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

331–340 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#331

Post by rayiner »

scotty79 wrote: post #314
meepmorp wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Does that mean that Manning doesn't deserve his sentence? If so, how? > 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 muc…

> These leaks damaged relationships with foreign governments. If truth hurts it's not a good sign.

Hint: you don't really want to hear everything your friends might think of you, much less your frenemies, acquaintances, or coworkers.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#332

Post by rayiner »

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.

"Murder" is unlawful killing. Even if you believe in the existence of international law, it's not unlawful to kill civilians in the course of a bombing campaign in a declared war.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#333

Post by bborud »

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 are of course aware of the historic context for that line of reasoning and the comparisons to relatively recent history that it points to?

The ultimate consequence of which is that even defining war-crimes is pointless since there would be no way to legally present evidence.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#334

Post by Perceval »

drblast wrote: post #309
enoch_r wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 order…

What happens when every soldier feels within their rights to determine who the domestic enemies of the Constitution are, and takes unprecedented action against those enemies?

Did Manning reveal anything that was prima facie unconstitutional?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#335

Post by aqme28 »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #320
aqme28 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is indeed peoples lives. Should Manning be prosecuted aggressively and have his life ruined because he may have caused vague damages?

There is nothing vague about endangering others when disclosing large amount of data. If he had just wanted to disclose the war crimes then I'd be incredibly outraged at his prosecution but he was reckless and put others into danger because of it. A whistle blower also has the responsibility to only disclose the important data, he failed at that.

Again, he didn't put anyone in danger so stop saying he did.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#336

Post by Perceval »

tbrownaw wrote: post #254
enoch_r wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Manning didn't refuse an unlawful order. Nor did he reveal other soldiers executing unlawful orders.

Manning broke the law to reveal an indiscriminate collection of State Department cables.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#337

Post by belorn »

gtCameron wrote: post #86
belorn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but at the same time, the whole concept of classified information breaks down pretty quickly if you start saying it's okay for people to exercise their own judgement and break the rules. Lawyers, priests, doctors, and psychologies who is all under strict confidentiality sometimes has to break that rule of secrecy when particular crimes is heard or observed. It doesn't matter how classified the conversation is, or t…

If Manning had just released documents related to specific illegal activities this would be a different conversation. That's not what he did though, in your doctor analogy what he did would be releasing the medical files of all 200 of his patients because he saw evidence of child abuse in one of them.

I agree. however, sometimes that can be a hard judgement call to decide. Say if a nurse find proof that a doctor is sexually assaulting children.

Would it be wrong if the nurse gave all that doctors patient files the press (given that the officials refuses to act)? If not, then what should the expected behavior be?

When it came to trial, how should sentencing be done? 35 years? What would be appropriate sentencing for the nurse if the number of patient files was in the thousands, but only a hundred or so had proof of criminal activity?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#338

Post by Perceval »

enraged_camel wrote: post #151
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…

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

No it's not. The stubborn application of the law is called "rule of law" and it's the foundation of the political theory coming out of Enlightenment liberalism. Authoritarian governments are characterized by personalistic/charismatic rule, and the use of fiat/decree in the place of pre-existing legal standards.

Bradley Manning knowingly violated a long-standing law in the military code of justice that he was fully aware of since signing up. Applying the law to Manning is an example of rule of law not authoritarianism.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#339

Post by scotty79 »

rayiner wrote: post #331
scotty79 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These leaks damaged relationships with foreign governments. If truth hurts it's not a good sign.

Hint: you don't really want to hear everything your friends might think of you, much less your frenemies, acquaintances, or coworkers.

You'd be surprised but I really do want to know that and I believe it would benefit me greatly.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#340

Post by anigbrowl »

chris_mahan wrote: post #241
enoch_r wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whistleblo…

OK, and what unconstitutional activity was revealed by the release of many thousands of State Department cables? I mean, it's all very well to say that Manning saw the government was violating the Constitution, but I would like some specific examples of what he revealed. Abuses such as the operation of Abu Ghraib were not exposed by Manning.

Manning joined the Army in late 2007/early 2008, by which time the US had been involved in what a lot of people (including myself) consider to have been an illegal war in Iraq for 4-5 years; one in which the existence of appalling human rights abuses such as torture and extraordinary rendition were well documented, and which by then was well understood by the public to have been predicated on faulty intelligence.

It seems to me that if you have a negative view of war and militarism, then you should probably not join the organization involved in fighting that war in the first place. You could serve your country perfectly well and without taking part in military aggression by, say, joining the Coast Guard.

Frankly, I think the only reason Manning has hero status on HN is because he was a computer nerd, and so other computer nerds are willing to suspend their critical faculties because they can identify with him. I can identify with him up to a point, but not to the point of wanting to join the army 5 years into a clusterfuck like the Iraq war run by an administration that had tossed things like the Geneva convention out the window.

Post reply on HN