19 ms·
Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
- autonoshitbox 7y agoThis is fantastic news.
- ci5er 7y agoWhy? I'm not familiar with the facts of the case. And, I further realize that facts are almost completely immaterial to motivated reasoning about the case, but... ... assuming that you (or someone) is a straight-shooter, why is this "fantastic news"?
- jlgaddis 7y agoBecause she is being released from incarceration!?
- ci5er 7y agoUhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.
- wonderwonder 7y agoShe is in jail for refusing to testify in front of a secret jury. The grand jury is essentially a politically motivated persecution of Julian Assange. She has already spent 7 years in jail for her part in the Wiki leaks mess and then they threw her in jail again. She released tapes to Assange documenting US killing of civilians. She is clearly a psychologically damaged person and now they are just trying to break her.
- rtkwe 7y agoGrand juries are a normal part of the system for determining if a case should continue to go to trial they had no power to put Assange in prison.
- umvi 7y agoWell, there are many different... idealogical alignments in America. Some believe Manning is a hero who followed her conscience and leaked classified information in order to inform the public of secret crimes the government/military committed. Others think what Manning did was incredibly reckless and treasonous, tantamount to selling secrets to the enemy (just without the "selling" part) So to answer your question, people in the first camp see news like this as a good thing.
- _ph_ 7y agoI don't think this should be reduced to her original actions. She was sentenced as a consequence of them, she served 7 years until the rest of the sentence was communted by Obama. So the real question is: was it appropriate to throw her back into prison, under very harsh conditions, just to force a statement from her. I think there is very good reasons to doubt that, independant of the stance about her original actions. From that perspective, I think her release is good news.
- autonoshitbox 7y agoHmm, I don't know, how about you answer this: Why are you such a fascist?
- ci5er 7y agoI don't know. I don't think I started that way. I think I started out normal like? But when your mother awakened certain hidden feelings in me with her sex toys when I was 9, I did feel feelings against her other object of sexual obsession, you; I developed an urge to put my hands around your neck. It's been years, but I carry it to this day. I miss her.
- karthikshan 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning tl;dr she was a whistleblower facing the wrath of the people she outed
- ci5er 7y agoI think she was being compelled to testify here in the Assange case, no?
- jswizzy 7y agoManning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.
- kick 7y agoShe was a whistleblower, hence everyone with a hint of credibility saying she was. Also, it's customary on HN to point out when you have a conflict of interest. You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work.
- dependenttypes 7y ago> You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work. How do you know that? I don't see anything in their profile. Was it a post that they made?
- kick 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21583369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22081500
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoCan you help me understand the difference between leaker and whistleblower?
- whatshisface 7y agoManning was being squeezed to get at Assange, who most people on HN agree is himself only being squeezed for geopolitical reasons. Nobody is happy to see the justice system abused for geopolitical goals, so any step away from "jail all of the dissenters and all of their supporters" is good to see.
- ci5er 7y agoI am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoWhat are you talking about? It was Russians (at least two independent Russian groups even) and CrowdStrike has only reiterated that. CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. He doesn’t know where his source got it, even if his source was not Russian. I’m also pretty sure that no LEOs said any such thing.
- Natsu 7y ago> CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. Who else examined the servers? The US Government stated in court that it relied exclusively on their analysis and never examined the servers at issue. One might think this was normally something they should be doing, but it's getting more common (e.g. with Bezos' phone, where the private company failed to decrypt the supposed malware, despite there being open source tools for WhatsApp decryption). Given that they failed to identify the Ukranian P.A.S. malware or a bunch of Tor exit nodes, it's legitimate to question how definitively they were able to pin this on a specific APT. > It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. A fair point, but one you should make to the US Government and the media who promulgated the myth that he would somehow get a pardon for saying exactly what he's repeatedly said in public for years now when the real story was that someone hoped to convince Trump of that and never actually got to talk to him. Also, we do have some evidence against. The exfiltration happened at almost exactly the speed of a USB drive. That doesn't seem likely to be coincidental, or likely to randomly happen for internet exfiltration of data.
- sp332 7y agoDid something in particular change so they no longer needed her testimony, or did they finally accept her argument that she already told them what she knew and had nothing more to say? Edit: Oh I didn't see that the Assange grand jury was dismissed today!
- ci5er 7y agoShe attempted suicide and a judge decided that she need not be incarcerated to compel her to be a witness.
- callahad 7y agoThat's not at all what the court order says.
- ci5er 7y agoIt also makes the reasonable point that the Assange grand jury had been dismissed, but IIRC (and it's only been two or three hours) the court's statement was clear that incarceration to compel was not necessary. (Probably motivated more by the grand jury's conclusion than the suicide), but if you'd like to tell all of us what you think they said, that would be super!
- tjohns 7y agoThat is most definitely not what the court order says. She was dismissed because the Grand Jury had concluded today, and therefore her testimony was no longer required. The suicide attempt wasn't even part of the discussion.
- jlgaddis 7y agoAs the order states, the Grand Jury is no more and, as a result, her testimony is no longer needed.
- MBCook 7y ago"the court finds Ms. Manning's appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose."
- whatshisface 7y agoLooks like they are still fining Manning $256,000.00.
- gargarplex 7y agoWhere's the GoFundMe? I have a spare $1 to jump start the effort.
- sp332 7y agohttps://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
- gargarplex 7y agoContributed $10.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stevespang 7y ago6,966 Contributions it says . . . Only 5,834 more until our goal of 12,800
- pera 7y agohttps://www.gofundme.com/f/help-chelsea-pay-her-court-fines https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-chelsea-pay-her-court-fines (https://twitter.com/SaveManning/status/1238272105180835841 https://twitter.com/SaveManning/status/1238272105180835841)
- gargarplex 7y agoOK, contributed $10 there as well. Worst case I'm out $20, best case I've done my tiny part to keep the ball rolling.
- eatbitseveryday 7y agoThe last page states she will owe $256,000 in fines and the motion to dismiss them was denied. Really?
- Zenst 7y agoWith a law degree going to cost you near on $150,000 in student debt, you start to think of limited options and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage has many forms.
- adventured 7y agoDepends entirely on where you go. Your $150,000 figure will get you a law degree from an elite top 20 law school, which will earn you a starting median income as a lawyer of $175,000+ in the private sector. The median lawyer in the US will earn $4 or $5 million over their law career, at a present $120,000 per year. The median lawyer from an elite school will earn more than twice that over a career. $150,000 is a reasonble entry fee considering the immense income potential, which is what you're buying access to. If you just want a law degree and are not worried about the income potential, you can alternatively go to a cheaper school (public + in-state) and slash the student debt dramatically.
- vonseel 7y agoPlenty of lower income lawyers out there, but yeah. Like anything, the best candidates get the best jobs. You’re not going to a top firm if you graduate at the bottom of your class and went to an average school, unless you have some other magical quality or connection.
- dragonwriter 7y agoReally. The validity of the contempt wasn't undercut, the grand jury was dismissed which terminated any basis for additional contempt sanctions not already incurred (unless criminal contempt charges are filed, but that's a separate bucket of consequences.)
- 7y ago
- anthm1988 7y agoScumbag judges should be thrown off for this. Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off.
- jldugger 7y agoRandom hypthetical: Imagine you are charged with a crime, and know for certain a witness can exhonerate you beyond any reasonable doubt. Maybe they don't like you, maybe they have something to gain from a guilty verdict. But you also know their testimony would not incriminate them at all -- they are also innocent, and the 5th amendment does not apply. You have a fifth amendment to witnesses in your defense, which this person is denying you. It seems reasonable to me that a coercive power like this should exist, even if we disagree with any given specific application of it.
- Seenso 7y ago> Scumbag judges should be thrown off for this. > Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off. It's not bullshit. Manning was basically obstructing justice by disobeying a court order. If sanctions like this didn't exist, people wouldn't have any incentive follow court orders at all, and the court system would become ineffective and break down. Also, I'm not sure if the concept of "charges" is even relevant here. Aren't those leveled by a prosecutor? In contempt cases the judge is directly punishing noncompliance with court proceedings.
- SolarNet 7y agoSecret politically motivated court systems. Using a method which has been called incompatible with basic human rights (by the EU), has been labeled as torture (by the UN), and compared to the governmental processes of countries like North Korea, China, and Iran (by various reporters). Also notably the immunity they granted her would not have protected her from various other legal troubles. The law in question (which then implies use of coercive incarceration) is a violation of the 5th amendment protections of self incrimination. I don't really care if those break down.
- bosswipe 7y agoTLDR; the Assange grand jury was dismissed today so Manning is ordered released but she still owes the coeercive fines which amount to $256,000.
- ineedasername 7y agoThat is obscene. I can just about understand contempt of court incarceration for not testifying (though I have extreme reservations on the practice) but such punitive and life-debilitating fines strike me as purely malicious.
- wl 7y agoI'm sure her representation, who likely are working pro bono, will challenge the fines.
- smsm42 7y agoI understand they already did (the same order mentions it) and they were denied. Of course, they could appeal I presume.
- iandanforth 7y agoThey did, as part of that order those challenges were denied. No idea if they can appeal that bit. IANAL.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoEverything about the legal actions surrounding Assange seems purely malicious. A number of different governments (in the US, UK and Sweden) are trying to make the point, "Don't publish our dirty secrets or else."
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y agoDespite rhetoric and protestation otherwise, "purely malicious" is a pretty good description of the US legal system.
- jlgaddis 7y agoIf anyone knows of a (legit) way to donate or make a payment towards her $256,000 in fines, please do share the details.
- sp332 7y agoHer lawyer (https://twitter.com/chasestrangio https://twitter.com/chasestrangio) retweeted a link to https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
- einpoklum 7y agoImportant: That link is _not_ intended for donations towards paying the fine, but rather Ms. Manning's legal defense!
- sp332 7y agoDo you have more information about this? I saw this link posted a lot in response to this question, but no actual details.
- einpoklum 7y agoJust follow the link... it says: > What will funds go toward specifically? > We will need legal funds for Chelsea’s legal fees, and legal costs such as court transcripts and travel, and commissary.
- laxd 7y agoWhats the difference? She needs x amounts of money.
- ObsoleteNerd 7y agoThe link above goes to paying her legal team. Her fine will come from her own funds separately. Your lawyers don't pay your fines, you do personally. Ideally, her legal team or someone would put up a separate fundraiser for her fine, that goes specifically to paying that. I for one would definitely donate.
- epx 7y agoAt last some good news today.
- Zenst 7y agoI'm wondering if jail is a safer or less safer place in light of the current pandemic. Let's face it, if you got your freedom after so many years only to be handed a facemask on your way out and told - you will need this. Has to suck at some level.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- japhyr 7y agoBeing confined in an unhealthy space is a very bad place to be right now. This would be a great time to release nonviolent offenders.
- Zenst 7y agoOnly if they have somewhere to live, so they can isolate themselves if they need or want too. Adding to the homeless would be placing them at greater risk with less medical and people to look out for than any prison. Homeless people are overlooked at the best of times, at the worst, they can't isolate, they live day by day. We should be focusing in assisting them as by helping them, we also help everybody else as nobody wants to be spreading this and some won't have that choice.
- jMyles 7y ago> I'm wondering if jail is a safer or less safer place It is so much less safe that a global pandemic isn't nearly enough to tip the balance, even if prisoners were 100% immune.
- Cyberdog 7y agoSometimes freedom and safety are at odds with each other. I will always side with freedom, and take my odds against a pandemic. But of course this is an academic exercise pretending that prisons, or especially jails which have a higher rate of people coming and going, are impermeable to an infectious disease. The truth is that once it's in there, it's in there, and only the (further) inhumane act of locking the inmates up in their individual cells 24/7 (so no social time, no visits to the library, etc) will stop it.
- wyldfire 7y agoCan Manning avoid the fines by declaring bankruptcy?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoThat’s not how it works Michael. You don’t “avoid” fines by declaring bankruptcy. You can go through a bankruptcy process and as the debtor you may be forgiven from certain things that the other side will clearly never receive money from, but this isn’t a clean slate trick you just do and walk away from. You basically convert your obligation into distrust. And can “refinance” some debts including judgments against you. So, could Manning go through bankruptcy and have the court never receive their money, yes. But I wouldn’t say this is “avoiding the fine”, just changing it.
- wyldfire 7y agoFair enough. s/avoid fines/minimize financial impact/
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- GordonS 7y agoI have no idea what the implications of bankruptcy are in the US, but it sounds like you are alluding to something serious - aside from no credit, what would Manning face in this scenario?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoNo, you are entirely misreading that. You don’t just get everything reset to zero. So bad credit, yes, but also maybe a condition is that you are still on the hook for legal fees but they have been worked down to 50,000 and the payments have been rescheduled to 20 years. It’s a legal process, not an eraser.
- PostOnce 7y ago
- andy_ppp 7y agoI’ve said it before but the idea of secret courts trying to coerce people into doing things seems extremely backwards and regressive. Maybe I don’t understand this system but it doesn’t seem to be about getting justice. If there is testimony already given as well it seems doubly wrong, inconsistent and hateful.
- causality0 7y agoCourts have as much to do with justice as HR departments. Both exist only to protect the higher-ups. It's not about protecting people; it's about protecting power and those who wield it.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoThat doesn’t make sense. Courts are independent (in theory) whereas HR is directly paid by and depending on the company.
- komali2 7y ago> Courts are independent (in theory) In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.
- Angostura 7y ago> completely untrue. That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?
- CriticalCathed 7y agoOne could argue that its merely lost to another government faction. Ala intra-aristocratic strife.
- denkmoon 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- resters 7y agoIt’s so sad that one of the most courageous soldiers in the history of the US military has been treated so horribly by the government.
- fallingfrog 7y agoThank god. It’s a mockery of the idea of America as a land of freedom when we have political prisoners who we abuse in this way.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ohyeshedid 7y agoIt's a shame lamo didn't make it to see this. I know it really fucked him up to out her. That would be such a nightmare situation to be in.
- ryanlol 7y ago>I know it really fucked him up to out her Did it really? Lamo was a person who’d go out of his way to seek out kids to snitch on just to amuse himself.
- ohyeshedid 7y agoAccording to his own words, yes. I knew lamo for just shy of 20 years. I will not defend his character; his regular drug abuse and mental health issues could make him unpredictable, mean, vicious, etc. I've never called him a friend, but he was a peer, had a keen mind, and was fascinatingly unique. I'm not defending him, but as someone that spent years conversing with him and sharing information, both online and in person, including discussions about this exact topic: Yeah, it really messed him up. Anyone that he was comfortable conversing with would say the same.
- TedDoesntTalk 7y agoHe/She got exactly what was deserved. I only wish he'd/she'd been jailed longer.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y agoChelsea's pronouns are she/her.
- TedDoesntTalk 7y agoI'll choose my own language, you choose yours. Manning doesnt choose for me.
- ausbah 7y agoyour words are disrespectful and childish
- cultus 7y agoI sure hope she leaves the country after this. This will keep happening for the rest of her life. You really don't want to run afoul of the security apparatus.
- jMyles 7y agoRunning afoul of the "security" apparatus is exactly what we need to do a lot more of if all of this technological innovation is to mean anything.
- bufferoverflow 7y agoI hope she stays. The country needs more people like Manning.
- atoav 7y agoWhich is precisely why she should go. The thing they did to Snowden is not exactly something that will scare Whistleblowers away. If you want heros and whistleblowers who risk their life for the truth to stay, maybe start taking that freedom of speech thing you are so proud of a little bit more seriously..
- einpoklum 7y agoThe judge assumes without comment that it was justified to hold Manning in the first place, and finds that she must now pay $256,000 for refusing to collaborate with the government anti-freedom-of-the-press campaign against Julian Assange. Shameful.
- chx 7y agoShameful? Yes. Freedom of the press for trying to persecute a Russian agent? Well... Sources: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-details-suggest-julian-assange-is-a-russian-agent https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-de... https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-that-assange-has-ties-to-russian-intelligence/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... And so on.
- 101404 7y agoPlease don't perpetuate those lies.
- Craighead 7y agoPlease don't continue forming false equivalencies
- paulddraper 7y agoAh, I forgot about the Russian exception in the Constitution.
- dependenttypes 7y agoEven if Assange was a Russian agent he still did nothing wrong regarding his actions of helping whistle-blowers publish their data.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
- an-allen 7y agoDid they just charge her a quarter of a million dollars for refusing to speak. What a crock of thuggy shit justice department.
- westmeal 7y agoLand of the free, home of the brave.
- adammunich 7y agoHome for the brave, lately
- lostgame 7y agoEspecially given its current leadership, I often turn away jobs of more than two times my salary - in USD (I live in Canada) - to avoid living in America. That Trump ever got elected - or was ever seriously considered as a candidate - tells me that enough of the the population is seriously disturbed that I’d like nothing to do with it. And then there’s the war atrocities...
- pentae 7y agoThis says more about you than 'enough of the population being seriously disturbed'
- dang 7y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provocative another comment is or you feel it is. It helps nothing, only makes this place even worse, and is what the guidelines explicitly ask you not to do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ramphastidae 7y agoYou’d probably lose the extra salary to overpriced and subpar health insurance, education, housing, and retirement.
- cfv 7y agoWhat's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
- paulddraper 7y agoPresidents being impeached (and their administrations) have always refused Congress's requests for testimony and documentation. Congress can take the President to court and compel documents and testimony (or else face contempt of court and imprisonment like Manning). The House did exactly that for Nixon and Cliton. For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't acceptable to them.
- 0xff00ffee 7y agoHow was Clinton testifying also him refusing to testify? Your claims differ from history.
- cfv 7y agoFrom this point forward: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/donald-trump-subpoenas.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/p... the DOJ has allowed the WH to refuse to comply with a bunch of subpoenas, and there's no amount of partisan rhetoric that can hide that fact. It's simply not up for debate, sorry. That said, I don't know what are they standing on to be able to do that without any court just sending them all to jail.
- kbutler 7y agohttps://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/executive+privilege https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/executive+pri... "The right of the president of the United States to withhold information from Congress or the courts." The article you mentioned cites executive privilege multiple times, and describes how it is unclear what the boundaries are. Simply saying "The House issued a subpoena and therefore the executive branch must comply" is just as invalid as "The executive branch can ignore all subpoenas".
- jason_slack 7y agoMs. Manning. Thank you. Living a life under public scrutiny isn't for everyone. I appreciate your sacrafice and sticking to what you felt was right.
- willart4food 7y agoAnd here all along I thought that she was already out. Bad for me for being out of touch. Awful for the Justice system for this clusterfuck!
- fareesh 7y agoFrom my understanding this whole ordeal appears to be vengeful and a complete miscarriage of justice. It's almost as if it's being done to make an example and have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers. Based on reading the news over the years it seems like the US DOJ has had quite a poor track record in general. The Aaron Swartz case, the attitude towards Assange/Manning and a record number of prosecution of whistleblowers, doctoring of emails to obtain FISA warrants, running guns to Mexico. An attorney general was held in contempt at the time, and it looks like the current one might be too, someday, if not worse. Incidentally I also read the recent OIG memo about rampant supervisor-subordinate romantic relationships in the DOJ, violating all sorts of workplace protocol. I am sure there is plenty of great work coming from the department that you never hear about but all this stuff makes it seem like in some ways the department has been run very unprofessionally for at least 10+ years now. Also disappointing has been the apparent timidity of the American news media who, until William Barr, seemed to be very soft on the DOJ.
- baryphonic 7y agoOn the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.) On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fifth Amendment privilege doesn't apply. She has no privilege against testifying against friends or people she wishes to lend moral support, and especially not when being called to testify in a (secret) grand jury proceeding. She could have chosen either to comply with the court order or face contempt proceedings as a form of civil disobedience. Instead, she's arguing that she's special and that contempt proceedings need not apply. I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. By trying to avoid punishment for her contempt of court, Manning has done nothing to sway the minds of the people who need to be convinced (i.e. Congress or maybe the Justice Department).
- baddox 7y ago> I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. You’re just saying that you support civil disobedience when you support it. Of course. But of course people can and do commit civil disobedience to protest things you don’t support.
- baryphonic 7y agoI chose my words carefully. People who commit civil disobedience and accept their punishments make me stop and ponder. I may not agree with their positions, but I do take them seriously. I feel the same way about people who self-immolate. Hard to have a more credible commitment to some sort of cause than almost certainly killing yourself in an extremely visible way. There's very little I would set myself on fire for, so I have serious respect for those who do it, and it makes me stop and consider what I believe.
- anikan_vader 7y agoIt seems to me that the 1st Amendment should, in principle, give you the right to remain silent in any circumstances (including when you're subpoenaed). After all, shouldn't freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak - isn't remaining silent in of itself a form of expression? I understand that this is not at all how the courts have interpreted the constitution, but it remains my gut interpretation - that individuals should have the right to freedom of speech and silence. I also believe, for the similar reasons, that lying to an FBI officer, when not under oath, should be constitutionally protected.
- baryphonic 7y agoWhile it might sound nice to want to sweep away compelled testimony, in this case the cure is much worse than the disease. A major part of the Constitution's objective as specified in the preamble is to "establish justice." Certainly criminal elements - actual criminals, not people who are quasi-political prisoners like Assange - would love to be able to refuse to testify under any circumstances. Such an interpretation would be untenable and would lead to essentially a failed state. Thus we understand that the First Amendment does not mean that people cannot be called to testify in court. Furthermore, keep in mind that your interpretation is directly contradicted by, well, the Constitution. Sixth Amendment: > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor [...] Considering that the First and Sixth Amendments were proposed together and ratified at the same time, I think the idea that the First Amendment allows people not to speak under compulsion of court is untenable. Finally, the text of the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law [...]" That framing is important: the right is against Congress enacting a law, not the courts granting an order compelling speech (like a subpoena) or forbidding it (like a gag order or keeping grand jury proceedings secret).
- anikan_vader 7y agoThank you for a very insightful reply that has made me reflect on my position. I am still concerned by the ethical ramifications of forcing people to testify against their friends and loved ones. I don't think it would necessarily result in a failed state if the prosecution were forced to rely on only willing witnesses and physical evidence. I am curious if you have any insight regarding the crime of making false statements to federal agents [1]. This actually is a law passed by congress that seems to interfere with free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
- greg7mdp 7y agoHer prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistleblowers and government openness.
- Melting_Harps 7y ago> Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistle-blowers and government openness. And Trump praised Wikileaks, and by extension Julian Assange, during his campaign and now [1] look at where things are? The sooner people realize the type of person drawn to politics is inherently the same (supposed party factions and names are irrelevant when looked at objectively and by outcome) and have ALL lied and manipulated to get to the position to do so, the better we will be as a Species and will hopefully lead to building viable alternatives. These people are the epitome of the narcissistic, sociopaths everyone rants running large corporations, except these are they type who will do and say anything to be elected: this is why I think seeing your Trumps or Berlusconi be elected would be useful if people were open to seeing it for it what truly is. Instead you get division and discord when we all intuitively realize that this is a myopic system that always leads to this inevitable outcome. Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it better. If there was a time for this kind of Governance, and I grant you it may have been useful during initial colonization/Industrialization; it has since become clear with how this, environmental ecocide, financial/banking malfeasance, climate change, and now Corona Virus pandemics are handled that it HAS LONG exceed its last glimmer of utility. 1: https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/us-assange-and-wikileaks/ar-BB10Z2Wl https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/us-assange-and-wikileak...
- JetSpiegel 7y ago> Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it better. Citation effing needed. I would argue those are outliers of sociopaths that reached positions of power, they don't represent every head of state, let alone all elected public officials.
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- noja 7y agoManning for President!
- LessDmesg 7y agoBradley's are he/him.
- thrownaway954 7y agoso she is ordered released but still has to pay $256K in fines. i was so hoping that those fines would be waved.
- counternrrative 7y agowhy do <s>all you morons</s> people lionise this person who is so obviously a vain, egotistical idiot exactly the same with Julian Assange. These <s>morons</s> people idolize these absolute imbeciles. Where does my point of view come from: 1. Person has a motivation. 2. Decides on a way to achieve that. 3. Frames it as "exposing the evil/hypocricsy that is society/institutions" 4. Adopts the strategy of "1 versus the power" BUT this does NOT effectively achieve their goal (has zero power against the power) but instead frames them as a martyr, condemns them to suffering, and serves to change nothing. AND BUT everybody loses their mind and declares, hey this <s>moron</s> person really stuck it to the man and is making progress for their cause. When in fact all they are is mentally ill living out a personification of their maladaptive masochistic self-narrative and savior-complex, but doing nothing for "the cause". But every <s>fucking moron</s> person lionizes this idiotic, self-destructive behaviour? I see a pattern where western society has large numbers of suicides and people praise this self-destructive idiocy. Other notes: - I am not making regard (here) to whether the nominal cause is a good idea or not. - I am only attempting to expose the disingenuous ineffectiveness of lionized "folk heroes" - AND the stupidity of their acolytes and fans - AND hoping to get people to consider, IF you were the POWER that is the STATUS QUO, would you NOT want people to LIONIZE and IDOLIZE idiotic, ineffective "resistence" measures as a cathartic, zero-change control system to preserve your power and provide people with an impotent outlet? - AND does this not somehow injure offend and waste the human person - AND would not humans be better utilized by being directed to either: something genuinely creative, or something actually reformative, rather than deceptively reformative? </rant status=end>