11 ms·
Chelsea Manning jailed for contempt of court
- threatofrain 8y agoLikely for ideological reasons as Chelsea Manning was offered immunity for the testimony. The paper mentioned interestingly that Chelsea has served the longest sentence for leaking information.
- joe_the_user 8y agoOffering limited immunity and demanding testimony is standard procedure for grand juries and civil libertarians have been complaining about the way in which this has been abused for years. The only way out of this sort of thing is making the legal argument the person simply isn't going to testify and the jailing is basically punishment, not coercion (where is considered OK here since it's supposedly not self incrimination). If anyone could considered unwilling to testify, it would be Manning, since she's already served a huge sentence for leaking information.
- thinkingemote 8y agoIs a custodial sentence mandatory for contempt of court? Seems like the prosecutors didn't want it.
- wl 8y agoThis isn't a sentence. This isn't a crime being punished. It's civil contempt. It's designed to coerce the person in custody into complying with the court order. It's often said that in such circumstances that the person being detained "holds the keys to their own jail cell."
- tannhauser23 8y agoExcept that at the end of the civil contempt confinement the prosecutors often file criminal contempt charges.
- thrill 8y agoCivil contempt can be generally viewed as (not) doing something for the benefit of the complainant. In criminal contempt it's for the benefit (or protection of the sanctity) of the court itself.
- gnode 8y agoThat doesn't mean that the coercion couldn't be: pay a fine for each day you fail to comply, as is commonly used to coerce corporate persons. Putting someone in a cell for something when they're not a danger or flight risk is barbarism.
- learc83 8y agoThe most common reason for holding someone in contempt is for refusing to follow an order to pay money. Ordering them to pay more money isn't going to be effective. There really isn't anything else you can do. You can take their stuff, but if they had assets that could easily be seized, you would do that in the first place. Corporations can be fined into compliance because making money is generally a corporation's only purpose. The closest equivalent for and individual is removing time from their life--jail time. A jail cell is basically the last resort to force compliance. It's also what will eventually happen to individuals running a corporation if they keep defying court orders.
- gnode 8y agoThat's true, but in this case it's not being used as a last resort, but seemingly as a matter of course.
- dragonwriter 8y agoThe only statement from the prosecutor that is vaguely in that direction seems to be that they preferred compliance to incarceration, not that they didn't want incarceration so long as the non-compliance continues: “The government does not want to confine Ms. Manning,” said Tracy McCormick. “She could change her mind right now and decide to testify.”
- chris_mc 8y ago"Stop hitting yourself," in other words.
- learc83 8y agoIn this case there is no sentence. The judge is holding her in contempt to compel her to testify, not as a punishment. And the prosecutors most definitely want it: “The government does not want to confine Ms. Manning,” said Tracy McCormick. “She could change her mind right now and decide to testify.” It's not that they didn't ask the judge to do this.
- cynoclast 8y agoFor being unwilling to testify against a journalist it's worth pointing out.
- lotu 8y agoUnfortunately, that journalist is being investigated for crimes so that is somewhat inevitable. This also, is the opposite of a journalist going to jail to protect a source, Manning is the source and everyone already knows that.
- bunderbunder 8y agoMy understanding is that it's unclear exactly what crimes the journalist is being investigated for. There are supposedly some First Amendment issues at play here, and it's reasonable to wonder why the prosecutors have worked so hard at avoiding any exposure to the best disinfectant. Which, it's worth pointing out, Manning has also said that she's willing to testify, but only by light of day, not behind closed doors.
- organsnyder 8y agoGiven the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation—not only the political implications, but also the fact that it involves a state known to conduct assassinations on foreign soil—a closed-door hearing is entirely reasonable.
- anoncoward111 8y agoWhy cant the public know about who we are paying taxes to assassinate?
- bunderbunder 8y agoYeah, definitely. But questioning the closed-door hearing is also reasonable. This is really a case of dueling ideologies. I have a hard time seeing either party as being unreasonable, they just have differing values.
- andrewla 8y agoIt was apparently the closed nature of the grand jury. She's happy to testify in public, and claims that all questions that were asked were reiterations of questions that she has answered in other forums, including her court martial.
- dragontamer 8y agoYeah, but that's complete baloney. I understand Manning wants to keep her beliefs or whatever, but there's no law protecting that kind of behavior. The 5th Amendment is against SELF-incrimination. The US Government is 100% allowed to force you to spill your secrets about other people. Furthermore, not all details of a case is made to a jury. Only the details deemed acceptable (ie: impermissible evidence is kept away from the Jury, to help provide a more fair trial). So its not like everything should be public. ------------ Does anyone have a general idea for what is going on exactly? Like what this Wikileaks case is even about? I feel like Manning is a red-herring, irrelevant to the main story. Its like Manning is the "clickbait" portion of the article, but nothing else is elaborated upon.
- andrewla 8y agoShe claims protection from the "First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights", not the fifth amendment. I assume first because she would be under some sort of gag order about the proceedings. Fourth I'm not getting; unreasonable search and seizure? Sixth is probably the public part of "public and speedy" trial, but seems slightly dubious, since she is not on trial, and apparently has an immunity deal in place, and my understanding is that transactional immunity breaks the shield of the fifth amendment, so it seems that it would apply here as well.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pmoriarty 8y ago"She claims protection from the "First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights", not the fifth amendment. I assume first because she would be under some sort of gag order about the proceedings." IANAL, but from what I understand, grand jury witnesses are not bound to secrecy (though everyone else in a grand jury is). So I'm not sure where the First Amendment challenge would come from.
- mLuby 8y agoHow is this not double-jeopardy? Manning already served her term for a Wikileaks-related matter.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- teraflop 8y agoThis has nothing to do with double jeopardy. Being convicted of a crime does not grant you immunity from prosecution for future charges of a similar nature. (And in any case, refusing to testify in front of a grand jury is not a remotely similar charge to espionage; the fact that they're both "Wikileaks-related" is irrelevant.)
- cwyers 8y agoBecause this isn't for those, this is for contempt of court.
- dec0dedab0de 8y agoThat is kind of the point. She is not answering questions in protest of the grand jury system.
- cypherpunks01 8y agoImmunity was already granted for the testimony, this is not a trial for Chelsea in any way.
- morpheuskafka 8y agoDouble jeopardy doesn't cover "related matters," it covers charges for the same conduct. In this case, the conduct charged is refusing to testify. Also, this is civil contempt not criminal contempt so it's not really a charge at all, it doesn't leave a criminal record.
- dang 8y agoUrl changed from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-contempt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-manni..., since the thread that had that URL attracted more comments even though it was posted later.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pera 8y agoAnecdotally by the same judge who ordered a $5,000-a-day fine to Ladar Levison from Lavabit, back in 2013, until he provided the SSL private keys in electronic form (originally he printed them in 11 pages of 4pt text).
- wonderwoman3 8y agoOCR technology is obviously some unknown black magic for the high-profile government officials and their aides. Doesn't really surprise me though...
- crushcrashcrush 8y agoIt was clearly a punishment for acting like a petulant child.
- Bartweiss 8y agoIt's worth noting that Levison may not have been handing over written keys as an act of protest/petulance/whatever, but as a delaying tactic. He'd been looking for legal aid (and failing, because under a gag order he couldn't request non-attorney help finding it), and was in court without representation. Levinson was ordered to produce keys on August 1, and did so on paper August 2. It took until the 5th to get together a contempt charge and an order to surrender digital keys by the 6th. Honestly, the alternative doesn't make much sense. If he just provided paper keys as a final insult, expecting them to be used, why shutter the entire service when someone called him on it? Why then wait two days past the start of the fines to pull the plug? I'm not surprised that Levinson caught a contempt charge for printing the keys, although it's pretty ugly if he's right in his claim that he was denied a hearing to contest the charge, then denied appeal for his failure to contest it. But doing so seems less like a move to irritate people than a way to drag out the process without naked defiance.
- wilg 8y agoWhat? Ordering the person to turn over the information in a useful format is a way more sensible plan than OCRing it from text.
- duxup 8y agoWith wikileaks coordination with Trump and Co.... I gotta wonder if folks who gave wikileaks info earlier on regret who they gave the information to. Leaking to some group on the internet, you really don't know their motives / affiliation or if it might change.
- jonny_eh 8y agoIt should but cognitive dissonance is strong.
- whatshisface 8y agoWikileak's "affiliation" is perceived to be the opposite of whoever the last group they exposed was. You could easily "change it," just send something exposing someone else. Clearly, this is not how affiliation works; suggesting that they might not have much of an affiliation in the first place.
- duxup 8y agoFor the record I said coordination. My comment about affiliation was purely a comment on the fact that you just don't know what the future might hold.
- dragontamer 8y agoNah, just a lot of people clearly don't care about the law, and care more about making sure "their side" gets an advantage. Tribalism instead of law and order. But that's standard politics for you...
- seisvelas 8y agoWas there "coordination" aside from Democrats being angry that a lot of leaks over the best decade paint Hillary Clinton in a bad light? The left seemed pretty willing to hate on Clinton as the archetypal imperialistic neoliberal archvillain, until she became the nominee against Trump. I'm reminded of this video from Rap the News that I recall seeing as typical of how the leftist internet thought of Hillary Clinton during the Obama era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ When it was Bush's State Department being exposed committing war crimes, was Wikileaks coordinating with Gore and co?
- iron0013 8y agoEspecially coming immediately after Manafort got off easy, this is an absolute travesty.
- Simulacra 8y agoIt's worth noting that murderers have gotten less time. If you recall, prosecutors threatened Aaron Schwartz with massive jail time that totally didn't fit the crime.
- justcorrect 8y agopretty straightforward, given immunity for testimony and still refuses to testify. If this were Mueller prosecuting, everyone would be cheering.
- typeformer 8y ago#FREEChelseaManning
- epx 8y agoYeah, happy Women's Day >:(
- Tomte 8y agoI understand that she feels thankful to Julian Assange, and doesn't want to harm him, but I don't see why she should be allowed to choose not to testify. "Because I testified in a different trial years ago" isn't terribly convincing.
- curiousjorge 8y agohe's a traitor
- thrill 8y agoManning is also someone that has information about a criminal proceeding and is refusing to cooperate. That Manning was previously convicted and served (significantly commuted) time for committing espionage is irrelevant to the charges of contempt of court.
- curiousjorge 8y agoshe is obviously struggling under immense pressure but doesn't change the fact that she deviated from given mission payed by the American tax payer. Why is it suddenly wrong to state reality as is? She was an employee of the US military, and therefore liable for any damage she incurs to her employer, surely this is a matter of ethics (HN seems to have a really fucked up moral compass in general) that most people can see why it would morally reprehensible.
- house_atr 8y agoIndefinite imprisonment really needs to be looked at in the land of the free
- tuxxy 8y agoSecret Grand Juries have been used to prosecute activists for decades now. In fact, there's been a historical movement to do exactly what Chelsea is doing and resist them.[0] I have a friend who did just this and was held in contempt for a year or so. What's odd about Chelsea's case is that she's decided to _refuse_ to testify straight up. Normally, various resistance activists would have a statement of resistance that they would answer to any of the questions that the Grand Jury would have. To give some insight on Grand Juries, you're not allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning and you _must_ answer the question or be held in contempt. They've been used to violate our rights for decades now. 0. http://grandjuryresistance.org/ http://grandjuryresistance.org/
- dragontamer 8y ago> They've been used to violate our rights for decades now. Which rights would those be? The obvious "right", the 5th Amendment, only applies to self-incrimination. The government has the power (AND SHOULD use that power) to compel witnesses to testify about crimes they know about. If you are a witness, you have a duty to testify what you know. In this particular case, Manning has full immunity, so she can't harm herself with any statement (thereby protecting her 5th Amendment rights). The less obvious right: 1st Amendment, is somewhat broken. But its necessary for Grand Juries to work at all. The entire case cannot be officially filed until the Grand Jury says there's enough evidence for a Trial to begin. To protect the innocent, the details of Grand Jury proceedings are kept secret (if the Grand Jury torpedoes the case, the case will remain a secret forever and no one will even know what the Government was accusing anyone about). In essence: Grand Juries protect the innocent from false court cases from the US Government. That protection only works if all involved in a Grand Jury is sworn to secrecy. EDIT: Through other discussion, it seems like Manning is 1st, claiming 4th (search-and-seizure) and 6th Amendment rights (speedy trial), none of which make sense to me at all. Manning isn't at trial here, she's being held in contempt for refusing to testify. That's very standard.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Which rights would those be? The obvious "right", the 5th Amendment ...includes the right not be prosecuted for serious offenses without a grand jury indictment. The first clause of the Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”
- pmoriarty 8y agoI first read about this on Boing Boing[1], which said Manning believes that "since testimony before grand juries is secret, grand juries can create fear by suggesting that some members of a political community may be secretly cooperating with the government. In this way, grand juries can seed suspicion and fear in activist communities." I'm not sure how not being in a grand jury absolves activists from suspicions of secretly cooperating with the government, because one doesn't need to be in a grand jury to secretly cooperate with the government. In fact, if secrecy in cooperation was paramount, then participating in a grand jury would seem to be counterproductive to maintaining such secrecy. Later, the article states: "By serving Chelsea Manning with a grand jury subpoena, the government is attempting once again to punish an outspoken whistleblower for her historic disclosures. We stand with Chelsea in support of her refusal to participate in this repressive and undemocratic process. "Grand juries are notoriously mired in secrecy, and have historically been used to silence and retaliate against political activists. The indiscriminate nature of grand juries means the government can attempt to artificially coerce a witness into perjury or contempt. Chelsea gave voluminous testimony during her court martial. She has stood by the truth of her prior statements, and there is no legitimate purpose to having her rehash them before a hostile grand jury." If Manning is willing to testify truthfully and publicly on the subject, then I'm not sure how participating in a grand jury would expose her to either perjury or contempt. It's only if she lied or refused to testify that she could be charged with perjury or contempt, right? But she's not refusing to testify altogether and is not saying she's going to lie, so where does the purjury and contempt worry come from? Finally, why does the statement refer to a "hostile grand jury"? How is a grand jury hostile? [1] - https://boingboing.net/2019/03/03/chelsea-resists.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/03/chelsea-resists.html
- mugwump 8y agoNot an "intelligence officer", an E-4 specialist. Terrible journalism.
- doe88 8y agoThe DC of Alexandria seems to be to security issues what the eastern DC of Texas is to patent trolls. Both specialized in stretching the law to its limits.