Thanks for writing and printing this. It's been really disturbing to me how little I see about Manning in the American press. The point about the inequality of accountability is killer.

Thank you for covering this story!

Thanks for covering one of the most important and under reported stories out there. Private Manning is a true hero.

This is such an important yet under reported case! Thank you for covering it...

Thanks for covering this controversial story with a lucid eye. What's the use of a free press if no-one is willing to look at difficult problems? The point about giving punishingly harsh sentences to the powerless, while the wealthy get a slap on the wrist is a revealing testimony to how our military and justice systems serve the interests of corporate America.

The privileged and the powerful are never subjected to the harsh reality of military justice because they don't serve in the military. But if Manning didn't know what he was in for he was sadly naive.

Free Manning! This should not be happening. There would be nothing to be "leaking" if the U.S. hadn't been blowing up places from helicopters in a war in the first place. They are just mad because he was trying to show the truth of war.

Manning action was not something done out of heroism, he himself stated his intention was for recognition. He wanted attention because of his personal social problems that he was going through. "Attention whore" if you will. He probably had little to no political opinion on the matter.

The content he released can party be used to pin point wrong doing by the US(mainly refusal to release helicopter footage of Reuters journalist killing.) a cover up. On the other hand, aside from espionage, names of operatives whose life depends on confidentiality of their identity was also released along side those documents, is a clear wrong doing on Manning part.

I wouldn't persecute Manning for his actions though. The guys was mentally troubled and his only intentions was to get some attention. On the other hand Assange knew full well what he was doing and against the advice of everyone around him he publish those names. Even going as far as to say that if anything happen to the people whose lives he put at risk it was his from of punishment. This is a deceleration of war, and the US seeking death penalty is fully justified.

I'd like to toss in a "thanks for running this," too. It's an important story. Thanks, Strangers!

The Obama Administration has not injected itself into the Manning case in any way.

The Department of Justice has not been involved in the case and would have absolutely no authority, in any case, to get involved.

As an honor graduate of the U. S. Naval Justice School and a retired senior enlisted man with considerable knowledge of such matters, I offer the following for consideration.

The only time the President of the United States is permitted by our laws to involve himself/herself in the military justice system is after a trial has been conducted and all appeals (including appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States) have been exhausted is in the case of a death sentence which must be approved by him/her prior to such sentence being carried out).

It would be entirely wrong for the President to involve himself/herself in any case prior to that point.

Manning signed his enlistment contract and agreed to subject himself to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Congress (pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) for the governance of the land and naval forces. Those rules and regulations are set forth in the United States Code (the laws enacted by the Congress and signed by the President) in USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 which is known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The provisions of the UCMJ are implemented by the executive order of the President/Commander-in-Chief known as "The Manual for Courts-Martial" and explained to every member of our armed forces during their basic training/boot camp and again on an annual basis throughout his or her military service.

Manning knew (or should have known) those rules.

The UCMJ Article 32 (grand jury proceedings) were properly conducted and, based on the findings in those proceedings, the determination was made that evidence sufficient to support the bringing of charges and specifications against Manning and referral of the case to trial by court-martial was made.

The case should proceed to trial.

For more than 30 years I lived by the same rules by which Manning agreed to be governed. Throughout that time I had access to sensitive security information and classified matter; and, had I believed an order to have been illegal, I had the right to bring the matter to the attention of my superiors all the way to the top of the chain of command.

I did not have the right to divulge any official information (classified or otherwise) to persons not authorized to access it.

The determination of Manning’s guilt or innocence is not for public opinion to determine but can only properly be decided under the laws prescribed by the Congress.

To ignore the offenses he is alleged to have committed would be tantamount to giving every man and woman who takes the oath to serve, protect and defend the Constitution license to violate the rules.

The military is not an anarchic system and the rules must be applied uniformly to all who serve.

If Manning were to be found guilty—even if the sentence were to extend to imposition of the death penalty which is off the table—he should face the consequences of his actions; and, again, the President should not be involved in any of the proceedings.

Manning, no matter his sexual orientation/gender identity or his agreement or disagreement with the decisions taken as regards the conduct of military actions, should be treated no differently than would be any other member of our land and naval forces.

Albert M. Forget
— a retired, U. S. Navy command master chief petty officer and one who did not support the invasion of Iraq

I was about to comment on Manning being in the military, and thus not subject to the same rules, but Master Chief covered it pretty solidly.

For the TL;DR crowd, he swore the oath, bound himself to the UCMJ, and he can and SHOULD be tried by it. It is a military matter, not a civilian one. The Dept of Justice and the president have nothing to do with it. Security breaches within the military, ESPECIALLY intentional breaches, should be dealt with strictly, as it will be with Manning.

I was about to comment on Manning being in the military, and thus not subject to the same rules, but Master Chief covered it pretty solidly.

For the TL;DR crowd, he swore the oath, bound himself to the UCMJ, and he can and SHOULD be tried by it. It is a military matter, not a civilian one. The Dept of Justice and the president have nothing to do with it. Security breaches within the military, ESPECIALLY intentional breaches, should be dealt with strictly, as it will be with Manning.

Thanks, you guys. Nice to know in your eyes the indiscriminate strafing and murder of innocent civilians and journalists by our military is an excusable offense, but disclosing it merits inexcusable over-reaction. Which, of course, is also excused.

Manning is a coward not a hero and for those of you who view him as such I pity you and your warped sense of reality.

The powerless and economically vulnerable are held to punishingly harsh standards, while the rich and powerful get away with a slap on the wrist (if that).

Tragically true.

Your post sheds light on Manning's story. Anyway in these political ages I believe the truth is somewhere on the middle.

GREAT piece by Jake Blumgart that gives sense of scale to case and media's poor treatment.
Thank you.
-R. Riski, Peninsula College Journalism/Mass Media