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

291–300 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#291

Post by rayiner »

enraged_camel wrote: post #151
zeteo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

I feel like you're fighting a different battle than the one that exists. One in which Manning uncovered and released targeted evidence of clear war crimes, instead of a bunch of unflattering information along with some evidence that was at best ambiguous and at most showed bad judgment on the part of some soldiers.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#292

Post by igorgue »

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…

softer ruling

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#293

Post by meepmorp »

zeteo wrote: post #248
enoch_r wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>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 I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military. But calling his actions an incipient coup is laughable. In a world in which the worst offenders at Abu Ghraib got ten years (and were released much sooner), sentencing him to 35 years (as a…

> In a world in which the worst offenders at Abu Ghraib got ten years (and were released much sooner), sentencing him to 35 years (as a deterrent!) is a disgrace.

Does that mean that Manning doesn't deserve his sentence? If so, how?

> I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization where it's much better to commit a crime against humanity than to publicize one and err on the side of too much info.

I hate this about Manning's supporters. He exposed a small amount of wrongdoing with his leaking. The majority of the stuff he leaked didn't show any kind of criminal behavior, and instead exposed internal communications by US govt officials for no legitimate purpose. These leaks damaged relationships with foreign governments and jeopardized the lives of people in foreign nations employed by or cooperating with the US.

Stop pretending that he was a selfless warrior for truth and justice.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#294

Post by PhasmaFelis »

pinaceae wrote: post #208
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You seem to think that I (and everyone else defending Manning) expected the prosecutors and the judge to have mercy and let him go with a pat on the head. You've got it wrong. Asking the military to set Manning free is as pointless as asking a hot iron not to fall on a child's face when the cord is tugged. Any curious toddler can be expected to yank on a cable, and any decent adult should be expected to expose concealed atrocities. The thing is, we're asking why the the iron was left out unattended, and you're going "uh, stuff hurts when it falls on you, it's the law of gravity." You're missing the point. Manning's fate isn't the disease, it's the symptom.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#295

Post by tripzilch »

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…

Right, because helping "Internet activists" to access Google, FB and Twitter totally had nothing to do with securing the NSA's power to spy on those countries.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#296

Post by joyeuse6701 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #260
Spooky23 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winning the war is obviously the biggest factor in terms of who goes to the gallows. But there's a difference between loss of life in combat versus deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation or of prisoners who are in your care. It's not about who has the highest scorecard of death and depravity. Ask the same question about incendiary bombing, which happened throughout the war. The B-29s droppin…

Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell. I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.

Dresden Bombings, Bombing of London, Tokyo Fire Bombings, Rape of Nanjing, take your pick, WWII was Total War in the closest sense of the Clausewitzian term, it was about breaking the will of a government (sometimes) and definitely it's people. The practice of protecting civilians of a foreign nation is really a western one rooted in chivalric code of conduct and to be fair, wasn't expected practice until fairly recently.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#297

Post by aqme28 »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #277
joering2 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How could you possibly know that? okay, but how would YOU possibly know otherwise?? Just because state official told you?? like those don't lie?? Just pay attention exactly to their words: they can say anything they want to, unless they "show me the money", give me a proof, they can keep blabbing regardless if they are state employee or president of the Milky Way himself!

I get your point but these are peoples lives, you have HAVE to side on caution. Getting people killed just because we believe, that the government MIGHT be lieing with no proof the other way, isn't good enough. That's more blood that we as American people don't need.

This is indeed peoples lives. Should Manning be prosecuted aggressively and have his life ruined because he may have caused vague damages?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#298

Post by Dylan16807 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #274
Dylan16807 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scientific studies that border on eugenics I don't understand what kind of experiment that could be, unless they're forcing specific couples to have children. Are you sure you're using the word eugenics right? You're not just trying to say 'nazi' without using the word 'nazi', surely?

The first thing that came to mind is this (which turns out to have actually been on the general population, rather than on the military like I thought I remembered): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment It seems perfectly reasonable to call that "[a] scientific stud[y] that border[s] on eugenics".

I don't see any connection between investigating the symptoms of a disease and... oh wait are you saying that the 'eugenics' would be the army performing such experiments only on certain racial/whatever groups of army grunts, and not on the general population of army grunts?

I don't really buy it. I think the army would want test data for all races. Contaminated agent orange for people of all colors.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#299

Post by glesica »

kevincennis wrote: post #22
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 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…

> 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.

Then let it break down! Information wants to be free and all that. I would MUCH, MUCH rather live in a world where government secrets are virtually impossible to keep than the world we currently live in. Government secrecy is a poison, anything that weakens it is good news as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#300

Post by nhangen »

monsterix wrote: post #189
nhangen wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None at all. Most people don't join the Army hoping to get a clearance in order to dump secret files.

Well you're right. Also most people don't join army to kill civilians and then be gagged for life.

I'm not going to take the bait and allow you to define that default behavior for Soldiers as that of a civilian killer.

The Soldiers know what they sign up for, and if you've never been scared for your life in a combat zone, I'd argue that you lack the perspective to that claim.

If a Soldier doesn't feel comfortable with their mission, they have many ways of dealing with it that do not involve being gagged by their superiors.

Post reply on HN