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

111–120 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#111

Post by kintamanimatt »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #34
jug6ernaut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have zero knowledge as far as sentence's go. So with that said, how is being required to only server 1/3 of a sentence brutal? What am i missing?

Well, for one, he's transsexual, which may or may not indicate he's less of a threat to society. If he's not a threat to society, and won't do what he did again, then it seems like the motive is to make an example of him.

I'm under the impression he's transgender, not a transsexual. I'm not sure how being transgender makes one more, or less of a threat to society. People are people regardless of sexual orientation, physical gender, or the gender they identify with.

That being said, I don't think Manning is (or has been) a threat to society at all. Perhaps he should have been a little more careful about what he released but I feel he's done the world community a net good by exposing war crimes, etc[0].

I do agree he is being made an example of, and this sentence and his treatment is intended to be a signal and a warning sign to would-be leakers. I hope they still come forward and behave more like Snowden than Manning.

[0] http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#112

Post by jaegerpicker »

flexie wrote: post #74
at-fates-hands wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…

Yes, really. No one has died and I have never heard of anyone of those being in danger. Michael Kozak, whom you quote, works for the State Department.

How could you possibly know that? I'm all about war crimes being exposed but Manning did not do it the right way. 95% of the stuff he released was not needed and did put people in danger. A lot the people you and I have never heard of. I don't know for sure that no one died but you can't possibly know that no one has died. It seems very likely that if an informant or other foreign national in Iran(or other similar type country) was working with the US and was exposed that their fate isn't looking real healthy at the moment.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#113

Post by rolux »

lotso wrote: post #66
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions? If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

Politics that do not have immediate personal consequences (or politics too hopeless to engage in) can easily become a spectator sport.

On that level, when an instance of "uh, all my private communication just leaked to the NSA" is followed by a case of "oh, tons of classified documents just leaked to the general public", then it's likely that this will be understood as a quid pro quo, i.e. appreciated by a large number of spectators.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#114

Post by eli »

thex86 wrote: post #49
eli wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's sad. I'm not personally a big Manning fan, but that feels like a stiff sentence. (By the way, I think a lot of people would disagree with you. That doesn't mean they're "trolling" you.)

> I'm not personally a big Manning fan Can you elaborate why? I am interested in hearing your point of view because maybe I just have one side of the story.

Sure, but I really only have a few quick minutes so this might be a little scattered. There are some interesting things in some of the cables he leaked (it's going to be great for historians). There were even a few troubling things in there that probably deserve investigation.... but the vast majority of the cables were, at most, embarrassing. They strained foreign relationships and embarrassed allies & various diplomats by name. I don't know if anyone was hurt or killed over them, but I think it's at least plausible. For what? Were there any documents that Manning had access to that he didn't try to take? The indiscriminate nature of what he took makes me seriously question his motives. What specifically was he blowing the whistle on? I admit that whistleblower protection sucks in the military, but he didn't even try to go through the proper channels.

I agree the US overclassifies documents and is too secretive. I agree we need more transparency and I certainly agree we need better whistleblower protection and oversight...But I don't think that gives everyone with access the right to unilaterally declassify whatever they want without penalty. The military can't work like that. No organization can work like that.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#115

Post by cookiecaper »

pandeiro wrote: post #78
at-fates-hands wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…

Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us" do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals? Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments? The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite.

> Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us" do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals? Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments?

Are any of those things necessarily problematic if the United States decides it is in its interest to engage in them? Be aware that what you think of when you say "meddling in domestic politics" may be interpreted differently by others.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#116

Post by showerst »

kaolinite wrote: post #103
lotso wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions? If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

I may be wrong but I believe at the time they said that they had gone through the documents to check for information that could put people in danger. They did a good job seemingly as the US govt said, internally, that nobody was endangered by the release of the documents.

Wikileaks said they did that, but Manning did not. So they very well could've dumped them all had they been less ethical, or even by accident.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#117

Post by jws »

revelation wrote: post #37
kevincennis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally understand that sentiment, but at the same time, the whole concept of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules. There are always paths to responsible disclosure. From what I understand, many of them are pretty badly broken, and we certainly need to fix that. But ultimately, you really don't want to set a pr…

What he leaked was available to 1.5+ million people in the USA. It is not by any reasonable meaning of the word classified, it is the proceedings of a seperate class of society.

Your assertion ignores the "need to know" aspect of classified information. Just having a clearance does not give you permission to access arbitrary secret data any more than having a driver's license lets you drive backwards down a highway.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#118

Post by aqme28 »

lotso wrote: post #66
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions? If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

Didn't Snowden and Ellsberg also release a trove of files without "due diligence," relying on a third party to vet and process the files for publication?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#119

Post by monsterix »

perlpimp wrote: post #64
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

Yes I agree, when you join the army you are expected to give your life for your country protecting your peoples. As this goes, Army in most contries have different sets or rules set up for people within. FWIW in most contries soldiers are fodder for other purposes beyond fighting wars, sometimes are subjects in scientific studies that border on eugenics crap that everyone knows of. For what I would say - friends don'…

I was thinking on exactly these lines: " friends don't let friends join an Army." People don't realize how much negative impact this kind of ruling would have on future recruitments of the army?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#120

Post by zmb_ »

pinaceae wrote: post #47
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

Yes they both broke the laws and/or contracts. However, they did it only to expose alleged misconduct or illegal activities of their employers. Therefore whistleblower protections should apply, and they cannot be convicted of those actions.

Whistleblowing always, by definition, includes breaking some law or contract to expose secret information (otherwise it would be public and already known). Since exposing alleged misconduct is a good for the society, someone should not face any penalty for doing so.

Post reply on HN