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

181–190 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#181

Post by fiblye »

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.

Transgenderism and transsexuality aren't disabilities. The gender a person identifies with doesn't in any way make them less dangerous.

Regardless, Manning was never a threat to society because his "crimes" never hurt anybody. He revealed corruption and I don't think his gender or sexuality played any role in that.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#182

Post by GVIrish »

mindcrime wrote: post #23
monsterix wrote: post #2

Very sad. So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. While the guys who stood up for humanity and true spirit of serving forces for good is sentenced 35 years. And I know a lot of people would troll me on this opinion itself.

So the guys who murdered innocents in another country using machine guns sitting on top of a helicopter are yet to be tried. You're dead on with that comment. The most galling aspect of this entire story isn't that Manning is going to serve some jail time (although that is absurd in its own right), but rather that all of the real criminals are walking away scott free, with no repurcusions for their behavior at all. T…

Eh I think it's a stretch to call the pilot and gunner in the Apache video war criminals. There were US personnel nearby, they thought they made a positive ID on guys with weapons and potentially and RPG in that group and they made a judgment call. They opened fire thinking these guys were insurgents and when others came to help, they assumed the same.

Not saying that what they did was right, but I don't think it's a cut and dried case where you can say those guys should be in jail.

I don't think Manning was wrong for trying to get that particular story out there, but the indiscriminate nature of his leak is what destroyed his whistleblower defense.

If someone worked at Lockheed Martin, and had evidence of bribery of defense officials, but then also leaked 100's of thousands of documents that contain the classified schematics of every single weapons system them make, that guy would rightfully be put in jail. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're whistleblowing on classified or confidential information, then you should limit your disclosure to what is relevant to the actual wrongdoing.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#183

Post by jmadsen »

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.

Sorry, but looking at the current sex abuse issues going on in the military, and the complete breakdown in the system set up to deal with them, I wouldn't rely on internal whistleblower procedures

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#184

Post by veridies »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #112
flexie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ty…

> 95% of the stuff he released was not needed

It is my personal opinion (and the intent of the FOIA and laws regarding classification) that everything should be released unless it is damaging, which almost nothing Manning released could have been. The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with.

You say that "95% of the stuff he released was not needed". I would argue that 95% of it needed to be released.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#185

Post by jlgreco »

fusiongyro wrote: post #158
jlgreco wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "fuck you" is in response to a transparent attempt to exclude others from the discussion by asserting that they lack the credentials to participate in it, even though such "credentials" are plainly not required. Although uncivil, it was not entirely unwarranted.

"Civilians might not like it, or even understand" is not an attempt to exclude civilians from the conversation, it's just an observation that civilians are unlikely to understand the complexities of the justice system internal to the armed forces. I'm a civilian, but I understand that joining the military means you are legally subject to additional laws and codes which are enforced completely by and within the armed…

> I'm a civilian, but I understand that joining the military means you are legally subject to additional laws and codes which are enforced completely by and within the armed forces.

Nobody here, as far as I can understand, is actually questioning that the UCMJ had jurisdiction so while your understanding there is appreciated, it was never really in question...

The issue is a conflation of legality and morality. Conflating the two, then asserting that civilians may not understand and are unequipped to discuss the two separately, is toxic to discussion and society as a whole. It is an attempt to remove civilians from the discussion, a discussion that they absolutely must be apart of.

As much as some people may wish it, this ain't Starship Troopers.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#186

Post by rayiner »

venus wrote: post #157
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…

> no, the soldiers in the helicopter should not be tried Oh, I'm sure they won't be. No doubt whatever actions they took are entirely justifiable under whatever legal framework has been whipped up to cover it. Not like there's going to be Nuremberg trials for Iraq. But at the end of the day, the video shows american soldiers in billion-dollar helicopters calmly killing innocent people in a foreign country they have n…

None of these are legal justifications. The law isn't even relevant here, since the conduct happened in a theater of war. The video shows soldiers in helicopters shooting at a group of people, some of whom are armed with AK47s and RPGs, in the midst of a firefight in which their comrade's are getting shot at nearby. In the process they mistakenly hit two reporters who are carrying equipment that reasonably could be mistaken for weapons from hundreds of meters away. You don't need legal justifications for that. Ordinary morality suffices.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#187

Post by alttag »

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…

  > “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court
  > must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing 
  > classified information,” said Capt. Joe Morrow, a 
  > military prosecutor.
As I posted just recently [1], research has consistently shown deterrence has at best a minor effect. Other personal values and environmental factors are better predictors of noncompliance.

See, e.g., the best review article I've seen on neutralization theory [2][3].

1: http://alt-tag.com/blog/2013/08/manning-sentenced-prosecutor... (shameless plug) 2: Maruna, S., and Copes, H. "What Have We Learned in Five Decades of Neutralization Research? ," _Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (32)_ 2005, pp 221-320. 3: http://www.academia.edu/843421/What_Have_We_Learned_from_Fiv...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#189

Post by monsterix »

nhangen wrote: post #135
monsterix wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well you're right. Also most people don't join army to kill civilians and then be gagged for life.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#190

Post by f1nch3r »

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…

If you want to wave the flag that is your prerogative. Today, I hate my country. You can't change my opinion.
Post reply on HN