7 ms·

I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this strong under this much pressure. We seem to have completely lost our way at this p

I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this strong under this much pressure. We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up charges against your enemies and journalists in general. It feels like we’ll be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy. It doesn’t seem very easy to save them especially with the politicisation of the Supreme Court. How do we fight these things?

techntoke 7y ago
Because they offered immunity and is likely being held in contempt. They should just disclose what is happening behind the scenes, but my guess is they are worried that they'll compromise an ongoing investigation.
- boucher 7y ago
  Grand juries are secret by law. Nobody involved is allowed to talk about what happens in the grand jury, or even to acknowledge the subject of the investigation.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    So then by definition, the reason Manning is in jail again, is because she violated a secret request by a secret court. That seems very very wrong.
    - maxlybbert 7y ago
      It’s not the FISA court. Grand juries are part of the court system, but they aren’t courts like you normally think. They’re confidential proceedings where prosecutors show that they have enough evidence to charge somebody with a crime (in this case, Manning is not the target). The confidentiality is officially meant to protect the person who may be charged with a crime (grand juries can see information that courts cannot; news reports about grand jury proceedings could taint the jury pool, influence the future judge, and just hurt someone’s reputation without giving them a chance to respond) and to avoid interfering with ongoing investigations. Manning is in jail because she has a different idea of right and wrong than the judge does. That wouldn’t matter at a cocktail party, but in this case the judge has the power to punish Manning until she changes her mind about what the honorable thing to do is.
      - aassddffasdf 7y ago
        Seems like a practical alternative would be to simply "plead the 5th" in response to every question she is asked.
        JetSpiegel 7y ago
        On the latest thread on this, people who know better than me said the 5th Ammendment doesn't apply because she is not being charged with any crime, she is a witness on another case.
        aassddffasdf 7y ago
        That's false. 5th amendment certainly applies in that (and every other) case where one could incriminate themselves with their testimony.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        She can't plead the fifth because her testimony is already immunized (and, in any case, by all accounts—notably, her own—the mattress her testimony of sight on covers transactions for which she has already been criminally convicted and for which she is thus protected from further charges by the prohibition on double jeopardy.)
        aassddffasdf 7y ago
        That's false. No one knows what she _would_ say until she actually says it. She can certainly say "I can't say the answer to that because it would incriminate me (in ways that I don't already have immunity for)" and no one would have any way to verify that claim. Thus, it's a perfect response for every question.
        maxlybbert 7y ago
        The reports on this have been very muddled, which is a shame. I may have said a few incorrect things in my comments on the case (although I stand by this particular comment). There is no judge present in a grand jury hearing. The only reason Manning was in front of a judge was that her lawyers argued that the prosecutor was using the grand jury incorrectly. Since Assange has already been indicted, there isn’t much sense in collecting additional evidence from Manning. To be honest, that argument sounds plausible to me. The judge rejected it, and ordered Manning to testify or be held in contempt. Sadly, since the news reports generally ignore Manning’s legal arguments, they also ignore the details of the judge’s order. I can think of a couple of possibilities: (1) Assange isn’t the only target (I think this is unlikely, but possible), (2) the prosecutor intends to file additional charges against Assange (I think this would be likely in a case without extradition, but extradition complicates things), (3) Manning’s lawyers are simply wrong about the limits on grand juries, or (4) the prosecutor may well be doing something wrong, but the judge can always fix it after the fact and Manning is obligated to play along for now. I really would like to know why Manning’s request was denied. All I can say right now is that she’s in contempt because she refuses to testify in front of the grand jury knowing that she won’t be charged with any more crimes related to the matter and knowing that Assange has already been charged.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Probably why she's willing to go to jail over it.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > So then by definition, the reason Manning is in jail again, is because she violated a secret request by a secret court. There's no secret court involved. But, yes, grand jury proceedings are secret to protect the integrity of the system as an honest probable cause filter for serious charges, which is an important public check on government and protection of the potentially accused.
devoply 7y ago
You can't lump one thing with another. In this case there is a law that says you must do what a judge orders. That applies to anyone under scrutiny from the justice system.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 7y ago
  Could she just testify and say "I don't remember." and "I don't understand." all the time? That's pretty much what all CEOs and such do when they are testifying.
  - ak39 7y ago
    That’s weaseling out. She isn’t doing that here even though she could. She just doesn’t want to do that because I imagine she is principled. That’s honorable.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      I don't argue with that. But that's one silly law that judge can compel you to talk but you can easily weasel your way out of it by saying things that might be true and give no information. I think such law shouldn't exist as it can only harm only truthful, principled people but can do nothing to any wrongdoer.
      - trickstra 7y ago
        In principle, wrongdoers always have more options available than moral people. Because being moral prevents you from using some ways that would be considered immoral, while the wrongdoers don't have those restrictions, therefore can and will weasel out. In the movies the good side wins even despite this limitation, then heroes are celebrated for their morality and bravery, but in the real life... well...
    - nullc 7y ago
austincheney 7y ago
Jails are to isolate violators of law or legal process from the general public regardless of any opinions there upon. Putting a person in jail for contempt of court is legally just even if the underlying court case is absurd because it is the judicial process that is at threat.
- austincheney 7y ago
  Are people downvoting because they are hypersensitive about Manning or because something I wrote is not logically valid?
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    It's grossly lacking context.
    - austincheney 7y ago
      It’s a reply to comment that clearly stated an illusory nature of jails.
- abc-xyz 7y ago
  If it was that black and white then you better jail 99+% of the population who happens to jaywalk, drive a little too fast, drive past a yellow light, ride a bicycle without a helmet, etc. Also, why would you want to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation? The vast majority of those imprisoned are of no danger to society, and the way the US (and most other countries) focus on punishing someone for making a mistake greatly increase the chance that they'll continue to break the laws in the future and become a burden to society.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    > Also, why would you want to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation? I never stated any such opinion either for or against.
thrownaway954 7y ago
"I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this strong under this much pressure." she IS NOT brave, she is being stubborn and ruining her life because of it. testify, do what they want, and move on with your life. people like her strive to be the center of attention and chaos, though negative, is still attention. we as a society should not be encouraging this behavior by saying she is brave.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up charges against your enemies and journalists in general. The integrity of the grand jury process, which is itself an essential protection of the integrity of the criminal justice system, is a public interest that needs protected. > It feels like we’ll be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy. If her assault on the grand jury system were successful, yes, Manning would be at the forefront of the atrophy of key rights. > How do we fight these things? By vigorously defending the grand jury system, which protects people's names from being dragged through the mud attached to serious federal criminal charges without vetting of probable cause in a process in which government agents are obliged to secrecy against attacks like those Manning is making.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  It’s only the US and Liberia who kept the grand jury process from English common law, why did every other country get rid of it? Because secret trials are wrong and the law works fine without them.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > why did every other country get rid of it? Because distrust of government is lower in other common law countries than in the US, and the grand jury process is an outside check on government. > Because secret trials are wrong Grand jury proceedings are not trials, they are a hoop the government has to jump through before getting to file charges, much less reach a trial.

techntoke 7y ago

Because they offered immunity and is likely being held in contempt. They should just disclose what is happening behind the scenes, but my guess is they are worried that they'll compromise an ongoing investigation.

boucher 7y ago
Grand juries are secret by law. Nobody involved is allowed to talk about what happens in the grand jury, or even to acknowledge the subject of the investigation.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  So then by definition, the reason Manning is in jail again, is because she violated a secret request by a secret court. That seems very very wrong.
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    It’s not the FISA court. Grand juries are part of the court system, but they aren’t courts like you normally think. They’re confidential proceedings where prosecutors show that they have enough evidence to charge somebody with a crime (in this case, Manning is not the target). The confidentiality is officially meant to protect the person who may be charged with a crime (grand juries can see information that courts cannot; news reports about grand jury proceedings could taint the jury pool, influence the future judge, and just hurt someone’s reputation without giving them a chance to respond) and to avoid interfering with ongoing investigations. Manning is in jail because she has a different idea of right and wrong than the judge does. That wouldn’t matter at a cocktail party, but in this case the judge has the power to punish Manning until she changes her mind about what the honorable thing to do is.
    - aassddffasdf 7y ago
      Seems like a practical alternative would be to simply "plead the 5th" in response to every question she is asked.
      - JetSpiegel 7y ago
        On the latest thread on this, people who know better than me said the 5th Ammendment doesn't apply because she is not being charged with any crime, she is a witness on another case.
        aassddffasdf 7y ago
        That's false. 5th amendment certainly applies in that (and every other) case where one could incriminate themselves with their testimony.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        She can't plead the fifth because her testimony is already immunized (and, in any case, by all accounts—notably, her own—the mattress her testimony of sight on covers transactions for which she has already been criminally convicted and for which she is thus protected from further charges by the prohibition on double jeopardy.)
        aassddffasdf 7y ago
        That's false. No one knows what she _would_ say until she actually says it. She can certainly say "I can't say the answer to that because it would incriminate me (in ways that I don't already have immunity for)" and no one would have any way to verify that claim. Thus, it's a perfect response for every question.
      - maxlybbert 7y ago
        The reports on this have been very muddled, which is a shame. I may have said a few incorrect things in my comments on the case (although I stand by this particular comment). There is no judge present in a grand jury hearing. The only reason Manning was in front of a judge was that her lawyers argued that the prosecutor was using the grand jury incorrectly. Since Assange has already been indicted, there isn’t much sense in collecting additional evidence from Manning. To be honest, that argument sounds plausible to me. The judge rejected it, and ordered Manning to testify or be held in contempt. Sadly, since the news reports generally ignore Manning’s legal arguments, they also ignore the details of the judge’s order. I can think of a couple of possibilities: (1) Assange isn’t the only target (I think this is unlikely, but possible), (2) the prosecutor intends to file additional charges against Assange (I think this would be likely in a case without extradition, but extradition complicates things), (3) Manning’s lawyers are simply wrong about the limits on grand juries, or (4) the prosecutor may well be doing something wrong, but the judge can always fix it after the fact and Manning is obligated to play along for now. I really would like to know why Manning’s request was denied. All I can say right now is that she’s in contempt because she refuses to testify in front of the grand jury knowing that she won’t be charged with any more crimes related to the matter and knowing that Assange has already been charged.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Probably why she's willing to go to jail over it.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > So then by definition, the reason Manning is in jail again, is because she violated a secret request by a secret court. There's no secret court involved. But, yes, grand jury proceedings are secret to protect the integrity of the system as an honest probable cause filter for serious charges, which is an important public check on government and protection of the potentially accused.

devoply 7y ago

You can't lump one thing with another. In this case there is a law that says you must do what a judge orders. That applies to anyone under scrutiny from the justice system.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scotty79 7y ago
Could she just testify and say "I don't remember." and "I don't understand." all the time? That's pretty much what all CEOs and such do when they are testifying.
- ak39 7y ago
  That’s weaseling out. She isn’t doing that here even though she could. She just doesn’t want to do that because I imagine she is principled. That’s honorable.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    I don't argue with that. But that's one silly law that judge can compel you to talk but you can easily weasel your way out of it by saying things that might be true and give no information. I think such law shouldn't exist as it can only harm only truthful, principled people but can do nothing to any wrongdoer.
    - trickstra 7y ago
      In principle, wrongdoers always have more options available than moral people. Because being moral prevents you from using some ways that would be considered immoral, while the wrongdoers don't have those restrictions, therefore can and will weasel out. In the movies the good side wins even despite this limitation, then heroes are celebrated for their morality and bravery, but in the real life... well...
  - nullc 7y ago

austincheney 7y ago

Jails are to isolate violators of law or legal process from the general public regardless of any opinions there upon. Putting a person in jail for contempt of court is legally just even if the underlying court case is absurd because it is the judicial process that is at threat.

austincheney 7y ago
Are people downvoting because they are hypersensitive about Manning or because something I wrote is not logically valid?
- silversconfused 7y ago
  It's grossly lacking context.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    It’s a reply to comment that clearly stated an illusory nature of jails.
abc-xyz 7y ago
If it was that black and white then you better jail 99+% of the population who happens to jaywalk, drive a little too fast, drive past a yellow light, ride a bicycle without a helmet, etc. Also, why would you want to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation? The vast majority of those imprisoned are of no danger to society, and the way the US (and most other countries) focus on punishing someone for making a mistake greatly increase the chance that they'll continue to break the laws in the future and become a burden to society.
- austincheney 7y ago
  > Also, why would you want to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation? I never stated any such opinion either for or against.

thrownaway954 7y ago

"I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this strong under this much pressure." she IS NOT brave, she is being stubborn and ruining her life because of it. testify, do what they want, and move on with your life. people like her strive to be the center of attention and chaos, though negative, is still attention. we as a society should not be encouraging this behavior by saying she is brave.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up charges against your enemies and journalists in general. The integrity of the grand jury process, which is itself an essential protection of the integrity of the criminal justice system, is a public interest that needs protected. > It feels like we’ll be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy. If her assault on the grand jury system were successful, yes, Manning would be at the forefront of the atrophy of key rights. > How do we fight these things? By vigorously defending the grand jury system, which protects people's names from being dragged through the mud attached to serious federal criminal charges without vetting of probable cause in a process in which government agents are obliged to secrecy against attacks like those Manning is making.

andy_ppp 7y ago
It’s only the US and Liberia who kept the grand jury process from English common law, why did every other country get rid of it? Because secret trials are wrong and the law works fine without them.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > why did every other country get rid of it? Because distrust of government is lower in other common law countries than in the US, and the grand jury process is an outside check on government. > Because secret trials are wrong Grand jury proceedings are not trials, they are a hoop the government has to jump through before getting to file charges, much less reach a trial.