Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#121

Post by Simulacra »

To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as "..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we forgive and forget their actions, simply because it was in the interest of making America better? To righting what they perceived was unjust policy?

I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior.

Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#122

Post by Simulacra »

almost wrote: post #118
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

I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments. There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good of a nation.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#123

Post by flyryan »

ionised wrote: post #103
wtbob wrote: post #77

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. 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…

Those whose jobs it is 'to decide' have shown themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to uphold justice. So fuck 'em, time for others to take on the responsibility. Manning, Snowden and whoever else in future has access to information that would serve public interest and decides to risk their lives and their freedom to make it known. They have my full support.

The documents regarding that incident were pulled from an Inspector General's folder regarding an open investigation. That hadn't shown themselves to be anything. They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning tainted the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being served.

There is a difference between releasing data that is strictly related to the public interest and taking massive amounts of data, including information about very sensitive operations and diplomatic discussions and releasing them without regards to the damage they may cause. It's reckless.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#124

Post by Simulacra »

driverdan wrote: post #117
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?

I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#125

Post by almost »

Simulacra wrote: post #122
almost wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments. There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good of a nation.

That's quite an extreme view. I'm sure you've already taken into account the horrifying laws that have existed and do exist in the U.S. and other countries. I'm not sure why you mention multiple laws and good of the nation as you've already stated your position is that it doesn't matter what law is broken or what mitigating circumstances there are.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#126

Post by wl »

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.

Why is leaking classified information special to the point where someone even accused of that crime is unworthy of help no matter the circumstances?

More generally, just because someone is indisputably guilty of violating some statute doesn't mean they deserve the prescribed punishment. You're taking a legal conclusion and imputing some sort of moral authority to it. The law often requires outcomes that are arguably immoral. Sometimes this provides the motivation to change the law. Other times, judges ignore the law. And sometimes, the government does terrible things because nobody does anything to stop it. It seems ridiculous to argue that someone who is arguably being punished for doing the right thing should just stand there and take whatever the law metes out.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#127

Post by dragonwriter »

Shivetya wrote: post #38
Coding_Cat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare b…

You are provided counsel when defending yourself if you cannot afford it. It is when you lose and do not accept a court's verdict. Even plead guilty to a good number of the charges and was given a sentence lower than requested by the prosecution. there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free, else those convicted could simply keep their cases open at cost to the tax payer when guilt had been properly asses…

> there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free

Neither are automatic appeals, or this whole thread wouldn't be happening. The appeal here is automatic.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#128

Post by [deleted] »

knodi123 wrote: post #120
pdabbadabba wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#129

Post by pdabbadabba »

knodi123 wrote: post #120
pdabbadabba wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that's probably right. The system wouldn't be perfect (in particular, you'd still have the problematic specter of the rich hiring whole teams of expert attorneys, giving rise to the suggestion raised here that the rich can, to some degree, buy the justice system), but I think it would be adequate so long as the defendant's resources were typically comparable to the resources brought to bear by the prosecution in a particular case. (Bearing in mind that, for run of the mill cases, the prosecution will not exactly throw every dollar they have at it either.)

This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to suggest it as a solution.

It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also often a bit hyperbolic.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#130

Post by [deleted] »

Simulacra wrote: post #121

To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as "..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we forgive and forget their actio…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN