Live data from Hacker News

Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

washingtonpost.com

201–210 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#201
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's nice, but obviously there was no oversight, no logging, not even simple rate monitoring.

All of the above exists. In fact, it's required to exist, along with various access controls in the system depending on the protection level. All is specified in DCID 6/3.[1] That is not to say the requirements were implemented properly, or that the oversight was fully competent. It does, however, exist.

[1] https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/DCID_6-3_20Manual.htm

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#203
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can love your country and despise the actions of its government. "America" is more than the government.

This is why I try so hard to separate the US government and the American people. However.... I cant pretend that the US people didn't vote for Obama, and Bush and Clinton before him. In a democracy the people have to take responsibility for the governments they themselves vote for. And no, ignorance is still not a defense. This equally applies to my country, the UK. In the end, my real disgust is with my fellow Brits…

At the same time, the present implementation of Democracy doesn't give voters very many options.

I am very divided on this.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#204
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.

The President who has arguably undertaken the most aggressive campaign against information leakers in the modern American politics is going to do something about this. I agree.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#205
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 n…

None of these are legal justifications. The law isn't even relevant here, since the conduct happened in a theater of war. The video shows soldiers in helicopters shooting at a group of people, some of whom are armed with AK47s and RPGs, in the midst of a firefight in which their comrade's are getting shot at nearby. In the process they mistakenly hit two reporters who are carrying equipment that reasonably could be m…

None of the people in that video were armed with AK47s or RPGs.

Also, way to completely ignore the van they shot up with two children inside. Which they knew were inside.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#206
post #77

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…

People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war.

They do not have the right to unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order because they think it is better for humanity at large. They do not have the right to expose classified information because they think it shouldn't be classified. They do not have the right to violate orders because they are stupid, or because they're bad policy.

They do not have the right to make those decisions because, in the US, the military is supposed to be entirely subordinate to the laws enacted by our elected officials. Not "subordinate as long as it's for the best overall." This is a good thing--when enough members of the military decide to do what's better for the country against the lawful orders of the elected government that they serve, we call it a coup.

Obviously there are grey areas. After all, the Nuremburg trials punished people for violating laws that didn't exist during the commission of the crimes. If Manning had, say, only released extremely strong evidence of war crimes, I might agree that hiding that evidence was itself unlawful. But he didn't--he released a giant trove of classified diplomatic cables and military logs. These may have been unnecessarily classified, but were not unlawfully classified. Releasing them put Manning firmly in the "violating lawful orders" camp.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#207
post #104
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You should at least attempt to follow the chain of command before deciding to break it.

Even when they're guaranteed to deny you and take away your copies of all the evidence?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#208

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…

you're arguing from an ethical viewpoint, which is fine, but it does not apply to this sentence. i know this is hard, but let me explain.

in the civil justice system there are laws. if you break them, you get punished. some of them have special rules around them. take murder. kill someone, go to jail. but if it was self defence, you might walk. easy, right?

in the military justice system, leaking classified docs is a punishable offence. there is no way around this. there is no self defence, etc alternate way. you break the rule, you get court martialed. morals, ethics do not come into play here.

as a soldier, your interpretation of your oath does not apply here. it would when refusing orders like "kill those civilians over there", but only maybe and not in the way you'd like. again, military justice is not following the same framwork of rules and ethics you're used to as a civilian.

the armed forces in itself are not a democracy. they are a special area of society that exist to provide the ability to kill other humans. in order to do so anything civilian quickly goes out the window. the rules exist to enforce the most optimal sytem to maintain a killing force, not the well being of the individual within the organization.

if you don't like that, you should campaign for complete disarmament and the complete disassemblement of the armed forces. there is no half-way, grey area. once you have an army, it exists to kill humans, with all the consequences. the hero whorship present in the US around any soldier seems to imply that the US society has forgotten this (and then is surprised once something like the sentencing of Manning happens).

Nuremberg does not apply at all here. German officers were tried by the Allied Forces, not their own Army. This was the victors cleaning up. The US has not joined the International Criminal Court for similar reasons, to prevent other nations prosecuting its officers and soldiers (for war crimes, etc.). If you want to do so, you'll need to invade the US and be the victor. Note that Saddam was tried and sentenced by an Iraqi court, not an international tribunal even though US soldiers caught him.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#209
post #109
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am) so with "time served" he'll be about 60 when he gets out.

right. missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#210

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…

I just trying to understand the positions here. So, Military communications should be public?
Post reply on HN