351–360 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when enough members of the military decide to do what's better for the country against the lawful orders of the elected government that they serve, we call it a coup I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military. But calling his actions an incipient coup is laughable. 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…
> 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…
Because it is immoral to remove a fellow human's freedom for lengthy periods of time unless absolutely necessary, when there is no other way to protect the public from their future actions. For example, in the case of unreformable violent criminals, who must be physically restrained lest they injure others if unrestrained, there may be no other option than multiyear or even (in rare cases) multi-decade imprisonment. But that does not happen often, and even most people who committed violent crimes pose much less risk once they grow older.
There is no way you would be sentenced to 35 years for a nonviolent crime here (Denmark), because the idea is preposterous. Not even if you leaked something that offended the fairly influential and US/NATO-loving military. Sentences longer than 2 years are rare, reserved only for extreme crimes (murder, rape, etc.), which seems quite correct.
Americans seems somewhat vengeful, even sadistic on the subject, rather than rational. Somehow absurdly long sentences like confining someone in a cage for 5 years or even 10 years is seen as a "short" sentence, I guess because compared to locking people in a cage for 30 or 50 years or outright killing them, it seems lenient in comparison. You even hear people joking gleefully about prison rape. Not sure how you could approach fixing that culture.
What kind of world is this, where Bradley Manning gets a heavier jail sentence than Anders Breivik?
What kind of world is this, where a soldier in a war zone indiscriminately dumps data into the hands of foreign actors and receives a full public trial and a jail sentence, while a teenage girl gets shot in the head for going to school?
I feel bad for Manning, but he at least opted to join an organization with a conspicuously poor human rights record at a time when it was many years into a bloody moral and legal quagmire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
right. missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I've found that people use the "stop putting words in my mouth" line when someone follows their words to a logical conclusion. This leads me to believe that the sentence really means "quit pointing out flaws in my reasoning."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen you apologize for the NSA spying on everyone, for Google giving all of our data to the NSA while putting on their best "don't be evil" face and now you apologize for scum shooting innocent people from helicopters (AND ENJOYING IT!). You're a terrible person, how do you live with yourself?
Well, reading this comment, I find you to be more scum than the helicopter pilot. He was eager to engage to protect the soldiers on the ground and thought he found the ones who were trying to kill them. Probably too eager, because war is hell, and despite all the best efforts of people to minimize civilian casualties, they can't. This is the actual reason I am an anti-war veteran. You are just a coward behind a keybo…
That you and rayiner are so quick to dismiss this guy's eagerness as being contextual is demonstrating an appalling lack of humanity. Just read the transcript posted above. This guy is using million dollars worth of equipment and a government mandate to live out a real life Grand Theft Auto fantasy and you're making excuses for him.
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…
So if they witness a crime, they should speak out. Manning did release evidence of several crimes leading up to and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The cheerful murder of Reuters journalists and later innocents who came to help by that helicopter crew
The purchase of child prostitutes for entertainment by Dyncorp
The illegal collection of DNA from UN officials and representatives (straight from Dr. Strangelove!)
etc.
Now as you say he also released a lot of other material, which wasn't directly related to any crime, so he should expect to be punished for that indiscriminate release, and it weakens his case, but I'd also expect some clemency given that the release was clearly in the public interest and revealed many unlawful orders and coverups.
I don't think he deserves 35 years for that, compared to the 6 months sentence of Sgt. Sabrina Harman who tortured and abused detainees, it seems disproportionate.
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…
People in the military have the right, and legal duty, to refuse unlawful orders, including orders that violate the international laws of war. So if they witness a crime, they should speak out. Manning did release evidence of several crimes leading up to and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: The cheerful murder of Reuters journalists and later innocents who came to help by that helicopter crew The purchase of…
The chain of command issuing the unlawful orders and participating in the coverups is unlikely to agree that revealing those things is in the "public interest".
Which is kind of the fundamental problems that whistleblowers always face (whether or not formal protections are in place) -- the people deciding whether or not to punish them (or whether or not the protections apply) are often the people on whom they are "blowing the whistle", or at least people with shared interest with the targets of the whistleblowing.
This is mitigated when there is involvement of an independent actor in the process, but in the case of military trials that are completely within the military chain of command within the executive branch, that kind of independence is hard to find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>when enough members of the military decide to do what's better for the country against the lawful orders of the elected government that they serve, we call it a coup I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military. But calling his actions an incipient coup is laughable. 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…
> 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…
Abu Ghraib also damaged international relations and placed American lives at increased risk from terrorism. Plus, you know, it involved physically torturing people, not chatting online with Julian Assange.
Yet it is only Manning's crime that's judged worthy of deterrence (by a 3.5 times larger punishment). That's because his real fault is that of exposing the inner workings of a style of policy making that can only function effectively as long as the public is kept ignorant. Only this kind of a crime can "undermine the entire system", as the prosecutor very frankly put it.
Abu Ghraib may have embarrassed America, but the real no-no is exposing its government.
>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…
That is a demonstrably false statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg