18 ms·

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 unif

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, broke its rules. Knowingly. Hence a court martial. Not so long ago he would have been executed for it, 35 is a soft ruling.

igorgue 13y ago
softer ruling
aspensmonster 13y ago
No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.
- davidcollantes 13y ago
  As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    Right because one day someone decided to make those rules and put them on paper. Just like the rules they're putting on paper regarding civilians nowadays. So, uhm, I don't think its right. I think it's following the paper. It's lawful, it's expected, etc. But it's not "right".
- pinaceae 13y ago
  of course not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justic... matters like absence without leave, contempt towards officials, etc have no place in the civilian justice system. if you don't like this, you'll need to change the US constitution. "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."
perlpimp 13y ago
Yes I agree, when you join the army you are expected to give your life for your country protecting your peoples. As this goes, Army in most contries have different sets or rules set up for people within. FWIW in most contries soldiers are fodder for other purposes beyond fighting wars, sometimes are subjects in scientific studies that border on eugenics crap that everyone knows of. For what I would say - friends don't let friends join an Army.
- monsterix 13y ago
  I was thinking on exactly these lines: " friends don't let friends join an Army." People don't realize how much negative impact this kind of ruling would have on future recruitments of the army?
  - nhangen 13y ago
    None at all. Most people don't join the Army hoping to get a clearance in order to dump secret files.
    - monsterix 13y ago
      Well you're right. Also most people don't join army to kill civilians and then be gagged for life.
      - nhangen 13y ago
        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 superiors.
        monsterix 13y ago
        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.
gizzlon 13y ago
So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to break the loyalty for the greater good?
- sp332 13y ago
  You should at least attempt to follow the chain of command before deciding to break it.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Even when they're guaranteed to deny you and take away your copies of all the evidence?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      They didn't deny the person who leaked about Abu Ghraib. Nor the Pfc. who leaked details of a heinous rape/murder/arson committed by U.S. troops in Iraq.
- majelix 13y ago
  > So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.
  - gizzlon 13y ago
    Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is. (edited for clarity)
rooshdi 13y ago
The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.
- sp332 13y ago
  35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am) so with "time served" he'll be about 60 when he gets out.
  - clarky07 13y ago
    right. missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways.
    - sp332 13y ago
      Stop putting words in my mouth.
      - aclevernickname 13y ago
        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."
        sp332 13y ago
        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 didn't say that.
        13y ago
zeteo 13y ago
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 humanity at large. By exposing questionable decisions and arguably a number of war crimes, Manning broke his oath with the US Army but did a much greater service to the rest of us. By choosing to make an example out of his punishment, the US has struck a huge blow to its claims of moral superiority and American exceptionalism.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Exactly. The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as "a form of government as well as a personality and social trait [that] is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience." It seems people are quick to point out that Manning broke some rules, but are too narrow-minded to look up and see the big picture. Manning undeniably made a service to the greater good, which is the good of his country. Whether he broke some rules internal to his organization should not even have come into play in this trial.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I feel like you're fighting a different battle than the one that exists. One in which Manning uncovered and released targeted evidence of clear war crimes, instead of a bunch of unflattering information along with some evidence that was at best ambiguous and at most showed bad judgment on the part of some soldiers.
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    "The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as [...]" That is super stupid. You don't understand authoritarianism, then, citations of Wikipedia aside. You do a disservice to the actual victims of authoritarianism. EDIT: Look at the downvoting.. and this is nice compared to what I wrote at first. Since I'm already -3, I'll remove the politeness filters and say that this comment is idiotic. Stubborn application of the law is authoritarianism? How is that not the dumbest thing written on the internet today. Perhaps I'm the stupid one for believing that WORDS have MEANINGS beyond what is convenient at the moment. It's like people saying that food stamps are socialism. It's not opinion, it's INCORRECT.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not earlier, and have not picked it up again since.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  "Fuck you"?! You do realize you're trying to bully and intimidate someone whose opinion you don't agree with i. (and just happens to be factually correct and fairly balanced in delivery) Kind of ironic I'd say.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The "fuck you" is in response to a transparent attempt to exclude others from the discussion by asserting that they lack the credentials to participate in it, even though such "credentials" are plainly not required. Although uncivil, it was not entirely unwarranted.
    - fusiongyro 13y ago
      "Civilians might not like it, or even understand" is not an attempt to exclude civilians from the conversation, it's just an observation that civilians are unlikely to understand the complexities of the justice system internal to the armed forces. I'm a civilian, but I understand that joining the military means you are legally subject to additional laws and codes which are enforced completely by and within the armed forces. It must be possible to understand that what Manning did was both the right thing to do and a clear violation of the armed forces code he agreed to uphold. Unlike civilian law, the armed forces must place a premium on obedience. People volunteer for and agree to these rules, so the outrage isn't as warranted.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
devx 13y ago
So what it's a different organization? The army is not Ku Klux Klan or the mafia, is it?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  It's worse. Insubordination is a jail-able crime in the military, think about that; telling someone no, or simply showing disrespect whether on or off duty to the wrong person can land you in jail. The military life is a different world with vastly different crimes and rules than the civilian world. You can misbehave in public off base while off duty and still get demoted at work (pay cut) because of your behavior. Your law is the UCMJ, not the law civilians follow.
frank_boyd 13y ago
Note to self: don't join the army.
zmb_ 13y ago
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 misconduct is a good for the society, someone should not face any penalty for doing so.
- pionar 13y ago
  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 the video, nor the number of civilian casualties, those are accidents and mistakes, but in the misrepresentation of those events. That is not really in and of itself wrong.) And really, the thing that got him most in trouble were the hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables that exposed no wrongdoing but still exposed state secrets.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    > 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-international-wikileaks-arab-spring http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-interna... [2] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/wikihistory-did-leaks-inspire-arab-spring http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/wikihistory-did-l...
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The cables themselves didn't express any American wrongdoing though. It expressed American opinions regarding other nations' governments and internal politics. And either way I wouldn't be so quick to claim that inciting those revolutions is on the balance a positive thing for either Manning or Wikileaks, for the same reason that toppling Saddam's despotic regime was not (on the balance) a good thing.
hisabness 13y ago
you seem knowledgeable about military courts. do you know if anyone has the power to grant pardons within the military court system?
baddox 13y ago
> Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Maybe that makes sense if the only relevant is between the Armed Forces and Manning. But here's the thing: civilians are the ones paying for the military.
ThomPete 13y ago
So collateral damage is only acceptable when its the military that does it?
grandalf 13y ago
I don't think anyone expected Manning to be found innocent. But it will be quite telling whether he is eventually pardoned. The most worrisome aspect to me is that the administration does not appear to be remotely open to pardoning either Manning or Snowden, while at the same time ignoring the abuses each revealed. Before this happened, I would have expected the response to be more measured and would have expected there to be some kind of review/investigation of the crimes revealed by the leaks in tandem with attempts to punish the whistleblower... then later after the investigation a possible pardon. That we are not seeing this happen makes me wonder if I am wrong about the degree to which we have the rule of law in the US.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  There are many people who vote in America who are not ready to pardon the administration.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Obama could do it on his way out. Obama should do it now, but I will be fine if he waits, just as long as he does it. Until then Manning's incarceration will serve as a focal point to the dishonesty that pervades our government.
throwaway9848 13y ago
Every single thing you wrote is objectively correct, but in spite of that there are a couple of dozen responses calling you names and saying you are wrong. Fascinating. Anyway, I'm personally glad that the military has finally prosecuted him and that he can get on with his life after serving his time.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Manning.
crgt 13y ago
Do the rules prohibit, say, a General lying to Congress?
- j2d3 13y ago
  It may be that one set of rules (the UCMJ) requires him to lie (about this particular topic), while another set of rules make lying to congress illegal. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" often put people into paradoxes where they were required by one set of rules to not disclose their sexuality while another set of circumstances + rules required them to disclose it (ie., not lie), or face penalties.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Would it matter? The rules do not all go away just because they have not been always evenly enforced. It's like saying you should be able to go on a sleepover because Foolene's parents let her go. Manning was either guilty of not guilty of the things he was charged with, and that is independent of what some General says to Congress. If the system does not ensure equal justice then the system should be fixed, but that would not change anything relating to Manning's actions and the consequences of those actions. You'd think with as many web devs as we have on HN that more people would understand stateless protocols and independent transactions.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Snowden. The whole of NSA takes an oath to protect the US constitution on the one hand. On the other NSA has programs that basically destroy the US Constitution. And the only guy who takes his Oath seriously and reveals NSA's anti-Constitution war is the guilty one? Something wrong with the morals of the people in the uniforms nowadays. The Oath is to be taken seriously. If you take an Oath to protect the US Constitution and then are given orders that basically destroy it, you bear the responsibility not to fulfill them and reveal those secret actions to the US public.
- Perceval 13y ago
  > Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. What did he reveal that was unconstitutional?
  - mindslight 13y ago
    Modern USG is neither proscribed nor prescribed by the written constitution - it is extraconstitutional (same as Google). However, as it has usurped the constitutional government and is forcefully extracting our wealth to fund its empire, it is a domestic enemy.
wisty 13y ago
If the law is selectively applied, it's not the rule of law. I think you'll find a lot of people here will think that they threw the book at him, because he challenged the system. And Snowden is actually in the same boat here. He's not military, but he had clearance, so he's liable for quite a bit. I'm not sure which court would trial him, so there might be some differences.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Manning is the single most prolific leaker of U.S. documents in history. By what standard do you think that a 35-year sentence, with possibility of parole, is "selectively applied"?
VladRussian2 13y ago
>No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. now that you mentioned it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fight... .... b. Your obligations as a U.S. citizen and a member of the armed forces result from the traditional values that underlie the American experience as a nation. These values are best expressed in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which you have sworn to uphold and defend. You would have these obligations—our country, your service and unit and your fellow Americans—even if the Code of Conduct had never been formulated as a high standard of general behavior. ...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
enry_straker 13y ago
Bullshit. Where is the code of conduct when the torturers of Abu ghraib went scott free. Where is the code of conduct when the people who engineered a war and tore apart two countries went scott free Where is the code of conduct when the current President orders remote drone strikes against countries when there has been no declaration of war. No matter how you spin it, this is 'not the armed forces code of conduct' For you to allege it is, is to dis-honor the men and women who serve in the us military.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  I agree that your first example should have been covered - at high levels - by the code of conduct. However, the other two are civilian authorities who acted illegally, not military personnel who violated the code of conduct. Wrong jurisdiction. Those would be covered by international war crimes cases, something to which the United States of America will never submit. Alternatively, they could also be addressed by a moral President - unfortunately, Obama decided we should just all move on and ignore the war crimes committed in our name.
gadders 13y ago
35 years, and he needs to do a third before he is eligible for parole. He has also served 3 years in jail already. He could be out in 8 or 9 years. Not that harsh.
- samastur 13y ago
  There's a big assumption you're making there. Nothing and nobody can guarantee him parole then. I don't expect it will happen and even if it does, I don't see 12 years in prison as a light sentence.
adnam 13y ago
Just want to point out that Charles Graner served only 6 year in prison for his role in Abu Ghraib, which in my mind was a far graver offence.
hugi 13y ago
Sounds like a pretty crazy club. Even illegal.
6d0debc071 13y ago
You have not stated something that's mutually exclusive with the statement you are replying to. It's possible for military law to be used precisely as the person was claiming it was - to support the implementation of questionable policy through enforced ignorance of the people. Indeed one could argue that to a great extent that's what military law in this regard is for in the first place. # Personally, I think there's only room for one law in a country. The minute you start splitting off separate courts for special interests, in which civilian juries can't intervene, you make a mockery of the idea of civilian control - separate it too far from the issues for it to be meaningfully applied.
mcgwiz 13y ago
Ah, yes. The law. If someone breaks the law, they are punished. Justice is that simple. Oh, wait, unless the laws happen to constrain the interrogation techniques used against detainees. Or if they prevent access to the private lives of American citizens. Or if they protect whistleblowers. Or if they get in the way of fighting terrorism in any other way. But aside from that minor footnote of an afterthought, the law is the law, so we all need to just shut up and accept it.
Macsenour 13y ago
I think this is the main point that I repeat over and over, the UCMJ is that he swore to uphold and abide by and by THAT rule of law he was tried against. Being in the military is different than NOT being in the military.
- a3n 13y ago
  He was also tried for computer fraud and abuse, which I don't think is specifically in the UCMJ. But I agree with your overall point. He's subject to civilian law and the UCMJ.
dgregd 13y ago
> Snowden is different I'll change the topic a bit. For one good Snowden there are ten bad types like Gordon Gekko or Francis Underwood. I just wonder what bad types do with the data NSA has.
OmIsMyShield 13y ago
Guess the old "change the system from within"-mantra doesn't fly too well with everyone.
bborud 13y ago
You are of course aware of the historic context for that line of reasoning and the comparisons to relatively recent history that it points to? The ultimate consequence of which is that even defining war-crimes is pointless since there would be no way to legally present evidence.
TelmoMenezes 13y ago
> Not so long ago he would have been executed for it, 35 is a soft ruling. That is a demonstrably false statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
- mpyne 13y ago
  Ellsberg was not in uniform though.

igorgue 13y ago

softer ruling

aspensmonster 13y ago

No. This is a matter of justice, no matter whose uniform you wear or what club you join.

davidcollantes 13y ago
As much as I would like to agree, I don't. The parent comment you replied to is right.
- zobzu 13y ago
  Right because one day someone decided to make those rules and put them on paper. Just like the rules they're putting on paper regarding civilians nowadays. So, uhm, I don't think its right. I think it's following the paper. It's lawful, it's expected, etc. But it's not "right".
pinaceae 13y ago
of course not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justic... matters like absence without leave, contempt towards officials, etc have no place in the civilian justice system. if you don't like this, you'll need to change the US constitution. "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

perlpimp 13y ago

Yes I agree, when you join the army you are expected to give your life for your country protecting your peoples. As this goes, Army in most contries have different sets or rules set up for people within. FWIW in most contries soldiers are fodder for other purposes beyond fighting wars, sometimes are subjects in scientific studies that border on eugenics crap that everyone knows of. For what I would say - friends don't let friends join an Army.

monsterix 13y ago
I was thinking on exactly these lines: " friends don't let friends join an Army." People don't realize how much negative impact this kind of ruling would have on future recruitments of the army?
- nhangen 13y ago
  None at all. Most people don't join the Army hoping to get a clearance in order to dump secret files.
  - monsterix 13y ago
    Well you're right. Also most people don't join army to kill civilians and then be gagged for life.
    - nhangen 13y ago
      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 superiors.
      - monsterix 13y ago
        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.

gizzlon 13y ago

So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to break the loyalty for the greater good?

sp332 13y ago
You should at least attempt to follow the chain of command before deciding to break it.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Even when they're guaranteed to deny you and take away your copies of all the evidence?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    They didn't deny the person who leaked about Abu Ghraib. Nor the Pfc. who leaked details of a heinous rape/murder/arson committed by U.S. troops in Iraq.
majelix 13y ago
> So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.
- gizzlon 13y ago
  Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is. (edited for clarity)

rooshdi 13y ago

The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.

sp332 13y ago
35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am) so with "time served" he'll be about 60 when he gets out.
- clarky07 13y ago
  right. missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Stop putting words in my mouth.
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      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."
      - sp332 13y ago
        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 didn't say that.
        13y ago

zeteo 13y ago

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 humanity at large. By exposing questionable decisions and arguably a number of war crimes, Manning broke his oath with the US Army but did a much greater service to the rest of us. By choosing to make an example out of his punishment, the US has struck a huge blow to its claims of moral superiority and American exceptionalism.

enraged_camel 13y ago
Exactly. The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as "a form of government as well as a personality and social trait [that] is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience." It seems people are quick to point out that Manning broke some rules, but are too narrow-minded to look up and see the big picture. Manning undeniably made a service to the greater good, which is the good of his country. Whether he broke some rules internal to his organization should not even have come into play in this trial.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I feel like you're fighting a different battle than the one that exists. One in which Manning uncovered and released targeted evidence of clear war crimes, instead of a bunch of unflattering information along with some evidence that was at best ambiguous and at most showed bad judgment on the part of some soldiers.
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  "The stubborn application of law is not justice. It is authoritarianism, which Wikipedia defines as [...]" That is super stupid. You don't understand authoritarianism, then, citations of Wikipedia aside. You do a disservice to the actual victims of authoritarianism. EDIT: Look at the downvoting.. and this is nice compared to what I wrote at first. Since I'm already -3, I'll remove the politeness filters and say that this comment is idiotic. Stubborn application of the law is authoritarianism? How is that not the dumbest thing written on the internet today. Perhaps I'm the stupid one for believing that WORDS have MEANINGS beyond what is convenient at the moment. It's like people saying that food stamps are socialism. It's not opinion, it's INCORRECT.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not earlier, and have not picked it up again since.

jusben1369 13y ago
"Fuck you"?! You do realize you're trying to bully and intimidate someone whose opinion you don't agree with i. (and just happens to be factually correct and fairly balanced in delivery) Kind of ironic I'd say.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The "fuck you" is in response to a transparent attempt to exclude others from the discussion by asserting that they lack the credentials to participate in it, even though such "credentials" are plainly not required. Although uncivil, it was not entirely unwarranted.
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    "Civilians might not like it, or even understand" is not an attempt to exclude civilians from the conversation, it's just an observation that civilians are unlikely to understand the complexities of the justice system internal to the armed forces. I'm a civilian, but I understand that joining the military means you are legally subject to additional laws and codes which are enforced completely by and within the armed forces. It must be possible to understand that what Manning did was both the right thing to do and a clear violation of the armed forces code he agreed to uphold. Unlike civilian law, the armed forces must place a premium on obedience. People volunteer for and agree to these rules, so the outrage isn't as warranted.
    - jlgreco 13y ago

devx 13y ago

So what it's a different organization? The army is not Ku Klux Klan or the mafia, is it?

gnaritas 13y ago
It's worse. Insubordination is a jail-able crime in the military, think about that; telling someone no, or simply showing disrespect whether on or off duty to the wrong person can land you in jail. The military life is a different world with vastly different crimes and rules than the civilian world. You can misbehave in public off base while off duty and still get demoted at work (pay cut) because of your behavior. Your law is the UCMJ, not the law civilians follow.

frank_boyd 13y ago

Note to self: don't join the army.

zmb_ 13y ago

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 misconduct is a good for the society, someone should not face any penalty for doing so.

pionar 13y ago
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 the video, nor the number of civilian casualties, those are accidents and mistakes, but in the misrepresentation of those events. That is not really in and of itself wrong.) And really, the thing that got him most in trouble were the hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables that exposed no wrongdoing but still exposed state secrets.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  > 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-international-wikileaks-arab-spring http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-interna... [2] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/wikihistory-did-leaks-inspire-arab-spring http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/wikihistory-did-l...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The cables themselves didn't express any American wrongdoing though. It expressed American opinions regarding other nations' governments and internal politics. And either way I wouldn't be so quick to claim that inciting those revolutions is on the balance a positive thing for either Manning or Wikileaks, for the same reason that toppling Saddam's despotic regime was not (on the balance) a good thing.

hisabness 13y ago

you seem knowledgeable about military courts. do you know if anyone has the power to grant pardons within the military court system?

baddox 13y ago

> Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Maybe that makes sense if the only relevant is between the Armed Forces and Manning. But here's the thing: civilians are the ones paying for the military.

ThomPete 13y ago

So collateral damage is only acceptable when its the military that does it?

grandalf 13y ago

I don't think anyone expected Manning to be found innocent. But it will be quite telling whether he is eventually pardoned. The most worrisome aspect to me is that the administration does not appear to be remotely open to pardoning either Manning or Snowden, while at the same time ignoring the abuses each revealed. Before this happened, I would have expected the response to be more measured and would have expected there to be some kind of review/investigation of the crimes revealed by the leaks in tandem with attempts to punish the whistleblower... then later after the investigation a possible pardon. That we are not seeing this happen makes me wonder if I am wrong about the degree to which we have the rule of law in the US.

chris_mahan 13y ago
There are many people who vote in America who are not ready to pardon the administration.
Shivetya 13y ago
Obama could do it on his way out. Obama should do it now, but I will be fine if he waits, just as long as he does it. Until then Manning's incarceration will serve as a focal point to the dishonesty that pervades our government.

throwaway9848 13y ago

Every single thing you wrote is objectively correct, but in spite of that there are a couple of dozen responses calling you names and saying you are wrong. Fascinating. Anyway, I'm personally glad that the military has finally prosecuted him and that he can get on with his life after serving his time.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Manning.

crgt 13y ago

Do the rules prohibit, say, a General lying to Congress?

j2d3 13y ago
It may be that one set of rules (the UCMJ) requires him to lie (about this particular topic), while another set of rules make lying to congress illegal. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" often put people into paradoxes where they were required by one set of rules to not disclose their sexuality while another set of circumstances + rules required them to disclose it (ie., not lie), or face penalties.
mpyne 13y ago
Would it matter? The rules do not all go away just because they have not been always evenly enforced. It's like saying you should be able to go on a sleepover because Foolene's parents let her go. Manning was either guilty of not guilty of the things he was charged with, and that is independent of what some General says to Congress. If the system does not ensure equal justice then the system should be fixed, but that would not change anything relating to Manning's actions and the consequences of those actions. You'd think with as many web devs as we have on HN that more people would understand stateless protocols and independent transactions.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. I wish there were more citizens in the uniforms who take their oaths as seriously as he did. The same goes regarding Snowden. The whole of NSA takes an oath to protect the US constitution on the one hand. On the other NSA has programs that basically destroy the US Constitution. And the only guy who takes his Oath seriously and reveals NSA's anti-Constitution war is the guilty one? Something wrong with the morals of the people in the uniforms nowadays. The Oath is to be taken seriously. If you take an Oath to protect the US Constitution and then are given orders that basically destroy it, you bear the responsibility not to fulfill them and reveal those secret actions to the US public.

Perceval 13y ago
> Manning swore to protect the US Constitution and did just that. What did he reveal that was unconstitutional?
- mindslight 13y ago
  Modern USG is neither proscribed nor prescribed by the written constitution - it is extraconstitutional (same as Google). However, as it has usurped the constitutional government and is forcefully extracting our wealth to fund its empire, it is a domestic enemy.

wisty 13y ago

If the law is selectively applied, it's not the rule of law. I think you'll find a lot of people here will think that they threw the book at him, because he challenged the system. And Snowden is actually in the same boat here. He's not military, but he had clearance, so he's liable for quite a bit. I'm not sure which court would trial him, so there might be some differences.

mpyne 13y ago
Manning is the single most prolific leaker of U.S. documents in history. By what standard do you think that a 35-year sentence, with possibility of parole, is "selectively applied"?

VladRussian2 13y ago

>No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. now that you mentioned it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fight... .... b. Your obligations as a U.S. citizen and a member of the armed forces result from the traditional values that underlie the American experience as a nation. These values are best expressed in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which you have sworn to uphold and defend. You would have these obligations—our country, your service and unit and your fellow Americans—even if the Code of Conduct had never been formulated as a high standard of general behavior. ...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

enry_straker 13y ago

Bullshit. Where is the code of conduct when the torturers of Abu ghraib went scott free. Where is the code of conduct when the people who engineered a war and tore apart two countries went scott free Where is the code of conduct when the current President orders remote drone strikes against countries when there has been no declaration of war. No matter how you spin it, this is 'not the armed forces code of conduct' For you to allege it is, is to dis-honor the men and women who serve in the us military.

Vivtek 13y ago
I agree that your first example should have been covered - at high levels - by the code of conduct. However, the other two are civilian authorities who acted illegally, not military personnel who violated the code of conduct. Wrong jurisdiction. Those would be covered by international war crimes cases, something to which the United States of America will never submit. Alternatively, they could also be addressed by a moral President - unfortunately, Obama decided we should just all move on and ignore the war crimes committed in our name.

gadders 13y ago

35 years, and he needs to do a third before he is eligible for parole. He has also served 3 years in jail already. He could be out in 8 or 9 years. Not that harsh.

samastur 13y ago
There's a big assumption you're making there. Nothing and nobody can guarantee him parole then. I don't expect it will happen and even if it does, I don't see 12 years in prison as a light sentence.

adnam 13y ago

Just want to point out that Charles Graner served only 6 year in prison for his role in Abu Ghraib, which in my mind was a far graver offence.

hugi 13y ago

Sounds like a pretty crazy club. Even illegal.

6d0debc071 13y ago

You have not stated something that's mutually exclusive with the statement you are replying to. It's possible for military law to be used precisely as the person was claiming it was - to support the implementation of questionable policy through enforced ignorance of the people. Indeed one could argue that to a great extent that's what military law in this regard is for in the first place. # Personally, I think there's only room for one law in a country. The minute you start splitting off separate courts for special interests, in which civilian juries can't intervene, you make a mockery of the idea of civilian control - separate it too far from the issues for it to be meaningfully applied.

mcgwiz 13y ago

Ah, yes. The law. If someone breaks the law, they are punished. Justice is that simple. Oh, wait, unless the laws happen to constrain the interrogation techniques used against detainees. Or if they prevent access to the private lives of American citizens. Or if they protect whistleblowers. Or if they get in the way of fighting terrorism in any other way. But aside from that minor footnote of an afterthought, the law is the law, so we all need to just shut up and accept it.

Macsenour 13y ago

I think this is the main point that I repeat over and over, the UCMJ is that he swore to uphold and abide by and by THAT rule of law he was tried against. Being in the military is different than NOT being in the military.

a3n 13y ago
He was also tried for computer fraud and abuse, which I don't think is specifically in the UCMJ. But I agree with your overall point. He's subject to civilian law and the UCMJ.

dgregd 13y ago

> Snowden is different I'll change the topic a bit. For one good Snowden there are ten bad types like Gordon Gekko or Francis Underwood. I just wonder what bad types do with the data NSA has.

OmIsMyShield 13y ago

Guess the old "change the system from within"-mantra doesn't fly too well with everyone.

bborud 13y ago

You are of course aware of the historic context for that line of reasoning and the comparisons to relatively recent history that it points to? The ultimate consequence of which is that even defining war-crimes is pointless since there would be no way to legally present evidence.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

> Not so long ago he would have been executed for it, 35 is a soft ruling. That is a demonstrably false statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

mpyne 13y ago
Ellsberg was not in uniform though.