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

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#111

Post by ionised » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #105

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.

I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably. And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.

> And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.

I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense.

It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#112

Post by tzm » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

andrelaszlo wrote: post #11

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

Fairness is based upon the information presented before the courts. Unfortunately, information is expensive to produce and subjective in nature. The art of legal council emerges.

I love the principle of complete fairness, but how is this technically possible? Moving to a purely fact-based society may come at the expense of liberty.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#113

Post by Simulacra » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#114

Post by Simulacra » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #68

rayiner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose. There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despit…

I kind of doubt the strategy will be to seek acquittal. They will probably try to build some sympathy and convince the court it was her intention to do good for America, not to help an enemy or earn money. They will probably also plead diminished capacity due to depression and gender dysphoria (if that sort of thing flies in military court). Hope for a lighter punishment and return to society before she's an old lady…

But this wasn't a case of doing something good for America. Manning stated they did this because of America's stand on gay marriage. This was not an act of moral compassion for America, this was revenge. We should not reward people who violate laws simply because they claim they were doing it "for the good of America."

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#115

Post by joshie_woshie » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #113

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#116

Post by 542458 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:57 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.

I'd suggest a more innocuous explanation: those who view her actions favourably are more "up to date" with her situation (including coming out as trans), while those who don't are less up to date and might not be aware.

In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he".

[1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible.

Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#117

Post by driverdan » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 2:59 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #113

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#118

Post by almost » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 3:02 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #113

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#119

Post by flyryan » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 3:03 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #95

wtbob wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fox? He used the Constitution to definite the terms. Are you arguing against the Constitutional definition of what a traitor is? What definition would you want him tried on in court if not the Constitutional one?

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#120

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #109

knodi123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's a lot going on here. Partly, I think we're conflating having the best possible defense with having a fair trial. The latter probably does not require the former and, in any case, it is probably not possible under any reasonable system to provide the former for everyone. I think many defendants do receive fair trials, whether they can afford representation or not--though this does not mean their representation…

so, it sounds like you're saying we could get a "pretty good" or maybe "good enough" solution with nothing more complicated than a drastic bump in funding to public defenders' offices?