Wikileaks: the deadline for Manning - a dangerous precedent for the U.S.
The head of the project Wikileaks Julian Assange last night said he was familiar with the sentencing of their informant Bradley Manning. According to Assange, the sentence creates a "dangerous precedent" and actually contrary to the U.S. Constitution, in particular one of its main points - the First Amendment freedom of speech and access to information. few hours ago, the court found Manning guilty on 19 counts, the sum of which 25-year-old man faces 136 years in prison. The Court stated that Manning made "the biggest in U.S. history," the leak of sensitive data. The court found him guilty on five major episodes, including information theft, computer fraud, as well as in multiple violations of military regulations. Assange, while at the Embassy of Ecuador, said that he totally disagreed with the verdict, because he is a " example of the dangerous power of extremism at the state level.
" "The whole process was not initially honest," - said Assange. "Bradley in no way guilty, he defended the U.S. Constitution, acting heroically. He demanded constitutional rights - open government, accountability to society, he wanted to point out the crimes that commits the U.S. army with the approval of the government of the country, "- said the head of Wikileaks. "I am convinced that in all this there is only one victim - the pride of the U.S. authorities," - he said. "Wikileaks will make every effort associated with the release of Bradley. We will not rest until he was on the loose," - said Assange. Tonight sentencing to be held for Manning. Independent experts believe that the prison sentence for the informant will change a few decades, probably around 20 years old. U.S. military retired Colonel Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor of the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay from 2005 to 2007, said that he is somewhere in the middle between those who recognize the need Manning a hero and give him a medal for bravery, as well as those who consider him a traitor to the military that deserves serious punishment.
"He had privacy. He signed the relevant documents, promising not to disclose classified information. There can be extenuating circumstances for the person who disclose sensitive information. he did it - and should be punished. But his punishment must be reasonable and must fit the circumstances. "- says Morris. "I see him as a young soldier, who was heavily concerned , making his government, his country. Look at his cause, the cause of Edward Snowden, the case of Tom Drake (an employee of the Agency for National Security, which in 2011 became the discoverer of the government's actions, but was not convicted.) These are examples of how severely the administration Obama refers to those who disclose information. If these whistleblowers were not - the public would not know what the government is doing, what secret decisions are made. All we found out after the September 11 attacks - on torture, abduction, about drones strikes, the secret gathering of information about the telephone conversations of citizens - we found this out from whistleblowers, the government we are not reported.
Yeah, that information gets to the public the wrong way, but it's good that the public knows about it and can publicly discuss the actions of the government, "- says he says. "The military courts are very complex formula to calculate the actual sentence. Even if Manning will 20 years old, he will not sit all the time. knock off time for him while he was already in custody, nearly 3 years. Additionally it will reduce the time if the judge decides that he had been ill treated. So it may already be 4 years younger. And, depending on how much they would give him - he can get a reduction of sentence for good behavior.'s sentence on 10 years in prison, he can earn up to 10 days per month for good behavior. So its period may be reduced by almost a third. So usually if given 20 years - sitting between 10 and 12 years, and then from 6 to 8 years "- concluded Davis.
.jpg)
