Violated laws against espionage and is being given due process. If you're going to say Bradley Manning you might as well say Julius Rosenberg or Jonathan Pollard.
Using laws against espionage to convict Manning assumes that he is a spy without any evidence. The evidence is actually quite the contrary: spies do not release information to the public, they give it to the enemy in secret.
His isolation is also overkill. There are more humane ways to make sure that he does not escape the judicial process. But this isn't about what's right; this is about finding ways to punish him without due process.
> The evidence is actually quite the contrary: spies do not release information to the public, they give it to the enemy in secret.
I trust you've read the charges against Bradley Manning and can cite where the UCMJ or the US Code sections listed say that releasing classified information to the public does not constitute espionage or is otherwise not an offense?
Anyway, yes, innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, there's little dispute about the facts of the case. And there's no indication that his treatment in any way exceeds or violates the regulations around the ordinary treatment of the accused. Unless you think it's unusual for accused spies to be held in maximum security?
>I trust you've read the charges against Bradley Manning and can cite where the UCMJ or the US Code sections listed say that releasing classified information to the public does not constitute espionage or is otherwise not an offense?
Manning was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Manning clearly isn't a spy, so he shouldn't be charged based on those laws. Non-espionage activity shouldn't be judged based on espionage laws.
The military law is constructed to be purposefully vague (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_article_(military_law)). Anyone can be charged based on anything, so appealing to the technicality that Manning's case is not explicitly excluded does not matter. Disobeying in general is already illegal.
