4 ms·

She is refusing to testfify because "she has nothing more to offer".. Totally legit.

by lucd 7y ago

weego 7y ago
Absolutely but the old boys club plays it a different way. Give them the spectacle of the grand jury but answer every question with "please refer to my previous testimony"
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Seems likely their goal is to manufacture new charges to pin on her via deception or other means of tricking her into committing perjury during testimony (something people frequently get away with, especially if it's not clear-cut, but she would not)
  - matt4077 7y ago
    Seems likely their goal is what it says on the box, I. e. collect evidence against Assange. There’s no reason to overcomplicate this with conspiracy theories.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    She was offered immunity to testify so even if she reveals something incriminating it wouldn't be admissible as evidence against her. Furthermore, she already has the right not to self-incriminate. So if a question came her way that would require her to implicate herself in a crime, she could plead the 5th. Manning really isn't in any legal jeopardy here, except for refusing to testify. She has a personal objection to testifying, which is her right, but the remedy to that is being held in contempt until she changes her mind or the grand jury concludes.
    - tgragnato 7y ago
      Sometimes you have to play by the rules, bending them to your own needs. I agree with her points, but she's stubborn. I highly doubt that any judge could understand the reasons of her behaviour: if you spend most of your work time slavishly applying laws, regulations, .. legislated by someone else, it's not in your mindset. It would be really much more simple an pragmatic to give them the spectacle of the grand jury. She could even answer with something such as "I need to follow back after consulting with my lawyers".
JetSpiegel 7y ago
She was actually jailed for seven years already for this very accusation. Is this not double jeopardy?
- matt4077 7y ago
  Her testimony is sought as a witness. She is being sent to jail for refusing to testify, not as any sort of criminal punishment. Her previous conviction (and rules against double jeopardy) actually somewhat weaken her position, because she can no longer invoke the 5th amendment. Edit: sorry for elucidating the actual legal basis. It seems to have been mistaken as an argument as to wether Manning deserves jail or not.
  - pluma 7y ago
    She only got out because Obama commuted her sentence. She pissed off a lot of high ranking people in the military and intelligence communities and in politics. You could make a case for coercive detention but her treatment during her detention for refusing to testify at the previous grand jury was excessively cruel. In case you missed it: she was still undergoing after-care from her surgery last year. Her lawyers made a case that the detention facility had neither the means nor the qualifications to assist her and that failing to do so could cause permanent injury and significant complications (with bad hygiene also presenting a significant infection risk). The judge agreed with the US marshals that the facility would in fact be equipped to provide this. That turned out to be false. Additionally she was kept in solitary confinement again for 28 days until she literally threw up. The treatment of Chelsea Manning can only be described as cruel and excessive, especially if you consider that this is already how she was treated during her incarceration. Prolonged solitary confinement for weeks is a form of torture and causes permanent mental harm and trauma. She wasn't detained for some violent crime. She was detained for refusing to provide another testimony in a secret court on issues she has already addressed and was already convicted for. Grand juries aren't criminal trials. Grand juries are dragnets used to generate accusations that can be used to find something to justify an investigation with. Even if you think grand juries aren't blatantly oppressive you have to admit that the damage that resulted from her punishment from refusing to testify on the previous grand jury far exceeded the stated punishment (i.e. detention, not corporeal punishment or torture) and that there's no reason to believe she will be treated any more favorably this time (or the next). If you argue that solitary confinement isn't torture because it doesn't involve physical violence, I would at least ask you to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZfPYRkEGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZfPYRkEGk EDIT: If you argue that grand juries are perfectly fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta... > According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government. Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation. A chief judge of New York State's highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: "[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury." In other words: grand juries forego almost all of the restrictions of due process. The US and Liberia are the only two countries in the world that have grand juries and haven't gotten rid of them yet.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

She is refusing to testfify because "she has nothing more to offer".. Totally legit.

by lucd 7y ago

She is refusing to testfify because "she has nothing more to offer".. Totally legit.

Absolutely but the old boys club plays it a different way. Give them the spectacle of the grand jury but answer every question with "please refer to my previous testimony"

kevingadd 7y ago
Seems likely their goal is to manufacture new charges to pin on her via deception or other means of tricking her into committing perjury during testimony (something people frequently get away with, especially if it's not clear-cut, but she would not)
- matt4077 7y ago
  Seems likely their goal is what it says on the box, I. e. collect evidence against Assange. There’s no reason to overcomplicate this with conspiracy theories.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  She was offered immunity to testify so even if she reveals something incriminating it wouldn't be admissible as evidence against her. Furthermore, she already has the right not to self-incriminate. So if a question came her way that would require her to implicate herself in a crime, she could plead the 5th. Manning really isn't in any legal jeopardy here, except for refusing to testify. She has a personal objection to testifying, which is her right, but the remedy to that is being held in contempt until she changes her mind or the grand jury concludes.
  - tgragnato 7y ago
    Sometimes you have to play by the rules, bending them to your own needs. I agree with her points, but she's stubborn. I highly doubt that any judge could understand the reasons of her behaviour: if you spend most of your work time slavishly applying laws, regulations, .. legislated by someone else, it's not in your mindset. It would be really much more simple an pragmatic to give them the spectacle of the grand jury. She could even answer with something such as "I need to follow back after consulting with my lawyers".

JetSpiegel 7y ago

She was actually jailed for seven years already for this very accusation. Is this not double jeopardy?

matt4077 7y ago
Her testimony is sought as a witness. She is being sent to jail for refusing to testify, not as any sort of criminal punishment. Her previous conviction (and rules against double jeopardy) actually somewhat weaken her position, because she can no longer invoke the 5th amendment. Edit: sorry for elucidating the actual legal basis. It seems to have been mistaken as an argument as to wether Manning deserves jail or not.
- pluma 7y ago
  She only got out because Obama commuted her sentence. She pissed off a lot of high ranking people in the military and intelligence communities and in politics. You could make a case for coercive detention but her treatment during her detention for refusing to testify at the previous grand jury was excessively cruel. In case you missed it: she was still undergoing after-care from her surgery last year. Her lawyers made a case that the detention facility had neither the means nor the qualifications to assist her and that failing to do so could cause permanent injury and significant complications (with bad hygiene also presenting a significant infection risk). The judge agreed with the US marshals that the facility would in fact be equipped to provide this. That turned out to be false. Additionally she was kept in solitary confinement again for 28 days until she literally threw up. The treatment of Chelsea Manning can only be described as cruel and excessive, especially if you consider that this is already how she was treated during her incarceration. Prolonged solitary confinement for weeks is a form of torture and causes permanent mental harm and trauma. She wasn't detained for some violent crime. She was detained for refusing to provide another testimony in a secret court on issues she has already addressed and was already convicted for. Grand juries aren't criminal trials. Grand juries are dragnets used to generate accusations that can be used to find something to justify an investigation with. Even if you think grand juries aren't blatantly oppressive you have to admit that the damage that resulted from her punishment from refusing to testify on the previous grand jury far exceeded the stated punishment (i.e. detention, not corporeal punishment or torture) and that there's no reason to believe she will be treated any more favorably this time (or the next). If you argue that solitary confinement isn't torture because it doesn't involve physical violence, I would at least ask you to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZfPYRkEGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZfPYRkEGk EDIT: If you argue that grand juries are perfectly fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta... > According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government. Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation. A chief judge of New York State's highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: "[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury." In other words: grand juries forego almost all of the restrictions of due process. The US and Liberia are the only two countries in the world that have grand juries and haven't gotten rid of them yet.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]