9 ms·
Chelsea Manning Can Remain in Jail for Another Year, Judge Rules
- noobiemcfoob 7y agoHow is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit.
- mieseratte 7y agoHow is it cruel?
- haasted 7y agoKeeping someone confined? It’s not NOT cruel.
- refurb 7y agoSo based on your argument, imprisonment in general is unconstitutional?
- munk-a 7y agoI think there is a very rationale case to be made that imprisonment for the sake of punishment is unproductive and immoral - but I can't see any way that it falls under unconstitutional.
- blackflame7000 7y agoBy the standard of the 8th amendment, it is not cruel, or else we would not be able to imprison anyone.
- malka 7y agothe 8th amendment is about "cruel and unusual punishment". As long as the punishment is usual, it can be cruel.
- munk-a 7y agoFrom what I've read "cruel and unusual punishment" is less of an AND statement about punishments being cruel and non-standard and more of a double descriptor of the cruelty with the unusual portion more focused on a sort of terrible inventiveness and also, IMO to stand as a sort of fallback for questionable punishments, if the punishment is innovative it would need to be proven to not be cruel before it's application - and the US has (IMO) failed to adhere to this standard in the past with some methods of administering the death penalty - specifically the electric chair. I personally don't like death penalties (due to their misuse as a political tool and the general high error rate of judgement) but I believe proper lethal injection fits perfectly within the bounds of not being cruel nor unusual. So, if someone said that lethal injection was more humane if administered in direct sunlight while the injectee was hanging upside down due to blood movement some-such... assuming they were telling the truth about the efficacy then it'd likely pass the 8th amendment.
- jessaustin 7y agoStated more logically, it would be "no cruel punishments and no unusual punishments".
- codezero 7y agoEdit: the following is in response to an assumption the parent meant "cruel" as in "cruel" not "cruel" as in "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." [0] Depriving them of the ability to work and be a productive citizen. Depriving them of their existing assets (fines), and as stated by Manning and others, that grand juries have tended in the past to victimize those they call as witnesses. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
- jimktrains2 7y agoNot making commentary on Manning specifically, but what you just described isn't "cruel" in terms of "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, the means of imprisonment or acts taken to you while imprisoned may be cruel, but simply imprisoning someone for breaking the law (contempt of court, in this case) does not rise to the level of "cruel". Unfair? Unnecessary? Unfitting of the wrong? Those are all things I don't know enough to really say or discuss in an educated manner.
- codezero 7y agoI was responding to the question "How is it cruel" - I didn't mean to opine on the legal phrasing/interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment.
- mieseratte 7y ago> How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit. Why would I assume you meant the colloquial "cruel" and not the legal "cruel" here? Perhaps you should edit to clarify if your intent was the former as opposed to the latter.
- codezero 7y agoI don't know, why would I assume you mean the legal terminology. I don't assume that it's that when the phrase isn't used in full - I assumed the omission was intentional. Something can be cruel without being unreasonable, and something can be unreasonable without being cruel. Perhaps you should also edit to clarify your intent.
- mikeash 7y agoCourts need to be able to compel behavior and threatening punishment for not complying is an important way to do that. The only part I can see as being cruel is the actual imprisonment. One can probably make a good argument that American prisons are cruel in general, but I don’t think that will get too far in court.
- gdhbcc 7y agoI dispute your assumption that the courts need to be able to compel behaviour. At best they need to be able to compel inaction, but they should never be able to compel action
- austinheap 7y agoYou also dispute vaccines based on your comment history which would indicate an unwillingness to engage in rational conversation or to accept scientific facts.
- EpicEng 7y agoHow do you envision that playing out? If the court has no power to compel testimony they have very little power in general.
- magduf 7y agoHow do you figure? They have the power to allow prosecutors to present physical evidence, and to allow testimony from cooperative witnesses. Then they have the power to have a trial based on this evidence, and then find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If they find the suspect guilty, they have the power to impose a sentence. What more do they need? Compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness isn't necessary for a case, nor is it even very helpful: such a witness can't be considered reliable or trustworthy.
- EpicEng 7y agoAnd what if you can't obtain that evidence because the person in possession won't hand it over? What if your only 'witness' is a corporate entity? What if your witness just doesn't like cops? Probably a hundred more scenarios I can't come up with at the moment. In your world guilty parties walk because the state has no power to make anyone do anything. Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need. The real world doesn't work that way.
- ncallaway 7y agoI think the "cruel and unusual" clause requires both to provide any protection. It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. I think anyone would agree. However, that phrase in our constitution explicitly leaves the door open for our criminal justice system to perform cruel behaviors, as long as they are in line with the standards of the day (or, if you're an originalist, of the standards of 1791). So, my response would be that you've tabled the only portion of the debate that is relevant. I'll freely concede that the criminal justice system is cruel, but I wouldn't then argue that the system falls afoul of the 8th amendment.
- tomschlick 7y ago> It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. If there was some sort of abuse then sure, but there hasn't been to my knowledge.
- ncallaway 7y ago> It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. This makes it usual or common, but it doesn't make it not cruel. > Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. Imprisoning someone is absolutely cruel. It may be common and accepted (and it certainly is in our current criminal justice system). It may even be just and proper, but it is still cruel.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago> Imprisoning people who have committed crimes That's not what is being called into question. It's imprisoning someone for the express purpose of coercing testimony that smells here.
- noobiemcfoob 7y agoI can accept your argument, even if it leaves me grumpier than when I first asked the question. States convention, anyone?
- dragonwriter 7y ago> How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? All imprisonment is an attempt to constrain undesired and incentivize desired behavior by imposing unacceptable costs for non-compliance (in fact, so is all law); it is inherently coercive.
- noobiemcfoob 7y agoSure. Expand my question then to imprisoning someone to coerce testimony.
- dragonwriter 7y agoIt is no more cruel than punitive imprisonment in similar conditions and I think it is undeniable that it is not within any meaning of cruel (even, given current values, one relative to changing cultural values rather than fixed in scope at the time written) that could plausibly be argued to be intended as the meaning of the 8th Amendment.
- jonathanstrange 7y agoThis shows the whole world how hopeless the US injustice system is. None of this would be possible in a civilized country.
- codezero 7y agoPick a civilized country you think doesn't have some atrocious quirk in their legal system. That said, I don't disagree, I think I'm trying to say that there's no such thing as a civilized country if we're basing that on the sensibility of their legal system. Everything is on some spectrum of terrible to tolerable to the average person. The average person is not called to a grand jury, so it's not something they get riled up about.
- rootusrootus 7y agoHow are you defining civilized country? Contempt of court does not appear to be unique to the US justice system.
- atonse 7y agoHow does this not fall under your 5th amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself?
- travbrack 7y agoThe answer to this is pretty complex and the article explains it
- gruez 7y ago* it's to testify against assange/wikileaks, not herself * she was offered immunity
- ajross 7y agoAFAIK, she hasn't invoked the fifth, nor asked for[1] immunity as part of a plea deal. It's just not relevant. The principle here is that we have a legal duty to testify truthfully in response to a subpoena, and failing to do so is a crime that can be punished. There are specific carve outs, like the fifth amendment, or the various legally defined privileged communication areas (e.g. legal/medical details). But in order to avoid jail time you need to make one of these arguments before the court and win. [1] Edit: I looked it up, and in fact Manning has already been granted immunity for this case. So the fifth is right out the window, there is no crime in which she can implicate herself by testifying.
- dragontamer 7y ago> How does this not fall under your 5th amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself? She's not testifying against herself. She's testifying against Assange. Manning has already been tried, found guilty, and then pardoned for her crimes. She's basically immune to anything she testifies. But investigators need the evidence as they're building a case against Assange.
- votepaunchy 7y agoManning’s sentence was commuted, not pardoned.
- 7y ago
- close04 7y agoMemory loss seems to be a popular (albeit weak) defense in Washington. [0] I always wondered if trials that accept this as a valid defense aren't setting a precedent. Is there a freedom to subjectively reject such a testimony absent any clear evidence that the person does remember? [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/washington-defense-trump-russia-239914 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/washington-defense...
- openasocket 7y agoIt's a fairly popular defense in legal proceedings. Lawyers have a couple ways to combat it. - Compelling testimony. Something like "if you testify that you helped this guy rob a bank, we won't go after you for the crime." Usually this involves signing documents swearing to what your testimony is, so you can't go back later. - Getting more than just testimony. Getting documents (emails, texts, phone records) is often much more valuable because you can't play the "I can't remember" card with those. And lawyers can use those as evidence, and sometimes use the information in those records to get testimony (i.e. "How could you not remember sending all these emails setting up the bank robbery?!" -- "OK, OK, I was there") - If it's egregious, you can be sanctioned by the court. If you're claiming you don't remember if you saw the defendent murder 3 people right in front of you last week, you better have a pretty good reason for why you can't remember.
- blackflame7000 7y agoWhy doesn't she just testify with the tried and true method of "I don't remember / I don't recall"?
- PopeDotNinja 7y agoApparently taking a stand is more important to her than her short term freedom.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIt's much easier to get away with that if you are old enough to be assumed to be senile.
- ppseafield 7y ago> In February 2019, Manning received a subpoena to testify in a US government case against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange (the existence of which had been accidentally revealed in November 2018), which was proceeding under prosecutors in Virginia.[220] Manning condemned the secrecy of the hearings and announced she would avoid testifying,[221] saying "we've seen this power abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice."[222] Manning also said she had provided all the information she had in 2013 during her court martial and that she stood by her previous answers.[223] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2019_jailing_for_contempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2019_jailing_f...
- crooked-v 7y agoAre these fines dischargeable in bankruptcy? If so, there's not much point in adding more on top of an already unmanageable amount.
- CretinDesAlpes 7y agoI am European with not so much knowledge about the US justice system, but between this, Julian Assange's recent events [1] and this guy's book [2], it's hard to believe it is an independent and a fair system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Extradition_hea... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974
- cdumler 7y agoWe don't have an independent and fair system. It's been highly political and corrupt for a long time, it's just now more blatantly obvious. Partly, this is because of the internet making it easier to make things public and partly because the rich and powerful are feeling less obliged to hide their actions. Too much power has been centralized into just a few hundred people in the U.S.
- CretinDesAlpes 7y agoIs there any book you would recommend on this topic?
- candiodari 7y agoWhilst I don't much like what the US government is doing these days, I do wonder if you aren't simply naive. What country are you from ? Italy ? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/children-brainwash-electroshock-sell-foster-parents-italy-police-arrests-a8978891.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/children-bra... France ? https://www.thelocal.fr/20190603/french-minister-has-no-regrets-over-yellow-vest-policing-despite-injuries https://www.thelocal.fr/20190603/french-minister-has-no-regr... Spain ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-question-catalonia-separatists-except-puigdemont https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-... Belgium perhaps ? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_Samusocial https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_du_Samusocial (use Google translate) Netherlands ? https://www.dailysabah.com/balkans/2019/02/02/dutch-court-denies-the-netherlands-liability-for-srebrenica-genocide https://www.dailysabah.com/balkans/2019/02/02/dutch-court-de... Norway ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_scandal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_s... Which country has a fair justice/government system in Europe ? Because I don't think there's any ... I don't know about serious government crimes in every country, but certainly they're not exactly hard to find.
- redblacktree 7y agoThis led me down the rabbit hole of finding out how a person could have a moral problem with Grand Juries. Fascinating stuff. It seems they're sometimes used as an information-gathering tool and a method for stifling free speech. Having done further reading, I applaud Ms. Manning's principled stance. One explanation: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-10929-3_22 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-10929-3_...