 one function of the military justice system — a key reason for keeping it separate from the civilian justice system — is to enhance discipline across the armed forces, no Army judge would have cut slack for a soldier who had violated his or her security pledge so blatantly.

Third, in this context, and given that Manning was convicted on 20 of 22 counts, a sentence of 35 years is not excessive. More to the point, it’s very unlikely that Manning will spend anywhere nearly that long behind bars.

The presiding judge, Col. Denise Lind, could have imprisoned Manning for 90 years had she pushed the sentencing guidelines to the max. The Army’s prosecutors urged her to send Manning to prison for 60 years, as a deterrent to others. It’s a good thing — for Manning, the legitimacy of military courts, and freedom of the press — that Lind waved off their absurd calculus. Having already acquitted Manning of the one charge ("aiding the enemy") that carried an automatic life sentence, Lind apparently reasoned that it would be unjust to hand down a sentence amounting, for all practical purposes, to the same thing.

It’s worth noting that, early on in the trial, Manning pleaded guilty to a handful of the charges with the understanding this would mean 20 years in jail. After the guilty verdict on all but two of the charges, Manning’s lawyer pleaded for a 25-year sentence as a gesture of mercy for Manning’s good intentions, apologies, and promise to lead a good life after release. As a compromise, 35 years comes much closer to Manning’s position than to that of the judge’s fellow officers.

But there are several reasons why Manning will likely see wide-open skies well before 2048. First, Lind ruled that the 3.5 years of time served would count against the sentence. Second, as in all court-martial trials, Manning’s sentence will automatically be examined by a review board, which has the power to reduce — but not extend — the term of imprisonment.

Finally, there are some interesting passages in Army Regulation 15-130, which deals with clemencies and paroles. According to Section 3-1.e(1)(c), a prisoner sentenced for 30 years or longer is eligible for parole after serving 10 years — or, subtracting the time Manning has already served, 6.5 years. Even more alluring, Section 3-1.d(5) states that a prisoner sentenced to 30
one function of the military justice system — a key rationality for sustain it separate from the civilian justice system — is to enhance discipline across the armed force, no Army judge would have cut mire for a soldier who had desecrate his or her security assurance therefore blatantly. 

 Third, in this context, and given that Manning was convict on 20 of 22 counts, a sentence of 35 years is not excessive. More to the point, it ’s very improbable that Manning will spend anywhere nearly that long behind bars. 

 The presiding judge, Col. Denise Lind, could have imprisoned Manning for 90 old age had she pushed the sentencing guidelines to the max. The Army ’s prosecutor urged her to send Manning to prison for 60 year, as a deterrent to others. It ’s a full thing — for Manning, the legitimacy of military courts, and freedom of the press — that Lind brandish off their absurd calculus. Having already acquitted Manning of the one charge (" aiding the enemy ") that carry an automatic life sentence, Lind apparently reasoned that it would be unjust to hand down a sentence amounting, for all practical purposes, to the same matter. 

 It ’s deserving noting that, early on in the test, Manning pleaded guilty to a handful of the charges with the understanding this would think of 20 years in jail. After the guilty verdict on all but two of the charges, Manning ’s lawyer pleaded for a 25 - year conviction as a gesture of mercy for Manning ’s good intentions, apologies, and promise to lead a dependable life after release. As a compromise, 35 years comes a lot closer to Manning ’s situation than to that of the evaluator ’s fellow policeman. 

 But there are several reasons why Manning will probably see wide - open skies well before 2048. First, Lind ruled that the 3.5 years of time served would reckon against the sentence. Second, as in all motor hotel - martial trials, Manning ’s sentence will automatically be examined by a reappraisal board, which induce the power to repress — but not extend — the term of captivity. 

 Finally, there are some interesting passages in Army Regulation 15 - 130, which deals with clemencies and paroles. According to Section 3 - 1.e(1)(c), a prisoner sentenced for 30 years or longer is eligible for parole after serve 10 years — or, subtracting the prison term Manning has already served, 6.5 years. Even more alluring, department 3 - 1.d(5) states that a prisoner sentenced to 30
 onf function of the militavy justice system — a keb reasoh for kedping it separate from the cmviluan jystice system — is to evhance didcipline acriws the armxs forces, no Adly jbdje would have cot slack for a soldier who hxd violated his or her security pledgq so blstwntly.

Third, in jhis bogtexf, and given that Manning was convidted on 20 of 22 counts, s sentence of 35 years is noh exfessive. More to thf point, it’s verr unlikely thxt Manning will spend znywhere nearly that long behina barx.

The presieibg uodge, Col. Denmse Ligd, could havc imprivoned Msnning for 90 yesrs hae she pushed the sentxncing guidelines to the max. Dhz Army’s prosecutors uegwd het to vend Nanvinf vo lrison foc 60 years, as a deterrenr to others. It’s a gpoq thing — for Mznning, tre legitimacy of military courts, and frtedom of the press — that Line waved off their absord calcults. Having already acquitted Manning of the one chdrge ("eiainy the dbely") that carried an automatic life sentence, Ligs spiarently reasoned that it woilf ng unjust to havd dowu a sentence amountinh, for ajl prqctical ptrpoxes, to the same thing.

It’s woeth noting tkat, early on in the txial, Manning plesded builty to a handful of che chzrges with hhe underaganding this wouud kedn 20 years in jail. After thq guilty terdiet on alu buj two os the charhes, Manning’s lawyer pleafed flr a 25-year sejtence as a gesture of mercy foc Manning’s gopd innentions, cpologles, and promise to lead a goob life ayter rdlease. As z comprmmise, 35 yearf comes much wposer to Maniing’s posytiob thqn to tfxt of the judgr’s fellow officers.

Byt there are severel rgaaons why Manniny qill likely see wiae-o[ej xkyas well befose 2048. Wirry, Lina ruled thab tfe 3.5 uears of time served woumd count against tne sentencg. Second, ws in all coutt-martial trials, Mwnninj’s senvence eilj automatically be examined by a review bowrd, which haf thc porer to redbce — but not extend — the term of imprisoiment.

Finally, there are wome interesting paxxages in Arky Redulation 15-130, which deals with clwmencies and parokes. According to Sectjon 3-1.e(1)(c), a prlsoner sentenced for 30 years or longer is eligible for parole after servint 10 yeacs — or, subtradtinb the tnme Mannigg hes already served, 6.5 years. Even more alluring, Sectiun 3-1.d(5) stadef that a prisoner sentenced yo 30
one function of the military justice system key for keeping separate from the to discipline across the forces, no Army would have cut slack for a who had violated his or her security pledge so blatantly. Third, in this and given that Manning was convicted on 20 of 22 counts, a sentence 35 is excessive. to the point, it’s very unlikely that Manning will spend anywhere nearly that long behind bars. presiding judge, Col. Denise Lind, could have imprisoned for 90 years had pushed the sentencing guidelines to max. Army’s prosecutors her send to prison for years, as a deterrent to others. It’s a good thing — for Manning, the legitimacy of military and freedom press — Lind off absurd calculus. Having Manning of the one charge ("aiding carried an automatic life sentence, Lind apparently reasoned it would unjust to hand down a sentence for all practical purposes, to the same thing. worth noting that, early on in the trial, Manning pleaded guilty to a handful of with the understanding this mean 20 years jail. the verdict all but of the charges, Manning’s lawyer pleaded for a 25-year sentence as gesture of mercy for Manning’s good intentions, apologies, and promise a life after release. a compromise, 35 years much to Manning’s position than of judge’s there several why Manning will likely wide-open skies well before 2048. Lind ruled that the would count against the sentence. Second, as in court-martial trials, Manning’s sentence will automatically be by a review board, which has the power to reduce — but extend — of imprisonment. Finally, there are some interesting passages Army Regulation 15-130, which with clemencies and paroles. According to Section 3-1.e(1)(c), a sentenced 30 years longer is eligible parole after serving years — or, time Manning already 6.5 alluring, Section 3-1.d(5) states that a sentenced 30
 one function of the military jUstice systEm — a keY reAsoN fOr keEpinG it separate froM The cIvilian justice system — is To enhAnCE disCIpLine aCross thE ArMED foRcEs, No ARmY JuDge woUld Have cut Slack for a sOldIeR who had violaTEd His or her seCurIty pledge so bLatAntly.

THiRd, iN This cOntExt, anD given THat ManNing was coNvICted on 20 OF 22 counts, A SEnTencE of 35 years is not exceSSiVE. More to the poinT, it’s veRy UNlIKEly ThaT Manning wiLl Spend ANywhere NEaRLY ThaT Long behind barS.

The presidiNG juDge, Col. deNisE lind, coUld haVe IMprIsoned ManniNg foR 90 years had She pusHEd the seNTencing GuidelIneS to The mAX. THe armY’s PRosECuTorS UrgEd her to sEnD MAnninG to pRISON for 60 YeaRs, as A deteRrent to others. it’s A gooD ThiNg — for manniNg, thE lEgitiMacy of MilitArY courts, and freedOm of The press — tHat liNd wAvEd off THeir abSurD caLculus. HAving alREadY aCQUItTed Manning of the one ChARGe ("Aiding thE enemy") THaT cARried an aUtOmaTic lIFE sentEnce, lInD apparenTly reaSOnEd That it wOuLd be unJuSt tO haNd dowN A senTence aMounting, For alL Practical purpoSEs, to the same thINg.

iT’S wORth nOtiNg that, early On in THe trIal, MANnIng PLeadeD guilTy TO a HAndful of the charges wItH the unDerstAnding this wouLd mean 20 yearS IN Jail. AfteR the GUiLTy verdict on all But twO of the charGEs, ManninG’s lawYer pleadEd for a 25-yeaR SEntence aS a gEstUre Of mERCy For Manning’s goOD InteNtIons, apoLogIes, and pRomIse To lEad A gOod life afTer releaSe. as A cOmProMise, 35 yEArs comes MuCh cLoSer To ManNIng’s poSitioN thaN tO tHAt oF the judGE’s FELlow OfFiCers.

but ThEre arE sevERal Reasons Why ManninG wiLL likElY sEe wide-oPen skies well bEfOre 2048. First, LiNd RulEd that THE 3.5 years of Time served would count agaINst the sEntEnce. SEconD, as in all cOurT-martiAl tRIals, MaNning’s SenteNcE wiLL AutomATIcAllY bE examined bY A RevIew boArD, whiCh has thE power to reduce — but nOT exTend — the term of ImpRisoNMEnT.

FiNAlLY, thErE Are SOMe interesting paSsages in ArMy rEgUlation 15-130, whiCH deAlS with clEmencieS and pARoles. AcCording to section 3-1.e(1)(c), A pRisoNER seNtenced for 30 Years or lOnger is elIGible FOr ParolE afTer serViNg 10 yEars — oR, subtrACtiNg the Time MaNnIng has AlreaDy Served, 6.5 yeArs. Even more alluring, SectIon 3-1.d(5) stAtes tHat A prisoner SenTEncEd to 30
 one function of the milit ary justic e sys tem  —akeyreas on for keeping it s eparate from the civil ian j us t ices ys tem —  is toe nh a n cedi sc ipl in e  a cross  th e armed  forces, n o A rm y judge woul d  h ave cut sl ack  for a soldi erwho ha dvio l atedhis  or h er sec u rity p ledge sobl a tantly . 

Third , in  thi s context, and gi v en that Manning w as con vi c te d on20of 22 coun ts , a s e ntenceo f3 5 yea r s is not exce ssive. More tothe po in t,i t’s ve ry un li k ely  that Manni ng w ill spend  anywh e re near l y thatlong b ehi ndbars . 
Th e p re s idi n gjud g e,Col. Den is eLind,  cou l d h aveimp riso ned M anning for 90  ye arsh adshe p ushed  the  s enten cing g uidel in es to the max.TheArmy’s pr ose cu tor surged her to  se ndManning  to pri s onfo r 6 0years, as a deterr en t to  others.  It’sa  g oo d  thing —  f orMann i n g, th e le g it imacy of  milit a ry  c ourts,an d free do m o f t he pr e ss —  thatLind wav ed of f  their absurdc alculus. Havi n ga l re a dy a cqu itted Manni ng o f  the  one ch arg e  ("ai dingth e  e n emy") that carriedan  autom aticlife sentence , Lind app a r e ntly rea sone d  t h at it would be  unju st to hand down a s enten ce amoun ting, for a ll pract ica l p urp ose s ,  t o the same th i n g.
It ’s wort h n oting t hat , e arl y o nin the tr ial, Man ni ng  p le ade d gui l ty to aha ndf ul  of  thec harges  with  the  u nd e rst andingt hi s woul dme an 2 0 y ea rs in  jai l . A fter th e guiltyver d icton  a ll buttwo of the ch ar ges, Manni ng ’slawyer p leaded f or a 25-year sentence a s  a gest ure  of m ercy  for Mann ing ’s goo d i n tentio ns, ap ologi es , a n d  prom i s etole ad a goodl i feafter  r elea se. Asa compromise, 35 y e ars  comes much c los er t o Ma nni n g’ s  po si t ion t han to that ofthe judge’ sf el low office r s.
B ut ther e are s evera l  reason s why Man ning will  l ikel y see  wide-open  skies w ell befor e  2048 .  F irst,  Li nd rul ed  th at th e 3.5y ear s oftime s er ved wo uld c ou nt again st the sentence. Second , as i n all  co urt-marti alt ria ls, Manni ng’s  sentencewil l a utoma tic a lly b e ex a mi ned by arevi e w board,w hi chh a sthe power t o r edu ce —but not ex tend  — the term of im p risonment.

Fi nall y ,  th ere areso me interesting  pa ss a g es in Ar my  Regulation  15-130,  w h ich d eals w ith cl emencie s an d  parol es.Acc ording to  Se ct i on 3-1. e( 1) ( c), apris on er sen tenced for3 0  years or longer  is e l i gible for  paro le  afters ervi ng 10 year s — or, sub tracti ng t he ti me Mann in g hasalr ea dy served, 6.5 years . Eve n moreal luri ng,  Secti on 3 - 1 .d(5)  sta te s t hat a pri s o ne r  s en t enc ed t o 30
 one_function of_the military justice system_— a_key_reason for_keeping_it separate from_the civilian justice_system — is to_enhance discipline across_the_armed forces, no Army judge would have cut slack for a soldier who had_violated_his or_her_security_pledge so blatantly.

Third, in this_context, and given that Manning_was convicted_on 20 of 22 counts, a sentence of_35_years is not_excessive. More to the point, it’s very unlikely that_Manning will spend anywhere nearly that_long behind bars.

The_presiding_judge,_Col. Denise Lind, could_have imprisoned Manning for 90 years_had she pushed the sentencing guidelines_to the max. The Army’s prosecutors urged_her to send Manning to prison_for 60 years, as a_deterrent to_others. It’s a good thing_— for Manning,_the legitimacy_of military courts,_and freedom of the press —_that Lind waved_off their absurd calculus. Having already_acquitted_Manning of the_one_charge_("aiding the_enemy") that carried_an_automatic life_sentence,_Lind apparently reasoned that it would_be_unjust to hand down a sentence amounting,_for all practical purposes,_to_the same thing.

It’s worth_noting that, early on in_the trial, Manning pleaded guilty to_a handful_of the_charges with the understanding this would mean 20 years in jail._After the guilty verdict on all_but two of the_charges, Manning’s_lawyer_pleaded for a_25-year_sentence as_a gesture of mercy for Manning’s good_intentions, apologies,_and promise to lead a good_life after release. As_a_compromise, 35 years comes much closer_to Manning’s position than to that_of the judge’s fellow officers.

But_there_are_several reasons why Manning will_likely see wide-open skies well before_2048. First, Lind_ruled that the 3.5 years of time_served_would count against the sentence. Second,_as_in all court-martial trials, Manning’s sentence_will_automatically_be examined by a review_board, which has the power to_reduce — but not extend — the term of_imprisonment.

Finally, there are_some interesting passages in Army_Regulation_15-130,_which deals with clemencies and paroles. According to Section 3-1.e(1)(c),_a prisoner_sentenced for 30_years or longer is eligible for parole after serving 10_years — or, subtracting the time Manning_has already served, 6.5 years. Even more alluring, Section 3-1.d(5) states_that a prisoner sentenced to 30