3 ms·

> 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 wit

by jlgreco 13y ago

> 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. Nobody here, as far as I can understand, is actually questioning that the UCMJ had jurisdiction so while your understanding there is appreciated, it was never really in question... The issue is a conflation of legality and morality. Conflating the two, then asserting that civilians may not understand and are unequipped to discuss the two separately, is toxic to discussion and society as a whole. It is an attempt to remove civilians from the discussion, a discussion that they absolutely must be apart of. As much as some people may wish it, this ain't Starship Troopers.

fusiongyro 13y ago
The OP said this isn't rule of law, it's savage reprisals. The counter to that was that it is military law, with an aside that civilians don't usually appreciate the difference. It's a little obnoxious to be accused of conflating things one has explicitly separated, but I suppose on this topic those that are outraged are mainly here to vent rather than discuss, and there's nothing wrong with that, so I think I'll bow out here.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Perhaps that is vague, but to me that is clearly a statement about a distinct lack of justice. He obviously isn't saying that the UMCJ doesn't exist or that Manning does not fall under it; that would just be silly. In an immoral legal system, justice is fleeting. He is accusing them of, not 'not existing', nor being incorrect, but rather of rendering a verdict that deserves no respect. That's how I read it anyway. Edit: His (much later) comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625) indicates to me that he understands this situation just fine. "I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military.... ...I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization...."

by jlgreco 13y ago

fusiongyro 13y ago

The OP said this isn't rule of law, it's savage reprisals. The counter to that was that it is military law, with an aside that civilians don't usually appreciate the difference. It's a little obnoxious to be accused of conflating things one has explicitly separated, but I suppose on this topic those that are outraged are mainly here to vent rather than discuss, and there's nothing wrong with that, so I think I'll bow out here.

jlgreco 13y ago
Perhaps that is vague, but to me that is clearly a statement about a distinct lack of justice. He obviously isn't saying that the UMCJ doesn't exist or that Manning does not fall under it; that would just be silly. In an immoral legal system, justice is fleeting. He is accusing them of, not 'not existing', nor being incorrect, but rather of rendering a verdict that deserves no respect. That's how I read it anyway. Edit: His (much later) comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251625) indicates to me that he understands this situation just fine. "I'm not disputing that Manning broke the laws of the military.... ...I don't see how you can defend the laws and regulations of an organization...."