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

311–320 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#311

Post by sarutahiko »

meepmorp wrote: post #293
zeteo wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 muc…

> and jeopardized the lives of people in foreign nations employed by or cooperating with the US.

Didn't independent studies/orgs show that this wasn't true, and was just a phrase paraded around by the government to get the public against Manning?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#312

Post by icebraining »

ballard wrote: post #226
jlgreco wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blind obedience is what they want. It should not be what society wants though. I think that has been made painfully clear in the past, but some people still just don't seem to get it.

Yup. There is a popular myth amongst the sheeple that those in power share a citizen's best interests. One must always remember that this ostensible pretense is rarely ever the case.

There is a popular myth amongst the sheeple that those in power share a citizen's best interests.

I find it hard to believe than anyone except for a small minority actually believes that to be the case. If it were, vast partisanship wouldn't exist, since whoever was in power would be considered to "share their best interests".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#313

Post by tty »

The length of his sentence is similar to that of Jeffrey Carney, who was sentenced to 38 years for

>espionage, conspiracy, and desertion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Carney

>While working at the Marienfelde Field Site in Berlin, Carney began copying classified documents which he then provided to the East German Ministry for State Security (MfS) by repeatedly crossing back and forth into East Germany. In 1984 he was involuntarily transferred to Goodfellow Air Force Base in Texas to work as a technical instructor. Unfortunately, Carney believed, Goodfellow AFB was a training base with no real-world intelligence of any interest to the MfS. He soon discovered that he had been very wrong. He continued providing the MfS with documents, meeting his handlers in Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro In 1985.

Carney spent 11 years in prison.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#314

Post by scotty79 »

meepmorp wrote: post #293
zeteo wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 muc…

> These leaks damaged relationships with foreign governments.

If truth hurts it's not a good sign.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#315

Post by Justsignedup »

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…

In layman's:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Moral of this story: Don't join the military for any reason whatsoever. And if you are drafted in, claim on your defense: "I would have been executed otherwise"

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#316

Post by jbp »

selfrespect wrote: post #166
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've seen you apologize for the NSA spying on everyone, for Google giving all of our data to the NSA while putting on their best "don't be evil" face and now you apologize for scum shooting innocent people from helicopters (AND ENJOYING IT!). You're a terrible person, how do you live with yourself?

Huh? BS. I come here to HN to grok the truth, to see other side, not to nod head in agreement. I learn so much from rayiner's view point. I don't agree with him on all points, but I'm definitely a better informed person because of his reasoning.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#317

Post by a3n »

Macsenour wrote: post #273
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…

I think this is the main point that I repeat over and over, the UCMJ is that he swore to uphold and abide by and by THAT rule of law he was tried against. Being in the military is different than NOT being in the military.

He was also tried for computer fraud and abuse, which I don't think is specifically in the UCMJ.

But I agree with your overall point. He's subject to civilian law and the UCMJ.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#318

Post by scotty79 »

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

As it should. If something requires to be classified to work then it doesn't work.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#319

Post by spuz »

alttag wrote: post #187
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…

> “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court > must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing > classified information,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, a > military prosecutor. As I posted just recently [1], research has consistently shown deterrence has at best a minor effect. Other personal values and environmental factors are better predictors of noncompliance. See, e.g., the best review article I've…

Even if deterrence had a significant effect, surely it's totally immoral to punish one person for the potential future crimes of others? I don't understand how anyone can accept the idea of deterrence when deciding sentencing terms. Either the crime is bad enough to warrant a significant punishment, or it's not and therefore unnecessary to deter anyone else from committing the same crime.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#320

Post by jaegerpicker »

aqme28 wrote: post #297
jaegerpicker wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is nothing vague about endangering others when disclosing large amount of data. If he had just wanted to disclose the war crimes then I'd be incredibly outraged at his prosecution but he was reckless and put others into danger because of it. A whistle blower also has the responsibility to only disclose the important data, he failed at that.
Post reply on HN