5 ms·

This shows the whole world how hopeless the US injustice system is. None of this would be possible in a civilized country.

codezero 7y ago
Pick 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.
- zapnuk 7y ago
  'atrocious quirk' is quite an understatement when you discribe the deficiencies of the us legal system.
  - codezero 7y ago
    Atrocious is a pretty strong word in my opinion. That said, I don’t disagree :)
rootusrootus 7y ago
How are you defining civilized country? Contempt of court does not appear to be unique to the US justice system.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  I’m not a big fan of secret courts, they are used to force witnesses with threats to testify against people. Who is to say those witnesses are honest when they are threatened like this?
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    This is not a secret court, it’s the completely ordinary court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    - redblacktree 7y ago
      Grand Juries are held in secret. Counsel for the witness is not allowed.
      - openasocket 7y ago
        What's the problem with grand juries? They're supposed to determine whether or not prosecutors can charge you and have an official trial. In other countries, the prosecutor will just charge you directly. The point of a grand jury is to prevent an incompetent or malicious prosecution. As for counsel for witnesses, they are allowed to hire lawyers. The lawyers aren't allowed in the room with them, but they are allowed to wait outside, and the witness is allowed to leave the room to consult with their lawyer, even after every single question. It's kind of silly, and I'm not really sure why that's the case, but it's hardly an absurd miscarriage of justice. Also, Chelsea Manning would still wind up in jail over this if there weren't grand juries in the US, it would just be at trial instead.
        redblacktree 7y ago
        She's been tried convicted and pardoned. This is a case against Assange where she's a witness.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > She's been tried convicted and pardoned. No, she has not been pardoned. She received clemency, which is substantively different than a pardon.
        redblacktree 7y ago
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I'm not the OP, but personally, I see civility as a function of the rule of law. Rule of law is a spectrum, on one end is a place like say, Norway - where everyone is treated with a minimum of respect, criminal justice is mostly reformative, where only a very, very small number of individuals at the top of the social hierarchy will be treated different, mostly, people are treated the same by the law. On the other end of the spectrum is a place like Somalia, the state has no respect for the individual, criminal justice is punitive and everyone is treated differently based on their social ranking. In general, the poorer and more dictatorial a country, the more we expect it to be on the low side of this spectrum, and the richer and democratic, the better it should be. The US is somewhere in the middle of these two, but for many of us, we would expect it to be higher up given the wealth of the country and the democratic nature of our government. I personally hail from a very poor country where our justice system is actually similar in rule of law to the one I feel Americans have. In terms of this trial, personally I feel locking manning up is punitive and not intended to be cohersive. It's intended to make an example. In fact, I'm not sure why she is being tried at all, I though we had double jeopardy laws, she already went to trial and was imprisoned by the wikileaks debacle. It seems the government is grasping at straws to imprison legal citizens for doing acts that should be rewarded (whistle-blowing). Using the law on an ad-hock basis is exactly the type of behavior that I was mentioning, putting us further toward the Somalia side of the spectrum where rule of law is secondary to rule of power.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    This seems to boil down to a disagreement on coercive versus punitive, or more cynically, whether or not you happen to agree with Manning. The court already has an escape clause in place by capping the punishment at 18 months. Manning appears to be seeking that contempt of court be abolished altogether, leaving no way to compel witnesses to testify. All they would need to do is declare "I will not testify, you cannot make me, nothing will change my mind!" and they are let go. Independent of my opinion on Manning's situation, I am not sure that precedent is a net positive. If the punishment were indefinite, it would be a more interesting case. But since it is capped already, I tend to side with the court and let the clock run out.
skrause 7y ago
> None of this would be possible in a civilized country. I think the same concept exists in many civilized countries. In Germany it's called Erzwingungshaft (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft) and can be up to half a year for refusing to testify (though you can refuse to testify against yourself or close relatives without repercussions, similar to the 5th amendment).
- italophil 7y ago
  In Germany Ordnungshaft (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel) is the measure for refusing to testify. It is strongly regulated and can't extend longer than 6 weeks without going to a higher court. Erzwingungshaft is incarceration for failure to pay fines or penalties.
  - skrause 7y ago
    No, it's the other way round if you read the actual law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__70.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__70.html (1) Ordnungshaft is what you get if you fail to pay the fine (Ordnungsgeld) for refusing to testify. (2) Erzwingungshaft is a separate thing, has nothing to do with a fine and can be up to half a year.
- pera 7y ago
  Germany doesn't have grand juries though
- dahdum 7y ago
  I’m hard pressed to find examples of any country allowing witnesses to refuse to testify, the right to silence in common law applies to the accused. UK, Canada, and even Sweden all have compelled testimony.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
root_axis 7y ago
Do any "civilized countries" exist under your definition of the term.

codezero 7y ago

Pick 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.

zapnuk 7y ago
'atrocious quirk' is quite an understatement when you discribe the deficiencies of the us legal system.
- codezero 7y ago
  Atrocious is a pretty strong word in my opinion. That said, I don’t disagree :)

rootusrootus 7y ago

How are you defining civilized country? Contempt of court does not appear to be unique to the US justice system.

andy_ppp 7y ago
I’m not a big fan of secret courts, they are used to force witnesses with threats to testify against people. Who is to say those witnesses are honest when they are threatened like this?
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  This is not a secret court, it’s the completely ordinary court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  - redblacktree 7y ago
    Grand Juries are held in secret. Counsel for the witness is not allowed.
    - openasocket 7y ago
      What's the problem with grand juries? They're supposed to determine whether or not prosecutors can charge you and have an official trial. In other countries, the prosecutor will just charge you directly. The point of a grand jury is to prevent an incompetent or malicious prosecution. As for counsel for witnesses, they are allowed to hire lawyers. The lawyers aren't allowed in the room with them, but they are allowed to wait outside, and the witness is allowed to leave the room to consult with their lawyer, even after every single question. It's kind of silly, and I'm not really sure why that's the case, but it's hardly an absurd miscarriage of justice. Also, Chelsea Manning would still wind up in jail over this if there weren't grand juries in the US, it would just be at trial instead.
      - redblacktree 7y ago
        She's been tried convicted and pardoned. This is a case against Assange where she's a witness.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > She's been tried convicted and pardoned. No, she has not been pardoned. She received clemency, which is substantively different than a pardon.
        redblacktree 7y ago
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I'm not the OP, but personally, I see civility as a function of the rule of law. Rule of law is a spectrum, on one end is a place like say, Norway - where everyone is treated with a minimum of respect, criminal justice is mostly reformative, where only a very, very small number of individuals at the top of the social hierarchy will be treated different, mostly, people are treated the same by the law. On the other end of the spectrum is a place like Somalia, the state has no respect for the individual, criminal justice is punitive and everyone is treated differently based on their social ranking. In general, the poorer and more dictatorial a country, the more we expect it to be on the low side of this spectrum, and the richer and democratic, the better it should be. The US is somewhere in the middle of these two, but for many of us, we would expect it to be higher up given the wealth of the country and the democratic nature of our government. I personally hail from a very poor country where our justice system is actually similar in rule of law to the one I feel Americans have. In terms of this trial, personally I feel locking manning up is punitive and not intended to be cohersive. It's intended to make an example. In fact, I'm not sure why she is being tried at all, I though we had double jeopardy laws, she already went to trial and was imprisoned by the wikileaks debacle. It seems the government is grasping at straws to imprison legal citizens for doing acts that should be rewarded (whistle-blowing). Using the law on an ad-hock basis is exactly the type of behavior that I was mentioning, putting us further toward the Somalia side of the spectrum where rule of law is secondary to rule of power.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  This seems to boil down to a disagreement on coercive versus punitive, or more cynically, whether or not you happen to agree with Manning. The court already has an escape clause in place by capping the punishment at 18 months. Manning appears to be seeking that contempt of court be abolished altogether, leaving no way to compel witnesses to testify. All they would need to do is declare "I will not testify, you cannot make me, nothing will change my mind!" and they are let go. Independent of my opinion on Manning's situation, I am not sure that precedent is a net positive. If the punishment were indefinite, it would be a more interesting case. But since it is capped already, I tend to side with the court and let the clock run out.

skrause 7y ago

> None of this would be possible in a civilized country. I think the same concept exists in many civilized countries. In Germany it's called Erzwingungshaft (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft) and can be up to half a year for refusing to testify (though you can refuse to testify against yourself or close relatives without repercussions, similar to the 5th amendment).

italophil 7y ago
In Germany Ordnungshaft (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel) is the measure for refusing to testify. It is strongly regulated and can't extend longer than 6 weeks without going to a higher court. Erzwingungshaft is incarceration for failure to pay fines or penalties.
- skrause 7y ago
  No, it's the other way round if you read the actual law: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__70.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__70.html (1) Ordnungshaft is what you get if you fail to pay the fine (Ordnungsgeld) for refusing to testify. (2) Erzwingungshaft is a separate thing, has nothing to do with a fine and can be up to half a year.
pera 7y ago
Germany doesn't have grand juries though
dahdum 7y ago
I’m hard pressed to find examples of any country allowing witnesses to refuse to testify, the right to silence in common law applies to the accused. UK, Canada, and even Sweden all have compelled testimony.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

root_axis 7y ago

Do any "civilized countries" exist under your definition of the term.