6 ms·

Let's play this out a different way (Manning not in solitary). He's in a military prison, with military personnel. These are people who view what he did as ra

Let's play this out a different way (Manning not in solitary). He's in a military prison, with military personnel. These are people who view what he did as ratting out his brothers in combat. He worked in an air-conditioned office, mind you, and hid behind the anonymity of the internet. He wouldn't last a week if he weren't in solitary. In that way, Manning's biggest problem isn't the government, it's the people he worked alongside. Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. It's not complicated. He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information, and acknowledged on multiple documents (going into his job) that he knew the procedures if he leaked any information. He leaked information. He doesn't want to go through that process, so he finds it easier to run to someone else in hopes that he won't face punishment.

stonemetal 13y ago
He's in a military prison, with military personnel. Why? His commander could have him confined anywhere[1]. If the country where civil enough that Snowden could get bail I would be all for him being here, but in this atmosphere he would barely get a show trial. [1] http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm
Karunamon 13y ago
>He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information This makes about as much sense as the same argument from Airplane!: "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash!" It's not complicated. If a system is corrupt, any punishments that system may mete out for bringing that corruption to light are also corrupt, by default, and should rationally be opposed. Keep in mind, we have the Manning example to look at. "Facing punishment" in this case equates to "being tortured". I don't think you're seriously suggesting that he should just turn himself in to be tortured - that gains everyone nothing. So what is your angle?
- JonFish85 13y ago
  I wasn't making an argument as to whether he was right or wrong to do it, that's an argument for another thread. Sure there seem to be extenuating circumstances, but ultimately he did knowingly break a law. Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Devout Christians seem to think that paying taxes that ultimately support abortion is immoral. If they don't pay their taxes, they're guilty of tax evasion regardless of how moral they feel it is. This is probably a bad example, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point here. Anyways, I was trying to say that the government isn't simply torturing Manning, there's a good reason for keeping him isolated. In a sense, he knew what he was doing, releasing troves of information that he had no legal right to release. He's going through the painful legal stuff now, but in a lot of ways I think he's better off isolated, rather than murdered by fellow inmates.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Can I rephrase? A law is only a law. Followed by none, it has no power, revered religiously, it becomes an instrument of great pain and suffering. Opinion follows: Unjust laws should not be followed, or given any heed beyond condescension towards both the law and those who passed it.
  - Shinkei 13y ago
    Even heard of July Nullification? Please read about it. Sometimes groups of citizens decide that a law should not be followed, and we are empowered to do that. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite...
- tptacek 13y ago
  I wish people could stop conflating normative and descriptive arguments on HN, and I wish the textarea where HN comments were entered included a summary of the Fundamental Attribution Error fallacy. This comment makes both mistakes.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    The descriptive argument in this case is irrelevant. Okay, he broke the law. Nobody here disputes that. So what? The entire point I was trying to make was that I don't think the average HN reader, whatever their level of dedication to rule of law (some more, some less), wants to see a guy tortured because he broke a law, less so when the law is being abused by a corrupt system in furtherance of its corruption. Not making this argument basically means that you're outsourcing your moral compass to a third party, a third party who often makes tenuous and outright backwards connections between moral principles and laws. All judgements aside, the normative argument is the only thing there's any kind of discussion or disagreement on. Making the descriptive one apropos of nothing carries the connotation that you value the rule of law above all else. I voted you up for whatever that's worth, but I wish you'd expand on what you mean. Oftentimes it seems you and I misunderstand each other.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm just sensitive to the notion that commenters are frequently attacked for their supposed motivations, usually read from tea leaves, by other commenters. It's not that being misunderstood is a great injustice, but rather that it makes it very difficult to make descriptive points on HN, since the forum is unnecessarily tilted towards normative judgements that is is frankly not well qualified to make. Moreover, descriptive comments often include "hard facts" data about the way things work, and are the product of some amount of research and analysis, which is valuable no matter what the commenter might believe. Normative comments very rarely have that value. Put simply: a comment describing the way things work isn't a strong indicator that the author of the comment wants things to work that way.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
toomuchtodo 13y ago
If I leaked information that the US government was willfully violating the law and the Constitution, I'd flee as well. Why should I suffer for revealing the unlawful acts of my government?
- x0054 13y ago
  Replace US in this situation with China, and 4th amendment violations with human rights violations. How many people would argue: "Well, that Chinese guy knew the consequences of letting the world know about Chinese human rights violations, he broke the law, lets send him home to be executed." To be honest, I am outraged that more people do not write, email, or reach out to the White House and demand that this guy is pardoned or at least guaranteed a fair trial.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    No one is saying that Snowden should go home to be executed, which is the big difference with your analogy. They're saying he should go home to stand that fair trial to which he's already guaranteed.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Bradley Manning has been in prison for 1139 days without a trial. You keep on thinking Snowden is going to get a fair trial though.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > Bradley Manning has been in prison for 1139 days without a trial Manning's trial is ongoing as we speak. Am I the only one paying attention to it?
kbd 13y ago
Did you even read Ellsberg's article? Further, are you aware of the conditions Manning was held under? (Forced to sleep naked, not allowed to exercise, in solitary for such extended periods that human rights organizations declared it torture, etc.) Manning was held for years without trial.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Manning was arrested in May 2010 and his first preferral (the UCMJ equivalent of indictment) was issued in July 2010.
  - kbd 13y ago
    From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning): > Manning was held from July 2010 in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, under Prevention of Injury status, which entailed de facto solitary confinement and other restrictions that caused international concern. In April 2011 he was transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he could interact with other detainees.[3] He pleaded guilty in February 2013 to 10 of the 22 charges, which could carry a sentence of up to 20 years.[4] The trial on the remaining charges, including aiding the enemy, began on June 3, 2013.[5] So, from indictment to trial was about 3 years, no?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      The Wikipedia article on Barker v. Wingo is pretty good and includes some tests for what is and isn't a violation of the right to speedy trial. This is a decent Slate article on the topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/can_a_speedy_trial_really_take_five_years.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... Complicating things in Manning's case: * The trial took place under UCMJ rules, which are different from civilian rules * Manning's supposed mental health issues delayed his arraignment while it was determined whether he was fit to stand trial. We also don't know (do we? sources welcome) whether Manning's defense wanted to hasten the trial. Trial delays often work to the advantage of defendants. What I think we do at this point know is that Manning's treatment from July 2010 through April 2011, as a maximum security POI inmate at Quantico, was inhumane. It's worth mentioning that similar inhumanity is inflicted on civilian criminal inmates; it doesn't make the practice any more morally acceptable, but suggests that Manning's experience wasn't (unfortunately) unprecedented. Regardless, my original comment meant only to speak to the issue of whether Manning was "held without trial". I don't think he was.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
> Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. No, quite the opposite. The government is, however.
EliRivers 13y ago
Alternatively, not everyone in the military is a self-obsessed psychopath intent on murdering Manning because he didn't hold to their ridiculous concept of honour. I am a reservist, I have been mobilised at short notice and served overseas, and amazingly I would have no problem whatsoever not murdering Manning or someone like him, and indeed, were he in my custody, I would have a problem with and would even try to stop some wandering psychopath who did try to murder him. Crazy days.
- RMacy 13y ago
  Exactly. I'm a MP in the guard and I wouldn't be driven to cause him any more discomfort than a normal detainee. Most of my peers would take a _much_ different approach to that situation, I'm sure.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    would you stand up to your peers if they took immoral (and unconstitutional) actions? Keep in mind that (the officers anyway) take an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution?
    - RMacy 13y ago
      The constitution doesn't necessarily apply to members of the Military in it's entirety. They abide by the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes, all members are sworn to uphold and protect the US constitution and POTUS. As to your personal question; I would stand against any unlawful actions taken against a detainee, and anything requiring unnecessary personal harm or danger. I don't like treating anyone inhumanely.
  - samstave 13y ago
    You also would likely not be the people put in charge of watching him...
hedonist 13y ago
Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. Umm, "intelligently sidestepping a justice system known for its egregious disregard for due process in cases similar to his, as amply demonstrated by the Manning precedent" would be a better overall characterization of his actions.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You mean the very same justice system Snowden claims should have been involved in surveillance activities of NSA to keep them from risking tyranny? That justice system?
  - hedonist 13y ago
    Umm, no. You're both changing the subject, and baiting me with words / opinions that aren't mine.
samstave 13y ago
You make the supposition that the actions of not only the USG but also "the people he worked alongside" are legal/just/moral/right. I think the flaw in your argument is that you're acquiescing to the supposed authority, legality and rightness of the USG and its military/intelligence agents. Snowden is in absolutely no way running away "from having to take responsibility for his actions" -- he is running from a USG that has shown and proven they will torture and kill those who get in their way. You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured. You are under the delusion that the NSA/USG is "the good guys" -- they are agents of the CIA's psychopathy.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured. Do you really believe Manning is being waterboarded and sodomized? Do they just squeeze those sessions in between his trial appearances or something?
  - samstave 13y ago
    Yes I 100% believe it. He was in confinement/custody for how long? What do you think they do in sites where people are renditioned to?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > He was in confinement/custody for how long? Is that all it takes, a lot of time served and then the guards get bored and sodomize you? > What do you think they do in sites where people are renditioned to? I have no clue. As best as I can tell waterboarding was finally taken off the menu around 2008 or so. But Manning wasn't 'renditioned' so I'm not sure what that has to do with my question anyways.

stonemetal 13y ago

He's in a military prison, with military personnel. Why? His commander could have him confined anywhere[1]. If the country where civil enough that Snowden could get bail I would be all for him being here, but in this atmosphere he would barely get a show trial. [1] http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm

Karunamon 13y ago

>He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information This makes about as much sense as the same argument from Airplane!: "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash!" It's not complicated. If a system is corrupt, any punishments that system may mete out for bringing that corruption to light are also corrupt, by default, and should rationally be opposed. Keep in mind, we have the Manning example to look at. "Facing punishment" in this case equates to "being tortured". I don't think you're seriously suggesting that he should just turn himself in to be tortured - that gains everyone nothing. So what is your angle?

JonFish85 13y ago
I wasn't making an argument as to whether he was right or wrong to do it, that's an argument for another thread. Sure there seem to be extenuating circumstances, but ultimately he did knowingly break a law. Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Devout Christians seem to think that paying taxes that ultimately support abortion is immoral. If they don't pay their taxes, they're guilty of tax evasion regardless of how moral they feel it is. This is probably a bad example, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point here. Anyways, I was trying to say that the government isn't simply torturing Manning, there's a good reason for keeping him isolated. In a sense, he knew what he was doing, releasing troves of information that he had no legal right to release. He's going through the painful legal stuff now, but in a lot of ways I think he's better off isolated, rather than murdered by fellow inmates.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Can I rephrase? A law is only a law. Followed by none, it has no power, revered religiously, it becomes an instrument of great pain and suffering. Opinion follows: Unjust laws should not be followed, or given any heed beyond condescension towards both the law and those who passed it.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  Even heard of July Nullification? Please read about it. Sometimes groups of citizens decide that a law should not be followed, and we are empowered to do that. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite...
tptacek 13y ago
I wish people could stop conflating normative and descriptive arguments on HN, and I wish the textarea where HN comments were entered included a summary of the Fundamental Attribution Error fallacy. This comment makes both mistakes.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  The descriptive argument in this case is irrelevant. Okay, he broke the law. Nobody here disputes that. So what? The entire point I was trying to make was that I don't think the average HN reader, whatever their level of dedication to rule of law (some more, some less), wants to see a guy tortured because he broke a law, less so when the law is being abused by a corrupt system in furtherance of its corruption. Not making this argument basically means that you're outsourcing your moral compass to a third party, a third party who often makes tenuous and outright backwards connections between moral principles and laws. All judgements aside, the normative argument is the only thing there's any kind of discussion or disagreement on. Making the descriptive one apropos of nothing carries the connotation that you value the rule of law above all else. I voted you up for whatever that's worth, but I wish you'd expand on what you mean. Oftentimes it seems you and I misunderstand each other.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm just sensitive to the notion that commenters are frequently attacked for their supposed motivations, usually read from tea leaves, by other commenters. It's not that being misunderstood is a great injustice, but rather that it makes it very difficult to make descriptive points on HN, since the forum is unnecessarily tilted towards normative judgements that is is frankly not well qualified to make. Moreover, descriptive comments often include "hard facts" data about the way things work, and are the product of some amount of research and analysis, which is valuable no matter what the commenter might believe. Normative comments very rarely have that value. Put simply: a comment describing the way things work isn't a strong indicator that the author of the comment wants things to work that way.
    - Karunamon 13y ago

toomuchtodo 13y ago

If I leaked information that the US government was willfully violating the law and the Constitution, I'd flee as well. Why should I suffer for revealing the unlawful acts of my government?

x0054 13y ago
Replace US in this situation with China, and 4th amendment violations with human rights violations. How many people would argue: "Well, that Chinese guy knew the consequences of letting the world know about Chinese human rights violations, he broke the law, lets send him home to be executed." To be honest, I am outraged that more people do not write, email, or reach out to the White House and demand that this guy is pardoned or at least guaranteed a fair trial.
- mpyne 13y ago
  No one is saying that Snowden should go home to be executed, which is the big difference with your analogy. They're saying he should go home to stand that fair trial to which he's already guaranteed.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Bradley Manning has been in prison for 1139 days without a trial. You keep on thinking Snowden is going to get a fair trial though.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Bradley Manning has been in prison for 1139 days without a trial Manning's trial is ongoing as we speak. Am I the only one paying attention to it?

kbd 13y ago

Did you even read Ellsberg's article? Further, are you aware of the conditions Manning was held under? (Forced to sleep naked, not allowed to exercise, in solitary for such extended periods that human rights organizations declared it torture, etc.) Manning was held for years without trial.

tptacek 13y ago
Manning was arrested in May 2010 and his first preferral (the UCMJ equivalent of indictment) was issued in July 2010.
- kbd 13y ago
  From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning): > Manning was held from July 2010 in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, under Prevention of Injury status, which entailed de facto solitary confinement and other restrictions that caused international concern. In April 2011 he was transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he could interact with other detainees.[3] He pleaded guilty in February 2013 to 10 of the 22 charges, which could carry a sentence of up to 20 years.[4] The trial on the remaining charges, including aiding the enemy, began on June 3, 2013.[5] So, from indictment to trial was about 3 years, no?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The Wikipedia article on Barker v. Wingo is pretty good and includes some tests for what is and isn't a violation of the right to speedy trial. This is a decent Slate article on the topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/can_a_speedy_trial_really_take_five_years.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... Complicating things in Manning's case: * The trial took place under UCMJ rules, which are different from civilian rules * Manning's supposed mental health issues delayed his arraignment while it was determined whether he was fit to stand trial. We also don't know (do we? sources welcome) whether Manning's defense wanted to hasten the trial. Trial delays often work to the advantage of defendants. What I think we do at this point know is that Manning's treatment from July 2010 through April 2011, as a maximum security POI inmate at Quantico, was inhumane. It's worth mentioning that similar inhumanity is inflicted on civilian criminal inmates; it doesn't make the practice any more morally acceptable, but suggests that Manning's experience wasn't (unfortunately) unprecedented. Regardless, my original comment meant only to speak to the issue of whether Manning was "held without trial". I don't think he was.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

> Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. No, quite the opposite. The government is, however.

EliRivers 13y ago

Alternatively, not everyone in the military is a self-obsessed psychopath intent on murdering Manning because he didn't hold to their ridiculous concept of honour. I am a reservist, I have been mobilised at short notice and served overseas, and amazingly I would have no problem whatsoever not murdering Manning or someone like him, and indeed, were he in my custody, I would have a problem with and would even try to stop some wandering psychopath who did try to murder him. Crazy days.

RMacy 13y ago
Exactly. I'm a MP in the guard and I wouldn't be driven to cause him any more discomfort than a normal detainee. Most of my peers would take a _much_ different approach to that situation, I'm sure.
- dnautics 13y ago
  would you stand up to your peers if they took immoral (and unconstitutional) actions? Keep in mind that (the officers anyway) take an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution?
  - RMacy 13y ago
    The constitution doesn't necessarily apply to members of the Military in it's entirety. They abide by the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes, all members are sworn to uphold and protect the US constitution and POTUS. As to your personal question; I would stand against any unlawful actions taken against a detainee, and anything requiring unnecessary personal harm or danger. I don't like treating anyone inhumanely.
- samstave 13y ago
  You also would likely not be the people put in charge of watching him...

hedonist 13y ago

Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. Umm, "intelligently sidestepping a justice system known for its egregious disregard for due process in cases similar to his, as amply demonstrated by the Manning precedent" would be a better overall characterization of his actions.

mpyne 13y ago
You mean the very same justice system Snowden claims should have been involved in surveillance activities of NSA to keep them from risking tyranny? That justice system?
- hedonist 13y ago
  Umm, no. You're both changing the subject, and baiting me with words / opinions that aren't mine.

samstave 13y ago

You make the supposition that the actions of not only the USG but also "the people he worked alongside" are legal/just/moral/right. I think the flaw in your argument is that you're acquiescing to the supposed authority, legality and rightness of the USG and its military/intelligence agents. Snowden is in absolutely no way running away "from having to take responsibility for his actions" -- he is running from a USG that has shown and proven they will torture and kill those who get in their way. You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured. You are under the delusion that the NSA/USG is "the good guys" -- they are agents of the CIA's psychopathy.

mpyne 13y ago
> You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured. Do you really believe Manning is being waterboarded and sodomized? Do they just squeeze those sessions in between his trial appearances or something?
- samstave 13y ago
  Yes I 100% believe it. He was in confinement/custody for how long? What do you think they do in sites where people are renditioned to?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > He was in confinement/custody for how long? Is that all it takes, a lot of time served and then the guards get bored and sodomize you? > What do you think they do in sites where people are renditioned to? I have no clue. As best as I can tell waterboarding was finally taken off the menu around 2008 or so. But Manning wasn't 'renditioned' so I'm not sure what that has to do with my question anyways.