N.B.: Coombs had said he would return in ten minutes. He's taken questions from individual reporters, including the Guardian's Paul Lewis, but the news conference is effectively adjourned.

Comment Is Free is holding a vote on the pardon question:

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) has just spoken with David Coombs, Bradley Manning's lawyer. Coombs described in a more detail the scene just after Manning learned his sentence of 35 years:

Security escorted Manning into a side-room, where members of his legal team and family were waiting. Several of those present – including Coombs – were in tears.

"When we went back into the room, everyone was emotional from his defence team, including myself," Coombs said. "The only person that wasn't emotional was Brad. He looked to us and said: 'It is okay'. He specifically looked to me and said: 'I know what you did. You did everything possible that you could for me. It is okay. I am going to move forward and I'm going to be alright'.

"Then we had a light-hearted moment, because, in between tears, I told him: 'This is not supposed to be the way it works. I am supposed to be comforting you – you are not supposed to be comforting me'. And then we laughed and it was okay. That just kind of speaks to the resilience of this young man."

I asked Coombs if that was also an indication that Manning had prepared himself for a long sentence. He replied:

"I think he was prepared, more than his defence team was, for any outcome. So, if she [Colonel Lind, the judge] would have said 60 years, I think he would have greeted that news with the same response."

Wikileaks has published a statement by Julian Assange on the Manning sentence.

In sharp contrast with the assessment of Manning's legal team, Assange calls the 35-year sentence "a significant tactical victory." Assange's description of the minimum length of the sentence, 5.2 years, also contradicts the legal team, which said Manning's first parole hearing comes in seven years: 

Today the well-known whistleblower Bradley Manning has been ordered by a military court in Maryland to spend a minimum of 5.2 years in prison with a 32 year maximum (including time already spent in detention), for revealing information about US government behaviour to the public.

This hard-won minimum term represents a significant tactical victory for Bradley Manning’s defense, campaign team and supporters. At the start of these proceedings, the United States government had charged Bradley Manning with a capital offence and other charges carrying over 135 years of incarceration. His defense team is now appealing to the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals in relation to this sentence and also for due process violations during the trial.

While the defense should be proud of their tactical victory, it should be remembered that Mr Manning’s trial and conviction is an affront to basic concepts of Western justice. On Mr Manning’s arrest in May 2010, he was immediately subjected to punitive incarceration by the US government, which was found to be "cruel, inhumane and degrading" by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, and even found to be unlawful by US military courts. [...]

Full statement here.

Coombs says he wants to take a ten-minute break to let whoever has to leave the press conference do so. But he says he'll come back.

"I really appreciate the turnout from the media," Coombs says. "Thank you for caring."

The room applauds. Then a representative from pardon.bradleymanning.org announces a college trust is being started "so from the day Bradley Manning steps out of prison" he can attend college, which Manning has described as a personal dream. Details here.

Paul Lewis reports that the parole timeline Coombs described, under which Manning would have his first parole hearing in seven years, conflicts with earlier guidance given to reporters by military representatives, "who previously told reporters that Manning would eligible for parole after a third of his 35-year-sentence." 

The Coombs timeline appears to be operative. "He's got another seven years before his first look," Coombs said. That's if nothing about the sentence changes in the appeals process.

Coombs said the Manning trial should never have been closed.

Every day I left thinking, I don't know why we were in a closed session. There was nothing that was said that in my mind warranted a closed session.

We have a serious problem in this country, and that's overclassification. 

In reply to a question, Coombs says in defending the case he never worried about the government spying on the case he was building. Then he cracks a Snowden joke: 

Not until I saw what the NSA is capable of doing. Then I just hope I didn't say anything too bad.

Coombs on the Snowden case:

Obviously the timing for us wasn't the greatest. But it also had some benefits for us because it brought attention back to [Manning's] case.

Coombs said the Snowden case illustrated that Bradley Manning wasn't the only one interested in enlightening the public.

Coombs says the dishonorable discharge was inappropriate. "I can see a misconduct discharge, but not a dishonorable," Coombs says. "Bradley Manning is a man of honor." 

I'm hopeful that he gets out in the near term. I'm hoping that he goes on with life and becomes productive. If so this doesn't have to define him. That he can become a productive member of society.

Coombs said Manning will be held at Fort Leavenworth, in a post-trial confinement facility, new to him. After a month, Manning will likely be released among the general population, Coombs says. He says it's likely Manning will be moved to prison "within the day."

Coombs on Wikileaks:

With regards to my client's feelings on Wikileaks, the chat logs talk about how he turned to Wikileaks for conversations, that ranged the whole spectrum of topics. 

I think he viewed that as a lifeline to him while he was deployed.

The idea that Wikileaks or Julian Assange or anyone else forced him to do anything, or asked him to do anything, is just pure fabrication.

Coombs refers to Manning's detention at Quantico, and slips and calls it "Guantanamo."

Coombs says the "loser" in the Manning case is "anyone who hopes you'll have whistleblowers in the future willing to step forward. Because thisdoes send a message, and it's a chilling one."

Coombs says the chill emanates from "the highest levels."

Then he says the sentence was disproportionate with sentences for other crimes, based on his experience:

When I heard the sentence, 35 years, I think to myself – I've represented hundreds of clients. And my clients have run the gamut, from people who have committed murder to molested children.

And those types of clients receive less time that Pfc Manning.

Coombs holds out hope for a presidential pardon, which the Manning legal team will formally apply for. Then Coombs says Manning's trial wasn't fair.

When it comes to a fair trial, what's important is, what is the perception of the public? Is it perceived as a fair trial?

In this instance, that answer would have to be no. And that's sad.

Coombs says the lack of media with cameras showing what's happening in court lets too much happen in secrecy.

A lot of stuff that happened would not have happened, because the American public would see it and say, 'that's not fair.'"

Coombs describes Manning's reaction after leaving court.

"We went back into the room," Coombs says. "Myself and others were in tears."

He looks to me, and he says, 'It's OK. IT's alright. I know you did your best. I'm going to be OK. I'm going to get through this.

Coombs says Manning could be paroled in seven years. "He's got another seven years before his first look."

The military rules set 10 years as the first chance at parole, minus time served.

"After ten years he would be eligible," Coombs says. "If he's denied, he's reviewed every year after."

Coombs vows to become an expert on parole and clemency to help Manning's case. 

Coombs is speaking. Stream here. "What I can tell you about Bradley Manning is a very moral person," Coombs says:

And that morality was with him from the beginning... He went [to Iraq] with the goal of helping save lives... I certainly believe that because of his strong sense of morality that he would do the same thing.

Coombs says the case still has a ways to go. 

An unofficial draft transcript of the Manning sentencing this morning is here (pdf).

Judge Lind says:

All right. Members of the gallery, I will now announce the sentence. I ask that you maintain decorum as you have throughout these proceedings. If there is any outburst or disturbing conduct, I will stop and, if I find there has been a disturbance, I will order the disturbing party to be escorted out of the courtroom by security. 

First of all, is there anything we need to address before we adjourn the court other than sentence?

[No]

The accused and counsel, please rise. (Pause.)

PFC Bradley E. Manning, this court sentences you to be reduced to the grade of Private E1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 35 years and to be dishonorably discharged from the service. Please be seated.

PFC Manning will be credited with 1,182 days of pre-trial confinement and 112 days of Article 13 credit for a total of 1,294 days of sentence credit. This court is adjourned.

(h/t: @BuzzFeedNews)

Emmarie Huetteman is at the Manning news conference for the New York Times:

Paul Lewis rounds up "six things we learned" from the Manning trial (pre-sentencing). Here's #3: " The US government may never have found Wikileaks' source":

Bradley Manning was arrested in May 2010 after Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker he had confessed to, informed the FBI. The transcripts of chat logs between Manning and Lamo were central to the trial, and legal hearings that preceded it, but there was no evidence presented in open session to suggest US investigators could have independently identified Manning without the tip-off. It is possible that the National Security Agency did crack the encrypted submission system that Wikileaks used, and kept the breakthrough secret, but that seems unlikely. While future government employees contemplating leaking information might be dissuaded by the length of sentence Manning received, they could also be emboldened at the thought that, if Manning had not spoken to Lamo, he might still be free today.

Read the full piece here. 

#becauseofbradleymanning

Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake is at the Coombs news conference. The site plans to livestream the Q&A here.

The Guardian's Paul Lewis is en route to Hanover, Maryland, for a news conference with Manning defense attorney David Coombs. It will be the first time since 2010 that Coombs has taken questions from the press, according to the Bradley Manning support network.

The nonprofit Government Accountability Project lists reasons it regards the Manning sentence as "excessive and unjust":

• It has never been proven that Manning's conduct did harm to the US.
• Manning informed the public of clear wrongdoing.
• Manning suffered egregious and unlawful pretrial detention.
• No individuals have been punished as a result of Manning's revelations despite clear atrocities. 

GAP has represented whistleblowers including Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and William E Binney.

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) is rounding up reaction to the Manning sentence. "I think it is outrageous,"said Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor. "A 35-year sentence presents a greater threat to the American constitutional order than any of the disclosures Manning made":

Benkler said there were "two systems" of oversight in the US system - the formal, institutional framework provided by the courts, congress and the executive, and the free press.

"This sentence takes a hatchet to the free press," he said.

The law professor added that the sentence has upset a historical balance between "some constraint on national security leaks, which is necessary, but not so much that you essentially deter whistleblowing in really important cases". 

"This sentence takes a hatchet to press freedom, and comes at a time when no-one can deny that leak-based nationals security reporting is critical."

The result of the Manning case, Benkler added, meant that future leakers would feel they needed to "throw their lives away" to respond to calls of conscience.

Journalist Joshua Foust asserts that Manning supporters who believe he should be released ignore the fact that the rules he broke cannot simply be abandoned by the military he served: 

This seems a distortion of the argument that many Manning supporters, though not all, are making. As many legal experts have pointed out, Manning's case – for the magnitude of the leak, for the application of the Espionage Act and other laws under which he was prosecuted, for the length of the sentence in a leaks case – is unprecedented. To argue with the way the law has been applied is not for many supporters a call for anarchy. It's an objection to the way the law has been applied. 

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) is rounding up reaction to the Manning sentence. "This is unprecedented,"says Liza Goitein, who co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program:

It is dramatically longer than the longest sentence ever served for disclosing classified information to the media, which was two years.

I think the government has managed to successfully press a new interpretation of the Espionage Act. It has been difficult - the administration has really struggled until now to get convictions or any serious jail time. But I think this sentence shows that it has finally broken through.

Gotein said that as well as being much more severe that the punishment received by previous government leakers, the sentence was "similar to the sentences that have been handed down for paid espionage on behalf of enemy countries".

"That is what this looks like," she said.

As to that previously mentioned debate over the Manning sentence:Wikileaks hails a "significant strategic victory":

From the Comments: there's a debate playing out over whether the verdict was severe or lenient (spoiler: most of you are arguing the former position).

One commenter wonders about the implications of the case for Edward Snowden, and about how a decade could change public attitudes – or not – toward whistleblowing:

rickylee369

21 August 2013 3:36pm

This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate

Not an expert at Maths, but Manning will be eligible for parole after about 8 years... He'll hardly be an old wo/man... In eight years time the world may finally see him for the true freedom fighter that he is, things will be different, it is only through the bravery of people like Assange, Manning and Snowden that we have a chance of escaping tyranny... This sentence should be appealed immediately, because he is being incarcerated not just for his crimes, but because he is being held up by the administration as a warning to others. However 10 years give or take, seems more lenient than the government wanted... Let us hope that like political prisoners before him, like Mandela, that his name and aims grow stronger with time and that the repression he is targeting becomes, like Aparthied, a shameless relic.

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis has spoken with Daniel Ellsberg, who helped write and then disclosed the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam War:

Defense attorney David Coombs' planned news conference this afternoon is unusual because Coombs doesn't like the media much, Paul Lewis writes:

He's rarely if ever spoken to reporters during the trial. This will be the first time he answers questions about his client's case since 2010. Later, at 7.30pm, protesters will gather for a rally and march at the White House, in Washington, DC.

Lewis reports that even before the Manning sentence was read, protesters had announced demonstrations to be held in cities across the US, including in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, New York and Boston. 

A great deal of painful detail about Manning's difficult family background and personal anguish emerged in the course of the trial. "The full extent of Manning's apparent suffering as a young boy was not known until it was raised in court, as part of his defence team's mitigation," Paul Lewiswrites:

To his supporters, Bradley Manning is a folk hero; a man who, through strength of conscience, risked and ultimately sacrificed his liberty to reveal the truth about America's modern wars.

His sentence of 35 years in military prison is unlikely to change that. But in a series of hearings at the Fort Meade military base, another, more tragic, portrait emerged: that of a lonely and confused young soldier who was neglected terribly in childhood.

Much of Manning's life – his gender identity disorder, tendency toward emotional outbursts and loneliness – has been well documented.

But the full extent of Manning's apparent suffering as a young boy was not known until it was raised in court, as part of his defence team's mitigation.

They claimed the odds were stacked against Manning before he was even born. His aunt, Deborah van Alstyne, a rare figure of adult stability in his life, recalled her reaction the day she discovered his mother was pregnant with her second child.

"I thought to myself: oh, no," she said. "Because I knew she had been drinking really heavily." Susan was by then more than three months into her pregnancy, and when Manning was born, weighing just over six pounds, he had characteristics of an infant with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Read the full piece here.

Paul Lewis notes that the sentence was "more severe than many observers expected, and is much longer than any punishment previously given to a US government leaker ...":

Taking into account time he has already served, Manning's sentence will not have officially completed until 2044, when he is aged 56. However he will be eligible for parole in just over eight years, and, at the very earliest, could be released under parole soon as 2021.

It appears that Manning, 25, could be eligible for parole before he turns 35. A third of his 35-year sentence amounts to nearly 12 years, minus the 3.5 years for time served and his illegal confinement makes just over eight years: 

Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic parliamentarian who worked with Wikileaks, writes that the Manning proceeding was "never a fair trial":

A fair trial, then, has never been part of the picture. Despite being a professor in constitutional law, the president as commander-in-chief of the US military – and Manning has been tried in a court martial – declared Manning's guilt pre-emptively. [...]

I am deeply disappointed that no one has been held accountable for the criminality exposed in the documents for which Manning is standing trial – except him. It shows so clearly that our justice systems are not working as intended to protect the general public and to hold accountable those responsible for unspeakable crimes.

Read the full piece here.

It's "seriously wrong" for a soldier who shared information with the public to be punished "far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians," the ACLU says in a statement on the Manning sentence:

A legal system that doesn't distinguish between leaks to the press in the public interest and treason against the nation will not only produce unjust results, but will deprive the public of critical information that is necessary for democratic accountability. This is a sad day for Bradley Manning, but it's also a sad day for all Americans who depend on brave whistleblowers and a free press for a fully informed public debate.

Amnesty International called on President Obama to commute the sentence. "Bradley Manning should be shown clemency in recognition of his motives for acting as he did, the treatment he endured in his early pre-trial detention, and the due process shortcomings during his trial," AI's Widney Brown said. “The president doesn’t need to wait for this sentence to be appealed to commute it; he can and should do so right now." 

Some perspective on the length of the sentence compared with other sentences (correction: there weren't any):

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis is at Fort Meade. "A three-year protracted legal process that has been ongoing since May 2010 was over in less than two minutes," he writes:

At 10.15am, running a little later than scheduled, the military judge presiding over the court martial, Colonel Denise Lind, walked into the courtroom. After dealing with some court admin, she said:

"Members of the gallery I will now announce the sentence. I will ask that you maintain decorum, as you have during these proceedings." She told the public gallery that anyone who interrupted proceedings would then be escorted from court. 

As it turned out, the sentence was read out too quickly for anyone to respond. The colonel said Manning would reduced in grade, to the rank of private E1, forfeit pay and allowances, and be dishonourably discharged. The she said he would be sentenced to 35 years.

The soldier appeared not show any emotional reaction. A reporter in the public gallery said when the sentence was read out, there were gasps among spectators, and one woman clasped her hands over her head.

After judge left the courtroom, Manning was very quickly ushered out the room by guards. A handful of supporters shouted "we'll keep fighting for you Bradley" and "you're our hero". 

In sum Manning has 1,294 days of credit – 3.55 years – toward his 35-year sentence. 

He is eligible for parole after serving at least one-third of the sentence, the AP reports. 

Further details of the sentence are emerging. Manning is to be dishonorably discharged from the military and will lose all pay and allowances.

The hearing is beginning.

David Coombs, of the Manning defense team, is to address the media about the sentence in a news conference scheduled for 1.30pm ET. Coombs is not expected to deliver a statement directly after the sentence is read, Alexa O'Brien reports.

The announcement of Bradley Manning's sentence is expected any moment now. 

Yesterday in Comment Is Free, former British army officer Christopher Yates wrote about the "mad moral courage" of the whistleblower.Recounting his own moral struggle of what to do about rumors of "wanton destruction and excessive force," Yates said he opted for the rational course: silence. 

Later, some of my friends and peers did just that [engaged in whistleblowing]. As they found, it achieved little apart from a swift(er) transfer to civvy street. But even then, there might have been some benefit, unseen, unadmitted. Either way, I'll never know, because I didn't try. I didn't try because I was a normal, mentally-healthy, mature, well-socialised individual – which is also to say that I was weak and selfish, more worried about my career than the suffering of others, more concerned with my own comfort and status than the values and standards I was supposed to be upholding.

All the while I vaguely hoped that one day, someone would saysomething. I just didn't want that person to be me. That bar was too high for my moral courage to clear. What I did instead was stick to what everyone around me was doing – putting up with the mortar bombardment, IEDs, being shot at and shooting back. It wasn't as dangerous as it sounds (ultimately, the battlegroup did not lose a single man in combat); nor was it out of concern for the rules, nor out of a sense of duty. It was simply the sane, slack, less risky option.

Read the full piece here.

A commenter takes issue with our characterization in the intro of Manning's Quantico confinement as being under "harsh conditions":

anairbagsavedmylife

21 August 2013 2:16pm

his sentence would be shortened by 112 days as a blandishment for his illegal detention in solitary confinement and other harsh conditions at the Quantico brig in Virginia in 2010-11.

112 days. 'Harsh conditions' is a slight euphemism, is it not? Is anybody being held accountable for this illegal detention?

The point is well received. The United Nations has ruled that Manning's treatment went beyond harsh conditions to "cruel and inhuman" punishment. The Guardian's Ed Pilkington wrote at the time: Manning was initially held for almost three months at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, and then transferred in July 2010 to the Marine corps base at Quantico in Virginia. He was held there for another eight months in conditions that aroused widespread condemnation, including being held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and being made to strip naked at night. [...]

Under the terms of his detention, he is kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, checked every five minutes under a so-called "prevention of injury order" and stripped naked at night apart from a smock.

Read the full piece here. 

Earlier this week Paul Lewis spoke with legal experts about the sentence likely to be handed down this morning. They told him there's no "likely" in this case:

Predicting any sentence in a court martial is notoriously difficult. Unlike in civilian courts, where there are often federal tariffs or sentencing guidelines, nothing in the Manual for Courts-Martial – the rulebook for military trials – aids the judge in determining the appropriate punishment.

"All that exists is the maximum sentence," said Eugene Fidell, a law professor at Yale. "And the minimum is zero. Other than that, it is totally down to the judge's discretion." He added that Manning was fortunate a judge would determine his jail-sentence. "A jury could do anything, they could really have thrown the book at him."

What makes the Manning case particularly difficult to forecast is the scale and nature of his leaks, which are without precedent.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-senten...