3 ms·

> 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 straw

by 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
> Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. And that's utter baloney. Its confusing enough to be on a jury, to be pulled out of work and then forced to work on a case you kind of don't care about... while getting paid basically minimum wage to do it. Witnesses are gagged so that the overall discussion that happens in court will take place in an orderly manner. The prosecutor and the defendant will both have opportunities to ask questions and make their case to the jury. But under no circumstances is a witness allowed to inject their personal politics into a case. As such, they are gagged with respect to the information they tell. If the Prosecutor isn't willing to bring forward some pieces of data... and the defendant also doesn't want to bring it up in cross-examination, then there's really nothing else for the Witness to say. > 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. The Trial will be public. But the discussion BEFORE the trial is secret. The prosecutors need to get their story straight before they make a public discussion. This is basic court stuff. The defendant gets an opportunity to see all the evidence before the trial. Both sides are sworn to secrecy to help the process move forward. Its a complete clusterFFFF if you get witnesses and whatever throwing pre-trial evidence to the media. ------------- This is an order to testify before a Grand Jury. Technically speaking: this means that the prosecutors haven't even proven that there's enough evidence to officially give a charge yet. The Grand Jury is called to provide the answer to the question: is there enough circumstantial evidence to begin an official trial? To leak information this early in the game would just be nasty, to both the prosecutors and the defendants.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > This is basic court stuff No, it is not "standard procedure" for a country to have secret accusations against someone, for almost a decade, and to lie about it, and pretend like they don't, for all this time. This has been what has happened all along. The whole reason Assange is in the Embassy is because he says the US has secret accusations against him and extradition orders. The government said otherwise. Anti WikiLeaks people said otherwise. They said it was a crazy conspiracy theory. These people were wrong. These people were lying. And everyone got tricked, and those of us who did actually believe that the US had secret accusations against Assange, were right. We were proven correct, and it took almost a decade for this to come to light. And now, of all times, when the people who lied, pretended, or got tricked into not believing that the US had secret accusations against Assange just got 100% proven wrong, well now the narrative is "oh, it is perfectly normal to have secret accusations against someone for a decade! Nothing to see here!" No it not normal. The government makes public accusations against people all the time. They have arrest warrants, they have most wanted lists, they give their opinion on the law and who broke them all the time. This is normal, and it is a healthy part of the justice system to make their accusations public.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    > No it not normal. The government makes public accusations against people all the time. They have arrest warrants, they have most wanted lists, they give their opinion on the law and who broke them all the time. AFTER a Grand Jury proceeding. Yeah, they're allowed to be public with the accusation only AFTER a jury has convened and said "there's enough evidence to publicly make the accusation". Come on dude. You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      > You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret Umm, no. If there have been secret accusations and secret courts and secret trials against someone for almost a decade, the very best way to protect that defendant is to make the information public. This is especially true if the defendant is the one demanding it all be made public.
akiselev 8y ago
That's the same as refusing to testify. You don't get to chose the format of your testimony, especially not in a grand jury which are secret to protect the innocent as well as prosecute the guilty.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> This statement is false. No, it's not. > Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. That's meaningless, and probably only being stated because Manning knows (if only because her lawyers must know this) that it is meaningless. Criminal grand jury proceedings are secret, period, and criminal grand jury proceedings and findings are required initial step (absent confession) for serious federal criminal prosecution. Refusing to testify secretly is refusing to testify, period, and the claim that she is challenging the secrecy of the proceedings is meaningless PR fluff. > Society should not be run on secret courts. The criminal grand jury process is not a secret court that runs society; it is a secret process that must complete before certain charges are made, which are then prosecuted openly in the same court. > If the US government wants to accuse wikileaks of something, then let them do so publicly. The grand jury process is a gatekeeping function for public accusations of certain crimes. The US is trying to make a public accusation, and Manning is unlawfully interfering with the process by which it's desire to do so is assessed.

dragontamer 8y ago

> Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. And that's utter baloney. Its confusing enough to be on a jury, to be pulled out of work and then forced to work on a case you kind of don't care about... while getting paid basically minimum wage to do it. Witnesses are gagged so that the overall discussion that happens in court will take place in an orderly manner. The prosecutor and the defendant will both have opportunities to ask questions and make their case to the jury. But under no circumstances is a witness allowed to inject their personal politics into a case. As such, they are gagged with respect to the information they tell. If the Prosecutor isn't willing to bring forward some pieces of data... and the defendant also doesn't want to bring it up in cross-examination, then there's really nothing else for the Witness to say. > 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. The Trial will be public. But the discussion BEFORE the trial is secret. The prosecutors need to get their story straight before they make a public discussion. This is basic court stuff. The defendant gets an opportunity to see all the evidence before the trial. Both sides are sworn to secrecy to help the process move forward. Its a complete clusterFFFF if you get witnesses and whatever throwing pre-trial evidence to the media. ------------- This is an order to testify before a Grand Jury. Technically speaking: this means that the prosecutors haven't even proven that there's enough evidence to officially give a charge yet. The Grand Jury is called to provide the answer to the question: is there enough circumstantial evidence to begin an official trial? To leak information this early in the game would just be nasty, to both the prosecutors and the defendants.

stale2002 8y ago
> This is basic court stuff No, it is not "standard procedure" for a country to have secret accusations against someone, for almost a decade, and to lie about it, and pretend like they don't, for all this time. This has been what has happened all along. The whole reason Assange is in the Embassy is because he says the US has secret accusations against him and extradition orders. The government said otherwise. Anti WikiLeaks people said otherwise. They said it was a crazy conspiracy theory. These people were wrong. These people were lying. And everyone got tricked, and those of us who did actually believe that the US had secret accusations against Assange, were right. We were proven correct, and it took almost a decade for this to come to light. And now, of all times, when the people who lied, pretended, or got tricked into not believing that the US had secret accusations against Assange just got 100% proven wrong, well now the narrative is "oh, it is perfectly normal to have secret accusations against someone for a decade! Nothing to see here!" No it not normal. The government makes public accusations against people all the time. They have arrest warrants, they have most wanted lists, they give their opinion on the law and who broke them all the time. This is normal, and it is a healthy part of the justice system to make their accusations public.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  > No it not normal. The government makes public accusations against people all the time. They have arrest warrants, they have most wanted lists, they give their opinion on the law and who broke them all the time. AFTER a Grand Jury proceeding. Yeah, they're allowed to be public with the accusation only AFTER a jury has convened and said "there's enough evidence to publicly make the accusation". Come on dude. You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret Umm, no. If there have been secret accusations and secret courts and secret trials against someone for almost a decade, the very best way to protect that defendant is to make the information public. This is especially true if the defendant is the one demanding it all be made public.

akiselev 8y ago

That's the same as refusing to testify. You don't get to chose the format of your testimony, especially not in a grand jury which are secret to protect the innocent as well as prosecute the guilty.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> This statement is false. No, it's not. > Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly. That's meaningless, and probably only being stated because Manning knows (if only because her lawyers must know this) that it is meaningless. Criminal grand jury proceedings are secret, period, and criminal grand jury proceedings and findings are required initial step (absent confession) for serious federal criminal prosecution. Refusing to testify secretly is refusing to testify, period, and the claim that she is challenging the secrecy of the proceedings is meaningless PR fluff. > Society should not be run on secret courts. The criminal grand jury process is not a secret court that runs society; it is a secret process that must complete before certain charges are made, which are then prosecuted openly in the same court. > If the US government wants to accuse wikileaks of something, then let them do so publicly. The grand jury process is a gatekeeping function for public accusations of certain crimes. The US is trying to make a public accusation, and Manning is unlawfully interfering with the process by which it's desire to do so is assessed.