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

361–370 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#361

Post by chris_mahan »

anigbrowl wrote: post #340
chris_mahan wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? Should the State be allowed to keep this much stuff secret and still expect the Voting Public to accurately measure the effectiveness of government officials?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#362

Post by vectorjohn »

Justsignedup wrote: post #315
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…

In layman's: Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Moral of this story: Don't join the military for any reason whatsoever. And if you are drafted in, claim on your defense: "I would have been executed otherwise"

Basically this is the only answer. I think of this (but rarely say it) when I hear people talk about supporting our troops and honoring their service. I don't honor people who willingly decide to be put in situations that almost certainly will be immoral.

The immoral act starts when you volunteer to join the gang that commits it.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#363

Post by vijayboyapati »

This young man had the courage to expose the war crimes committed by America, and now will essentially spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. More than anything this is an indictment of America as a nation, and the American people who could tolerate this and allow it to happen, under a President who won the Nobel "peace" prize.

As Orwell wrote: "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it".

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#364

Post by baddox »

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…

Having the "right to refuse unlawful orders" clearly implies that military personnel have some authority to evaluate the legality of orders.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#365

Post by baddox »

lotso wrote: post #66
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…

Bradley Manning released a dump of over 700,000 files. Although there were some documents that revealed possible war crimes, there was no do due diligence performed to verify that the rest of the files were not putting people in danger. I'm curious as to how people are justifying those actions? If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

> If someone releases a huge dump of classified files, without any possible war crimes, would we still defend them?

I would. I don't trust the government to decide what should and shouldn't be confidential, and I'd be curious to hear any justifications for why the government deserves even the slightest bit of trust.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#366

Post by baddox »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #60
flexie wrote: post #14

This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…

When information leaks, and that results in supposed harm to people, why is it appropriate to blame the leaker of the information rather than the people who committed the actual acts described by the information?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#367

Post by baddox »

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.

But would I get angry at my friend, or the person who told me what my friend secretly thinks of me?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#368

Post by foobarbazqux »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #301
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…

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.

Sure, I agree with this. Not everyone has the same morals, and it's hard to make them into rules. War essentially occurs in the absence of rules. However, that doesn't make all wartime conduct moral. If I were fighting, I would never kill an enemy civilian with the intent to display my strength. That's just because I consider this cowardice.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#369

Post by jaegerpicker »

aqme28 wrote: post #335
jaegerpicker wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He did, he released info that could, COULD, have lead to other informants directly. You have no idea rather or not anyone actually came to harm, neither do I, but the possibility is plain because of his actions and irresponsibility. If I drive drunk I'm arrested because I MIGHT harm someone with my irresponsibility. No different here, he released info that could lead directly to other intelligence agents, that puts them directly into harms way.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#370

Post by tbrownaw »

Perceval wrote: post #336
tbrownaw wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

eh, so what if we're off-topic a bit?
Post reply on HN