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

221–230 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#221

Post by cagey »

veritas20 wrote: post #161
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?

How about if someone revealed the identities of CIA agents? Scooter Libby...remember him? He's chilling somewhere right now as a free man.

Wasn't it Richard Armitage that did that?

"He has acknowledged that he publicly released the classified information that Valerie Plame Wilson was a secret agent for the CIA, triggering the Plame Affair, though he has said it was inadvertent."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#222

Post by easytiger »

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…

Don't quote hyperbole, show evidence of specific instances of this and let them stand on their own merit.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#223

Post by mokus »

monsterix wrote: post #196
mokus wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you agree that the employer is a criminal, but we're yet to see any action against the remaining criminals.

Yes, I most definitely agree that anyone out joyriding and shooting up civilians is a criminal, and it's outrageous that we haven't seen any action against them. I just don't think that that makes Manning any less of a criminal, which it seems some people are trying to assert. If you are not one of them then I apologize for interpreting your comments that way, but it does seem the most natural interpretation of a very short emotional appeal in response to an argument supporting Manning's sentence.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#224

Post by enry_straker »

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…

Bullshit.

Where is the code of conduct when the torturers of Abu ghraib went scott free.

Where is the code of conduct when the people who engineered a war and tore apart two countries went scott free

Where is the code of conduct when the current President orders remote drone strikes against countries when there has been no declaration of war.

No matter how you spin it, this is 'not the armed forces code of conduct'

For you to allege it is, is to dis-honor the men and women who serve in the us military.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#226

Post by ballard »

jlgreco wrote: post #199
ballard wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly believe that Manning did a service to society. However, there is something my grandfather, an Air Force crypto guy, used to say: "... Have a fair trial and then hang the guilty SOB." To me, this always came off as blind obedience and "kangaroo court" justice.

Blind obedience is what they want. It should not be what society wants though. I think that has been made painfully clear in the past, but some people still just don't seem to get it.

Yup. There is a popular myth amongst the sheeple that those in power share a citizen's best interests. One must always remember that this ostensible pretense is rarely ever the case.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#227

Post by subsystem »

rayiner wrote: post #129
dendory wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just "war" in the abstract. The context of the video is that there is literally a firefight going on nearby in which U.S. soldiers are under attack. The helicopters shot at what appeared to be a group of armed men ("appeared" because some of the men actually were armed) and then shot at a van that appeared to be trying to pick up "bodies and weapons" (according to the soldier who radioed in for permission to…

You need to check your facts and your baises. There were never any weapons being picked up by the van nor did they ever "appear" to do so. The talk of weapons where wishful thinking because they were so set on engaging:

    06:33 Come on, buddy.
    06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.
    06:44 Crazyhorse this is Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Four break. We are right below you right time now can you walk us onto that location over.
    06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares]. We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage.
    07:07 Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.
    07:14 Where's that van at?
    07:15 Right down there by the bodies.
    07:16 Okay, yeah.
    07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like *possibly* uh picking up bodies and weapons.
    07:25 Let me engage.
    07:28 Can I shoot?
    07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
    07:36 Picking up the wounded?
    07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
    07:41 Come on, let us shoot!
    07:44 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
    07:49 They're taking him.
    07:51 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
    07:56 This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead.
    07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
    08:02 Fuck.
    08:06 This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage.
The official report also comes to the conclusion that they were engaging the van because it was picking up wounded insurgents. Of course the wounded man wasn't an insurgent but one of the journalists.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#228

Post by moheeb »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #216
cynicalkane wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an excellent point. I think there is an argument in there somewhere for actions starting a war versus actions ending a war.

Also doing it Charlie Sheen style helps (winning!)

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#229

Post by gadders »

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…

35 years, and he needs to do a third before he is eligible for parole. He has also served 3 years in jail already.

He could be out in 8 or 9 years. Not that harsh.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#230

Post by gadders »

zeteo wrote: post #77
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…

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…

People still believe in moral relativism?

I hardly think pitchforking live babies into cauldrons of boiling water (as during the Rape of Nanking) is "just following orders".

Post reply on HN