[angkor]

Not in scope, not in intent, not in damage done. And he won't face the kind of penalties they got. I'm a big fan of proportionality.

That's why he got only 26 months in jail. The others won't get much more than that.

There are only two kinds of cases with regard to classification breaches, and military prosecutors know this. There is malicious, and non-malicious.

Both deserve significant punishment (whether it's a formal reprimand, demotion, jailtime, or something in between).

Breaches "with the best of intentions" or simple boneheaded mistakes in judgement will get the lower end of the scale, while malicious breaches should and do get the maximums up to life imprisonment or the death sentence.IMO the military has a pretty good handle on which kind or breach demands which type of approach.

[ReignOfError]

Both deserve significant punishment (whether it's a formal reprimand, demotion, jailtime, or something in between).

Agreed. It reminds me a bit of a recent thread about a guy who was convicted of drug-dealing for possessing hundreds of pain pills -- which he was not actually selling, but using to treat severe chronic pain. He did not receive the harsh sentence he was given, and he was pardoned (or his sentence commuted, I forget which).

But he did break the law, and deserved some punishment. The laws on controlled substances, like those on control of classified information, exist for good reason -- and, as you pointed out a few posts back, excusing a "just this once" violation erodes the system.

IMO the military has a pretty good handle on which kind or breach demands which type of approach.

I agree with that, too. I believe the punishment in this case is fair and proportionate, given that the gunny is flipping on his co-conspirators.

[Ben Hecks]

That's why he got only 26 months in jail.

That sounds like a light sentence until you recall the Sandy Berger casee.