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

151–160 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#151

Post by enraged_camel »

zeteo wrote: post #77
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…

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 huma…

Exactly. The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as "a form of government as well as a personality and social trait [that] is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience."

It seems people are quick to point out that Manning broke some rules, but are too narrow-minded to look up and see the big picture. Manning undeniably made a service to the greater good, which is the good of his country. Whether he broke some rules internal to his organization should not even have come into play in this trial.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#152

Post by venomsnake »

thex86 wrote: post #49
eli wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's sad. I'm not personally a big Manning fan, but that feels like a stiff sentence. (By the way, I think a lot of people would disagree with you. That doesn't mean they're "trolling" you.)

> I'm not personally a big Manning fan Can you elaborate why? I am interested in hearing your point of view because maybe I just have one side of the story.

What Manning did was stupid. And while I agree that 35 years is harsh (mostly because I don't believe in prison terms above 5 years) he leaked a lot of stuff, not all of it related to warcrimes.

The 1.5 gigabyte unecrypted file is in the torrents so you could take a look to see what is inside - if it is legal under your jurisdiction.

Also WikiLeaks didn't released all cables that he gave them against - so he failed on that front too.

He also didn't make a dead man's switch that he could leak additional material in case he is captured or convicted - that to use as bargaining chip.

He called himself Bradass83 as a nickname and approached a hacker on im program.

So - he leaked too much, too nondiscriminatory, failed to it properly and was behaving amateurish.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#153

Post by veritas20 »

Bradley Manning would have gotten less time if he:

Robbed a bank: 20 year max Knowing spread AIDS: 10 year max Sold child pornography: 10 year max Sold slaves: 20 year max and many more....

Will this cause action or uproar among civilians or military personnel? We'll see...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#154

Post by yk »

For some reason, I think that Manning will be free much sooner, or the US will be in deep trouble. Not so much because of him, but I think that there are only two possibilities, either the US cut the security industrial complex serverly, or the deep state will take over. In the latter case, the US will loose its 'soft power,' and would face an empire breaking apart. On the other hand, if a administration would return to a reasonable security policies, then one of the first things they would do is to pardon Bradley Manning.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#155

Post by jellicle »

jamesroseman wrote: post #15
Zikes wrote: post #10

> including 112 days of credit for abusive treatment he was subjected to at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. They openly acknowledge abusive treatment, but has anyone received criminal disciplinary action over it? 112 days also seems a tad low considering what I've heard of his experience.

I'm sure there will be punishment, but that it'll be out of the courts. The last thing they want publicized is a case about American Marines mistreating a convict.

Why would you be sure of that? No one involved in mistreating Manning has had any charges brought against them, nor will there be.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#156

Post by grandalf »

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…

I don't think anyone expected Manning to be found innocent. But it will be quite telling whether he is eventually pardoned.

The most worrisome aspect to me is that the administration does not appear to be remotely open to pardoning either Manning or Snowden, while at the same time ignoring the abuses each revealed.

Before this happened, I would have expected the response to be more measured and would have expected there to be some kind of review/investigation of the crimes revealed by the leaks in tandem with attempts to punish the whistleblower... then later after the investigation a possible pardon.

That we are not seeing this happen makes me wonder if I am wrong about the degree to which we have the rule of law in the US.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#157

Post by venus »

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…

> no, the soldiers in the helicopter should not be tried

Oh, I'm sure they won't be. No doubt whatever actions they took are entirely justifiable under whatever legal framework has been whipped up to cover it. Not like there's going to be Nuremberg trials for Iraq.

But at the end of the day, the video shows american soldiers in billion-dollar helicopters calmly killing innocent people in a foreign country they have no real reason to be in. That upsets people. And you can quote as many legal justifications as you want but none of that changes the profound injustice, and rock bottom morality, of what happened that day.

TL;DR: if the outcome of your legal process is profound injustice and innocent people killed without reason or consequence, your legal process sucks.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#158

Post by fusiongyro »

jlgreco wrote: post #110
jusben1369 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The "fuck you" is in response to a transparent attempt to exclude others from the discussion by asserting that they lack the credentials to participate in it, even though such "credentials" are plainly not required. Although uncivil, it was not entirely unwarranted.

"Civilians might not like it, or even understand" is not an attempt to exclude civilians from the conversation, it's just an observation that civilians are unlikely to understand the complexities of the justice system internal to the armed forces. I'm a civilian, but I understand that joining the military means you are legally subject to additional laws and codes which are enforced completely by and within the armed forces.

It must be possible to understand that what Manning did was both the right thing to do and a clear violation of the armed forces code he agreed to uphold. Unlike civilian law, the armed forces must place a premium on obedience. People volunteer for and agree to these rules, so the outrage isn't as warranted.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#159

Post by revelation »

jws wrote: post #117
revelation wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he leaked was available to 1.5+ million people in the USA. It is not by any reasonable meaning of the word classified, it is the proceedings of a seperate class of society.

Your assertion ignores the "need to know" aspect of classified information. Just having a clearance does not give you permission to access arbitrary secret data any more than having a driver's license lets you drive backwards down a highway.

That's nice, but obviously there was no oversight, no logging, not even simple rate monitoring. That is, after all, why Manning was able to wget this massive cache of data, and they would be none the wiser had he not revealed his involvement to people or systems he falsely deemed trustworthy.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#160

Post by shaaaaawn »

aspensmonster wrote: post #29
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.

Obama could fix this with the stroke of a pen. Surely he will deliver. I'll wait.

Pardoning Manning is very unlikely. Sets a really bad precedence. Damage control is all about the perception of 'isolated incidents' . There's probably a greater (but slim) chance of some sort of exoneration with Snowden since his leaks are part of a larger conversation that has traction
Post reply on HN