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

171–180 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#171

Post by grandalf »

I struggle with the way in which no high level officials have even acknowledged that the leaks (by Manning and by Snowden) might have revealed some excesses or abuses that ought to be corrected.

How could any leader feel no obligation to address the core issues, or even to acknowledge they exist?

It's unlikely Snowden or Manning will be pardoned, and unlikely we'll see anything other than the most superficial reforms.

I think the bottom line is that in a state that relies heavily on propaganda, the truth is very dangerous, and we'll see an increasing amount of information become classified and stricter and stricter punishments for leakers.

IMHO the most noteworthy aspect of the info Manning leaked was that much of the classified info was simply "bad news" that contradicted the government's contrived story about what was going on in the wars.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#172

Post by commandar »

zmb_ wrote: post #120
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 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…

>However, they did it only to expose alleged misconduct or illegal activities of their employers.

There is a reason Snowden was very careful to point out in his first public interview that he'd been very selective about what he chose to release and that he wasn't just mass dumping information like Manning did.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#173

Post by Frozenlock »

tomjen3 wrote: post #80
f1nch3r wrote: post #40

Growing up as a conservative, hyper-patriotic American it pains me to say that I hate my country. A young man exposes wrongdoing by the military and gets sentenced to 35 years in prison while the administration that started an illegal war with Iraq, costing untold American and Iraqi lives, are free.

Don't hate your country. First he leaked a ton of classified military stuff, not just bad or morally questionable things and while his treatment was shameful, the judge did take that into account during sentencing. Finally don't hate your country because it is actually great. In most nations we would never have heard of this because it would be the way things were done, second it was the US that thought the rest of t…

"second it was the US that thought the rest of the world the ideas behind freedom"

Wow. Just wow.

'Murica, much?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#174

Post by gizzlon »

majelix wrote: post #98
gizzlon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to break the loyalty for the greater good?

> So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.

Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains?

It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is.

(edited for clarity)

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#175

Post by jpttsn »

dombili wrote: post #48

ACLU's response: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-comment-bradley-mannin... > "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system." Daunting.

I find this a strange point to make. Neither war crimes nor soldiers' misconduct falls within the boundaries of what we usually call "our justice system".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#176

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

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…

Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Snowden. The whole of NSA takes an oath to protect the US constitution on the one hand. On the other NSA has programs that basically destroy the US Constitution. And the only guy who takes his Oath seriously and reveals NSA's anti-Constitution war is the guilty one?

Something wrong with the morals of the people in the uniforms nowadays. The Oath is to be taken seriously. If you take an Oath to protect the US Constitution and then are given orders that basically destroy it, you bear the responsibility not to fulfill them and reveal those secret actions to the US public.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#177

Post by mokus »

monsterix wrote: post #90
gtCameron wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Manning had just released documents related to specific illegal activities this would be a different conversation. That's not what he did though, in your doctor analogy what he did would be releasing the medical files of all 200 of his patients because he saw evidence of child abuse in one of them.

Ever thought of the guys who were behind the machine gun for God's sake?

If Manning were aware of particular abuses, why didn't he release documents only about those particular abuses? If he wasn't, why did he release anything? This sounds like a case of "I know the evidence is in there somewhere, so let's throw it all out there and see what sticks." When prosecutors do this, we call it a "fishing expedition", and we don't like it at all. Why should we like it _more_ when a vigilante does it?

If I am pissed at my employer and decide to steal and publish all the internal documents I can, and I get lucky and some of them are incriminating, that doesn't excuse what I did. It just means that both I and my employer are criminals, instead of only me.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#178

Post by throwaway9848 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #151
zeteo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After WW2, the Allies condemned and executed a number of German and Japanese officers who had done little more than follow orders. What they had done was not against any laws at the time, and definitely within their organizations' code of conduct. I think that was a good thing because it established the principle that joining an organization does not absolve you from higher duties towards your fellow citizens or huma…

Exactly. The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as "a form of government as well as a personality and social trait [that] is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience." It seems people are quick to point out that Manning broke some rules, but are too narrow-…

"The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as [...]"

That is super stupid. You don't understand authoritarianism, then, citations of Wikipedia aside. You do a disservice to the actual victims of authoritarianism.

EDIT: Look at the downvoting.. and this is nice compared to what I wrote at first. Since I'm already -3, I'll remove the politeness filters and say that this comment is idiotic. Stubborn application of the law is authoritarianism? How is that not the dumbest thing written on the internet today. Perhaps I'm the stupid one for believing that WORDS have MEANINGS beyond what is convenient at the moment. It's like people saying that food stamps are socialism. It's not opinion, it's INCORRECT.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#179

Post by chimeracoder »

simias wrote: post #54
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?

I should've been more explicit: it's not the one-third per-se that's brutal, it's just that when I read "35 years in prison" it seemed like a hell of a long time to me. I don't know how the american judiciary system works, so I was was wondering if he would be able to reduce his sentence significantly for good conduct or something. But a third of 35 years is still very long... He's going to spend at least 12 years in…

Minus the 112 days he received as "credit" for his "inhumane treatment" in Quantico!

I mean, that's some consolation, right?

/s

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#180

Post by rdl »

It's probably unpopular here, but I think Manning leaked what he did not as a principled whistleblower, but as a confused/spurned/etc. kid. And deserves substantial punishment for betraying his oath as a member of the military and TS clearance holder for ultimately personal reasons (and doing it in a stupid way).

Snowden, on the other hand, was quite principled. One might argue he went about it the wrong way (should have gone directly to Congress or a federal judge, or leaked less info), but I think what he did is quite defensible.

So, I'd stand with Snowden, but I think Manning deserves to be in prison. I was expecting 20-50 years sentence, dishonorable discharge, etc. He got 35. I think 10-20 would have been fair, but the general sentencing based on other similar crimes pushes for higher. There should have been a greater reduction than 112 days for how he was treated in pre-trial detention, possibly a halving of his ultimate sentence.

I also predict PFC Manning will serve less than 5 years, and not because he's released early.

Post reply on HN