4 ms·

Secret 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 r

by tuxxy 8y ago

Secret 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”
evgen 8y ago
This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the role of grand juries in the legal system. A grand jury is used to determine of there are sufficient facts for the state to make an indictment and therefore to protect the accused they are _always_ secret. They are not used to prosecute people, they are used as a filter to prevent unwarranted prosecution.
- refurb 8y ago
  You said it better than I could. I mean what's the alternative? The judge says "You have to testify" and the person says "no" and the judge says "ok"?
- tuxxy 8y ago
  It's as if no one is even reading the link I posted in response to this. > Today, FBI, police harassment and secret grand juries are being used to attack Muslims and other immigrants, Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native, anti-war, anarchist, environmental and animal rights activists and movements. These incidents are not isolated, and they are not happening because the government wants to "solve crimes." They are an attack on all our movements: an attempt to divide us, isolate outspoken individuals, create fear and distrust among us, and rewrite our history of resistance as "criminal." The government will use secret grand juries to get activists to testify against other activists, thus splitting up movements and pitting the participants against each other. It undermines basic democratic principles no matter how grand juries were _supposed_ to be used. It's historically been used as a weapon of the state to fight against activists. This goes back to the days of McCarthyism.
  - evgen 8y ago
    I read the link and rejected its pages of persecution-complex thesis and lack of worthwhile supporting evidence. The grand jury compels activists to testify when they are involved with or witness to crimes and conspiracies. The witnesses are not picked at random or for political purposes, but some political groups that have violent edges will sometimes find themselves facing a society that does not share its appreciation of "direct action". Some of the more radical elements of the groups you mention _are_ criminal and dealing with the via criminal prosecution is much better than the alternatives (which is not to just leave them alone but rather to treat them as terrorists, traitors, unlawful combatants, or simply line them up against a wall and shoot them.)
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Secret Grand Juries have been used to prosecute activists for decades now. That's true only in the sense that: (1) In the US, all serious offenses in the federal system must either have a grand jury indictment or the defendant waiving their right to indictment in order to proceed, as a matter of Constitutional rights of the accused, and (2) Secrecy is (as the federal courts have found) an essential element of the character of a criminal grand jury, included within the Constitutional requirement, and (3) Activists have sometimes been prosecuted for serious federal crimes, without waiving their fifth amendment rights (almost no one waives indictment except as part of a plea bargain), requiring an indictment by a (inherently secret) grand jury as a pre-requisite. But there's no special link between grand juries and prosecution of activists, specifically. You might as well say “papers filed in courts have been used to prosecute activists, so I refuse to participate in any paper-filing-in-court.”

by tuxxy 8y ago

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”

evgen 8y ago

This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the role of grand juries in the legal system. A grand jury is used to determine of there are sufficient facts for the state to make an indictment and therefore to protect the accused they are _always_ secret. They are not used to prosecute people, they are used as a filter to prevent unwarranted prosecution.

refurb 8y ago
You said it better than I could. I mean what's the alternative? The judge says "You have to testify" and the person says "no" and the judge says "ok"?
tuxxy 8y ago
It's as if no one is even reading the link I posted in response to this. > Today, FBI, police harassment and secret grand juries are being used to attack Muslims and other immigrants, Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native, anti-war, anarchist, environmental and animal rights activists and movements. These incidents are not isolated, and they are not happening because the government wants to "solve crimes." They are an attack on all our movements: an attempt to divide us, isolate outspoken individuals, create fear and distrust among us, and rewrite our history of resistance as "criminal." The government will use secret grand juries to get activists to testify against other activists, thus splitting up movements and pitting the participants against each other. It undermines basic democratic principles no matter how grand juries were _supposed_ to be used. It's historically been used as a weapon of the state to fight against activists. This goes back to the days of McCarthyism.
- evgen 8y ago
  I read the link and rejected its pages of persecution-complex thesis and lack of worthwhile supporting evidence. The grand jury compels activists to testify when they are involved with or witness to crimes and conspiracies. The witnesses are not picked at random or for political purposes, but some political groups that have violent edges will sometimes find themselves facing a society that does not share its appreciation of "direct action". Some of the more radical elements of the groups you mention _are_ criminal and dealing with the via criminal prosecution is much better than the alternatives (which is not to just leave them alone but rather to treat them as terrorists, traitors, unlawful combatants, or simply line them up against a wall and shoot them.)

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Secret Grand Juries have been used to prosecute activists for decades now. That's true only in the sense that: (1) In the US, all serious offenses in the federal system must either have a grand jury indictment or the defendant waiving their right to indictment in order to proceed, as a matter of Constitutional rights of the accused, and (2) Secrecy is (as the federal courts have found) an essential element of the character of a criminal grand jury, included within the Constitutional requirement, and (3) Activists have sometimes been prosecuted for serious federal crimes, without waiving their fifth amendment rights (almost no one waives indictment except as part of a plea bargain), requiring an indictment by a (inherently secret) grand jury as a pre-requisite. But there's no special link between grand juries and prosecution of activists, specifically. You might as well say “papers filed in courts have been used to prosecute activists, so I refuse to participate in any paper-filing-in-court.”