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

381–390 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#381

Post by jlgreco »

sarutahiko wrote: post #311
meepmorp wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#382

Post by njharman »

majelix wrote: post #82
belorn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Lawyers, priests, doctors, and psychologies who is all under strict confidentiality sometimes has to break that rule of secrecy when particular crimes is heard or observed. It doesn't matter how classified the conversation is, or t…

> If they show child abuse, they must break the confidentiality and call the police. The key point here is that they call the police, not blindly dump thousands of private documents onto the internet.

The people are the police of the government.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#383

Post by j2d3 »

Some ways to take comfort here:

1) This is not the final word on Bradley Manning's fate. His supporters, who have already raised over $300,000 in his defense thus far, will not stop here.

2) 35 years is bad, but not as bad as it could have been. At least his defense successfully got rid of the "aiding the enemy" charge.

3) This will be appealed something like this, IIRC:

   (a) Appeal to the convening authority (a military officer who has the power to reduce the sentence or overturn the conviction all together). This is the method that has allowed (more than one) convicted rapist go free: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/13/senators-critical-military-convening-authority - so if this were used to free Bradley Manning or reduce his sentence, it could help the Military defend the process in the court of public opinion! (However, this is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!!!)

   (b) Appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA)

   (c) Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

   (d) Appeal to the US Supreme Court
There is an article here that explains all the possibilities:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-senten...

(Edit: formatting)

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#384

Post by dragonwriter »

enoch_r wrote: post #206
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…

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.

No, we call it a mutiny.

A coup is specifically when the action they take involves displacing the lawful government, not merely disobeying its orders.

There's a pretty giant difference.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#385

Post by randallsquared »

rayiner wrote: post #331
scotty79 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These leaks damaged relationships with foreign governments. If truth hurts it's not a good sign.

Hint: you don't really want to hear everything your friends might think of you, much less your frenemies, acquaintances, or coworkers.

Don't be absurd. Of course I want to know these things. They don't stop thinking them because you don't find out, you know!

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#386

Post by jasonlotito »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #380
briandear wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abu Ghraib a crime against humanity? Yes, that's similar to ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. That's nearly exactly the same thing as the genocide in Rwawanda. That's definitely on the same level as Pol Pot. The difference however is Abu Ghraib didn't put intelligence sources at risk, it didn't endanger the lives of people. How many people died in Abu Ghraib from being photographed with underwear on their head? How ma…

The difference however is Abu Ghraib didn't put intelligence sources at risk The hell it didn't. (I stopped reading there, so maybe you made some good points later on.) By discarding any pretense of adherence to the Geneva Convention, Abu Ghraib put every US soldier at risk.

> Abu Ghraib put every US soldier at risk.

At risk of what? What was already happening to both soldiers and civilians? You can't mean torture, death, or imprisonment. Hell, the Taliban and the like were doing far, far worse already.

So, I'm honestly curious, what was the increased risk?

> so maybe you made some good points later on.

The OP made mention of how Manning's leak directly led to intelligence sources imprisonment and death.

I wonder if there is anything other than suspicious backing up your claims here?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#387

Post by choarham »

enoch_r wrote: post #206
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…

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…

Endless war

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#388

Post by jasonlotito »

gizzlon wrote: post #174
majelix wrote: post #98

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

Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is. (edited for clarity)

> Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains?

Maybe that's why he only got 35 years. More importantly, what unconstitutional thing did he release?

But really, that argument is basically saying that collateral damage is acceptable. Innocents can be destroyed if you kill just one guilty party.

> worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes.

Well no, he committed actual crimes that lead to actual suffering and death by intelligence agents.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#389

Post by kondor6c »

grey-area wrote: post #357
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…

People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war. So if they witness a crime, they should speak out. Manning did release evidence of several crimes leading up to and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: The cheerful murder of Reuters journalists and later innocents who came to help by that helicopter crew The purchase of…

With regards to your first "crime": How was that a murder? The unit on the ground received RPG fire, and the person was holding a large object and pointing at ground forces. What do you think is going to happen? For them to come down out of the helicopter and ask for the press pass? When you say murder you imply that the service men had the intent to kill some journalist. When in reality they thought they had weapons pointed at a previously attacked ground force, and had the helicopter crew asked permission to engage and protect the ground force.

In the first "crime"... No crime was committed nor was anyone ever convicted. It was a tragic result, but not one that the reporters could have mitigated the risk.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#390

Post by aclevernickname »

sp332 wrote: post #355
aclevernickname wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that people use the "stop putting words in my mouth" line when someone follows their words to a logical conclusion. This leads me to believe that the sentence really means "quit pointing out flaws in my reasoning."

I guess you could read the conversation before commenting. Here, I'll make it easy for you: I said "35 isn't even half a lifetime... he'll be about 60 when he gets out." and clarky07 said "missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways." which is not the same thing as what I said. See? clarky07 tried to make it sound like I said that 35 years was no big deal, but I di…

I bet your use of passive-aggressive condescension wins all your arguments for you, and wins you the respect of all your peers.

Now, if you said that 35 isn't half a lifetime, and that he'll be about 60 when he gets out, how doesn't that minimize the focus on the effect those 35 years of incarceration actually have on Manning? Were you just so insensitive an engineer that you felt the cold, literal correction was somehow benefiting the conversation?

Post reply on HN