7 ms·

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 jus

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
    > That’s weaseling out. It would in many ways be the only honest answer. The facts in question are almost a decade ago now. Chelsea is now in many senses a different person. The fine details of her comments could result in the execution of another person. Anyone who is confident of the fine details from events ten years ago before experiencing a multitude of bad experiences is probably significantly overconfident in their recollection.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  I understood she is making a statement by refusing. She said that she has said everything there is to be said. It's like a hunger strike.
- gppk 7y ago
  I read something a while back that said you generally can't do that if it can be shown that you could remember. No idea how that works in practice though.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    Correct. The attorney doing the questioning will have additional supporting evidence... documents, transcripts of prior testimony, established timelines of events, etc. So if they ask “were you at [location] on [date]?” and she replied “I don’t remember” they would simply show her evidence of her being at that location on that date to “refresh her recollection” and then she would be expected to answer. She could answer along the lines of “from this [evidence] it looks like I was” but it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid answering questions altogether.
    - trickstra 7y ago
      But it forces the other party to have evidence for everything. The point of the questioning is to gain additional evidence from the answers. But if all answers are "If that's what it says, then that's what it says" as Richard Sackler https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=952 https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=952 then it's apparently the effective way to go
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        Right, it definitely makes it more difficult but keep in mind that you don’t need to gain additional information in order to gather additional evidence. For example, if I have a piece of paper - Exhibit A, that demonstrates you were at a certain place at a certain time, that’s definitely valuable evidence but at trial opposing counsel could call into question the source of the document, chain of custody, or a number of other issues to contest its accuracy and/or validity. But if I have you on the stand and show you that piece of paper and you say, on the record, that it does seem like you were there, now I have Exhibit B - a record of your testimony, at the very least admitting the document seems legitimate and reliable. But most jurors would take your statement as pretty close to an admission. Exhibit B is highly valuable because it’s almost impossible for your lawyer to contest. As entertainingly frustrating as Sackler’s deposition was his responses were indeed some of the least valuable he could have possibly provided. I’m sure that was part of his legal team’s preparation for the meeting. “If that’s what it says then that’s what it says” is a meaningless tautology. But keeping up that sort of response throughout an entire line of questioning is difficult even in a deposition and takes a certain amount of IDGAF attitude that Sackler clearly has in spades. A deposition is also a bit different from the grand jury testimony Chelsea Manning would have given because a deposition isn’t a courtroom proceeding. Responses like Sackler’s wouldn’t fly if he were in front of a Judge.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  You can turn up at court but you don't have to be compelled to say things. In the UK "no comment" works to all questions except confirmation of one's identity.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  “I don’t remember” is a fine answer only if it’s true. Otherwise she could be punished for making false statements (the issue is how to prove someone actually does remember). In court, she could just invoke the Fifth Amendment, but I don’t know whether that applies to grand jury proceedings, especially since the grand jury isn’t investigating her and she’s already served time for any crimes she committed.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    You can only invoke the Fifth Amendment if what you say would incriminate yourself. Chelsea is here being compelled to give evidence against other people. Also, if she were lying she could be charged with perjury.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    it works for others, so why not here? https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=1121 https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=1121
gdhbcc 7y ago
There were plenty of laws banning black people from Sitting on the wrong place in the bus, and yet if someone were to defend the jailing of someone due to violating that law you'd be talking about the injustice that was. The law is the law is only an argument if you're willing to always take it to it's full logical conclusion, so my question to you was, if this judge was ordering you to do something you felt was morally horrifying, such as for example sterilizing someone without their consent (as has been done in the past), would you accept it and do it?
- roenxi 7y ago
  The law that says you must do what a judge orders isn't unjust. If people can ignore a judge's orders the entire justice system falls apart. Contempt of court is a serious thing. If something is unjust, it must be complained about directly. In your example it is reasonable to complain about the law mandating sterilisation, but it is unreasonable to complain that a judge is requiring people to follow the law. I don't really see how to get worked up about the publicly available information. The real issue is that the US government seems to have avenues available where it may be able keep not just the indictment process but also the trial itself secret; given all the damage done to the legal system in the hysteric response to 9/11 which will now be employed on people who are terrorising the US government. I'm going to preempt anyone trying to say say that the FISA court system is not for cases like Wikileak's by pointing out that nobody knows what that court system is used for in practice. It is secret.
  - reacweb 7y ago
    If the law asks me to do something I do not want to do for ethical reasons, I will not do it and accept to be punished. I expect the punishment to take into account the ethical reasons and to be small. Refusing to comply is the way to make the law change, but we have to accept the price.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      The law can't handle willful lawbreakers that way; otherwise criminals would develop strong ethical reservations about all sorts of stupid things. Ignoring a judge, purposefully and with premeditation, is not going to earn anyone reduced punishment. It is contempt of court. Again, if the law has ethical problems it is reasonable to put up a bit of a struggle. Just don't complain about the justice system is somehow doing anything unexpected - the problem sits with the lawmakers.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Selectively applying laws (or not) is fundamentally what politics is about. The law is a tool here and it is being wielded by the very people who directly or indirectly were implicated by Manning. If the same amount of diligence were applied to the rather severe crimes that Manning unveiled, you'd have a point. But of course that's not what has happened. Most of the people involved walk free having been pardoned or not even charged at all. Especially at the top level nobody suffered any consequences. Manning is in jail because high ranking politicians want her to be there. Judges are doing as they are told here.
threatofrain 7y ago
The reality of the law has lumped political consideration with legal housekeeping. As a small individual you don't get to choose that, you only get to choose your response.
Allower 7y ago
Bullshit. Its spooks like you destroying the free world.
darkhorn 7y ago
Same with North Korea, Kingdom of France, British Empire, East Germany, etc. They had/have laws that say you must do what a judge orders.

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
  > That’s weaseling out. It would in many ways be the only honest answer. The facts in question are almost a decade ago now. Chelsea is now in many senses a different person. The fine details of her comments could result in the execution of another person. Anyone who is confident of the fine details from events ten years ago before experiencing a multitude of bad experiences is probably significantly overconfident in their recollection.
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
I understood she is making a statement by refusing. She said that she has said everything there is to be said. It's like a hunger strike.
gppk 7y ago
I read something a while back that said you generally can't do that if it can be shown that you could remember. No idea how that works in practice though.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  Correct. The attorney doing the questioning will have additional supporting evidence... documents, transcripts of prior testimony, established timelines of events, etc. So if they ask “were you at [location] on [date]?” and she replied “I don’t remember” they would simply show her evidence of her being at that location on that date to “refresh her recollection” and then she would be expected to answer. She could answer along the lines of “from this [evidence] it looks like I was” but it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid answering questions altogether.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    But it forces the other party to have evidence for everything. The point of the questioning is to gain additional evidence from the answers. But if all answers are "If that's what it says, then that's what it says" as Richard Sackler https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=952 https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=952 then it's apparently the effective way to go
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      Right, it definitely makes it more difficult but keep in mind that you don’t need to gain additional information in order to gather additional evidence. For example, if I have a piece of paper - Exhibit A, that demonstrates you were at a certain place at a certain time, that’s definitely valuable evidence but at trial opposing counsel could call into question the source of the document, chain of custody, or a number of other issues to contest its accuracy and/or validity. But if I have you on the stand and show you that piece of paper and you say, on the record, that it does seem like you were there, now I have Exhibit B - a record of your testimony, at the very least admitting the document seems legitimate and reliable. But most jurors would take your statement as pretty close to an admission. Exhibit B is highly valuable because it’s almost impossible for your lawyer to contest. As entertainingly frustrating as Sackler’s deposition was his responses were indeed some of the least valuable he could have possibly provided. I’m sure that was part of his legal team’s preparation for the meeting. “If that’s what it says then that’s what it says” is a meaningless tautology. But keeping up that sort of response throughout an entire line of questioning is difficult even in a deposition and takes a certain amount of IDGAF attitude that Sackler clearly has in spades. A deposition is also a bit different from the grand jury testimony Chelsea Manning would have given because a deposition isn’t a courtroom proceeding. Responses like Sackler’s wouldn’t fly if he were in front of a Judge.
thinkingemote 7y ago
You can turn up at court but you don't have to be compelled to say things. In the UK "no comment" works to all questions except confirmation of one's identity.
maxlybbert 7y ago
“I don’t remember” is a fine answer only if it’s true. Otherwise she could be punished for making false statements (the issue is how to prove someone actually does remember). In court, she could just invoke the Fifth Amendment, but I don’t know whether that applies to grand jury proceedings, especially since the grand jury isn’t investigating her and she’s already served time for any crimes she committed.
- bitwize 7y ago
  You can only invoke the Fifth Amendment if what you say would incriminate yourself. Chelsea is here being compelled to give evidence against other people. Also, if she were lying she could be charged with perjury.
- trickstra 7y ago
  it works for others, so why not here? https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=1121 https://youtu.be/-qCKR6wy94U?t=1121

gdhbcc 7y ago

There were plenty of laws banning black people from Sitting on the wrong place in the bus, and yet if someone were to defend the jailing of someone due to violating that law you'd be talking about the injustice that was. The law is the law is only an argument if you're willing to always take it to it's full logical conclusion, so my question to you was, if this judge was ordering you to do something you felt was morally horrifying, such as for example sterilizing someone without their consent (as has been done in the past), would you accept it and do it?

roenxi 7y ago
The law that says you must do what a judge orders isn't unjust. If people can ignore a judge's orders the entire justice system falls apart. Contempt of court is a serious thing. If something is unjust, it must be complained about directly. In your example it is reasonable to complain about the law mandating sterilisation, but it is unreasonable to complain that a judge is requiring people to follow the law. I don't really see how to get worked up about the publicly available information. The real issue is that the US government seems to have avenues available where it may be able keep not just the indictment process but also the trial itself secret; given all the damage done to the legal system in the hysteric response to 9/11 which will now be employed on people who are terrorising the US government. I'm going to preempt anyone trying to say say that the FISA court system is not for cases like Wikileak's by pointing out that nobody knows what that court system is used for in practice. It is secret.
- reacweb 7y ago
  If the law asks me to do something I do not want to do for ethical reasons, I will not do it and accept to be punished. I expect the punishment to take into account the ethical reasons and to be small. Refusing to comply is the way to make the law change, but we have to accept the price.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The law can't handle willful lawbreakers that way; otherwise criminals would develop strong ethical reservations about all sorts of stupid things. Ignoring a judge, purposefully and with premeditation, is not going to earn anyone reduced punishment. It is contempt of court. Again, if the law has ethical problems it is reasonable to put up a bit of a struggle. Just don't complain about the justice system is somehow doing anything unexpected - the problem sits with the lawmakers.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Selectively applying laws (or not) is fundamentally what politics is about. The law is a tool here and it is being wielded by the very people who directly or indirectly were implicated by Manning. If the same amount of diligence were applied to the rather severe crimes that Manning unveiled, you'd have a point. But of course that's not what has happened. Most of the people involved walk free having been pardoned or not even charged at all. Especially at the top level nobody suffered any consequences. Manning is in jail because high ranking politicians want her to be there. Judges are doing as they are told here.

threatofrain 7y ago

The reality of the law has lumped political consideration with legal housekeeping. As a small individual you don't get to choose that, you only get to choose your response.

Allower 7y ago

Bullshit. Its spooks like you destroying the free world.

darkhorn 7y ago

Same with North Korea, Kingdom of France, British Empire, East Germany, etc. They had/have laws that say you must do what a judge orders.