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

211–220 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#211

Post by fusiongyro »

jlgreco wrote: post #185
fusiongyro wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. Confl…

The OP said this isn't rule of law, it's savage reprisals. The counter to that was that it is military law, with an aside that civilians don't usually appreciate the difference.

It's a little obnoxious to be accused of conflating things one has explicitly separated, but I suppose on this topic those that are outraged are mainly here to vent rather than discuss, and there's nothing wrong with that, so I think I'll bow out here.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#212

Post by coryfklein »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #60
flexie wrote: post #14

This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.

>>>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…

Are we even sure it's a bad thing that these "foreign activists" are intimidated by Manning's disclosures?

Considering the things our government does, it is pleasing to discover that people helping the government are being intimidated.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#213

Post by beedogs »

alex_stoddard wrote: post #93
pandeiro wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can provide one example from direct personal experience. A citizen of a country with a repressive regime was revealed by release of the diplomatic cables to have provided information to the US State Department on the persecution of church members in their country. They have subsequently had to flee the country, being separated for years from their spouse and children who have remained trapped at home.

I can make random things up, too.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#214

Post by Dylan16807 »

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'…

> scientific studies that border on eugenics

I don't understand what kind of experiment that could be, unless they're forcing specific couples to have children.

Are you sure you're using the word eugenics right? You're not just trying to say 'nazi' without using the word 'nazi', surely?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#215

Post by sillysaurus2 »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #111
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was unaware of the distinction. Thank you for pointing it out.

As for why I brought up his transgenderism, it was one of those unexamined beliefs based on hearsay that seemed natural to believe, and wasn't obvious how absurd it was until it was pointed out. Specifically, the idea that transgender people are less likely to engage in crime like murder or theft, and hence would be less dangerous to society after spending time in prison. But that logic doesn't really follow, and the assumption was probably false anyway. Apologies. I meant no disrespect.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#216

Post by foobarbazqux »

cynicalkane wrote: post #192
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…

Those officers oversaw the intentional mass murder of millions of Jews and Chinese. That's slightly more serious than the secrets Manning leaked. And by "slightly" I mean "an unguessable number of orders of magnitude." They only executed those officers for which they could prove this was the case, which is why only a few dozen were executed.

It's strange though, because nobody got executed for dropping atomic bombs, which was also intentional mass murder.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#217

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#218

Post by monsterix »

nsxwolf wrote: post #150
monsterix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask this question to you instead: Did you think critically about the crime and figure out the murderers at all?

I'm not convinced I see a crime committed. From what I saw and heard, I don't believe three crew members woke up that morning and decided "let's kill some civilians today". Remember "mens rea"? We HNers all seem to think that's an important concept, except apparently when it's people we don't like (US military).

I do understand what you mean. Being an HNer may sound like becoming one of the echo-chamber but you might want to look at these statistics [1] and then decide for yourself:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_...

Hundreds and thousands of civilian deaths for what cost? Who paid the price of waging such a war (crime according to some), the taxpayers?

As to measure the 'crime' in the video called collateral damage ... follow the transcript here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251512

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#219

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#220

Post by ballard »

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-…

This trial was political: people vs. government. The government won by not upsetting the people "too much" by giving him a "light" sentence of only 35 years (what a deal). He will lose 5 years of his life for the service of the greater good.
Post reply on HN