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

91–100 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#91

Post by at-fates-hands »

pandeiro wrote: post #78
at-fates-hands wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

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

I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I guess this $28 million was wasted then huh?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-demo...

"The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)"

"The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#92

Post by devx »

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 what it's a different organization? The army is not Ku Klux Klan or the mafia, is it?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#93

Post by alex_stoddard »

pandeiro wrote: post #78
at-fates-hands wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

I can provide one example from direct personal experience.

A citizen of a country with a repressive regime was revealed by release of the diplomatic cables to have provided information to the US State Department on the persecution of church members in their country. They have subsequently had to flee the country, being separated for years from their spouse and children who have remained trapped at home.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#94

Post by frank_boyd »

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…

Note to self: don't join the army.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#95

Post by dendory »

rayiner wrote: post #87
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.

Uh, if you actually read up on the helicopter video, you'll see that Assange plays a game of "hide the ball" with what really happens in the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike . Specifically: 1) The company had been under fire all morning and the Apaches were called in by a soldier on the ground under attack at the location where the journalists were; 2) Among the group of men the two…

Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#96

Post by cinquemb »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #91
pandeiro wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>>The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite. I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I guess this $28 million was wasted then huh? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-demo... "The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where…

I wonder how many billions go to helping subvert other sovereignties? Can we have some cherry picked examples for that?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#97

Post by PhasmaFelis »

tomjen3 wrote: post #80
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 t…

Better than the worst is not good enough.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#98

Post by majelix »

gizzlon wrote: post #72
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…

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?

> So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable.

Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#99

Post by jusben1369 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84
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…

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

"Fuck you"?! You do realize you're trying to bully and intimidate someone whose opinion you don't agree with i. (and just happens to be factually correct and fairly balanced in delivery) Kind of ironic I'd say.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#100

Post by sp332 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84
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…

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

There are whistleblower procedures even in the Army. Manning admits that he ignored them.
Post reply on HN