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

301–310 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#301

Post by joyeuse6701 »

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…

Applying morals to war is really about maintaining your sanity/humanity, nothing more. It is all together too arbitrary to define into rules based on various moral structures. Risking oneself for a dying soldier is heroic in the western view, but from a bushido perspective was insanity. So very arbitrary.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#303

Post by samastur »

bernawil wrote: post #276
foobarbazqux wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.).

Yes, even then. Even if you could be sure that there would be more civilian deaths (which you really can't be), there is a big ethical difference between choosing to kill someone and being forced to do it.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#304

Post by jlgreco »

fusiongyro wrote: post #278
jlgreco wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "Anybody can point to this outcome and say, "this is unjust/immoral,""

That is what he was doing (see for clarification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625(, and that is why a reply of "civilians may not understand" got a strongly negative response.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#305

Post by dgregd »

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…

> Snowden is different

I'll change the topic a bit.

For one good Snowden there are ten bad types like Gordon Gekko or Francis Underwood.

I just wonder what bad types do with the data NSA has.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#307

Post by samastur »

gadders wrote: post #229
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…

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.

There's a big assumption you're making there. Nothing and nobody can guarantee him parole then.

I don't expect it will happen and even if it does, I don't see 12 years in prison as a light sentence.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#308

Post by madaxe »

cynicalkane wrote: post #263
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.

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…

Actually, Japan were ready to throw in the towel as a result of the tripartite pact being enacted, and Russia joining the fray. Sakhalin was the trigger, and their worst fears were confirmed when the soviets raped and pillaged their way through the island, killing some 20,000 civvies. Atrocious.

They surrendered because of Stalin and his unending and brutal (and brutalised, the Red Army was not a happy place) cannon-fodder, not the bomb.

Nuking two civilian populations was unnecessary, barbaric, and inexcusable, and I'm afraid to say pointless.

A fourth grade history student would know exactly what you say. A heavily read historian would say something quite different - or agree. It's pretty divisive, but outside of the US the majority agree that the USSR caused the surrender.

Here's a pretty decent source on the topic - have only skimmed it, after writing this and wanting to back up my statements, but it's pretty balanced. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#309

Post by drblast »

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 you join the military, you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies "foreign and domestic" (emphasis mine)

That's first. Obeying lawful orders is second.

It's debatable how this oath applies in Manning's case, but I think it's rather telling what order the things you are swearing to uphold come in.

When I was in the military my interpretation was that anything I was ordered to do that was contrary to the Constitution was an unlawful order. If I were taking the oath seriously, that would have required active dissent, not just ignoring the order.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofen...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#310

Post by OmIsMyShield »

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…

Guess the old "change the system from within"-mantra doesn't fly too well with everyone.
Post reply on HN