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

341–350 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#341

Post by VikingCoder »

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…

"They do not have the right to unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order because they think it is better for humanity at large."

What you should say is,

"They will be prosecuted if they unilaterally decide to violate a lawful order, even if they think it is better for humanity at large."

And I would add, "And sometimes duty to humanity will compel them to accept that they will be prosecuted, and they have to unilaterally decide what is right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#343

Post by [deleted] »

glesica wrote: post #330
throwaway9848 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's examine typical examples of authoritarianism: Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Franco, to name a few. Note these are people, not nations, yet they they instantaneously identifiable with the USSR, Cambodia, Chile, and Spain. This is a key aspect of authoritarianism - the origin of laws and their enforcement are from a person or cabal, not from the people of that nation. Dictatorship is not synonymous with authoritaria…

Much more useful. I would point out, however, that many people have begun to wonder whether bad laws can truly be rectified through a democratic process at this point. I am of the opinion that we have, or will soon, hit a sort of tipping point beyond which changing bad laws becomes unfeasible. At that point, aren't we essentially ruled by a cabal of economic and political elites, pushing us into the realm of "authori…

[deleted]

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#344

Post by Perceval »

math0ne wrote: post #281
pinaceae wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make it sound as if life is a video game or something. He broke an arbitrary rule so he must pay the price. This isn't a game, ethics are always at play and we as the public have a duty to make sure our military is acting ethically. It's not like the us military has had some unchanging set of rules. Throughout the last 50 years public ethics policy has vastly changed how the military functions and will continue t…

> He broke an arbitrary rule

The rules against releasing classified information are in no way arbitrary and have been long-standing parts of military and foreign affairs since their inception. There has been no time when releasing an indiscriminate cache of State Department cables would have ever been considered a legal gray area. (Indeed, the confidentiality of diplomatic communication has been a norm that has existed for thousands of years: http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/jonsson.htm). Manning very clearly broke the law and could not have failed to know that he was breaking the law.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#345

Post by Perceval »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #176
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…

Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Snowden. The whole of NSA takes an oath to protect the US constitution on the one hand. On the other NSA has programs that basically destroy the US Constitution. And the only guy who takes his Oath seriously and reveals NSA's anti-Constitu…

> Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that.

What did he reveal that was unconstitutional?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#346

Post by scotty79 »

meepmorp wrote: post #328
scotty79 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This comment is so remarkably naive and juvenile, I have to assume it's parody.

Well it wasn't a parody.

From what I heard relationships with foreign governments were damaged by the fact that foreign governments found out that friendly diplomacy called them chumps behind their backs. When the truth about this talk and how american diplomats understand words "friend" or "ally" leaked out it did hurt. As I said, if revealing what you really think about others hurts you, that's not a good sign. It's a sign that you might be kind of an asshole.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#347

Post by anigbrowl »

math0ne wrote: post #281
pinaceae wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make it sound as if life is a video game or something. He broke an arbitrary rule so he must pay the price. This isn't a game, ethics are always at play and we as the public have a duty to make sure our military is acting ethically. It's not like the us military has had some unchanging set of rules. Throughout the last 50 years public ethics policy has vastly changed how the military functions and will continue t…

Makes you wonder why Manning joined up in the first place, consider the highly public ethical and practical failures of the executive branch and the army in the context of Iraq.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#348

Post by shpxnvz »

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…

While you probably already know this, others may not: there is an organization called the Oath Keepers which is comprised of current and former uniformed members of military and civil services who affirm what you've stated - that the oath they took was first and foremost to defend the Constitution.

From their site (http://oathkeepers.org):

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#350

Post by throwaway9848 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #280
throwaway9848 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I created it to allow myself a different degree of expression from my normal account. Sometimes I just want to release my id - say, for engaging with a not-unsubstantial population on HN of people whose intellect doesn't keep pace with their arrogance. I still try to be constructive and take care of as though it was a primary account. But I really don't care about karma/points. The account is serving precisely the purpose it was created for.
Post reply on HN