5 ms·

Chelsea should be out, enjoying herself under the sun. Hers is a generation that will inherit the debt of American war crimes, and it is an utter tragedy that

Chelsea should be out, enjoying herself under the sun. Hers is a generation that will inherit the debt of American war crimes, and it is an utter tragedy that things are going down like this. It is a real modern travesty; to consider how extremely dire the situation is, the dead public silence vis a vis military war-crimes, versus what Chelsea is going through. By what righteous metric can a society that allows such an injustice to happen be allowed to continue to keep its secrets? Challenge the narrative and either you get justification for mass-murder, downright hostility from folks who cannot brook a challenge to the military hegemony, or outright ignorance and pleas of victim-hood. So-called western moral authority is torn to shreds - but the interesting thing is, if the West is to step back from the precipice and face the truth, then Chelsea is going to be a part of that, too. Her pardon is the only appropriate way forward, followed by proper justice for the real crimes against humanity that were committed by her colleagues, in the name of their families. Chelsea's release, as well as Julian's, would most definitely be the only way for things to turn around, for the generation that will inherit these debts is not easily going to forgive these deeds. The leaks will continue. Especially since the very real, extraordinarily catastrophic war crimes have continued to happen, and there is still not an appropriate level of responsibility for the situation. There is ZERO Justice for the victims. Just how long we are going to be distracted by puppets until we start jailing our very real war criminals? Assange and Manning being pardoned has to happen.

wombat-man 7y ago
Because she doesn't believe in grand juries? https://apnews.com/18519afe73234225951e68e1547af768 https://apnews.com/18519afe73234225951e68e1547af768 from the above link: Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be unacceptable. [The Judge] was unimpressed with her rationale and noted that grand juries are embedded in the Constitution.
- somesortofsystm 7y ago
  There is definitely a case to be made for a total miscarriage of justice in her case, and indeed this is supported by the evidence of her illegal detention. It may not be obvious from a shallow observation of her case, but the very real and absolute war crimes and crimes against humanity she - and others - have revealed, were committed by the very group of people that currently has her in its sights. Very real crimes were committed, and the people who committed them are now trying Chelsea, and Assange, in a corrupted court. So .. no. This particular grand jury situation is going to be illegal and invalid, by any and all measure. You cannot be tried, in a fair and just society, by the very organizations you have revealed are committing crimes against humanity. Chelsea Manning is this generations' Sophie Scholl. That was not 'justice' either, even if it was accepted by society at large as a consequence of the zeitgeist.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  This grand jury is attempting to get her to testify on something she has already given sworn testimony on, hoping that she will make some contradiction in her previous statement they can use to prosecute Assange. Even if you agree with the original concept of a grand jury, this usage is appalling.
honkycat 7y ago
Not going to happen. The military industrial complex has a stranglehold on our country. There is nobody with enough power to challenge them. We tried to elect an anti-war candidate, but he was ignored and relentlessly attacked by mainstream news which are all part of the same political machine. To even BEGIN to acknowledge the US's war crimes would open a whole can of worms. What ELSE have our intelligence agencies been doing? What ELSE have we covered up? What ELSE was an unjustifiable war crime? Instead of holding people accountable, we pardon war criminals so vile that their fellow Navy Seals broke down crying while telling their story, describing the criminal as 'fucking evil'.[0] 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gall...
- somesortofsystm 7y ago
  The leaks will continue. They did massive damage already. And, when you consider that much, much more has been happening in the meantime, its a certainty that the complex is on the defense against .. the people. No matter how big the culture is, there will be dissent, and action. It is a big mistake to assume that when/if Assange and Manning are 'dealt with' (i.e. dead, incarcerated, etc.) the leaks will cease. The complex is on the run. Not everyone is so content to just bend over, these days. Of course, that is hard to see if you are actually in its bubble..
droithomme 7y ago
> Her pardon is the only appropriate way forward A pardon is not possible because she has not been convicted of any crime. She is being held for contempt of court because she refuses to testify to a secret closed door panel. She says she will testify in public about whatever they wish but not to secret proceedings. She has also previously answered the questions they say they want to ask her in the secret proceeding.
- mindslight 7y ago
  If her qualm is only wanting to be open (as opposed to a general objection to being part of the persecution of Assange), then couldn't she: 1. take the stand, be asked one question 2. refuse to answer question, be detained 3. prepare written answer to said question, publish it. 4. take the stand, read prepared answer to said question, be asked another question 5. repeat It would be tedious, but likely less tedious than spending 500 days in jail with no forward progress.
  - panzagl 7y ago
    If she testifies in open court, wouldn't that just lead to more charges against her?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      If that were true, she could easily take the 5th. (Also, her objection is that it is not an "open court")
      - smsm42 7y ago
        You can take the 5th in front of grand jury, it has nothing to do with openness: https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/Taking-the-Fifth-Amendment-in-Front-of-the-Federal-Grand-Jury-in-Order-to-Protect-White-Collar-Defendants-and-Their-Papers.shtml https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/Taking-the-Fifth-Amend... The way it usually works is if your testimony is needed, you are granted immunity for whatever new crimes that testimony may reveal and are compelled to testify. Then, you can not use 5th amendment as a reason for refusal.

wombat-man 7y ago

Because she doesn't believe in grand juries? https://apnews.com/18519afe73234225951e68e1547af768 https://apnews.com/18519afe73234225951e68e1547af768 from the above link: Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be unacceptable. [The Judge] was unimpressed with her rationale and noted that grand juries are embedded in the Constitution.

somesortofsystm 7y ago
There is definitely a case to be made for a total miscarriage of justice in her case, and indeed this is supported by the evidence of her illegal detention. It may not be obvious from a shallow observation of her case, but the very real and absolute war crimes and crimes against humanity she - and others - have revealed, were committed by the very group of people that currently has her in its sights. Very real crimes were committed, and the people who committed them are now trying Chelsea, and Assange, in a corrupted court. So .. no. This particular grand jury situation is going to be illegal and invalid, by any and all measure. You cannot be tried, in a fair and just society, by the very organizations you have revealed are committing crimes against humanity. Chelsea Manning is this generations' Sophie Scholl. That was not 'justice' either, even if it was accepted by society at large as a consequence of the zeitgeist.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
This grand jury is attempting to get her to testify on something she has already given sworn testimony on, hoping that she will make some contradiction in her previous statement they can use to prosecute Assange. Even if you agree with the original concept of a grand jury, this usage is appalling.

honkycat 7y ago

Not going to happen. The military industrial complex has a stranglehold on our country. There is nobody with enough power to challenge them. We tried to elect an anti-war candidate, but he was ignored and relentlessly attacked by mainstream news which are all part of the same political machine. To even BEGIN to acknowledge the US's war crimes would open a whole can of worms. What ELSE have our intelligence agencies been doing? What ELSE have we covered up? What ELSE was an unjustifiable war crime? Instead of holding people accountable, we pardon war criminals so vile that their fellow Navy Seals broke down crying while telling their story, describing the criminal as 'fucking evil'.[0] 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gallagher-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/navy-seals-edward-gall...

somesortofsystm 7y ago
The leaks will continue. They did massive damage already. And, when you consider that much, much more has been happening in the meantime, its a certainty that the complex is on the defense against .. the people. No matter how big the culture is, there will be dissent, and action. It is a big mistake to assume that when/if Assange and Manning are 'dealt with' (i.e. dead, incarcerated, etc.) the leaks will cease. The complex is on the run. Not everyone is so content to just bend over, these days. Of course, that is hard to see if you are actually in its bubble..

droithomme 7y ago

> Her pardon is the only appropriate way forward A pardon is not possible because she has not been convicted of any crime. She is being held for contempt of court because she refuses to testify to a secret closed door panel. She says she will testify in public about whatever they wish but not to secret proceedings. She has also previously answered the questions they say they want to ask her in the secret proceeding.

mindslight 7y ago
If her qualm is only wanting to be open (as opposed to a general objection to being part of the persecution of Assange), then couldn't she: 1. take the stand, be asked one question 2. refuse to answer question, be detained 3. prepare written answer to said question, publish it. 4. take the stand, read prepared answer to said question, be asked another question 5. repeat It would be tedious, but likely less tedious than spending 500 days in jail with no forward progress.
- panzagl 7y ago
  If she testifies in open court, wouldn't that just lead to more charges against her?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    If that were true, she could easily take the 5th. (Also, her objection is that it is not an "open court")
    - smsm42 7y ago
      You can take the 5th in front of grand jury, it has nothing to do with openness: https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/Taking-the-Fifth-Amendment-in-Front-of-the-Federal-Grand-Jury-in-Order-to-Protect-White-Collar-Defendants-and-Their-Papers.shtml https://www.wisenberglaw.com/Articles/Taking-the-Fifth-Amend... The way it usually works is if your testimony is needed, you are granted immunity for whatever new crimes that testimony may reveal and are compelled to testify. Then, you can not use 5th amendment as a reason for refusal.