8 ms·

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 worr

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.

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.