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

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#151

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 4:54 PM UTC

wanderer2323 wrote: post #147

knodi123 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.

Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person? Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible. If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost b…

> The world is not fair. Deal with it.

I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair."

Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#152

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

yAnonymous wrote: post #72

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…

>there are processes in place for whistleblowing ...that have been shown to be inadequate several times.

That might excuse improperly leaking something worthy of whistleblowing.

But Manning just took as much classified information as she could get her hands on and dumped it on an untrustworthy third party.

The vast majority of the information wasn't even leak worthy.

This isn't a case were some soldier found evidence of a crime or atrocity and was compelled to leak it.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#153

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

glass- wrote: post #75

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.

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.

Accidentally confusing a cameraman for an RPG gunner during an actual fight with insurgents isn't murder. And it isn't a war crime.

Manning didn't commit treason either unless he was trying to aid the insurgency, but there is no reason to believe that.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#154

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

DasIch wrote: post #43

JoshTriplett wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you're already entitled to an attorney for your defense. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good attorney.

That's why you should be able to chose the court appointed attorney within reason.

You'd need to pretty carefully define "within reason", though; it's not reasonable to select without regard to cost.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#155

Post by tootie » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #114

tootie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

You have a cite for that? His[1] public statements have been his opposition to US conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bradley-manning-ex...

[1] He's still Bradley in this article.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#156

Post by drjesusphd » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 6:44 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.

The world must seem so simple to you.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#157

Post by happyscrappy » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man ... Stan: Or woman. Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off. Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan? Stan: I want to be one. Reg: What? Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. Reg: What!? Stan: It's my right as a man. Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? Stan: I want to have babies. Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?! Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. Reg: But you can't have babies. Stan: Don't you oppress me. Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan — you haven't got a womb. Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? STAN starts crying. Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry. Reg: What's the point? Francis: What? Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies? Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality...

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#158

Post by wanderer2323 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #151

wanderer2323 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person? Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible. If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost b…

> The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.

Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness.

Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant.

Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#159

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 7:47 PM UTC

wanderer2323 wrote: post #158

knodi123 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.

Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are…

> Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair".

Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it".

There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated.

I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. And we have the exact same problem in place in our courts, and that's an insult to justice. Unlimited money buys results. That's fucked up, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#160

Post by wanderer2323 » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 8:02 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #159

wanderer2323 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are…

> Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone…

My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect.

FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.