4 ms·
TLDR; the Assange grand jury was dismissed today so Manning is ordered released but she still owes the coeercive fines which amount to $256,000.
by bosswipe 7y ago
TLDR; 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.
- ineedasername 7y agoI know people that work on that end of things, and honestly the majority seem to be well meaning people who are trying to do the right thing and not be mean spirited in their pursuit of convictions. Of course that doesn't mean they're perfect, but in (my admittedly not comprehensively systematic experience) the majority are not malicious. But it only takes, say, 10% to paint the whole group that way. Same with judges. The extremes get publicity, but I am close with a few lawyers who tell me the judges they deal with are fully capable of exercising compassion when it comes to dealing with individual circumstances.