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

231–240 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#231

Post by rdl »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #195
rdl wrote: post #180

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…

I completely agree. It does a disservice to people like Snowden to have Manning lumped in the same pile as them.

And Binney, Drake, Wiebe are even more unambiguously moral than Snowden (although I think Snowden is closer to them than he is to Manning). Those 3 deserve a Nobel.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#232

Post by chris_mahan »

grandalf wrote: post #156
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…

I don't think anyone expected Manning to be found innocent. But it will be quite telling whether he is eventually pardoned. The most worrisome aspect to me is that the administration does not appear to be remotely open to pardoning either Manning or Snowden, while at the same time ignoring the abuses each revealed. Before this happened, I would have expected the response to be more measured and would have expected th…

There are many people who vote in America who are not ready to pardon the administration.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#233

Post by Shivetya »

grandalf wrote: post #156
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…

I don't think anyone expected Manning to be found innocent. But it will be quite telling whether he is eventually pardoned. The most worrisome aspect to me is that the administration does not appear to be remotely open to pardoning either Manning or Snowden, while at the same time ignoring the abuses each revealed. Before this happened, I would have expected the response to be more measured and would have expected th…

Obama could do it on his way out.

Obama should do it now, but I will be fine if he waits, just as long as he does it. Until then Manning's incarceration will serve as a focal point to the dishonesty that pervades our government.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#234

Post by adnam »

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…

Just want to point out that Charles Graner served only 6 year in prison for his role in Abu Ghraib, which in my mind was a far graver offence.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#235

Post by Vivtek »

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 agree with this. The proper function of a military court is to examine compliance with military law, not to pass judgement on ethics outside of that law.

The function of civil authority, say a moral President, something I hope to live to see, would be to pardon Manning, overruling the military justice sentence in the context of a greater good.

Clearly, this will not happen. Obama will simply wash his hands - not explicitly, though. The media will never even ask the question.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#236

Post by jlgreco »

fusiongyro wrote: post #211
jlgreco wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Perhaps that is vague, but to me that is clearly a statement about a distinct lack of justice. He obviously isn't saying that the UMCJ doesn't exist or that Manning does not fall under it; that would just be silly.

In an immoral legal system, justice is fleeting. He is accusing them of, not 'not existing', nor being incorrect, but rather of rendering a verdict that deserves no respect.

That's how I read it anyway.

Edit: His (much later) comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625) indicates to me that he understands this situation just fine. "I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military.... ...I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization...."

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#237

Post by hugi »

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…

Sounds like a pretty crazy club. Even illegal.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#239

Post by alex_stoddard »

beedogs wrote: post #213
alex_stoddard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Obviously I am being deliberately minimal in my description - which I have to be given that I am indeed telling the truth.

Do you really find it more credible that I am lying than that the massive release of diplomatic cables has had at least one severely negative and unintended consequence?

To provide a bit more context - it is common for any Christian in some countries to be accused of being a US collaborator. Once your name appears in US diplomatic cable, regardless of the reason, it is very bad news.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#240

Post by Vivtek »

enry_straker wrote: post #224
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…

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' F…

I agree that your first example should have been covered - at high levels - by the code of conduct. However, the other two are civilian authorities who acted illegally, not military personnel who violated the code of conduct. Wrong jurisdiction.

Those would be covered by international war crimes cases, something to which the United States of America will never submit. Alternatively, they could also be addressed by a moral President - unfortunately, Obama decided we should just all move on and ignore the war crimes committed in our name.

Post reply on HN