3 ms·
The public has a claim to every person's evidence. If a person has evidence that a court of law wishes to obtain, under American law the court is permitted to
by Kalium 7y ago
The public has a claim to every person's evidence.
If a person has evidence that a court of law wishes to obtain, under American law the court is permitted to compel immunized testimony. Someone who refuses to comply is likely to be treated as someone who has committed an act of contempt of court.
Chelsea Manning isn't special here. Anyone who refuses to testify before a grand jury is likely to be treated this way. There's no need to postulate that it's a further attempt to punish someone for political reasons to explain all events here.
- kazagistar 7y agoThe public is laughable here. It's a small cabal working entirely in their own self interest, using the power they have to punish those who challenged it. Its disgusting to bring up the public good.
- shakna 7y agoI don't see any need to call her as a witness here. Her testimony is on file, and some parts of it are even a matter of public record. She has already extensively testified in the past. In most court cases, there is a wish to limit the number of witnesses in a case. Where you can take testimony by reports, affidavits, and other records, you take it, as it speeds up the process considerably. The only reason to call Manning is if you believe that you can show that new testimony conflicts with old testimony.
- davrosthedalek 7y agoSo she is not testifying because she doesn't want to repeat herself? That seems silly. No, there is something she doesn't want to say, because it would incriminate someone she doesn't want to incriminate. I doubt it's herself.
- shakna 7y agoI haven't expressed any opinion on why Manning has made the choices they have. I may or may not agree. I have questions for the court, because they have chosen to act in a way that doesn't seem to follow standard procedure. My query is one of legal practice.
- davrosthedalek 7y agoYou stated that the only reason they seek testimony is to entrap her. If that would be true, that leaves two options: Either she would say the same thing as before, because that was the full story. What is the reason than for not doing so except that she doesn't want to repeat herself? Or she fears that she would fall into that trap (which I'm not sure could exist because of double jeopardy / immunized testimony). But it's a wrong dichotomy. It's more likely the judge suspects that she knows something incriminating about somebody else, maybe Julian, she doesn't want to tell. Which answers your question about legal practice.
- shakna 7y agoImmunised testimony is only covers certain events. Seeking new testimony when complete testimony is already on file, leaves open the door to parallel construction of unrelated cases. The witness may be convinced to say something that violates the terms of previous deals. If the judge truly believes her testimony might aid in convicting Assange they have no reason not to already use the extensive testimony on file. Manning has already been extensively interrogated about Assange, for a number of years. The court has those filings available to it. There is no reason to expect that new testimony with new evidence is available.