Live data from Hacker News

Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

washingtonpost.com

251–260 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#251
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assertion ignores the "need to know" aspect of classified information. Just having a clearance does not give you permission to access arbitrary secret data any more than having a driver's license lets you drive backwards down a highway.

That's nice, but obviously there was no oversight, no logging, not even simple rate monitoring. That is, after all, why Manning was able to wget this massive cache of data, and they would be none the wiser had he not revealed his involvement to people or systems he falsely deemed trustworthy.

I suppose we could indent our conversation until people complain about us ruining the formatting and not agree here. (I spent too long on this, got an expired link, that's my signal to set noprocrast. Meanwhile vonmoltke has covered it in 1/10 the text volume. Someday I will learn to be concise.)

no oversight – how about "insufficient oversight"

no logging – I doubt this is true

…rate monitoring – This gets into a huge, hairy, and probably unsolvable problem called "aggregation". Briefly, I might be allowed access to specific bits of classified information in order to do my job, and each one of these is within my clearance. But, if I were to collect together enough of these facts the collection as a whole would provide more information than the sum of its parts and would need to carry a higher classification marking. Consider, people working at an airport need to know when a cargo plane is going to take off or land, say to plow the snow off the runway. But if I take all the take off and landing data, now I know the material flow, and if I take it over time, I can see what the military is strategically planning. This is the kind of problem that is so complicated that after coming up and derailing a few design meetings the officers in charge will realize that the "pie in the sky" ideas from the contractor will probably cost more than the whole rest of the development and never provide a usable solution, so it gets shelved for later releases and some sort of fig leaf is put in place to cover the mandatory requirement.

… able to wget this massive cache of data – I haven't looked at this specifically, but speaking from similar systems… There may be entities that access the data at high speed, especially reporting and analysis systems. (screen scraping is frighteningly common as a way to interconnect systems in the military) He may not have been an obvious outlier. Or maybe no one was watching. Or maybe he used wget's rate limiting options.

…they would be none the wiser had he not… – This is where the auditing comes in. After fact A,Q, and U are released, someone would probably start processing logs and see who retrieved A, Q, and U. Manning's indiscriminate collection would make him likely the only person that retrieved the union, or at least the only human on a list with a bunch of automated systems. It is after the fact, and too late to prevent damage, but it is possible the auditing would have brought him to the attention of investigators.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>which almost nothing Manning released could have been Again how do we know that? How do we as not involved in the Intelligence game at that level know? I'm not about letting anyone off on war crimes. They need brought up on charges and now. However little details can easily lead to lots of other bits of information. Manning didn't think about that, he just opened the firehose. There is no clear answers but endangering others for no real reason has to have consequences.

>>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.

Again how do you know that? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. To point to deaths mean they but the others in the chain of intelligence at risk.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#253

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…

you're arguing from an ethical viewpoint, which is fine, but it does not apply to this sentence. i know this is hard, but let me explain. in the civil justice system there are laws. if you break them, you get punished. some of them have special rules around them. take murder. kill someone, go to jail. but if it was self defence, you might walk. easy, right? in the military justice system, leaking classified docs is a…

The problem is not military justice per se, the problem is the corruption of military justice.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#254
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…

Doesn't it seem a bit dumb to require them to refuse unlawful orders, but also forbid them from determining for themselves what is "unlawful" so they have to rely on their superiors (who are the ones giving the orders in the first place)? Or they can be stuck with "my government says this order is lawful (and will do bad things to me if I refuse it), the people we're fighting say it's unlawful (and if they win will do bad things to me if I don't refuse it)".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#255
post #36
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.

He won't get parole in 1/3rd the time - that will be the end of the fourth Clinton administration and they will be sure to send someone to argue against his release, which since it's military, they will all blindly fall in line and obey. Just imagine the crimes the government will be doing by then given what they are getting away with now. With what it will have to cover up they will need examples of people in prison…

>fourth Clinton administration

I contemplate killing myself every time I imagine this possibility.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#257
post #235

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 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 e…

Exactly.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#258
post #109
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.

35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am) so with "time served" he'll be about 60 when he gets out.

It's five years off the average lifespan in terms of it being half a lifetime. And you spend your first 16 odd years under with relatively little autonomy anyway.

In terms of usable adult life, he's had around a decade at most. And the last 15 years are kinda crappy anyway. If you look at things that way, then it's questionable whether this is any kinder than just putting him up against a wall and getting it over with.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#259

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…

"Fuck you"?! You do realize you're trying to bully and intimidate someone whose opinion you don't agree with i. (and just happens to be factually correct and fairly balanced in delivery) Kind of ironic I'd say.

One guy posting angry on Hacker News does not constitute bullying or intimidation, and "fuck you" is a fair and balanced response to the suggestion that military personnel are inherently morally superior to civilians.

While I'm at it, we need to drop this tired tactic of insinuating that strong disagreement is censorship. I have never suggested that anyone shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me, so, no, it's not ironic in the slightest.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 droppin…

Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell.

I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.

Post reply on HN