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

271–280 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#271

Post by jlgreco »

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.

Nothing but a textbook example of Victor's Justice. Had the Japanese won, those trials would have taken place (well, executions at least, perhaps not trials).

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#272

Post by foobarbazqux »

jlgreco wrote: post #271
foobarbazqux wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nothing but a textbook example of Victor's Justice. Had the Japanese won, those trials would have taken place (well, executions at least, perhaps not trials ).

Yeah, this was kind of my point about Manning, namely that justice is rather arbitrary and is transparently hypocritical at best. Nothing seriously bad happened to the people in the Collateral Murder video, for instance.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#273

Post by Macsenour »

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…

I think this is the main point that I repeat over and over, the UCMJ is that he swore to uphold and abide by and by THAT rule of law he was tried against.

Being in the military is different than NOT being in the military.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#274

Post by tbrownaw »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #214
perlpimp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The first thing that came to mind is this (which turns out to have actually been on the general population, rather than on the military like I thought I remembered): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

It seems perfectly reasonable to call that "[a] scientific stud[y] that border[s] on eugenics".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#275

Post by jlgreco »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #272
jlgreco wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing but a textbook example of Victor's Justice. Had the Japanese won, those trials would have taken place (well, executions at least, perhaps not trials ).

Yeah, this was kind of my point about Manning, namely that justice is rather arbitrary and is transparently hypocritical at best. Nothing seriously bad happened to the people in the Collateral Murder video, for instance.

Quite right, and there is no shortage of more modern examples of it too.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#276

Post by bernawil »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #269
cynicalkane wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bunch of pedantic garbage. The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to conquer and massacre Chinese people and Pacific islanders and surprise-bomb the USA while they were at it. The only significant debate about the A-Bomb is whether it was more or less deadly than an invasion of mainland Japan. Any fourth grade history student would understand this. When people talk about the dec…

> What a bunch of pedantic garbage. [ ] Any fourth grade history student would understand this. [ ] When people talk about the decline of HN, I think it's this sort of information-free, pointlessly contrary posts that they talk about. If you have a valid point, why do you need to resort to incivility? > The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to massacre Chinese people; the USA took the…

> So you actually think that intentionally killing civilians to win a war is morally okay? I just don't hold that view.

Even if the civilian deaths attributed to the A-bomb where less than that of a supposed land invasion?.

WW2 saw lots of that. Think of the bombing of Dresden when the Allies whipped out the city with incendiary bombs because it was a mayor city factory (ammo, etc.).

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#277

Post by jaegerpicker »

joering2 wrote: post #249
jaegerpicker wrote: post #112

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…

> 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!

I get your point but these are peoples lives, you have HAVE to side on caution. Getting people killed just because we believe, that the government MIGHT be lieing with no proof the other way, isn't good enough. That's more blood that we as American people don't need.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#278

Post by fusiongyro »

jlgreco wrote: post #262
Vivtek wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So basically, not only is this true: "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." ..but the more extreme "It TAKES a civilian mind to understand the difference between right and wrong" is also true? If the military is unable to consider morality itself, then we must rely on civilians to call them out. Accusin…

Anybody can point to this outcome and say, "this is unjust/immoral," military or not. In order to say "this outcome is illegal/improper procedure" you have to have some domain knowledge.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#280

Post by enraged_camel »

throwaway9848 wrote: post #178
enraged_camel wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

"The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as [...]" That is super stupid. You don't understand authoritarianism, then, citations of Wikipedia aside. You do a disservice to the actual victims of authoritarianism. EDIT: Look at the downvoting.. and this is nice compared to what I wrote at first. Since I'm already -3, I'll remove the politeness filters and say that…

You may need a few more throw-away accounts after this one, friend.
Post reply on HN