Bradley Manning may face death penalty

[Eleas]

I disagree. You're assuming that they would trust third party sources but the larger assumption is that you think they even researched it. Why should they trust those other sources over those of their commanders that they trust. Also, what law requires a person in the military to engage in their own investigation? There is no such requirement.

Perhaps. But just one day ago, you claimed:

This broad sweeping idea of the law that you have is unreasonable because you're charging someone with a crime that they did not have access to the required information to make an informed decision and are bound by local law to obey the orders of their commander and chief. The US government lied and misled its people.

When you then rearrange the equation so that the only permissible "required information" by definition must be given by the people asking you to do these things, that's begging the question. "We say the war is just because we say it is." It shouldn't hold water as a defense. Didn't, at Nuremberg.

Basically, you're asking them to go AWOL when they don't have all the information so they can avoid war criminal charges.

Nitpick, but no I didn't, basically or otherwise.

That sets dangerous parameters that if were actually true and how the world courts work would make it not unreasonable for anyone to decline to go to war simply based off the fact that there is a dissenting opinion and governments lie.

Slippery slope. You know damn well it's not a polar choice between utter obedience and running for the hills, yet you present this as the two options.

It would be trivial to check. Doesn't mean they didn't check and simply didn't believe the other sources. However, again there's no law requiring military personnel to do so.

Perhaps. But just one day ago, you claimed:

This broad sweeping idea of the law that you have is unreasonable because you're charging someone with a crime that they did not have access to the required information to make an informed decision and are bound by local law to obey the orders of their commander and chief. The US government lied and misled its people.

They did have access to the required information. Requirement by law is not what we are currently discussing, and law is partly precedent, which we have.

Painting them as dewy-eyed innocents is a fool's game. The US likes to wax poetic about how their all-volunteer army is exceptional because it's motivated, well trained, and well educated, sporting the finest communication systems in the world. To simultaneously claim they were all kept in the dark while the rest of the world went "wait, really? He's going to claim Saddam wants to nuke the US next?" strains credulity.

I'm claiming they were misled. I'm not saying they were kept in the dark.

Actually, you were claiming both.

It's said the US military consists of professionals. That's all well and good. In most lines of work, professionals try to understand the context of the job they're to do and whether it is, in fact, legal. That so many US Soldiers couldn't conceive of this being relevant does not exculpate them.

Seems like you're largely ignorant of military life.

No, really? What gave me away? The fact that I've stated as much whenever asked?

You're handed deployment orders and then given a mission. You don't get to conduct massive research and then decide that the war is illegal because X group is saying it is illegal but your own government is saying it is legal because of Y reason.

In this specific instance, there's no such excuse, as the PR operation for the invasion of Iraq began two years before the fact. There was plenty of time to hear the message.

Again, no laws of war make this a requirement. It isn't a requirement because it is ridiculous to expect it.

I already said (and will clarify below) that I agree that it should not be considered a war crime. I am aware that I earlier conflated the two, and I may have been incoherent in trying to clear things up.

As for whether it's right to go into an aggressive war with blinkers on? No, I still don't think it is, not on a moral level. Yes, you can be fooled into serving in an illegal war. That shouldn't mean it's okay to do so, or that you should be able to kick back and relax in the knowledge that you were "just following orders." And as Thanas showed, there is precedent.

I agree that charges must be levied, and that there are degrees of guilt. To judge the participants of a war of aggression war criminals by that alone may also be to dilute the term and risk equating the followers from the true butchers, which I don't feel is productive either.

But the point is, when you decide to kill people and the justifications won't stand up to a Google search, you're not a fucking innocent, and you shouldn't be able to shrug your shoulders and go "hey, he fooled me. His face was, like, totally trustworthy" without some consequences.

Justifications won't stand up to a google search? I guess it would depend on what sources you trust. Eleas. News flash buddy. Not everyone trusts the same sources. Sorry. That doesn't make them criminals. The only people that can be fairly charges are the ones that had access to the relevant information and not sources that could have been considered propaganda.

Firstly, I made a pretty grievous error of omission here. What I wanted to say (you can believe me or not, your choice) is "I agree that actual charges must be made and levied against people who have done specific things." What I wrote became something entirely different and, yes, unreasonable. That was not my intention.

Again, however, the rest of what you say is very odd in the context I held it. You say it all comes down to which sources you trust, and that's a matter of free choice unless it's "relevant information" provided by the USA. It shouldn't land you in court, I agree - if I said that before, it was frustration talking. But it still means you trusted the wrong people and allowed them to lead you into atrocity. Apparently, the Nuremberg court was in agreement.

[TheHammer]

Only in cases where the aid to the enemy from your intentional act was reasonably unforeseable. But any reasonable person, particularly in the position of PFC Manning, should know that releasing classified material to a media organization whose sole mission is to release said information, that it would almost certainly fall into the hands of the enemy.

This is BS. It was not the sole mission of wikileaks to release all information. They rather gave editorial control to the media while mainly serving as a database. Also, under your interpretation, people would be responsible for acts committed that are out of their control. I'd love you to justify that.

As I said, if the act was reasonably unforseable that's one thing. The fact remains that Manning handed over indscriminant classified intel to an organization he had no control over. Manning knew, or should have known that said intel would contain information useful to the enemy, and that it would be released to an open media source. If you start a fire, and it gets out of control you are still responsible for lighting the match. And the reality is we still don't know what all they still have and what they will eventually release.

As noted earlier, a government particularly in a military situation, can not be completely open. If there is some type of grievous offense occuring behind the "iron curtain" you speak of, again as noted there are channels to follow for that. Had Manning gone through those channels, been stone walled, and then went to an outside media (and done so judiciously) then I'd have more sympathy.

You are aware that your definition of "not completely open" leads to any discharge of information to the media of classified information being treason and aiding the enemy, right?

Someone in the position of an intelligence analyst who releases information to the media could very well be guilty of aiding the enemy. It all depends on what the information released. In this particular case, I believe the charge is warranted.

If he'd applied such a standard he might not be guilty of "aiding the enemy" in its truest intent, however he still would have violated numerous other laws and regulations. Again, there were channels for him to go through if he were in fact "whistle blowing" as opposed to as some have said simply seeking to cause harm to the United States due to his personal treatment. Such channels could have gotten results, while not simulatenously exposing people to unneccessary risks.

Please provide evidence that any of these channels have worked in the past. For example, when has congress closed down the torture at Guantanamo? Or stopped rendition? These channels and congress are no longer an effective tool, especially not in the Obama administration which has gone so far as to jail people for exposing corruption inside the Government.

Again, as noted if he had gone though those channels and been stonewalled I might have more sympathy if he'd gone to the media. If, again I have to be clear on this, he was very precise and judicious in doing so - only releasing evidence of wrong doing and not just every record he could get his hands on. The manner in which Manning did his leaking is essentially why I think he deserves the charges against him. Its not the same as exposing rendition, or abuses at Guantanamo.

We don't see this charge thrown around often, so I don't think your fear of it being applied loose and fast is really justified. Its a very specific charge, against an individual and I think its a warranted charge.

How so? Based on your own opinion? Do you know what the charge and specification actually states?

I linked the charge document in a previous post. Here it is again for your convenience - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... anning.pdf

And "aiding the enemy" is not a charge you hear levied very often. If we did, then we would hardly be surprised to hear it in this case. Thus the reason for my statement that such a charge isn't applied loose and fast.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As I said, if the act was reasonably unforseable that's one thing. The fact remains that Manning handed over indscriminant classified intel to an organization he had no control over. Manning knew, or should have known that said intel would contain information useful to the enemy, and that it would be released to an open media source. If you start a fire, and it gets out of control you are still responsible for lighting the match. And the reality is we still don't know what all they still have and what they will eventually release.

OK. What information was useful to our enemies, and what did it actually do for them?

Was it the information on how we were torturing our enemies(and innocent civilians, and citizens of allied countries abducted at international borders tortured for months and then left to die on mountaintops in Albania)? They knew that anyway. So, any "revenge" they may have plotted was going to be done anyway, they just called it something different.

Is the "enemy" the allied countries who might be annoyed at the war crimes we are committing? Um... Wait a minute... they are allies. Not enemies.

How about the embarrassing little things about our ambassadors performing espionage? Oh... wait. Everyone does that. They smile, they shake hands, they bug the room, both sides know it is going on they just dont talk about it.

Any mundane military information that is months old--already well known to our enemies because they are being shot at from new locations now--and is thus useless?

Could you perchance specify some information that has come from these leaks which has aided our enemies?

[MKSheppard]

As I said on Facebook in a debate with Mike W and others:

1.) It's worth noting that this was the most significant breach of classified information in a generation or more. Maybe the most significant ever in terms of sheer volume.

2.) There's a big difference between the following scenarios:

A -- Accidentally losing a SECRET folder outside the SCIF -- it is later found behind a desk when you're moving your stuff out after you lose a stripe.

B -- Giving a reporter for the Washington Post a 25 page SECRET report that the reporter then uses as a "confidental report from an informant" to describe how the US is backing death squads in Iraq or Afghanistan.

C -- Giving 251,287 multi-page diplomatic cables classified CONFIDENTAL to a foreign national named Julian Assange. What's more, this foreign national had a reputation for posting such information on the internet for anyone to see.

One of these options is the worst possible thing you could do under the UCMJ. Guess which one Manning did?

[Winston Blake]

2.) There's a big difference between the following scenarios:

A -- Accidentally losing a SECRET folder outside the SCIF -- it is later found behind a desk when you're moving your stuff out after you lose a stripe.

B -- Giving a reporter for the Washington Post a 25 page SECRET report that the reporter then uses as a "confidental report from an informant" to describe how the US is backing death squads in Iraq or Afghanistan.

C -- Giving 251,287 multi-page diplomatic cables classified CONFIDENTAL to a foreign national named Julian Assange. What's more, this foreign national had a reputation for posting such information on the internet for anyone to see.

One of these options is the worst possible thing you could do under the UCMJ. Guess which one Manning did?

I'm not familiar with the UCMJ, so I have a question - is 251,287 multi-page 'CONFIDENTIAL' cables generally worse or better than the 'mere' 7,000 pages of 'TOP SECRET' material leaked as the Pentagon Papers? I mean, the highest, most sensitive stuff in the pile of cables is still only CONFIDENTIAL, whereas everything in the Pentagon Papers was 'TOP SECRET', so it's not obvious to me which is worse. Or is there no clear answer?

[Anguirus]

So...that makes Julian Assange the enemy?

Or Australia, Assange's country of origin?

Or whichever country he was living in at the time (I forget which, GB or Netherlands)?

Or WikiLeaks, a website/media outlet? Which contacted the US government for help/vetting first, and was rebuffed?

Or the New York Times, Der Spiegel, etc, who all worked closely with WikiLeaks in the final release of cables?

Is the enemy the Taliban or al-Qaeda, both of whom are connected to this case only by the fact that they can potentially read the Internet and newspapers?

Just tell me who the enemy is, so I can figure out which disturbing precedent we're setting. It's not as if they can't make an example of Manning on lesser charges (i.e. illegal things which he actually did).

[Aaron]

2.) There's a big difference between the following scenarios:

A -- Accidentally losing a SECRET folder outside the SCIF -- it is later found behind a desk when you're moving your stuff out after you lose a stripe.

B -- Giving a reporter for the Washington Post a 25 page SECRET report that the reporter then uses as a "confidental report from an informant" to describe how the US is backing death squads in Iraq or Afghanistan.

C -- Giving 251,287 multi-page diplomatic cables classified CONFIDENTAL to a foreign national named Julian Assange. What's more, this foreign national had a reputation for posting such information on the internet for anyone to see.

One of these options is the worst possible thing you could do under the UCMJ. Guess which one Manning did?

I'm not familiar with the UCMJ, so I have a question - is 251,287 multi-page 'CONFIDENTIAL' cables generally worse or better than the 'mere' 7,000 pages of 'TOP SECRET' material leaked as the Pentagon Papers? I mean, the highest, most sensitive stuff in the pile of cables is still only CONFIDENTIAL, whereas everything in the Pentagon Papers was 'TOP SECRET', so it's not obvious to me which is worse. Or is there no clear answer?

The class system for us goes:

Top Secret
Secret
Confidential

Then the protected classes, which can be gotten through access to info requests.

Confidential is basically: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest. And it's the lowest level of actual classified material.

So yeah, releasing TS material would be way worse then just Confidential because of the nature of the system.

[Serafina]

Confidential is basically: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest. And it's the lowest level of actual classified material.

If that is the case, then it is pretty obvious that the material should not have been labeled as "confidential", at least at the time it was released, given that we have several admissions that it did not cause any harm by being disclosed. Perhaps the classification was justified at the time the material was written (say, when the military information was still up to date), but if so then the USA should change the way the re-classify material. Just because it was condidental once does not mean it can stay confidential forever - certainly not when the government has lost the legitimacy of that classification.

[General Zod]

Confidential is basically: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest. And it's the lowest level of actual classified material.

If that is the case, then it is pretty obvious that the material should not have been labeled as "confidential", at least at the time it was released, given that we have several admissions that it did not cause any harm by being disclosed. Perhaps the classification was justified at the time the material was written (say, when the military information was still up to date), but if so then the USA should change the way the re-classify material. Just because it was condidental once does not mean it can stay confidential forever - certainly not when the government has lost the legitimacy of that classification.

Whether or not classifying most of it was justified at all is very dubious. We have over 850,000 people in the US with Top Secret clearance which means we have way too much classified information out there.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top- ... d-control/

[Alyrium Denryle]

Confidential is basically: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest. And it's the lowest level of actual classified material.

If that is the case, then it is pretty obvious that the material should not have been labeled as "confidential", at least at the time it was released, given that we have several admissions that it did not cause any harm by being disclosed. Perhaps the classification was justified at the time the material was written (say, when the military information was still up to date), but if so then the USA should change the way the re-classify material. Just because it was condidental once does not mean it can stay confidential forever - certainly not when the government has lost the legitimacy of that classification.

Whether or not classifying most of it was justified at all is very dubious. We have over 850,000 people in the US with Top Secret clearance which means we have way too much classified information out there.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top- ... d-control/

Clearly, if three can keep a secret when two are dead, then the solution to preventing the death of those who know our secrets is to have more people with secrets. That way, if two of them die we are no longer reliant on one person to tell us about the things we are keeping secret... What if he accidentally gets hit by a bus?

Someone completely missed the point.

[Aaron]

Confidential is basically: When disclosure might reasonably cause injury to the national interest. And it's the lowest level of actual classified material.

If that is the case, then it is pretty obvious that the material should not have been labeled as "confidential", at least at the time it was released, given that we have several admissions that it did not cause any harm by being disclosed. Perhaps the classification was justified at the time the material was written (say, when the military information was still up to date), but if so then the USA should change the way the re-classify material. Just because it was condidental once does not mean it can stay confidential forever - certainly not when the government has lost the legitimacy of that classification.

Eh, most stuff is classified for a set period of time and then reviewed and then a decision made to declassify and release it. So the system is working as designed but given the sheer amount of horseshit thats gone on in the last ten years, I think the US should be looking through this stuff for evidence of misdeeds. But Obama has been pretty clear through his actions that nothing will be done about the various bad stuff, so I may as well hop to win the lottery, cause it'll happen before anything does justice wise.

[Simon_Jester]

Whether or not classifying most of it was justified at all is very dubious. We have over 850,000 people in the US with Top Secret clearance which means we have way too much classified information out there.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top- ... d-control/

Clearly, if three can keep a secret when two are dead, then the solution to preventing the death of those who know our secrets is to have more people with secrets. That way, if two of them die we are no longer reliant on one person to tell us about the things we are keeping secret... What if he accidentally gets hit by a bus?
Someone completely missed the point.

A big part of the problem is the need to do the "not a spy" check on everyone with access to the material: the janitor doesn't know details of how Secret Super Radar work, but it's very appealing to the secret-keepers to think that he has to be safe to know them, if you want to make sure no one can get ahold of that information by bribing the janitor. This contributes heavily to the general climate of paranoia and the making of more and deeper secrets: secrecy having to be its own self-contained world in which everyone is vetted, rather than being an alcove off the side of the corridors of power.

It winds up mostly being a case of "Oh, we need twenty analysts to process this information. And two secretaries to support the analysts and a couple extra managers to keep an eye on them. Um. And we need to add someone to human resources, who has to be able to read these's peoples' files including the parts that are secret because they deal with what they actually do for a living, which is secret. Oh, and we'll need an extra janitor, some IT people to keep up the very complex but isolated and secured computer network..." And when the whole organization has ballooned from the original twenty to thirty or forty people, you wind up having to recruit even more people to work in this office, all of whom have such secrets.

Add to that the penis-waving contest between agencies and it's no wonder the situation escalates.

Then again, there are going to be a large number of people who legitimately need Top Secret clearance- everyone in the military who works with a Top Secret system or could readily get access to one, everyone who works in agencies like the FBI where you want to make sure your agents are unbribable, because security clearance checks examine your bribability... it would add up to a lot of people even without the inflation of the security apparatus.

Though the apparatus itself getting out of hand should surprise no one. It takes a very efficient and capable person to respond to a crisis by setting up a finely tuned machine to deal with it. Bush was not that person, and he was the one who was in a position to decide what the post-9/11 security apparatus would look like.

[Mr Bean]

There's also the simple fact that with only three levels and the minimum level = total system a two thousand page report which contains 1999 pages of unclassified facts will be TS if even one page is Top Secret. As I've mentioned elsewhere the punishment/rewards are also slanted as well.

If I as a security classifier take a document and ID it as a Secret document when it should have been Top Secret then I will very quickly lose my job. If I on the other hand take a Secret Document and label it Top Secret then no issue will be raised by anyone.

[Michael Garrity]

I also like how the article mentioned "he's in solitary confinement" without mentioning that "if he were put into the general population he would be fucking dead within a week for being a 'traitor'".

Lonestar:

If Manning were lucky, he would publicly hang by the neck until his read rotted off his body. The information he disclosed endangered both the lives of his fellow soldiers, as well as the lives of those foreign nationals who work with us.
If he were unlucky, Manning would get put into GenPop at the USDB at Ft. Leavenworth. Any guesses as to how long he wouldn't last?

Mike Garrity

[Michael Garrity]

One of these options is the worst possible thing you could do under the UCMJ. Guess which one Manning did?[/quote]
I'm not familiar with the UCMJ, so I have a question - is 251,287 multi-page 'CONFIDENTIAL' cables generally worse or better than the 'mere' 7,000 pages of 'TOP SECRET' material leaked as the Pentagon Papers? I mean, the highest, most sensitive stuff in the pile of cables is still only CONFIDENTIAL, whereas everything in the Pentagon Papers was 'TOP SECRET', so it's not obvious to me which is worse. Or is there no clear answer?[/quote]

The class system for us goes:

Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
So yeah, releasing TS material would be way worse then just Confidential because of the nature of the system.[/quote]

Aaron:

At or above the level of Top Secret material are those items or programs which are TS/SA (Top Secret/Special Access) or TS/C (Top Secret/Compartmented). Basically, even if you have a TS clearance, you don't get cleared for such a program unless you are needed for it.

Mike Garrity

[Metahive]

If Manning were lucky, he would publicly hang by the neck until his read rotted off his body. The information he disclosed endangered both the lives of his fellow soldiers, as well as the lives of those foreign nationals who work with us.

Hey, tough guy, you've got any evidence for that? Several people here on this very thread already quoted evidence against this, so time to put up!

If he were unlucky, Manning would get put into GenPop at the USDB at Ft. Leavenworth. Any guesses as to how long he wouldn't last?

Because surely, someone uncovering high government jackassery deserves getting beaten/raped/tortured/whatever to death by perps.

Shithead.

[Michael Garrity]

Metahive:

I wore my country's uniform for 20 years. If you did the same for your country, you wouldn't have responded the way you did. Additionally, I have never used obscenity in any of my posts, on any board (including this one) EVER.

Mike Garrity

[Shroom Man 777]

The military command itself said that none of the wikileaks informations were threatening or damaging. Are you contradicting your superior officers, trooper? Huh? Huh?! Drop and give me fifty, airman! On the deck, jarhead! Army Strong! Hoooahoorah!

The precedence of Daniel Ellsberg could be applied to this Manning guy. But then again, Daniel Ellsberg released graphs made by Robert Strange Space Satan McNamara, and since that man makes me so angry (!!!!!), Daniel Ellsberg probably did us a favor by making McNamara look bad. If only the Tentagon Tapers could've reversed opinion on the XB-70 Valkyrie. However, Manning did not slight any McNamara, so he isn't getting off so easily. If he had slighted a McNamara, he would've been an hero.

[Metahive]

I wore my country's uniform for 20 years. If you did the same for your country, you wouldn't have responded the way you did. Additionally, I have never used obscenity in any of my posts, on any board (including this one) EVER.

A so, according to you long term military service ought to turn people into Internet Tough Guys, got it. It also turns you into a person that doesn't feel the need to support accusations with evidence apparently.

O yeah, and please go and eat a shitfuckload of mouldy bullscrotum, you fucking fuckwad. I rather swear like a sailor than being a pus-dripping Internet Tough Guy who makes shit up and doesn't support it.

[Lagmonster]

On this board, please remember that we do not prohibit profanity or insults, provided they are framed with a rational argument. One of the reasons for this was that we found that some people were dismissing arguments simply because they felt that the person making the argument was rude, which is a way of weaseling out of an argument in place of conceding honestly.

Bear in mind that although there is no rule about how much of a post can be insult versus argument, once your post is more than half insult, you are probably going overboard.

[Eleas]

If Manning were lucky, he would publicly hang by the neck until his read rotted off his body.

"Lucky?" I see. This is what the military considers getting off lightly, I take it?

The information he disclosed endangered both the lives of his fellow soldiers,

...of course, you can't prove that, but it did! It did! Honest it did!

as well as the lives of those foreign nationals who work with us.

And that's your job, dammit.

If he were unlucky, Manning would get put into GenPop at the USDB at Ft. Leavenworth. Any guesses as to how long he wouldn't last?

Let me guess - shorter than he would in an American torture chamber?

I wore my country's uniform for 20 years.

Interesting fetish, that. Personally, I wouldn't have lasted three months before the smell became unbearable.

[Metahive]

If I have gone too far in my previous post I apologize. I however will not deny that I get pretty angry when someone claims that a supposed 20 years of military service make one an infallible arbiter of who is or isn't hurting the country and what punishment such a person deserves, especially if it's "getting mauled to death by hardened criminals in an unofficial execution".

EDIT:

I'm also still waiting for evidence from Mr.Garrity that Bradley Manning recklessly endangered lives of US servicemen and allies.

[Simon_Jester]

Lonestar:

If Manning were lucky, he would publicly hang by the neck until his read rotted off his body. The information he disclosed endangered both the lives of his fellow soldiers, as well as the lives of those foreign nationals who work with us.

Mister Garrity, I have six questions for you in response to this:

Who, what, where, when, why, and how?

EDIT: You don't have to answer all six questions, mind, but I'd like to see answers to maybe three or four of them if possible. "Who, what, and when" strike me as particularly important.

[Shroom Man 777]

I'm also still waiting for evidence from Mr.Garrity that Bradley Manning recklessly endangered lives of US servicemen and allies.

He is in direct contradiction of his superior officers and should be placed in the brig until the time of the Court Martian, wherein he will then be represented by the JAG in a court of Martian law.

[In non-shroomspeak: Didn't high ranking US military officials say the exact opposite thing Mr. Garrity is saying? If this is the case, then I submit that Garrity is being an un-patriotic liberal (LIE-beral) who is being mutinous and who is not supporting the military. I also propose that he is actually collaborating with the enemy, namely the terrorizers, and he is part of a socialist disinformation campaign to sow dissent and demoralization amidst the proud Freedomerican soldiers of freedom through his blatant liberal media lies which are obviously unfair and as unbalanced as a leftist elephant with vertigo. If his statements are not with those of the military brass, then they are against them and this classifies him as an enemy combatant and should be treated accordingly under the rules of engagement. The fact that he is also masquerading as a US military person, when in truth he is probably an atheist homobortionizing Mohammedian probably building a fucking minaret as we speak, means that he is guilty of a war crime and as such is not protected by the Geneva Conventions as he is an unlawful combatant. Not that Uncle Sam would listen to such sissy shit like the Geneva Conventions. lol ]

[Simon_Jester]

...Are you sure that was non-Shroomspeak?

More seriously, I think there is also something very wrong with taking a self-satisfied "the prisoners would murder him hur hur" attitude about Manning. It only makes sense if you trust of the ethical judgement of a bunch of convicted felons.

Which strikes me as stupid. Someone's in jail for stabbing a guy to death with a broken bottle because he was pissed off, and you think he's the right person to decide whether Manning should live or die?