Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#391

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #367

rayiner wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The latter, of course. Humans are imperfect. Humans know that they are imperfect. Humans know that other people recognize their imperfections. Life goes on because we don't rub in each others' faces what we think of each others' imperfections. Sometimes it's necessary in cases where a particular imperfection is becoming a serious issue either in the persons life or in the friendship, but generally the best policy is to leave things be.

I love every single one of my friends dearly and would go to great lengths for them. But for any one I can point to a list of things that are flawed about them, and I'm sure every one of them could put together a long list of things flawed about me. I'd be pissed at someone who told one of my friends that, e.g. I thought they had unrealistic expectations about potential mates given their own looks, because the only reason someone would do that would be to either hurt my friend or to hurt me.

Human relationships are very often about delicacy, and part and parcel of delicacy is knowing what thoughts to share and what not to share. When someone takes away that discretion and makes that decision for you, you are entitled to get mad.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#392

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:54 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #391

baddox wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The latter, of course. Humans are imperfect. Humans know that they are imperfect. Humans know that other people recognize their imperfections. Life goes on because we don't rub in each others' faces what we think of each others' imperfections. Sometimes it's necessary in cases where a particular imperfection is becoming a serious issue either in the persons life or in the friendship, but generally the best policy is…

I find your opinion utterly bizarre.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#393

Post by aclevernickname » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 10:55 PM UTC

pionar wrote: post #149

zmb_ wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they both broke the laws and/or contracts. However, they did it only to expose alleged misconduct or illegal activities of their employers. Therefore whistleblower protections should apply, and they cannot be convicted of those actions. Whistleblowing always, by definition, includes breaking some law or contract to expose secret information (otherwise it would be public and already known). Since exposing alleged…

The problem with your argument is that it's not that he blew the whistle, it's that he didn't do it in a responsible manner. Also, whistleblowing doesn't always include breaking a law or contract. Also, he also exposed things that WEREN'T wrongdoing, and even the "wrong" things he "exposed" were pretty much already known and "wrong" is VERY subjective in this circumstance. The "wrongdoing" was not in what happened in…

> And really, the thing that got him most in trouble were the hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables that exposed no wrongdoing

You've clearly not read the cables. they were responsible for at least two revolutions [1][2], and we're still learning from them.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-interna...

[2] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/wikihistory-did-l...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#394

Post by sigzero » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:12 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #329

rayiner wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did manning release that was an actual war crime?

I imagine they'r referring to the video of a helicopter shooting someone in Iraq who turned out to be holding a camera rather than a rocket launcher, which Wikileaks released under the title 'Collateral murder.' If you ask me the real war crime is that the administration we had at the time went to war in Iraq in the first place, based on an apparent mixture of personal animus between Presidents Bush & Hussein and an…

Had he stopped at just the video I would be on his side. He didn't. He let loose 700,000 pages of documents that he shouldn't have and didn't need to do. He deserves the jail time.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#395

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:13 PM UTC

aclevernickname wrote: post #390

sp332 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you could read the conversation before commenting. Here, I'll make it easy for you: I said "35 isn't even half a lifetime... he'll be about 60 when he gets out." and clarky07 said "missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways." which is not the same thing as what I said. See? clarky07 tried to make it sound like I said that 35 years was no big deal, but I di…

I bet your use of passive-aggressive condescension wins all your arguments for you, and wins you the respect of all your peers. Now, if you said that 35 isn't half a lifetime, and that he'll be about 60 when he gets out, how doesn't that minimize the focus on the effect those 35 years of incarceration actually have on Manning? Were you just so insensitive an engineer that you felt the cold, literal correction was som…

Your other comment said I wasn't being logical enough. Now I'm being too logical? I didn't think it was very passive either. That leaves... respect of my peers. OK, I have a lot of time on my hands so I'm game:

I think that exaggeration of the effect of Manning's leaks is what led to the overly harsh sentence in the first place. The least we could do in discussing it is not make the same mistake.

I think Manning's sentence is much too long. But at the same time, I don't think misrepresenting how harsh it is does any side of the argument any good. I'm sensitive enough to realize that if we want reasonable sentences, we will have to be honest about how harsh a sentence really is. I can also predict that critics will write us off as irrational or whiny if we make a habit of overreacting every time something happens we don't like.

I'm not insensitive. On the contrary, I can imagine much worse sentences that could have been handed down, up to and including capital punishment for treason. As crushing as the final sentence must be to Manning and those near him, I can also understand the coping mechanisms they will resort to to deal with it. One of those is that the sentence is not as bad as it could have been.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#396

Post by nhangen » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:22 PM UTC

monsterix wrote: post #375

nhangen wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to take the bait and allow you to define that default behavior for Soldiers as that of a civilian killer. The Soldiers know what they sign up for, and if you've never been scared for your life in a combat zone, I'd argue that you lack the perspective to that claim. If a Soldier doesn't feel comfortable with their mission, they have many ways of dealing with it that do not involve being gagged by their s…

I hope you'll agree that the discussion on the parent thread was about newbies joining the army and not about Soldiers who are through with their training and know the many ways of 'dealing' with it.

I don't agree that there is a need to separate them. They are thoroughly indoctrinated going in, and during basic training. New Soldiers are given a battle buddy to watch over them, and a team leader to watch over them, and a squad leader, platoon leader, etc. Sorry, but it's just not there.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#397

Post by LekkoscPiwa » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:32 PM UTC

Perceval wrote: post #334

drblast wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the US wasn't breaking its own Constitution all the time, this wouldn't be even a problem. PRISM for that example breaks 4th, 5th and probably 9th Amendment. That's about a third of the Bill of Rights. Each and every NSA employee is under Oath to protect the Constitution. And then a person who tries just doing that (Snowden) is the one called traitor!

If not for things like PRISM the military and other branches of the Government wouldn't need to worry about soldiers/their employees reporting unconstitutional actions of the Government. Because it seems they break the law all the time, yes, that's a problem. The Governments problem not whistleblowers.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#398

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:33 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #392

rayiner wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter, of course. Humans are imperfect. Humans know that they are imperfect. Humans know that other people recognize their imperfections. Life goes on because we don't rub in each others' faces what we think of each others' imperfections. Sometimes it's necessary in cases where a particular imperfection is becoming a serious issue either in the persons life or in the friendship, but generally the best policy is…

I find your opinion utterly bizarre.

Are you married? Do you tell your wife every thing you think of her all the time?

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#399

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:38 PM UTC

chris_mahan wrote: post #361

anigbrowl wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, that's a totally different question. I asked what unconstitutional activity was revealed by all of those state department cables that were leaked. As best I can ascertain, the answer is 'none whatsoever.'

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#400

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Aug 21, 2013, 11:39 PM UTC

sigzero wrote: post #394

anigbrowl wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they'r referring to the video of a helicopter shooting someone in Iraq who turned out to be holding a camera rather than a rocket launcher, which Wikileaks released under the title 'Collateral murder.' If you ask me the real war crime is that the administration we had at the time went to war in Iraq in the first place, based on an apparent mixture of personal animus between Presidents Bush & Hussein and an…

Had he stopped at just the video I would be on his side. He didn't. He let loose 700,000 pages of documents that he shouldn't have and didn't need to do. He deserves the jail time.

That's roughly where I stand, though I don't think he deserves as much jail time, will get early parole, and was mistreated during his pretrial detention.