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

Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#61

Post by davidcollantes »

aspensmonster wrote: post #51
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.

As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#62

Post by davidw »

moron4hire wrote: post #57
kevincennis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally understand that sentiment, but at the same time, the whole concept of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules. There are always paths to responsible disclosure. From what I understand, many of them are pretty badly broken, and we certainly need to fix that. But ultimately, you really don't want to set a pr…

Well, that's kind of the point that the Mannings and Snowdens are trying to make, that the "paths to responsible disclosure" are at best ignored, at worst mined for reprisals as well.

Didn't Manning just dump a vast amount of data pretty much indiscriminately? That's very different from what Snowden revealed, which feels much more like actual 'whistleblowing' to me.

It does not seem unreasonable to me that diplomats need to communicate openly and frankly between one another, even as they say other things in public. In other words, just like we should be free of NSA spying, they ought to be reasonably sure their discussions don't get splashed over the internet unless it's to uncover some heinous or criminal activity. That would actually be whistleblowing. Maybe some of his data dump could be classified that way, but most likely most if it isn't. I admit to not knowing the details.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#63

Post by pinaceae »

aspensmonster wrote: post #51
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.

of course not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justic... matters like absence without leave, contempt towards officials, etc have no place in the civilian justice system.

if you don't like this, you'll need to change the US constitution. "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#64

Post by perlpimp »

pinaceae wrote: post #47
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

Yes I agree, when you join the army you are expected to give your life for your country protecting your peoples. As this goes, Army in most contries have different sets or rules set up for people within.

FWIW in most contries soldiers are fodder for other purposes beyond fighting wars, sometimes are subjects in scientific studies that border on eugenics crap that everyone knows of.

For what I would say - friends don't let friends join an Army.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#65

Post by hnal943 »

dubcanada wrote: post #11
monsterix wrote: post #2

Very sad. So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. While the guys who stood up for humanity and true spirit of serving forces for good is sentenced 35 years. And I know a lot of people would troll me on this opinion itself.

I can go kill a few babies in cold blood and get out in less then 10. But releasing documents that are private... well now that's just not very nice.

That says more about our society's dehumanization of children than anything else.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#66

Post by lotso »

zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions?

If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#67

Post by mb_72 »

beachstartup wrote: post #16

does anyone know if military prison is like civilian prison, in which you could be released early for a variety of factors including overcrowding, good behavior, appeals, parole, just plain ambiguity of sentencing, etc? from what i read in the media it seems as though civilian sentences for non-capital crimes are basically flexible.... but i'm no expert.

I was also wondering about these things, as well as wondering whether it's possible to send him a letter of support - ?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#68

Post by lil_cain »

flexie wrote: post #14

This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.

>They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes

If he was uncovering war crimes, did he first try to report them through his chain of command?

If not, then I really don't think this is a defence.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#69

Post by bhickey »

zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

That sounds like the plea made by the prosecution at Haymarket Square --

“Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of them, hang them and you save our institutions, our society.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/chicago/peopleevents/e_haymarke...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#70

Post by zobzu »

davidcollantes wrote: post #61
aspensmonster wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.

As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.

Right because one day someone decided to make those rules and put them on paper.

Just like the rules they're putting on paper regarding civilians nowadays.

So, uhm, I don't think its right. I think it's following the paper. It's lawful, it's expected, etc. But it's not "right".

Post reply on HN