserve of categorized documentsin the history of America. Manning was detained in May 2010 forpassing categorized documents to WikiLeaks and charged with 22quantified felonies, including desecrations of the Espionage Act,valuations of convicts held at Guantanamo Bay, copying anddisseminating classified documents, but luckily she was acquitted ofthe charges of abetting the enemy (AP, 2013). The trial commenced onJune the same year with the prosecution rendering the findings on thesame month. Upon the conclusion of the case, the judge found Manningguilty of computer fraud, military infractions, espionage, and theftand sentenced to 35 years in detention with a likelihood of a parolein 8 years, disreputable discharge, forfeit of all allowances andpay, and decrease in pay grade.

Legal proceedings

Every case,whether heard in a military court or in ordinary courts follows a dueprocess and fail to follow the process may lead to the termination ofthe case on grounds of technicality or breach of rights. On May 272010, Manning was detained in Iraq and relocated to camp Arifjan inKuwait four days later. In July, the prosecution charged Manning withseveral felonies, substituted by 22 charges in March 2011 i.e.desecrations of sections 134 and 92 of Espionage Act and UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice). At first, the prosecutors chargedManning with the charges of abetting the enemy, a capital felony, butthey did deliberate on pursuing the death penalty (AP, 2013). Inaddition, the prosecution charged Manning with publishing governmentinformation in the internet with the knowledge that the enemy canaccess such information.

While indetention at camp Arifjan, Manning was under suicide lookout afterher conduct caused distress (Rothe &amp Steinmetz, 2013). In July2010, she was moved from camp Arifjan to Marine Corps base inQuantico, Virginia and categorized as a maximum convict with POI(Prevention of Injury) status. While in Virginia, Manning received atreatment she regarded as pretrial punishment since the guards didnot allow her to have access to sheets, her cell had no window, shewas entailed to checks after five minutes, and the guards requiredher to remain discernable at all times. However, she received fullsalary since she was in pretrial imprisonment and not full detention.However, the commander of Marine Corps classified Manning as asuicide threat after she had an altercation with the guards inJanuary 2011 (Rothe &amp Steinmetz, 2013). This promoted tougherconditions, which caused national and global concerns.

In April, apanel of specialists having ended a mental and medical assessment ofManning ruled that she was ready for a full trial where LieutenantColonel Paul Almanza presided over article 32, which agreed to referManning to a universal court-martial. Manning was prosecuted onFebruary 2010, but failed to enter a plea (Rothe &amp Steinmetz,2013). The prosecution presented hard evidence comprising ofcategorized materials and chat logs. Army investigators told thecourt the materials they had gathered that implicated Manning,encrypted chats, chat handles, and cables in Manning’s hard drive.However, the defense raised inquiries regarding Manning’s confusionover her gender identity and the government’s overstatement thatthe release of the documents posed a great national threat. Thedefense also had misgivings on the prosecution’s role inovercharging Manning to give evidence against Assange, the WikiLeakswhistleblower.

In January 2013,Judge Colonel Denise Lind ruled that a court would reduce anypunishment by 112 days due to the handling that Manning received atQuantico and on February 28, Manning pleaded guilty to release ofgovernment documents. The trial commenced on June 3 and the judgepassed verdict on July 30. Here, the judge convicted Manning of 17 ofthe 22 charges, entailing five tallies of espionage and theft and thesentencing of the case began on July 31 (AP, 2013). Psychiatrists andpsychologist who testified before the court asserted that Manningremained isolated in the army due to her gender-identity issues, hadnarcissistic traits, Asperger syndrome, and Fetal Alcohol syndrome.Later, Manning apologized before the court before she was sentencedto 35 years in prison although the government had requested for 60years. Today, Manning is imprisoned at Disciplinary Barracks, FortLeavenworth, Kansas. In April 2014, her request for clemency wasdenied which means that the case will go the Army Court of CriminalAppeals.

Interactionbetween law enforcers, courts, and corrections

The criminaljustice entails a structure of institutions and practices directed atupholding deterrence, social control, and mitigation of crime(Martin, 2014). The American judicial system classifies all criminalcases as crimes against the state thus, the government initiates thecases. Here, the case represents how the American judicial systemworks in military proceedings. A case involving a military officercommences with preliminary investigations to establish the contextsof the case. United States v. Manning case provides a goodexample of how parties to the judicial system interacts. In thiscase, the government of U.S.A. initiated investigations and calledthe military police to arrest Manning. During the pretrialconfinement, the correction facility and the prosecution lawenforcers interacted effectively in providing issues of importance toManning welfare. However, the case does not involve police officers,but rather involves the U.S government, military courts, and militarycorrection facilities.

The U.Sgovernment initiated the investigations and then presented a detailedinformation to the prosecution. The prosecution upon determining thatthe formal charges were strong filed the case under a court-martialthus, the initiation of the United States v. Manning case. Inall criminal proceedings, policing is the first step in sentencing acase. Here, the law enforcer investigates the felony, make an arrest,and then approach the prosecution on the initiation of the case in acourt of law. The court settles dispute and administer justice orsentence the guilty. The court comprises of the prosecutor, thedefense attorney, and the judge (Martin, 2014). Upon successfuljudgment on a case, the correction facilities administer punishmentto the accused. In the mentioned case, the interaction between thethree arms of the judicial system reveals the effectiveness of theAmerican system especially in cases concerning military officers.


AP. (2013, August 21). US v Bradley Manning case summary.&nbspSeeit First. Retrieved September 5, 2014, from–case-summary-2013082112

Martin, R. (2014). Rights and the American Constitution: The Issue ofJudicial Review and Its Compatibility with Democracy.In&nbspPhilosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21stCentury&nbsp(pp. 29-41). Springer International Publishing.

Rothe, D. L., &amp Steinmetz, K. F. (2013). The case of BradleyManning: state victimization, realpolitik and WikiLeaks.&nbspContemporaryJustice Review,&nbsp16(2), 280-292.