Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law.

He is a traitor who has endangered lives.

If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.



A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law.

So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?

Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place.

If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.

Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?


> So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?

Sure, but money doesn't change the facts.

After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.

> Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?

There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.

Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.


Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.

That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point?

There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.

Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by.

Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.

The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".


> What's your point?

1. Why does need a fund? It won't make much difference, he has already confessed.

2. There are plenty of other people with their lives on the line who don't get the kind of sympathy he did.

He built nothing. He didn't rise ranks. He's a childish, selfish heartbreaker who hasn't shown an inkling of remorse for the damage he has caused.

> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Also, while I don't have an example of it, his security clearance also required a pledge. (Found it: The SF-312 http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_a...)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926

These often state how leaking of such information can cause great damage. Snowden did the same pledge.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: