4 ms·

OP asked if double jeopardy applies. It clearly doesn't. Your conviction, which I share, that Manning was treated exceedingly bad (apart from the commutation) h

OP asked if double jeopardy applies. It clearly doesn't. Your conviction, which I share, that Manning was treated exceedingly bad (apart from the commutation) has nothing to with double jeopardy. If grand juries have become problematic, or if prison conditions are terrible, or if police forces are institutionally racists one needs to argue for specific remedies for these problems. A wholesale rejection of the rule of law for these weaknesses will not lead to a magical place of justice, but to further decline. Especially when it's facilitated by a healthy dose of motivated reasoning.

mrguyorama 7y ago
It's worth noting that other than going to jail for SEVERAL YEARS for what I understand to essentially contempt of court, her treatment is not that much different from the average "disliked" inmate in prison. This is a bad thing
pluma 7y ago
The question isn't whether she's in contempt for refusing to testify. She is and the legal consequence is that she will be detained until the grand jury is over or she agrees to testify. That's fine. Legally speaking this is all working as designed. What isn't fine is that she is being tortured and that she is knowingly put in a situation of not being provided the level of medical care she needs. This isn't a consequence of her contempt. This is because the judge listened to her medical requirements and decided the detention facility could meet them while being fully aware that that isn't the case. Even if you think that solitary confinement is not torture, the judge knowingly and needlessly put her at significant risk of infection and medical complications. The detention facility then additionally put her in solitary confinement and treated her like a high risk prisoner. As for "rejection of the rule of law": yes, grand juries are part of the US legal system. But something being legal doesn't mean it's just or that it is as it should be. Until a few decades ago, racial segregation was part of the rule of law in the US. Almost everything the nazi government did in Germany was part of the rule of law in Germany at the time. Rejecting unjust laws or institutions is not a rejection of "the rule of law" as a whole. Grand juries have been replaced with more adequate instruments in most other countries and in the US are abused to subvert the standards regular investigations are bound to. Protesting grand juries or demanding their abolition doesn't "reject the rule of law", it's the exact opposite: it demands better laws and a more just application of those laws.

mrguyorama 7y ago

It's worth noting that other than going to jail for SEVERAL YEARS for what I understand to essentially contempt of court, her treatment is not that much different from the average "disliked" inmate in prison. This is a bad thing

pluma 7y ago

The question isn't whether she's in contempt for refusing to testify. She is and the legal consequence is that she will be detained until the grand jury is over or she agrees to testify. That's fine. Legally speaking this is all working as designed. What isn't fine is that she is being tortured and that she is knowingly put in a situation of not being provided the level of medical care she needs. This isn't a consequence of her contempt. This is because the judge listened to her medical requirements and decided the detention facility could meet them while being fully aware that that isn't the case. Even if you think that solitary confinement is not torture, the judge knowingly and needlessly put her at significant risk of infection and medical complications. The detention facility then additionally put her in solitary confinement and treated her like a high risk prisoner. As for "rejection of the rule of law": yes, grand juries are part of the US legal system. But something being legal doesn't mean it's just or that it is as it should be. Until a few decades ago, racial segregation was part of the rule of law in the US. Almost everything the nazi government did in Germany was part of the rule of law in Germany at the time. Rejecting unjust laws or institutions is not a rejection of "the rule of law" as a whole. Grand juries have been replaced with more adequate instruments in most other countries and in the US are abused to subvert the standards regular investigations are bound to. Protesting grand juries or demanding their abolition doesn't "reject the rule of law", it's the exact opposite: it demands better laws and a more just application of those laws.