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

131–140 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#131

Post by falcolas »

sp332 wrote: post #100
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

There are whistleblower procedures even in the Army. Manning admits that he ignored them.

Are those procedures as "forgiving" as the civilian ones?

“The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to the intelligence community. They’re exempt from it. And most people in the intelligence community don’t realize that. So, you can’t even go to the Office of Special Counsel because they’re exempt from that, too, and the merit system protection board. So even if you use the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the only thing that gives you is the right to go to Congress. It doesn’t–it doesn’t have any teeth there to protect you against retribution from the agency that you’re reporting abuse on.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52174294/t/whistleblower-protectio...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#132

Post by sp332 »

dendory wrote: post #95
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, if you actually read up on the helicopter video, you'll see that Assange plays a game of "hide the ball" with what really happens in the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike . Specifically: 1) The company had been under fire all morning and the Apaches were called in by a soldier on the ground under attack at the location where the journalists were; 2) Among the group of men the two…

Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy.

That decision was made when the rules of engagement were drawn up, by higher-ranking people and long before this incident. In fact I believe at the time, they were supposed to shoot anyone who picked up the weapon of an injured combatant, even if they weren't threatening anyone with it. Not sure what the logic was on that one, but it wasn't like the gunner was just making up rules as he went along.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#133

Post by pvnick »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84
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…

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

You would do best to remove your obscene personal attack quickly. Do that and you would have expressed a valid opinion. Don't and you're likely to be banned.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#134

Post by rooshdi »

hullo wrote: post #124
rooshdi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.

The article points out he is eligible for parole after a third of the sentence, and that he'll receive credit for time already served. They even do the math for us - he'll be eligible for release in 8 years.

Keyword: eligible. Nothing's guaranteed.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#135

Post by nhangen »

monsterix wrote: post #119
perlpimp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

None at all. Most people don't join the Army hoping to get a clearance in order to dump secret files.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#136

Post by gnaritas »

devx wrote: post #92
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…

So what it's a different organization? The army is not Ku Klux Klan or the mafia, is it?

It's worse. Insubordination is a jail-able crime in the military, think about that; telling someone no, or simply showing disrespect whether on or off duty to the wrong person can land you in jail. The military life is a different world with vastly different crimes and rules than the civilian world. You can misbehave in public off base while off duty and still get demoted at work (pay cut) because of your behavior. Your law is the UCMJ, not the law civilians follow.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#137

Post by ThomPete »

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…

So collateral damage is only acceptable when its the military that does it?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#138

Post by jellicle »

sp332 wrote: post #100
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

There are whistleblower procedures even in the Army. Manning admits that he ignored them.

Whistleblower procedures only work if what you are exposing is wrong according to the organization's own internal rules (written and unwritten).

What these people have been exposing isn't wrong according to the internal rules of the NSA/military/State Department/etc., therefore, there's no possibility of achieving change through internal whistleblowing.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#140

Post by warfangle »

jusben1369 wrote: post #99
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

"Fuck you"?! You do realize you're trying to bully and intimidate someone whose opinion you don't agree with i. (and just happens to be factually correct and fairly balanced in delivery) Kind of ironic I'd say.

Pretty apt reaction to your fallacious appeal to authority, IMO.
Post reply on HN