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

451–460 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#451

Post by smsm42 »

zeteo wrote: post #379
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…

>You likely have no idea how Americans are treated by the Taliban and Al Q when they're captured [... T]he guys in Abu were fighting on the same side as the guys that beheaded Daniel Pearl. [... I]f the US soldiers at Abu had shot those prisoners on the battlefield, nobody would have complained, but they put underwear on their heads and the world freaks the hell out Your obsession with terrorists' lack of scruples is…

>>> Your obsession with terrorists' lack of scruples is causing you to become what you hate

Did it? Did he already cut off people's heads, blow up markets and issued fatwas calling for murdering infidels? Or did he just express an opinion that maybe war prisoner abuse, while being undeniably bad, is not the same as murdering innocent people or perpetrating genocide? If in your eyes that makes one the same as terrorist, your priorities are seriously messed up.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#452

Post by smsm42 »

scotty79 wrote: post #314
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…

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

Are you sure you want everybody know all the truth about you? Every fine detail, including your bathroom routine, your most secret thoughts, your dreams and your secret wishes? Does the word "privacy" mean anything to you? Yes, knowing the whole truth sometimes hurts. Some truths are not meant to be known by everybody.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#453

Post by smsm42 »

baddox wrote: post #392
rayiner wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter, of course. Humans are imperfect. Humans know that they are imperfect. Humans know that other people recognize their imperfections. Life goes on because we don't rub in each others' faces what we think of each others' imperfections. Sometimes it's necessary in cases where a particular imperfection is becoming a serious issue either in the persons life or in the friendship, but generally the best policy is…

I find your opinion utterly bizarre.

Read some Eric Berne books. Human interactions are practically built on pretense and games (and it is not always bad - actually, unless you are caught up in a self-destructive game, it often is good). Unless you're communicating with robots all day, truth is not exactly the primary factor here. Otherwise morning greeting would look like:

- I notice you! Here's some meaningless words acknowledging the fact. - I noticed you too. Please don't tell me anything about your life unless it's exciting but not making me envy you in any way. - Same to you, and please don't waste my time anymore now unless you are going to benefit me in some way. - I'm going to depart now, and I don't care how the rest of you day goes. - Neither do I for you.

I would submit a world like this would be perceived as utterly bizarre by most of us.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#454

Post by chris_mahan »

anigbrowl wrote: post #399
chris_mahan wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? Should the State be allowed to keep this much stuff secret and still expect the Voting Public to accurately measure the effectiveness of government officials?

No, that's a totally different question. I asked what unconstitutional activity was revealed by all of those state department cables that were leaked. As best I can ascertain, the answer is 'none whatsoever.'

Torture?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#455

Post by smsm42 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #422
jasonlotito wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 impris…

Gee, I dunno. I'm no great military strategist or anything, but it seems like allowing the Taliban to establish the ground rules isn't the best approach. For one thing, not all of the US's potential adversaries are radical Islamists. In future conventional wars, we will need the moral authority to demand that our prisoners be treated in accordance with international laws and treaty obligations. Debacles like Abu Ghra…

>>>> In future conventional wars, we will need the moral authority to demand that our prisoners be treated in accordance with international laws and treaty obligations.

A little wrinkle here is that most US adversaries in recent wars didn't give a flying duck about US moral authority. And there's no reason why that would change - it's not like US is going to war with Sweden or Canada. Not that supposedly civilized countries aren't capable of mass atrocities - look at what Germans did in 20th century. Did they care for the moral authority of the Jews they mass-murdered? I highly doubt so.

Moral authority is important only for US and only because winning the war while destroying one's society may not be worth it.

>>>> The difference is, his actions had some positive consequences as well as negative ones.

You mean, actions of US government don't have positive consequences? I think you're getting way ahead of the facts here.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#456

Post by CamperBob2 »

smsm42 wrote: post #455
CamperBob2 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, I dunno. I'm no great military strategist or anything, but it seems like allowing the Taliban to establish the ground rules isn't the best approach. For one thing, not all of the US's potential adversaries are radical Islamists. In future conventional wars, we will need the moral authority to demand that our prisoners be treated in accordance with international laws and treaty obligations. Debacles like Abu Ghra…

>>>> In future conventional wars, we will need the moral authority to demand that our prisoners be treated in accordance with international laws and treaty obligations. A little wrinkle here is that most US adversaries in recent wars didn't give a flying duck about US moral authority. And there's no reason why that would change - it's not like US is going to war with Sweden or Canada. Not that supposedly civilized co…

You mean, actions of US government don't have positive consequences? I think you're getting way ahead of the facts here.

(Shrug) Unless you owned a lot of HAL or another big contractor, the Iraq war didn't have a lot of upside.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#457

Post by eliasmacpherson »

smsm42 wrote: post #450
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? further to what I wrote above: On April 20, 2004 insurgents fired forty (40) mortar rounds into the prison. Twenty-two detainees were killed and 92 wounded. Commentators thought the attack was either as an attempt to incite a riot or retribution for detainees' cooperating with the United States.[6] reasonable to surmise shelling was to stop or prevent…

So wait, now US soldiers must take the blame for one set of terrorists killing other terrorists to prevent the latter from talking? Maybe also the police is to blame when Mafia is killing witnesses? Abu Ghraib abuses are bad, but it looks like you're losing perspective here and try to paint every wrong being done as US fault, no matter who did it or why.

Blame isn't as black and white as you are making out.

If the police have a duty of care to witnesses, and the Mafia kill them, then the police should take some blame. Not as much as the mafia. Think of a witness protection program, if they fail at their task then they are partially to blame.

So no, I am not trying to paint it all as being US' fault, you can tell that because I wrote "insurgents fired".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#458

Post by sp332 »

clarky07 wrote: post #447
sp332 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>clarky07 tried to make it sound like I said that 35 years was no big deal, but I didn't say that. >35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am) How is this not minimizing the severity again? At the very least it's more than half his remaining lifetime, and possibly all of his remaining lifetime. He also gets to miss out on pretty much any chance at having a family. His only frien…

Calling 35 years "a lifetime" is exaggerating. Calling 35 years less than half a lifetime is accurate, not minimizing. "Half his remaining lifetime" is probably true, and that's also a valid way to look at it. But it doesn't really contradict what I said, because what I said is true. ("Possibly all of his remaining lifetime" is incredibly cynical, but technically true.)

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#459

Post by tomjen3 »

Frozenlock wrote: post #173
tomjen3 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing. Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of t…

"second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom" Wow. Just wow. 'Murica, much?

Actually Dane, but yeah I like the US. I don't often agree with their government in the things that end up in the media, but I like the country and I have a serious and profound respect for the genius of Jefferson.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#460

Post by tomjen3 »

qznc wrote: post #327
tomjen3 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing. Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of t…

"it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom" The US thought the rest of the world how an arrogant world police looks like. The ideas of freedom (aka democracy I assume) mostly originate from europe (greek republic, french revolution, reformation, enlightenment). The american revolution is certainly important, but not the only one. Also, remember that you got some serious help from Franc…

(not from the US, in case that wasn't at all clear).

I have some respect for the ideas of the French revolution, but it ended in a serious dictatorship, a reign of terror and a lot of death people instead of freedom.

Post reply on HN