3 ms·

How does it prove that it's unlawful? As far as I know, the law does say that if you refuse judicial order, you will be imprisoned. If you really really really

by smsm42 7y ago

How does it prove that it's unlawful? As far as I know, the law does say that if you refuse judicial order, you will be imprisoned. If you really really really don't want to comply with a judicial order - there's no exception in the law that says "well, if you really don't want to - then it's ok, you can violate any judicial order, but only if you feel really strongly about it". The law is not about anyone's feelings. However you feel about what Manning thinks or does, it does not change the law, and by law it's certainly lawful to hold Manning until the compliance with the judicial order is achieved. That's the only way these orders can work - otherwise anybody who gets unfavorable order will just refuse them and say "no matter what you do, I will never comply so you can as well give up now".

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>if you refuse judicial order, you will be imprisoned. You will be imprisoned to coerce you to comply with the order. If you are uncoerciable, it is unlawful to imprison you for refusing the order. Anybody can get out of an order like this, just most people can be coerced.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > If you are uncoerciable What does it mean "uncoerciable"? There's nothing particularly "uncoerciable" in Manning - we don't know the future and Manning is as human as anybody else. If this law applies to all other humans, it applies to Manning too.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    Imprisonment clearly isn't enough to coerce her into complying. There may be other methods that could coerce her into it, but they would be obvious violations of the eighth Amendment.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > Imprisonment clearly isn't enough to coerce her into complying By your logic, we should not imprison recidivist criminals, as prison is clearly not enough to deter them from further crimes. So we should just give up, shrug and release them, because apparently nothing can be done about it. In fact, if the criminal solemnly swears they'd go back to the life of crime as soon as they are released from prison, we should immediately release them as it is clear that keeping them in prison would not coerce them to comply with the law, and thus is completely pointless.
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >By your logic, we should not imprison recidivist criminals, as prison is clearly not enough to deter them from further crimes. Criminals are in prison as judgment for being convicted of their crimes. Manning is in prison to be coerced to comply with the grand jury, not as punishment for any action. This is they key difference you are missing. This isn't "my logic," this is the current law of the US, see "Grumbles motion."
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If you are uncoerciable, it is unlawful to imprison you for refusing the order No, it's not. It's just a different process (criminal contempt, which is punitive, instead of civil contempt, which is coercive.) Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater scandal, is an example of someone receiving both maximum civil contempt sanctions and subsequently being charged with criminal contempt for the same incident.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    Manning has not been charged with contempt of court to my knowledge, so while there may be a legal way to imprison her the current imprisonment is illegal.

by smsm42 7y ago

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>if you refuse judicial order, you will be imprisoned. You will be imprisoned to coerce you to comply with the order. If you are uncoerciable, it is unlawful to imprison you for refusing the order. Anybody can get out of an order like this, just most people can be coerced.

smsm42 7y ago
> If you are uncoerciable What does it mean "uncoerciable"? There's nothing particularly "uncoerciable" in Manning - we don't know the future and Manning is as human as anybody else. If this law applies to all other humans, it applies to Manning too.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  Imprisonment clearly isn't enough to coerce her into complying. There may be other methods that could coerce her into it, but they would be obvious violations of the eighth Amendment.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > Imprisonment clearly isn't enough to coerce her into complying By your logic, we should not imprison recidivist criminals, as prison is clearly not enough to deter them from further crimes. So we should just give up, shrug and release them, because apparently nothing can be done about it. In fact, if the criminal solemnly swears they'd go back to the life of crime as soon as they are released from prison, we should immediately release them as it is clear that keeping them in prison would not coerce them to comply with the law, and thus is completely pointless.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >By your logic, we should not imprison recidivist criminals, as prison is clearly not enough to deter them from further crimes. Criminals are in prison as judgment for being convicted of their crimes. Manning is in prison to be coerced to comply with the grand jury, not as punishment for any action. This is they key difference you are missing. This isn't "my logic," this is the current law of the US, see "Grumbles motion."
dragonwriter 7y ago
> If you are uncoerciable, it is unlawful to imprison you for refusing the order No, it's not. It's just a different process (criminal contempt, which is punitive, instead of civil contempt, which is coercive.) Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater scandal, is an example of someone receiving both maximum civil contempt sanctions and subsequently being charged with criminal contempt for the same incident.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  Manning has not been charged with contempt of court to my knowledge, so while there may be a legal way to imprison her the current imprisonment is illegal.