Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense • Hacker News Board

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#91

Post by andrelaszlo » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

justwannasing wrote: post #78

Sorry. I've already contributed to the funerals of those harmed by what Manning leaked.

Honest question: who were they? The last thing I read [0] had no direct connections between the leaks and people being harmed.

"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."

0: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning...

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#92

Post by icebraining » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

anon3_ wrote: post #73

icebraining wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them. Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the traged…

> So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. > Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it,…

Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.

That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point?

There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.

Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by.

Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.

The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#93

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #74

andrelaszlo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically the point is that it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense? To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person - where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies. I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the difference in our…

The question is, how do you make the system more fair? One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and the way to do that is to reduce its complexity. But what does a less complex system look like? Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state) requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those…

> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity.

You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#94

Post by roel_v » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #90

higherpurpose wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's causing the prices to be so high? Is it the complexity of U.S. law? Would it help if you had 5 pages laws instead of 500 pages laws, or would that make things worse? (more room for loopholes) I'm inclined to believe simpler laws would help, though, because a lawyer wouldn't have to know tens of thousands of pages of laws by heart (or close to it), or at least wouldn't have to research tens of thousands of page…

120k ~= 100 days of work for a reasonably skilled attorney who know about the (very niche) topic, including office costs (which in turn include the salary of the secretary, stamps etc). Or 150 days of work if it's split between a lawyer and some paralegals. At this point one might object that lawyers make too much money, but then I'd like to say that most everybody on this site working for a big company, or working f…

Well look at that after I hit 'reply', the top post is 'estimate cost for your apps'! It looks like one can buy a legal defense for a highly complex case with world-wide attention for the cost of 2 medium-sized iOS apps, with only 'basic' level of finish, and no more than some simple sign up and in-app purchase functionality!

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#95

Post by Lawtonfogle » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #69

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.

> He exposed traitors. Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort? No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.

>Words mean things.

Yes, let us let the fox define all the terms with regards to the hen house. What could go wrong?

>Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?

Everyone involved in covering up our mistakes that served to further recruitment efforts of our enemies. Instead of admitting the mistakes and explaining how we would prevent such mistakes in the future. Instead, they covered it up so that Americans wouldn't see it (thus protecting themselves from blow back from us) at the cost of giving the enemy a far better recruitment tool.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#96

Post by Lawtonfogle » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:14 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #77

glass- wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.

> So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor. No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not. Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legiti…

>No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.

It is directly aiding the enemy by giving them a great recruitment tool. A soldier would be hard pressed to find a better recruitment tool to give the enemy.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#97

Post by ionised » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:19 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #63

It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence…

Because Manning exposed terrible people doing terrible things.

We need those terrible people to understand that we will stand by good people who expose them for what they are.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#98

Post by dysfunction » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

fruzz wrote: post #81

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#99

Post by delecti » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

fruzz wrote: post #81

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions.

Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#100

Post by amyjess » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

transfire wrote: post #61

So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way that it makes them want to become a woman? I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.

It's been pretty thoroughly established that reparative therapy doesn't work on trans people. What makes you think it'll work on cis people?