5 ms·

Today a criminal... in 100 years a hero.

by dromidas 14y ago

gnosis 14y ago
He's already a hero to many.
- sigzero 14y ago
  A hero to the stupid maybe. He is scum and a traitor.
  - sxcurry 14y ago
    How do you figure that? He gave us access to information that we have a right to, so that we can make our own informed decisions. Do you remember the Pentagon Papers and the effect they had on the Vietnam War? In my mind he's a true patriot.
    - smokinjoe 14y ago
      > He gave us access to information that we have a right to I've heard this said quite a bit but am way too ignorant about it to form a logical opinion or know where to find more information. Basically, what information from the Gov't do we have a right to? All of it? Some of it? I know there are classified documents that are kinda essential to keeping people safe that would be better left confidential, but they eventually make it out, albeit heavily redacted. Is there some quick-reference (worth a shot..) or a place of reference I could at least start my journey? There's a lot of misinformation out there, especially regarding this case specifically.
      - malbs 14y ago
        When your tax dollars are paying for military strikes, and you yourself are then made a target by angry foreigners blaming you for supporting your own government, I'd say you have a right to know what "they" are doing. How much? As much is needed for everyone to have a rationalised discussion. As I write this I realise that with media outlets such as FOX, that makes it pretty hard. As Bradley Manning said, most military information has a tactical shelf life of 48-72 hours, after that most information can (and should) be released. Perhaps a more transparent/accountable military would be a harder target for fundamentalists to rally support against, but I wouldn't actually know.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        chimeracoder 14y ago
        > He didn't make any argument, He's making the argument that there exist certain documents that are "better left confidential", and that those documents "eventually make it out". Both statements are highly contestable, and I've offered a fairly extensive source by a Pulitzer prize winner to contradict those points. His final statement is ironic. We're talking about a man (Manning) who risked his life to uncover information that the government tried to conceal by spreading misinformation. The existence of misinformation about Manning's own story is nothing if not ironic. It's not an insult - to Obama, perhaps, but not OP - and my apologies if anybody took that way. However, taking the time to look me up on Twitter just to call me a 'prick' certainly doesn't offer anything valuable to the discussion and does nothing to keep the level of discourse on HN high.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - malbs 14y ago
    Scum / Traitor for reporting on US war crimes? You're actually serious!?
    - dmm 14y ago
      What war crimes do you mean?
      - malbs 14y ago
        I was being sensationalist, but that Apache footage has always stuck in my mind. Even if it was manipulated
    - mc32 14y ago
      Well, there were some of that information, but there were also secret cables which had little to do with any war crimes. He could have just released the videos and not the other stuff, if you wanted to argue the war crimes angle. Finally, I think I agree with others. If you truly believe in your actions, you take responsibility, no matter the consequences. Such is how many in the war of independence saw it. They knew that if the British caught them, they'd likely be tried as traitors. Not saying all revolutions are have 'honorable causes'. Just saying it's honorable to take responsibility for what one does to further one's beliefs, even if the actions are not honorable, depending on view.
      - malbs 14y ago
        I agree, made a comment about that on another reply
    - chrischen 14y ago
      Technically he was a traitor to the military, but the military was a traitor to society in general... So it evens out.
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    Yeah, you're right. How dare a guy risk his own life for the sake of doing what's right and telling us about the injustices of the United Stated Government we otherwise would have never been told or heard about. How dare someone like Bradley Manning stand up for the people, how dare he stand up for the truth... If the Government are killing innocent people and leading the public astray unless they tell us, we don't have the right to know the truth, right? This guy is only looking at spending the rest of his life in prison for the sake of letting people know what was happening, no big deal. I'll be back later, just going to turn on my TV and watch some Fox News. You like that channel too? So informative and they always tell us the truth, who needs Wikileaks when we have unbiased televised news? Maybe we can watch it together sometime, eat some genetically modified corn, polish our military grade automatic guns and sip on fluorinated water, it'll be great.
    - MysticFear 14y ago
      News alert to the uninformed about military conflict. Innocent people die when you go to war. Bradley Manning just leaked one instance of human error that caused innocent people to die. Now he will spend much of his life in prison. No idea why people call this guy a hero. If you read any history of any war, innocent people die because of human error.
      - camus 14y ago
        drone killings is not war , it is state terrorism.
        chc 14y ago
        Why is it "war" if done by humans holding machines and "state terrorism" if done by humans controlling machines from a greater distance?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Why is it "terror" if done with airplanes and "war" if done by humans holding machine guns?
kmfrk 14y ago
What does it mean to be a criminal in the U.S. these days anyway?
- D9u 14y ago
  I believe it was President George "Dubya" Bush who said, "You're either with us, or you're against us." This mentality, coupled with the (unpatriotic) "Patriot Act," leaves a lot of room for defining criminality, which, apparently, the US Supreme Court, by its recent rulings, infers that all US citizens are potential criminals, if not actual. Thus the domestic surveillance program continues.

Today a criminal... in 100 years a hero.

gnosis 14y ago

He's already a hero to many.

sigzero 14y ago
A hero to the stupid maybe. He is scum and a traitor.
- sxcurry 14y ago
  How do you figure that? He gave us access to information that we have a right to, so that we can make our own informed decisions. Do you remember the Pentagon Papers and the effect they had on the Vietnam War? In my mind he's a true patriot.
  - smokinjoe 14y ago
    > He gave us access to information that we have a right to I've heard this said quite a bit but am way too ignorant about it to form a logical opinion or know where to find more information. Basically, what information from the Gov't do we have a right to? All of it? Some of it? I know there are classified documents that are kinda essential to keeping people safe that would be better left confidential, but they eventually make it out, albeit heavily redacted. Is there some quick-reference (worth a shot..) or a place of reference I could at least start my journey? There's a lot of misinformation out there, especially regarding this case specifically.
    - malbs 14y ago
      When your tax dollars are paying for military strikes, and you yourself are then made a target by angry foreigners blaming you for supporting your own government, I'd say you have a right to know what "they" are doing. How much? As much is needed for everyone to have a rationalised discussion. As I write this I realise that with media outlets such as FOX, that makes it pretty hard. As Bradley Manning said, most military information has a tactical shelf life of 48-72 hours, after that most information can (and should) be released. Perhaps a more transparent/accountable military would be a harder target for fundamentalists to rally support against, but I wouldn't actually know.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        chimeracoder 14y ago
        > He didn't make any argument, He's making the argument that there exist certain documents that are "better left confidential", and that those documents "eventually make it out". Both statements are highly contestable, and I've offered a fairly extensive source by a Pulitzer prize winner to contradict those points. His final statement is ironic. We're talking about a man (Manning) who risked his life to uncover information that the government tried to conceal by spreading misinformation. The existence of misinformation about Manning's own story is nothing if not ironic. It's not an insult - to Obama, perhaps, but not OP - and my apologies if anybody took that way. However, taking the time to look me up on Twitter just to call me a 'prick' certainly doesn't offer anything valuable to the discussion and does nothing to keep the level of discourse on HN high.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- malbs 14y ago
  Scum / Traitor for reporting on US war crimes? You're actually serious!?
  - dmm 14y ago
    What war crimes do you mean?
    - malbs 14y ago
      I was being sensationalist, but that Apache footage has always stuck in my mind. Even if it was manipulated
  - mc32 14y ago
    Well, there were some of that information, but there were also secret cables which had little to do with any war crimes. He could have just released the videos and not the other stuff, if you wanted to argue the war crimes angle. Finally, I think I agree with others. If you truly believe in your actions, you take responsibility, no matter the consequences. Such is how many in the war of independence saw it. They knew that if the British caught them, they'd likely be tried as traitors. Not saying all revolutions are have 'honorable causes'. Just saying it's honorable to take responsibility for what one does to further one's beliefs, even if the actions are not honorable, depending on view.
    - malbs 14y ago
      I agree, made a comment about that on another reply
  - chrischen 14y ago
    Technically he was a traitor to the military, but the military was a traitor to society in general... So it evens out.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  Yeah, you're right. How dare a guy risk his own life for the sake of doing what's right and telling us about the injustices of the United Stated Government we otherwise would have never been told or heard about. How dare someone like Bradley Manning stand up for the people, how dare he stand up for the truth... If the Government are killing innocent people and leading the public astray unless they tell us, we don't have the right to know the truth, right? This guy is only looking at spending the rest of his life in prison for the sake of letting people know what was happening, no big deal. I'll be back later, just going to turn on my TV and watch some Fox News. You like that channel too? So informative and they always tell us the truth, who needs Wikileaks when we have unbiased televised news? Maybe we can watch it together sometime, eat some genetically modified corn, polish our military grade automatic guns and sip on fluorinated water, it'll be great.
  - MysticFear 14y ago
    News alert to the uninformed about military conflict. Innocent people die when you go to war. Bradley Manning just leaked one instance of human error that caused innocent people to die. Now he will spend much of his life in prison. No idea why people call this guy a hero. If you read any history of any war, innocent people die because of human error.
    - camus 14y ago
      drone killings is not war , it is state terrorism.
      - chc 14y ago
        Why is it "war" if done by humans holding machines and "state terrorism" if done by humans controlling machines from a greater distance?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Why is it "terror" if done with airplanes and "war" if done by humans holding machine guns?

kmfrk 14y ago

What does it mean to be a criminal in the U.S. these days anyway?

D9u 14y ago
I believe it was President George "Dubya" Bush who said, "You're either with us, or you're against us." This mentality, coupled with the (unpatriotic) "Patriot Act," leaves a lot of room for defining criminality, which, apparently, the US Supreme Court, by its recent rulings, infers that all US citizens are potential criminals, if not actual. Thus the domestic surveillance program continues.