5 ms·

It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt. Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

by sadris 7y ago

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
I'm actually pretty confused; does the USA not have a law that protects an individuals right not to testify if they'd incriminate themselves by doing so? That's seen as a pretty fundamental thing where I live.
- bdowling 7y ago
  The U.S. does protect that right. Here, Ms. Manning is apparently being asked to incriminate Julian Assange, not herself.
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  The U.S. certainly does. It's set out in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. In this instance, however, Chelsea Manning has been given immunity from prosecution -- meaning she can't "plead the Fifth".
  - TheCondor 7y ago
    There is that, but it’s also a grand jury. There technically isn’t any jeopardy there, they convene and recommend what a prosecutor should do and it’s all supposed to be secret with pretty strict punishment for violating that. Fair or not, this is an interesting stand to take.
    - darkrabite 7y ago
      Because the hearing is secret. If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony. By even showing up, you are putting yourself at risk from people thinking you snitched.
      - travmatt 7y ago
        >If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony. I’d be interested in reading your proof of this, because I’m fairly certain you just made this up.
  - lsllc 7y ago
    Doesn't the 1st amendment apply? Surely the right to free speech includes the right to decide what NOT to speak?
- empath75 7y ago
  She hasn’t been asked to incriminate herself. She’s already been convicted and had her sentence committed and been granted immunity from her further testimony.
- hwillis 7y ago
  It has been argued for a VERY long time that grand juries (which is why she can be put in jail repeatedly like this) are unjust. Many states do not even use them because of it. Grand juries get special privileges, like compelling people to testify without lawyers, or through double jeopardy as is the case here. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/fifth-amendment-grand-jury-double-jeopardy-self-incrimination-due-process https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/fifth-amendment-grand-ju...
- AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
  Sure, but you have to go to court and plead the Fifth Amendment. You can't just refuse to testify entirely.
- mruts 7y ago
  She got immunity, So she can’t incriminate herself.
zamalek 7y ago
And yet, someone who is likely broke in more ways than one, is demonstrating that she has more.

It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt. Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

by sadris 7y ago

It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt. Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

I'm actually pretty confused; does the USA not have a law that protects an individuals right not to testify if they'd incriminate themselves by doing so? That's seen as a pretty fundamental thing where I live.

bdowling 7y ago
The U.S. does protect that right. Here, Ms. Manning is apparently being asked to incriminate Julian Assange, not herself.
jlgaddis 7y ago
The U.S. certainly does. It's set out in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. In this instance, however, Chelsea Manning has been given immunity from prosecution -- meaning she can't "plead the Fifth".
- TheCondor 7y ago
  There is that, but it’s also a grand jury. There technically isn’t any jeopardy there, they convene and recommend what a prosecutor should do and it’s all supposed to be secret with pretty strict punishment for violating that. Fair or not, this is an interesting stand to take.
  - darkrabite 7y ago
    Because the hearing is secret. If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony. By even showing up, you are putting yourself at risk from people thinking you snitched.
    - travmatt 7y ago
      >If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony. I’d be interested in reading your proof of this, because I’m fairly certain you just made this up.
- lsllc 7y ago
  Doesn't the 1st amendment apply? Surely the right to free speech includes the right to decide what NOT to speak?
empath75 7y ago
She hasn’t been asked to incriminate herself. She’s already been convicted and had her sentence committed and been granted immunity from her further testimony.
hwillis 7y ago
It has been argued for a VERY long time that grand juries (which is why she can be put in jail repeatedly like this) are unjust. Many states do not even use them because of it. Grand juries get special privileges, like compelling people to testify without lawyers, or through double jeopardy as is the case here. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/fifth-amendment-grand-jury-double-jeopardy-self-incrimination-due-process https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/fifth-amendment-grand-ju...
AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
Sure, but you have to go to court and plead the Fifth Amendment. You can't just refuse to testify entirely.
mruts 7y ago
She got immunity, So she can’t incriminate herself.

zamalek 7y ago

And yet, someone who is likely broke in more ways than one, is demonstrating that she has more.