Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

We're upset because Aaron was an activist while many of us capable of doing what he did, just sit on our couches or comfy chairs.

We're upset because the full legal power of the government was used as a weapon against him almost as if he was mass murderer instead of his "crime" being just setting information that was technically free in the first place, actually free.

We're upset because instead of waiting pensively for what his sentence would be and protesting what would undoubtedly be unjust, all we can do is remember who he was and triumph his cause in the hope that this won't happen again.

He didn't deserve to feel this was his only way out and he had so much more to contribute based on his past accomplishments.

I guess the problem with us identifying with Bradley Manning in comparison is he didn't do things like contribute to RSS and Markdown. But the information he set free is just as important.

View on HN

"I guess the problem with us identifying with Bradley Manning in comparison is he didn't do things like contribute to RSS and Markdown."

No, my problem identifying with Manning was that he exposed private communications involving the State Department, which could have consequences for our foreign relations and national security. Swartz was downloading scientific journals, which is an entirely different ballgame.

Very few people believe that State Department communications should be public. So, even if you convince everyone that some injustice was done to Manning because of specific situations that called for whistle-blowing, it does not reveal any general problem in the federal justice system.

With Swartz, I think just telling his story will cause many people to realize how broken the federal justice system is.

There are nearly 5 million people with access to US "top secret" level information.

So I would disagree about how public you think it is just because it's not on the nightly news.

Are there 5 million people with access to that specific top secret information?

My understanding is that you only get access to some top secret information, not the keys to the castle.

imho the american mentality is a hysterical and one can observe this in esp. in media induced reactions.

A friend pointed out Aaron Swartz is our Lady Di of the hacker culture and it fits nicely.

The US (loony) laws and the US "justice system" is fueled by that blinding hysteria in which commensurability is just a muted voice of reason far away.

I wish Bradley Manning would receive this fierce reaction of an actual influential lobby like us. And he didn't take the easy way out.

Explain to me why what Bradley Manning did should be legal.

I don't feel that what he did was legal. On the other hand, the way he has been incarcerated and treated while in military prison seems excessively cruel.

Cruel? He hasn't been excuted for exposing private government communications, including internal communications on national security issues and correspondence with foreign governments. That is potentially treason, and just a few decades ago he would have been summarily executed after a quick, brief trial.

> Explain to me why what Bradley Manning did should be legal.

Allegedly did. You see? Comments like that are exactly the problem. Aren't we "innocent until proven guilty?" And that is why everyone is upset about Bradley Manning. He's been treated like a criminal though he's never been convicted.

There's no presumption of innocence in the military justice system. It's not common law, and military courts are heavily biased in the prosecution's favor.

After 2 years, he is still in prison without prosecution. How legal is this?

How legal were the action the US gov were responsible for which Manning bravely exposed?

I don't think the US judiciary has a fixed concept of legal. The US became a plutocracy and either you are influential or not.

Thus the legality of your actions seem to depend often on this belonging and to which group the "victim" belongs.

Daniel Ellsberg did something quite similar and branding him a criminal is the wrong narrative! At least he got a trial. Manning not so much.

The US have a Whistleblower Protection Act sure, but one shouldn't care about his own well being.

Pvt Manning was a member of the armed forces at the time of his alleged crime, and thus is not subject to most of the procedural protections afforded to civilian defendants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com