7 ms·

It 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 que

It 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 ago
Yeah, 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 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. 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.
    - andrewla 8y ago
      Not in general bound to secrecy, but apparently this is some sort of "secret" grand jury that's secret in a way that grand juries are not usually secret. I can't seem to find any details on this point though, so it might just be overblowing the default "secrecy" that goes into normal grand jury proceedings.
      - Bartweiss 8y ago
        One interesting theory I've seen: Manning's appeal to the First Amendment might imply she's under an NSL or other gag order? I can sort of picture an argument where Manning has been barred from speaking publicly on some topic, and so being compelled to give secret testimony would turn a legal gag order into an illegal one. 100% speculation, but it would at least fit a few of those pieces together.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > One interesting theory I've seen: Manning's appeal to the First Amendment might imply she's under an NSL or other gag order? It's a bizarre claim that this would even be relevant, but the whole claim of both constitutional and statutory privilege against immunized testimony before a federal grand jury (on matters where her own conduct would probably already be largely protected by double jeopardy, even without immunization) is pretty facially bizarre, so maybe. It's impossible to tell the basis of the claim without the (sealed) motion filed to quash the subpoena. > I can sort of picture an argument where Manning has been barred from speaking publicly on some topic, and so being compelled to give secret testimony would turn a legal gag order into an illegal one. I can't see a case where that would be the case (public gag orders for things that one still must discuss in closed proceedings aren't all that uncommon), but that doesn't stop her from arguing it even if it is wrong.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I don't see the baloney. Believing a law is unjust is not the same thing as believing it doesn't exist. She never said she expects there to be no repercussions for refusing to testify. She said previously that she was aware that she is likely to go to jail over this, and accepted the consequences. As far as I'm aware, she never claimed she's exercising her 5th amendment rights. The ones she listed in her refusal to answer the questions were the 1st, 4th and 6th. I don't care to guess at the connection she sees there on any of those fronts, but I also haven't seen it explained, so maybe I'm missing something.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > Believing a law is unjust is not the same thing as believing it doesn't exist. Yeah, and I'm of the opinion that the law is perfectly acceptable in this case. Its 100% acceptable to jail someone who refuses to testify in a criminal case, especially if they have information about that criminal case. If you know someone is a murderer and you have evidence for it... it is a CRIME to hide that evidence from the police. Period. That's how our society works. Yeah, people hate snitches. Snitches get stiches, don't be a snitch, etc. etc. But lets be frank, if it weren't for snitches, then the Police wouldn't have any evidence to work off of at all. So the government is 100% in their power to compel people to snitch on others. Both legally AND morally. -------------- The greater question is what is going on exactly. There is very little discussion around here about what this "Wikileaks" case is. That's probably the root of the story.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > someone who refuses to testify in a criminal case, This statement is false. Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. I am not sure why you are strawmaning here. I think there very much is a moral stand to make here. Society should not be run on secret courts. If the US government wants to accuse wikileaks of something, then let them do so publicly. Secret courts are a huge infringement on justice.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The 5th Amendment is against SELF-incrimination. She hasn't claimed the fifth, she claimed that she is protected by the first, fourth, and sixth amendments, and other statutory rights. (On the surface, these claims are as implausible as a fifth amendment claim would be, but they are different and, in any case, if her attorneys have filed a brief making a legal case for it I haven't seen it and can't evaluate it.)
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    > On the surface, these claims are as implausible as a fifth amendment claim would be This was also my reaction, and I'm pretty curious if/how they'll be used. I presume the reason for citing all three Amendments was just to preserve options for a subsequent defense; you can't invent a new basis for your refusal at the contempt hearing. I see maybe two paths for the First Amendment invocation. It could be a right to privacy argument via freedom of assembly, since NAACP v. Alabama overturned contempt for failure to provide information about members of ideological organizations. That seems coherent, but not at all likely to work; Alabama was bringing suit against the NAACP and the court held that reveal of member roles would produce clear harm to the members. Or it could be a compelled speech argument, but that would be kind of dumb since it could cover any testimony at all. Testimony isn't an expression of belief, so the closest precedent is probably compelling companies to make "purely factual" statements, which is legal. (A press-shield argument would fit nicely, except that we don't actually have that right.) For the Fourth, I have basically nothing. Maybe some argument that demanding factual speech about a person's actions is comparable to a digital search like a wiretap? But there's a subpoena here, and subpoenas to gather current 'records' about past events work fine, so I really have no clue. The Sixth is fascinating, and I'm guessing it hinges on the Manning's opposition to a closed hearing. It's incredibly hard to close even hearings where judgement won't be issued, rather than merely closing specific segments, and giving someone a choice between private testimony and prison looks sort of like a de facto private trial. I'm pretty sympathetic, but I can't imagine it will stick; grand jury hearings are regularly private, and if that's not enough classified information rationales usually work. Does anyone else have a better guess at why they picked those three amendments?
    - 8y ago
- sigmar 8y ago
  >what is going on exactly? Like what this Wikileaks case is even about? There's a grand jury looking at indicting Julian Assange. Likely for stuff he did leading up to the release of the 2010 war logs (according to David House, who already testified to the GJ). I'd put money on it being specifically related to NTLM hash cracking or other help Assange gave to Manning in order to get the documents.
- philip1209 8y ago
  I believe that, if you have immunity, then you can be forced to testify - because you already cannot incriminate yourself. It's a weird legal loophole.
  - btilly 8y ago
    I didn't believe you so I hit google. Several links later, including https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power..., I am now convinced that you're right. Thanks! I learned something today! I also learned that immunity, when properly granted, protects you from both federal and state law. That has to be abusable...
  - torstenvl 8y ago
    That's correct. The Framers said "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." They could just as easily have said "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness." But they did not.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    This is true; it's become pretty standard practice to offer immunity, then compel testimony with Fifth Amendment protections waived. Presumably that's what motivated Manning's focus on the private hearing and invocation of the Sixth amendment. Manning isn't the one being charged at the hearing, but compelling private testimony under threat of incarceration looks rather like a de facto private trial.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Grand juries are secret for a number of reasons, not least of which is to protect people who are not indicted. And, also, to protect people who are indicted from reputational harm that may result from Grand jury testimony, which unlike trial testimony, is not subject to cross examination because it is not an adversarial proceeding, but a gatekeeping function ahead of serious criminal charges. Like any jury, one of the functions of a grand jury is to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, so the fact that questions were asked in other forums does not make it unnecessary or inappropriate for them to be asked of a witness before a grand jury.
- andrewla 8y ago
  All of that is true, but it seems that people think that this is different. I'm not sure though exactly what makes this proceeding more "secret" than a typical grand jury.
mindslight 8y ago
Do you have a source that explicitly says this? That was also my inference from this article but it was never outright said. Likely due to the bias of the nytimes.
- fastball 8y ago
  > A brief notice from Manning's representatives said that a statement was forthcoming. Manning reportedly told journalists outside the courthouse on Friday that she was ready to go to jail and would only testify in a public setting. > “These secret proceedings tend to favor the government,” she told reporters, according to the Post. “I’m always willing to explain things publicly.”
Tomte 8y ago
The Grand Jury is supposed to see and hear the witness first-hand, in order to evaluate her and her credibility. That's actually an important due process issue in favor of the accused.

dragontamer 8y ago

Yeah, 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 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. 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.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    Not in general bound to secrecy, but apparently this is some sort of "secret" grand jury that's secret in a way that grand juries are not usually secret. I can't seem to find any details on this point though, so it might just be overblowing the default "secrecy" that goes into normal grand jury proceedings.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      One interesting theory I've seen: Manning's appeal to the First Amendment might imply she's under an NSL or other gag order? I can sort of picture an argument where Manning has been barred from speaking publicly on some topic, and so being compelled to give secret testimony would turn a legal gag order into an illegal one. 100% speculation, but it would at least fit a few of those pieces together.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > One interesting theory I've seen: Manning's appeal to the First Amendment might imply she's under an NSL or other gag order? It's a bizarre claim that this would even be relevant, but the whole claim of both constitutional and statutory privilege against immunized testimony before a federal grand jury (on matters where her own conduct would probably already be largely protected by double jeopardy, even without immunization) is pretty facially bizarre, so maybe. It's impossible to tell the basis of the claim without the (sealed) motion filed to quash the subpoena. > I can sort of picture an argument where Manning has been barred from speaking publicly on some topic, and so being compelled to give secret testimony would turn a legal gag order into an illegal one. I can't see a case where that would be the case (public gag orders for things that one still must discuss in closed proceedings aren't all that uncommon), but that doesn't stop her from arguing it even if it is wrong.
bunderbunder 8y ago
I don't see the baloney. Believing a law is unjust is not the same thing as believing it doesn't exist. She never said she expects there to be no repercussions for refusing to testify. She said previously that she was aware that she is likely to go to jail over this, and accepted the consequences. As far as I'm aware, she never claimed she's exercising her 5th amendment rights. The ones she listed in her refusal to answer the questions were the 1st, 4th and 6th. I don't care to guess at the connection she sees there on any of those fronts, but I also haven't seen it explained, so maybe I'm missing something.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > Believing a law is unjust is not the same thing as believing it doesn't exist. Yeah, and I'm of the opinion that the law is perfectly acceptable in this case. Its 100% acceptable to jail someone who refuses to testify in a criminal case, especially if they have information about that criminal case. If you know someone is a murderer and you have evidence for it... it is a CRIME to hide that evidence from the police. Period. That's how our society works. Yeah, people hate snitches. Snitches get stiches, don't be a snitch, etc. etc. But lets be frank, if it weren't for snitches, then the Police wouldn't have any evidence to work off of at all. So the government is 100% in their power to compel people to snitch on others. Both legally AND morally. -------------- The greater question is what is going on exactly. There is very little discussion around here about what this "Wikileaks" case is. That's probably the root of the story.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > someone who refuses to testify in a criminal case, This statement is false. Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. I am not sure why you are strawmaning here. I think there very much is a moral stand to make here. Society should not be run on secret courts. If the US government wants to accuse wikileaks of something, then let them do so publicly. Secret courts are a huge infringement on justice.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The 5th Amendment is against SELF-incrimination. She hasn't claimed the fifth, she claimed that she is protected by the first, fourth, and sixth amendments, and other statutory rights. (On the surface, these claims are as implausible as a fifth amendment claim would be, but they are different and, in any case, if her attorneys have filed a brief making a legal case for it I haven't seen it and can't evaluate it.)
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > On the surface, these claims are as implausible as a fifth amendment claim would be This was also my reaction, and I'm pretty curious if/how they'll be used. I presume the reason for citing all three Amendments was just to preserve options for a subsequent defense; you can't invent a new basis for your refusal at the contempt hearing. I see maybe two paths for the First Amendment invocation. It could be a right to privacy argument via freedom of assembly, since NAACP v. Alabama overturned contempt for failure to provide information about members of ideological organizations. That seems coherent, but not at all likely to work; Alabama was bringing suit against the NAACP and the court held that reveal of member roles would produce clear harm to the members. Or it could be a compelled speech argument, but that would be kind of dumb since it could cover any testimony at all. Testimony isn't an expression of belief, so the closest precedent is probably compelling companies to make "purely factual" statements, which is legal. (A press-shield argument would fit nicely, except that we don't actually have that right.) For the Fourth, I have basically nothing. Maybe some argument that demanding factual speech about a person's actions is comparable to a digital search like a wiretap? But there's a subpoena here, and subpoenas to gather current 'records' about past events work fine, so I really have no clue. The Sixth is fascinating, and I'm guessing it hinges on the Manning's opposition to a closed hearing. It's incredibly hard to close even hearings where judgement won't be issued, rather than merely closing specific segments, and giving someone a choice between private testimony and prison looks sort of like a de facto private trial. I'm pretty sympathetic, but I can't imagine it will stick; grand jury hearings are regularly private, and if that's not enough classified information rationales usually work. Does anyone else have a better guess at why they picked those three amendments?
  - 8y ago
sigmar 8y ago
>what is going on exactly? Like what this Wikileaks case is even about? There's a grand jury looking at indicting Julian Assange. Likely for stuff he did leading up to the release of the 2010 war logs (according to David House, who already testified to the GJ). I'd put money on it being specifically related to NTLM hash cracking or other help Assange gave to Manning in order to get the documents.
philip1209 8y ago
I believe that, if you have immunity, then you can be forced to testify - because you already cannot incriminate yourself. It's a weird legal loophole.
- btilly 8y ago
  I didn't believe you so I hit google. Several links later, including https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power..., I am now convinced that you're right. Thanks! I learned something today! I also learned that immunity, when properly granted, protects you from both federal and state law. That has to be abusable...
- torstenvl 8y ago
  That's correct. The Framers said "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." They could just as easily have said "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness." But they did not.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  This is true; it's become pretty standard practice to offer immunity, then compel testimony with Fifth Amendment protections waived. Presumably that's what motivated Manning's focus on the private hearing and invocation of the Sixth amendment. Manning isn't the one being charged at the hearing, but compelling private testimony under threat of incarceration looks rather like a de facto private trial.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Grand juries are secret for a number of reasons, not least of which is to protect people who are not indicted. And, also, to protect people who are indicted from reputational harm that may result from Grand jury testimony, which unlike trial testimony, is not subject to cross examination because it is not an adversarial proceeding, but a gatekeeping function ahead of serious criminal charges. Like any jury, one of the functions of a grand jury is to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, so the fact that questions were asked in other forums does not make it unnecessary or inappropriate for them to be asked of a witness before a grand jury.

andrewla 8y ago
All of that is true, but it seems that people think that this is different. I'm not sure though exactly what makes this proceeding more "secret" than a typical grand jury.

mindslight 8y ago

Do you have a source that explicitly says this? That was also my inference from this article but it was never outright said. Likely due to the bias of the nytimes.

fastball 8y ago
> A brief notice from Manning's representatives said that a statement was forthcoming. Manning reportedly told journalists outside the courthouse on Friday that she was ready to go to jail and would only testify in a public setting. > “These secret proceedings tend to favor the government,” she told reporters, according to the Post. “I’m always willing to explain things publicly.”

Tomte 8y ago

The Grand Jury is supposed to see and hear the witness first-hand, in order to evaluate her and her credibility. That's actually an important due process issue in favor of the accused.