6 ms·

I don’t find “nothing more to offer” to be a good reason to refuse to cooperate. When you’re called as a witness, you go and tell the truth, fully and nothing b

I don’t find “nothing more to offer” to be a good reason to refuse to cooperate. When you’re called as a witness, you go and tell the truth, fully and nothing but. Exceptions apply regarding self-incrimination, attorney-client privileges, and a few others. But those are democratically agreed on. I would agree that Manning got treated far too harshly, and the commutation (pardon?) of her sentence by Obama is a rather high-level recognition of that opinion. But of all the institutions we have, some of which seem somewhat necessary for the continued functioning of society, the courts have held up relatively well in these times of partisan breakdown of norms. And I say that even though I have a list of verdicts I disagree with that is probably longer than yours. Please try to consider a case that is reversed from your political point of view. Say a soldier who committed war crimes and, after serving their sentence, refuses to testify against their partners. Would you still grant them a right to refuse testimony?

fartcannon 7y ago
War crimes is not even remotely equivalent to whistle blowing.
- YayamiOmate 7y ago
  It doesn't matter. There is no legal distinction here. Do you still say it's fine practice, because it's warcrimes? Who then would decide what topic is worthy of jailing people for refusal of cooperation? This is the problem. You can't base this on an opinion, you'd easily find people thinking war crimes are less harmful than exposing army secrets. I'd like to be judged in a setting that does not make me afraid of judges political views. The law should leave as little wiggle room for interpretarion as possible while maintaining sensibility.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    >It doesn't matter. There is no legal distinction here. Who died because of Wikileaks? Who dies in cases of a war crime?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  It is inherent in the idea of "finding a crime where you sympathise with the prosecution as much as you do with Manning's defence" that you will tend to believe one of those crimes to be far worse than the other.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>"Say a soldier who committed war crimes and, after serving his sentence, refuses to testify against their partners. Would you still grant them a right to refusal on these grounds?" Other than asking them, there is no moral way to compel someone to testify if they do not want to speak. Jailing them repeatedly one question at a time is clearly abusive. edit - this isn't difficult ethically. Unless you construct some imminent scenario (puppy trapped down well, etc.), you are locking someone up purely to know more. They aren't themselves depriving you directly of anything other than their perspective on events.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  You're arguing against every law on the matter in any number of countries generally considered democratic, so I do believe that it isn't quite as easy, ethically, as you assert.
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >Jailing them repeatedly one question at a time is clearly abusive. I believe this statement is where they tried to delineate between "a number of countries" and this instance but I'm not the OC, so I can't speak for them; however, that's the way that I'm reading it.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      I possibly put it badly. I have no problem with courts questioning people or even the detainment for questioning (as long as it does not become a pattern of harrassment). What I am against is ongoing detention outside of what is neccesary for the purposes of attempting to ask someone questions. If they do not speak, then you have to keep asking, but you cannot ask all the time. Locking someone up, especially in solitary as it appears they have done in this case, as a punishment for not speaking, is pretty barbaric.
- prepend 7y ago
  Subpoena are considered moral, I think, because testimony is required for democratic society so that we don’t rely on hearsay. There are many situations where someone does not “want” to testify, but it is necessary to better understand the truth. If someone could just decline subpoenas then we would lost rule of law. I think it’s worth pointing out that there are checks on judges issuing subpoenas and it’s not done arbitrarily.
jessaustin 7y ago
This analogy is faulty. Assange is not a fellow soldier; he is a journalist operating outside USA. Therefore he has a completely different set of responsibilities, while a "war crime partner" would not. Also the grand jury is only partly about Assange, whom they already know they won't get extradited from UK. It's also about engineering a perjury trap to punish Manning for a few more decades. She has no reason to trust the "justice" system and she might prefer contempt to the likely alternative.
- username444 7y ago
  This tribal mentality of "US"(A) vs. them is outdated. We live in a global world where while laws haven't caught up, you can use your head and judge whether something is right or wrong. It's clear when someone - anyone - regardless of nationality is being abused for political reasons. Would you want to spend the rest of your life in either of their situations? For something you did once? For something that benefitted millions of people? I'm not saying they're clear of any responsibility and shouldn't have been punished, but this is beyond anything reasonable.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > We live in a global world where while laws haven't caught up, you can use your head and judge whether something is right or wrong. The problem with that is that not everyone comes up with the same answer. Maybe most do in a majority of cases, but many times the answers diverge. Which is why we have to codify the expectations so even if you believe that action XYZ is OK, you are on notice that society has agreed and published that it's not (or vice versa).
chj 7y ago
Given what she went through in her own trial and jail, when she said "nothing more to offer", I think it's not hard to believe that they already got everything out of her. How the grand jury could think otherwise is beyond me.
Waterluvian 7y ago
Maybe an argument can be made by some that repeated summons to testify is possibly harassing.
Miner49er 7y ago
Yeah I would. The current system is essentially torturing people into testifying.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  That's the same broken logic that crackpots railing against taxation or speeding tickets or zoning law use. All state action is ultimately enforced with the threat of violence. That doesn't mean enforcing something relatively minor such as seatbelt laws is tyranny.
matz1 7y ago
Yes absolutely, the soldier have every right to refuse.
thatoneuser 7y ago
So you're saying compulsory speech is something you want? Maybe you'd enjoy China
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  "Compulsory Speech" means the Government forcing you to say a specific thing. Forcing testimony, via subpoena or otherwise, is as old as courts are. The Fifth Amendment says: "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", which implies that they can be compelled to be a witness against others.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    How does this work? If the potential witness says nothing, or the "wrong" thing, the police can just torture her until her testimony changes? Can we not have that please?
leereeves 7y ago
> Please try to consider a case that is reversed from your political point of view. For my part, there is no such case. There is no case where I would feel "that person should not receive a defense" but I do feel Manning should not have been prosecuted. (And I'm generally pro-military, until they try to hide the truth from the American people.)

fartcannon 7y ago

War crimes is not even remotely equivalent to whistle blowing.

YayamiOmate 7y ago
It doesn't matter. There is no legal distinction here. Do you still say it's fine practice, because it's warcrimes? Who then would decide what topic is worthy of jailing people for refusal of cooperation? This is the problem. You can't base this on an opinion, you'd easily find people thinking war crimes are less harmful than exposing army secrets. I'd like to be judged in a setting that does not make me afraid of judges political views. The law should leave as little wiggle room for interpretarion as possible while maintaining sensibility.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  >It doesn't matter. There is no legal distinction here. Who died because of Wikileaks? Who dies in cases of a war crime?
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
It is inherent in the idea of "finding a crime where you sympathise with the prosecution as much as you do with Manning's defence" that you will tend to believe one of those crimes to be far worse than the other.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>"Say a soldier who committed war crimes and, after serving his sentence, refuses to testify against their partners. Would you still grant them a right to refusal on these grounds?" Other than asking them, there is no moral way to compel someone to testify if they do not want to speak. Jailing them repeatedly one question at a time is clearly abusive. edit - this isn't difficult ethically. Unless you construct some imminent scenario (puppy trapped down well, etc.), you are locking someone up purely to know more. They aren't themselves depriving you directly of anything other than their perspective on events.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
You're arguing against every law on the matter in any number of countries generally considered democratic, so I do believe that it isn't quite as easy, ethically, as you assert.
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  >Jailing them repeatedly one question at a time is clearly abusive. I believe this statement is where they tried to delineate between "a number of countries" and this instance but I'm not the OC, so I can't speak for them; however, that's the way that I'm reading it.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    I possibly put it badly. I have no problem with courts questioning people or even the detainment for questioning (as long as it does not become a pattern of harrassment). What I am against is ongoing detention outside of what is neccesary for the purposes of attempting to ask someone questions. If they do not speak, then you have to keep asking, but you cannot ask all the time. Locking someone up, especially in solitary as it appears they have done in this case, as a punishment for not speaking, is pretty barbaric.
prepend 7y ago
Subpoena are considered moral, I think, because testimony is required for democratic society so that we don’t rely on hearsay. There are many situations where someone does not “want” to testify, but it is necessary to better understand the truth. If someone could just decline subpoenas then we would lost rule of law. I think it’s worth pointing out that there are checks on judges issuing subpoenas and it’s not done arbitrarily.

jessaustin 7y ago

This analogy is faulty. Assange is not a fellow soldier; he is a journalist operating outside USA. Therefore he has a completely different set of responsibilities, while a "war crime partner" would not. Also the grand jury is only partly about Assange, whom they already know they won't get extradited from UK. It's also about engineering a perjury trap to punish Manning for a few more decades. She has no reason to trust the "justice" system and she might prefer contempt to the likely alternative.

username444 7y ago
This tribal mentality of "US"(A) vs. them is outdated. We live in a global world where while laws haven't caught up, you can use your head and judge whether something is right or wrong. It's clear when someone - anyone - regardless of nationality is being abused for political reasons. Would you want to spend the rest of your life in either of their situations? For something you did once? For something that benefitted millions of people? I'm not saying they're clear of any responsibility and shouldn't have been punished, but this is beyond anything reasonable.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > We live in a global world where while laws haven't caught up, you can use your head and judge whether something is right or wrong. The problem with that is that not everyone comes up with the same answer. Maybe most do in a majority of cases, but many times the answers diverge. Which is why we have to codify the expectations so even if you believe that action XYZ is OK, you are on notice that society has agreed and published that it's not (or vice versa).

chj 7y ago

Given what she went through in her own trial and jail, when she said "nothing more to offer", I think it's not hard to believe that they already got everything out of her. How the grand jury could think otherwise is beyond me.

Waterluvian 7y ago

Maybe an argument can be made by some that repeated summons to testify is possibly harassing.

Miner49er 7y ago

Yeah I would. The current system is essentially torturing people into testifying.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
That's the same broken logic that crackpots railing against taxation or speeding tickets or zoning law use. All state action is ultimately enforced with the threat of violence. That doesn't mean enforcing something relatively minor such as seatbelt laws is tyranny.

matz1 7y ago

Yes absolutely, the soldier have every right to refuse.

thatoneuser 7y ago

So you're saying compulsory speech is something you want? Maybe you'd enjoy China

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
"Compulsory Speech" means the Government forcing you to say a specific thing. Forcing testimony, via subpoena or otherwise, is as old as courts are. The Fifth Amendment says: "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", which implies that they can be compelled to be a witness against others.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  How does this work? If the potential witness says nothing, or the "wrong" thing, the police can just torture her until her testimony changes? Can we not have that please?

leereeves 7y ago

> Please try to consider a case that is reversed from your political point of view. For my part, there is no such case. There is no case where I would feel "that person should not receive a defense" but I do feel Manning should not have been prosecuted. (And I'm generally pro-military, until they try to hide the truth from the American people.)