Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#261

Post by birdyrooster »

baryphonic wrote: post #259
baddox wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. You’re just saying that you support civil disobedience when you support it. Of course. But of course people can and do commit civil disobedience to protest things you don’t support.

I chose my words carefully. People who commit civil disobedience and accept their punishments make me stop and ponder. I may not agree with their positions, but I do take them seriously. I feel the same way about people who self-immolate. Hard to have a more credible commitment to some sort of cause than almost certainly killing yourself in an extremely visible way. There's very little I would set myself on fire for,…

The reason you choose your words so carefully is because you are upset that Manning tried to kill herself and did not "accept their punishments". Yeah... good take. Oh wait, actually the views you are advocating here are fascist and hurtful to democracy.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#262

Post by cannabis_sam »

baryphonic wrote: post #257
mantap wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two schools of thought to civil disobedience. The first holds that one must surrender oneself to the authorities to distinguish civil disobedience from pure criminality. But the other holds that one should not surrender or plead guilty so as not to legitimize an unjust system.

Though I clearly am biased in favor of the former interpretation since it is IMO the most persuasive, her actions fail both. Any advocacy on her own behalf in front of the court (with the exception of genuinely extreme treatment like torture) would constitute legitimizing the proceedings. Under the latter interpretation, her only response would be to remain completely silent and refuse to cooperate at all. If we want…

>She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action.

Like attempted suicide?

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#264

Post by closeparen »

baryphonic wrote: post #260
closeparen wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge’s distinction between punitive and coercive is important. Contempt of court is closer to police use of force than to criminal punishment. Faced with a hostile suspect, cops can do some nasty stuff. Electric shocks, beating with sticks, painful chemicals. But suppose they’re ordering you to stand up, and you’re deaf or paralyzed. The baton keeps landing and you keep not doing what they ask. Resisting arrest…

I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.

Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#265

Post by shakna »

baryphonic wrote: post #257
mantap wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two schools of thought to civil disobedience. The first holds that one must surrender oneself to the authorities to distinguish civil disobedience from pure criminality. But the other holds that one should not surrender or plead guilty so as not to legitimize an unjust system.

Though I clearly am biased in favor of the former interpretation since it is IMO the most persuasive, her actions fail both. Any advocacy on her own behalf in front of the court (with the exception of genuinely extreme treatment like torture) would constitute legitimizing the proceedings. Under the latter interpretation, her only response would be to remain completely silent and refuse to cooperate at all. If we want…

> She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action. Instead, we see court pleadings, which all but imply that she respects the legitimacy of the court, just not its decision toward her.

No, she attempted suicide, more than once. Drastic action was taken along with the legal team attempting to do their jobs.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#266

Post by creato »

surge wrote: post #203
agf wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly the previous comment was conflating things that happened in the past with what's happening how. I was sometimes disappointed with the reality of the Obama presidency, like may others. But this comment is just ridiculous. From the policies, to the personal conduct, to their respect or lack thereof for the rule of law, the two administrations and the actions of the two in and out of office are wildly differen…

This is the part where I remind people that Obama drone striked a 16 year old US citizen without trial in a non active war zone and a cafe full of civilians because someone bad might be there (and wasn't so just killed a bunch of innocent people). That's a war crime tantamount to murder. You're right in some respects Obama is worse. I definitely feel like I could have a beer with him, but fuck me if he didn't do thin…

> but fuck me if he didn't do things as bad as Bush or worse.

If you actually believe this, you grossly lack a sense of scale. Multiplying Obama's actions by 100 doesn't come close to starting the Iraq war.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#267

Post by [deleted] »

closeparen wrote: post #264
baryphonic wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.

Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.

[deleted]

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#268

Post by bryanrasmussen »

baryphonic wrote: post #259
baddox wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. You’re just saying that you support civil disobedience when you support it. Of course. But of course people can and do commit civil disobedience to protest things you don’t support.

I chose my words carefully. People who commit civil disobedience and accept their punishments make me stop and ponder. I may not agree with their positions, but I do take them seriously. I feel the same way about people who self-immolate. Hard to have a more credible commitment to some sort of cause than almost certainly killing yourself in an extremely visible way. There's very little I would set myself on fire for,…

If a law is morally wrong and you commit civil disobedience you have no moral obligation to be punished for opposing the immoral. That would be silly.

It may be that opposing the immoral law and accepting punishment has a better marketing aspect for convincing people of the immorality of the law, but doing that convincing might not be the purpose the person has, their purpose might just be opposing the immoral law.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#269

Post by sterlind »

birdyrooster wrote: post #261
baryphonic wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose my words carefully. People who commit civil disobedience and accept their punishments make me stop and ponder. I may not agree with their positions, but I do take them seriously. I feel the same way about people who self-immolate. Hard to have a more credible commitment to some sort of cause than almost certainly killing yourself in an extremely visible way. There's very little I would set myself on fire for,…

The reason you choose your words so carefully is because you are upset that Manning tried to kill herself and did not "accept their punishments". Yeah... good take. Oh wait, actually the views you are advocating here are fascist and hurtful to democracy.

I didn't read it that way and I'm on the left..

I've participated in civil disobedience protests before (forming a human chain.) Obstructing passage is illegal, but I believed in what I did and was willing to accept detainment.

The poster's perspective is that civil disobedience is illegal (almost by definition), and as an illegal action it has risks (detainment, being roughed up), and the willingness of people to take those risks for a cause they believe in makes them stop and listen. This is precisely the goal, and I laud them for not tuning it out!

Anyways, it can also go the other direction. The self-immolation of a reported Falun Gong member turned public opinion in China against the practice as too extreme/cultlike, bolstering the crackdown, rather than drawing sympathy for their brutal suppression.

Post reply on HN