4 ms·

Here's the Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/2W98fyO https://wapo.st/2W98fyO The last time I linked to a WaPo article on Chelsea Manning (the last time

Here's the Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/2W98fyO https://wapo.st/2W98fyO The last time I linked to a WaPo article on Chelsea Manning (the last time she was jailed) a mod changed the link so if you find a more informative article you can always post a link and it might be changed. I don't actually find this to be vastly different in content than the OP but it does seem to give a little more exposition and a little less in terms of boilerplate statements from the attorneys. Here are some cherry-picked excerpts: > Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be unacceptable. > [The judge] said he hopes that while incarcerated “Ms. Manning would reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing ... and whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.” > Manning herself told the judge directly: “I would rather starve to death than change my principles in this regard.”

throw20102010 7y ago
To expand a little, I think the biggest issue that Chelsea has with a grand jury is that the entire process is sealed. If it were a public hearing then she would be much more likely to testify, because we would know what was asked, what was answered, and we would know what this entire process is about. We only assume that this grand jury is about Julian Assange (because what else would Chelsea's testimony be relevant for?), but we actually don't know. This could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never find out. An opaque justice system is probably not a good thing, since we just have to trust that the people in charge will do the right thing- and we have seen countless times throughout history that the people in charge often do the wrong thing and attempt to cover it up.
- travmatt 7y ago
  That makes sense, because a public one sided show trial definitely couldn’t be abused by prosecutors to smear people they have no intent of indicting. Is that actually a position people really believe?
  - throw20102010 7y ago
    At least a public deposition would allow people to come to their own conclusion. If Chelsea felt that public questioning was one sided and a smear campaign then she could release a statement afterwards filling in the context and pointing out the other side of the story. With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything, so a one sided smear campaign during a grand jury can lead to an indictment and Chelsea would have no opportunity to offer her side of the story without risking more jail time.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything No, it is not; grand jury secrecy rules apply to attorneys, court officials, grand jurors, and government staff to whom material is disclosed to assist attorneys, but not to witnesses called before the grand jury. So, actually, not only would Manning be allowed to present her side of the story, no one with actual knowledge of her time before the grand jury would be allowed to contradict it.
      - travmatt 7y ago
        Additionally, it’s pretty nonsensical to claim that prosecutors will use public show trials to smear opponents, but allowing them to publicly smear opponents would make the proceeding more fair?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never find out. We'd only never find out what her testimony was about if Manning, who as a witness is under no secrecy requirement, never said anything. And we'd never get an idea of the broader context of the grand jury only if no indictment was ever issued by that grand jury (or an indictment was issued under seal and never unsealed and prosecuted).

throw20102010 7y ago

To expand a little, I think the biggest issue that Chelsea has with a grand jury is that the entire process is sealed. If it were a public hearing then she would be much more likely to testify, because we would know what was asked, what was answered, and we would know what this entire process is about. We only assume that this grand jury is about Julian Assange (because what else would Chelsea's testimony be relevant for?), but we actually don't know. This could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never find out. An opaque justice system is probably not a good thing, since we just have to trust that the people in charge will do the right thing- and we have seen countless times throughout history that the people in charge often do the wrong thing and attempt to cover it up.

travmatt 7y ago
That makes sense, because a public one sided show trial definitely couldn’t be abused by prosecutors to smear people they have no intent of indicting. Is that actually a position people really believe?
- throw20102010 7y ago
  At least a public deposition would allow people to come to their own conclusion. If Chelsea felt that public questioning was one sided and a smear campaign then she could release a statement afterwards filling in the context and pointing out the other side of the story. With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything, so a one sided smear campaign during a grand jury can lead to an indictment and Chelsea would have no opportunity to offer her side of the story without risking more jail time.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything No, it is not; grand jury secrecy rules apply to attorneys, court officials, grand jurors, and government staff to whom material is disclosed to assist attorneys, but not to witnesses called before the grand jury. So, actually, not only would Manning be allowed to present her side of the story, no one with actual knowledge of her time before the grand jury would be allowed to contradict it.
    - travmatt 7y ago
      Additionally, it’s pretty nonsensical to claim that prosecutors will use public show trials to smear opponents, but allowing them to publicly smear opponents would make the proceeding more fair?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> This could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never find out. We'd only never find out what her testimony was about if Manning, who as a witness is under no secrecy requirement, never said anything. And we'd never get an idea of the broader context of the grand jury only if no indictment was ever issued by that grand jury (or an indictment was issued under seal and never unsealed and prosecuted).