Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#241

Post by chris_mahan » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:45 PM UTC

enoch_r wrote: post #206

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…

People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war. They do not have the right to unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order because they think it is better for humanity at large. They do not have the right to expose classified information because they think it shouldn't be classified. They do not have the right to violate o…

The US government, through various means, seems to be intent on removing from public discourse the very information needed for those in uniform to properly assess the legality of their orders. Also, in case they forgot, the Constitution is the Law, and if Manning saw that the government was violating the Constitution, I don't think it's wrong for him to expose such wrongdoing. That's the very definition of whistleblowing. And, to those who claim that he should have pursued his whistleblowing through established military channels, I would reply that the US government, the Military, as well as other agencies, seem intent on keeping the truth from the American People, so it is entirely reasonable to expect that the military and other agencies in the government would attempt to disallow the whistleblower's efforts.

update: fixed typo.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#242

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:47 PM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #205

rayiner wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

None of the people in that video were armed with AK47s or RPGs. Also, way to completely ignore the van they shot up with two children inside. Which they knew were inside .

The Army found two RPG launchers, an AK47 and an RPG round under one of the bodies among the first group. Assange later acknowledged as much. "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything..."

As for the kids, look at this picture and tell me how you think they knew children were inside: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Col....

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#243

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:47 PM UTC

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.

Winning the war is obviously the biggest factor in terms of who goes to the gallows.

But there's a difference between loss of life in combat versus deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation or of prisoners who are in your care. It's not about who has the highest scorecard of death and depravity.

Ask the same question about incendiary bombing, which happened throughout the war. The B-29s dropping incendiaries on Tokyo killed more people than the atomic attacks. Are those pilots war criminals? Are the artillerymen who leveled towns and villages full of people war criminals? Based on the "total war" approach embraced in WW2, they were not.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#244

Post by 6d0debc071 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:48 PM UTC

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…

You have not stated something that's mutually exclusive with the statement you are replying to. It's possible for military law to be used precisely as the person was claiming it was - to support the implementation of questionable policy through enforced ignorance of the people. Indeed one could argue that to a great extent that's what military law in this regard is for in the first place.

#

Personally, I think there's only room for one law in a country. The minute you start splitting off separate courts for special interests, in which civilian juries can't intervene, you make a mockery of the idea of civilian control - separate it too far from the issues for it to be meaningfully applied.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#245

Post by __--__ » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:48 PM UTC

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…

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 humanity at large.

Taking the high ground on soldiers just following orders in the context of WWII is bizarre. American soldiers killed a startling number of german soldiers and citizens during the post-war occupation. I imagine those American soldiers were just following orders too. The only reason the German and Japanese soldiers were demonized for following orders instead of the American soldiers is the fact we won and they lost. Morals are decided by the victor.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#246

Post by oskarth » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:48 PM UTC

jpttsn wrote: post #165

gbog wrote: post #79

There has been a long history of people standing against their government at the risk of their lives, because some few principles of morality are higher than governments. We have seen the case of Thoreau and friends, against slavery. And then De Gaulle and friends, against Hitler. In old China, it was also very common for confucean public servant to criticise their emperor and wait for the supplice. Now we have Bradl…

> These are obvious to those who know them, and useless (or dangerous, even) to the rest. That sounds like a dangerous way to think about things.

Quite the opposite. The dangerous people are the ones who think morality is something you can negotiate about. That's a recipe for unethical behavior.

Ethical principles != Fundamentalism.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#247

Post by mcgwiz » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:49 PM UTC

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…

Ah, yes. The law. If someone breaks the law, they are punished. Justice is that simple.

Oh, wait, unless the laws happen to constrain the interrogation techniques used against detainees. Or if they prevent access to the private lives of American citizens. Or if they protect whistleblowers. Or if they get in the way of fighting terrorism in any other way.

But aside from that minor footnote of an afterthought, the law is the law, so we all need to just shut up and accept it.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#248

Post by zeteo » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

enoch_r wrote: post #206

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…

People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war. They do not have the right to unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order because they think it is better for humanity at large. They do not have the right to expose classified information because they think it shouldn't be classified. They do not have the right to violate o…

>when enough members of the military decide to do what's better for the country against the lawful orders of the elected government that they serve, we call it a coup

I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military. But calling his actions an incipient coup is laughable. In a world in which the worst offenders at Abu Ghraib got ten years (and were released much sooner), sentencing him to 35 years (as a deterrent!) is a disgrace. I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization where it's much better to commit a crime against humanity than to publicize one and err on the side of too much info.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#249

Post by joering2 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

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…

> How could you possibly know that?

okay, but how would YOU possibly know otherwise?? Just because state official told you?? like those don't lie??

Just pay attention exactly to their words: they can say anything they want to, unless they "show me the money", give me a proof, they can keep blabbing regardless if they are state employee or president of the Milky Way himself!

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#250

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 4:51 PM UTC

subsystem wrote: post #227

rayiner wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 locat…

You need to not judge the actions in the video based on soldiers talking like soldiers do. He clearly says on 07:18 that he thinks that the van is picking up weapons. An army report found, and Assange conceded that in the first group: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG."

Sure, the guy is eager to engage, but remember the whole context of this is that the Apaches were called in to protect American soldiers under fire in that area.