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

71–80 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#71

Post by nsxwolf »

monsterix wrote: post #19
TylerE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, for Manning, it has to be considered a victory, considering he was facing up to 90 years, and the gov't asked for 60. He could be out on Parole as "soon" as 2025.

The question is: Why should he be in prison at all? and why the other three murderers in the army who were exposed in the 'collateral damage' video be left free outside untried? The question is why would someone end up leaking state secrets at all?: Hint: Those secrets are about wrong doings!

So did you actually watch the video of the "three murderers" and think critically about it, or were you swayed by the heavily editorialized subtitles and its sensational title?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#72

Post by gizzlon »

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…

So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where do you draw the line?

When is it okay to break the loyalty for the greater good?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#73

Post by homosaur »

coldcode wrote: post #46
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.

And what penalty did his superiors receive? Nothing. Privates should never have access to secret information without supervision. If he did someone else should be responsible and take the penalty.

If you paid attention to the sentencing hearings, it was clear that the chain of command should be largely responsible for the happenings of the Manning case. They repeatedly ignored and swept under the rug issues related to his mental state and fitness for duty, and a lot of it was done for the reasons of DADT.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#74

Post by flexie »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #60
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.

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…

Yes, really. No one has died and I have never heard of anyone of those being in danger. Michael Kozak, whom you quote, works for the State Department.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#75

Post by rooshdi »

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…

The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#76

Post by lil_cain »

belorn wrote: post #55
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…

> 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. Lawyers, priests, doctors, and psychologies who is all under strict confidentiality sometimes has to break that rule of secrecy when particular crimes is heard or observed. It doesn't matter how classified the conversation is, or t…

Aiui, they are. But, like a lawyer, doctor, or psychologist (a priest is not allowed break the seal of the confessional under any circumstances), there's a way of reporting these crimes. And shockingly, like a lawyer, doctor, or psychologist, it's not by sending all secret data they have access to to the press.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#77

Post by zeteo »

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…

After WW2, the Allies condemned and executed a number of German and Japanese officers who had done little more than follow orders. What they had done was not against any laws at the time, and definitely within their organizations' code of conduct. I think that was a good thing because it established the principle that joining an organization does not absolve you from higher duties towards your fellow citizens or humanity at large. By exposing questionable decisions and arguably a number of war crimes, Manning broke his oath with the US Army but did a much greater service to the rest of us. By choosing to make an example out of his punishment, the US has struck a huge blow to its claims of moral superiority and American exceptionalism.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#78

Post by pandeiro »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #60
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.

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…

Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us" do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals? Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments?

The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#79

Post by gbog »

There has been a long history of people standing against their government at the risk of their lives, because some few principles of morality are higher than governments.

We have seen the case of Thoreau and friends, against slavery. And then De Gaulle and friends, against Hitler. In old China, it was also very common for confucean public servant to criticise their emperor and wait for the supplice. Now we have Bradley Manning, we can pin his photography on the board of the braves.

And do not get to me on "what is morality?" or "how do you choose your principles?" These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#80

Post by tomjen3 »

f1nch3r wrote: post #40

Growing up as a conservative, hyper-patriotic American it pains me to say that I hate my country. A young man exposes wrongdoing by the military and gets sentenced to 35 years in prison while the administration that started an illegal war with Iraq, costing untold American and Iraqi lives, are free.

Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing.

Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom. Sure it fails from time to time, but that is just because it is compromised of humans, who are awesome but fallible creatures.

Post reply on HN