11 ms·

Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

300 points by hendi_ 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
toni 11y ago
So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?
- batou 11y ago
  Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss. Horrible but probably true.
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).
    - batou 11y ago
      Good publicity is a good return if you're a lawyer and probably cheaper than marketing so it doesn't always work like that. Otherwise, yep.
      - louithethrid 11y ago
        Last time i checked good publicity had zero-calories and also came with a goverment will set you on the black-list for all times.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      That's a bit of a false dichotomy though, isn't it? In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work. Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!
      - flexie 11y ago
        Lawyers charge a lot per hour but also have large overheads, especially trial lawyers. The amounts mentioned in the fundraising page seem small. I am guessing Chelsea Manning already gets a discount and that they will have to raise much more later on. A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years. A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers. Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases. But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.
    - vdaniuk 11y ago
      Put food on the table? Are you for real? Lawyers who work at the law firms that have expertise to represent Chelsea Manning are probably in 0.1% of top earners worldwide. If they can't work pro bono, who can?
      - minot 11y ago
        I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.
        vdaniuk 11y ago
        A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0] Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table. [0] http://www.globalrichlist.com http://www.globalrichlist.com
        nicboobees 11y ago
        Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc... Money well spent if you ask me.
        nicboobees 11y ago
        I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.
    - vijayr 11y ago
      That depends. Not everyone needs to work for money. There are also people who set aside certain amount of hours per week for pro bono work. Not everything has to be about money all the time.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > (eg, the lawyers need to eat). At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture. I have never seen a poor lawyer.
      - icelancer 11y ago
        My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.
        ekianjo 11y ago
        > criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.
        bmelton 11y ago
        That depends on your definition of typical, I suppose. http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/ There's indeed a lot of potential to make third-house money as a lawyer, but it is by no means a given, and it seems a lot less likely than you think.
        tat45 11y ago
        "Typical lawyers" make well under $100k per year. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/... Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical hourly rate. However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are working schlubs just like the rest of us.
        TallGuyShort 11y ago
    - analog31 11y ago
      In my view, a side effect of our legal system is that it's a very generous public gift to lawyers. And there's probably a perverse incentive for lawyers to manipulate that system to make it more lucrative and exclusive (e.g., more complex, so that regular people can't take care of their own minor legal issues). As such, I see no problem with maintaining a more equitable distribution of legal support. The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.
- LGBT_2000 11y ago
  Very possible. Being a despised minority sucks.
  - mahouse 11y ago
    How is this exactly related to what’s happening? I’m baffled by that conclusion (or accusation).
    - LGBT_2000 11y ago
      Transgender people are probably more hated than any other minority and hate-speech that would be completely unacceptable made about any other group often goes unchallenged when made about members of the transgender community. So it's not at all surprising a member of this group is having trouble finding her legal defence. And that's a problem.
      - nicboobees 11y ago
        You don't think you're slightly playing the victim card here at all do you?
        icebraining 11y ago
        How is it "playing the victim card"? Do you think it's untrue?
        npizzolato 11y ago
        She can't get free council because either 1. She's trans. 2. Her case is complex with many elements to it, requiring a large amount of money and time by many different people to argue correctly. Or some combination of the two. I think 2 is far more likely here, while you seem to only think 1 is a factor. I find that position obsurd.
      - pluma 11y ago
        I'm not sure Bradley Manning would have had a considerably bigger chance of getting pro bono defense than Chelsea Manning does now. Her transition may be a factor, but I'd wager it's not the biggest one by far -- even Snowden is widely regarded as a traitor in the US and he was considerably more nuanced about what confidential information he handed to the press.
- afarrell 11y ago
  This is for the appeal. For the trial, the accused have a right to counsel. In federal court, public defenders are paid a nontrivial amount. In state court...
- dogma1138 11y ago
  The lawyers may very well not take any money but that's not what you need the money for. For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out. The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.
chatman 11y ago
Very difficult to judge from the donation page as to how likely is the success in the case. I would happily donate if I see there is a good chance of a win.
- acqq 11y ago
  What if the chance is 1%? She can still be one of the 100.
andrelaszlo 11y ago
I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered normal? "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." - Universal Declaration of Human Rights §7 "If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way" - Pericles (431 BC)
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.
  - Coding_Cat 11y ago
    Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare but to a much lesser degree I'm inclined to believe.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      In the US, you're already entitled to an attorney for your defense. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good attorney.
      - DasIch 11y ago
        That's why you should be able to chose the court appointed attorney within reason.
fche 11y ago
(Curious what the basis of the appeal is to be.)
- steve19 11y ago
  I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to. There were several legal motions prior to the guilty plea and on which it was predicated that are quite likely to be the subject of the appeal, particularly the motions to dismiss all charges (first for Constitutional due process violations involving unlawful pretrial punishment, second for violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)
srose3100 11y ago
Sadly the odds will be stacked against her but I think it's worth donating if you can.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- steve19 11y ago
  Justice is indeed blind. Manning had her day in court. Nobody disputes what she did, or that is was illegal. She pled guilty and was convicted. Now arguing that this is not fair is something else alltogether.
anon3_ 11y ago
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. He is a traitor who has endangered lives. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
- icebraining 11y ago
  A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them. Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
  - anon3_ 11y ago
    > So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. > Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals. Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals. Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by. Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed. The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".
transfire 11y ago
So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way that it makes them want to become a woman? I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  It would be an interesting awful power to have, but I have to think that such a power would have had more "terror value" against extremely sexist Arab extremists than against random E-4s who are considering leaking some war porn to wikileaks. Why dump Osama in the ocean when you can just convince her she's a woman? All her former allies will reconsider their terrorist activities. By all accounts, however, Manning's gender issue was present before enlisting, and certainly before she had access to classified materials.
- amyjess 11y ago
  It's been pretty thoroughly established that reparative therapy doesn't work on trans people. What makes you think it'll work on cis people?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor Manning was not convicted of treason. > when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin. Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.
wtbob 11y ago
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
  - cheriot 11y ago
    Exposed traitors? Such as? The cabals are online so it should be easy to back up that statement.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > He exposed traitors. Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort? No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.
    - glass- 11y ago
      So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
      - wtbob 11y ago
        > So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor. No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not. Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legitimate action against an armed group or individual within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't like the decision of those whose job it was to decide.
im3w1l 11y ago
I have started to forget parts of this story. Does anyone know of a good refresher text?
justwannasing 11y ago
Sorry. I've already contributed to the funerals of those harmed by what Manning leaked.
- andrelaszlo 11y ago
  Honest question: who were they? The last thing I read [0] had no direct connections between the leaks and people being harmed. "Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said." 0: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning...
  - cm2187 11y ago
    It hasn't shown any wrong doing either. The only thing that made any noise was some records of some collateral damage, for which the US army already disclose statistics routinely and the absence of which would be surprising in any war. One can only claim to be a whistleblower if there is any wrongdoing exposed. Most reviewers of these notes mentioned that the US diplomacy was rather doing its job well.
fruzz 11y ago
I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.
- dysfunction 11y ago
  It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).
- delecti 11y ago
  Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions. Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
- amyjess 11y ago
  I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably. And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
  - ionised 11y ago
    > And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.
- 542458 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Simulacra 11y ago
I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.
- joshie_woshie 11y ago
  I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.
- driverdan 11y ago
  So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?
  - Simulacra 11y ago
    I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.
    - almost 11y ago
      Whistleblowing almost always involves breaking at least one law. The general trend has been to bring in more laws to make it less likely that it is possible legally in any given situation. To say "I support whistleblowing but only if no laws are broken" is almost meaningless.
- almost 11y ago
  Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere
Simulacra 11y ago
To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as "..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we forgive and forget their actions, simply because it was in the interest of making America better? To righting what they perceived was unjust policy? I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior. Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
megaman22 11y ago
Perhaps some of the money spent on transitioning her would have been more profitably spent on legal defense?
happyscrappy 11y ago
Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man ... Stan: Or woman. Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off. Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan? Stan: I want to be one. Reg: What? Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. Reg: What!? Stan: It's my right as a man. Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? Stan: I want to have babies. Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?! Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. Reg: But you can't have babies. Stan: Don't you oppress me. Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan — you haven't got a womb. Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? STAN starts crying. Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry. Reg: What's the point? Francis: What? Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies? Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality...

300 points by hendi_ 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

toni 11y ago

So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?

batou 11y ago
Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss. Horrible but probably true.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).
  - batou 11y ago
    Good publicity is a good return if you're a lawyer and probably cheaper than marketing so it doesn't always work like that. Otherwise, yep.
    - louithethrid 11y ago
      Last time i checked good publicity had zero-calories and also came with a goverment will set you on the black-list for all times.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    That's a bit of a false dichotomy though, isn't it? In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work. Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!
    - flexie 11y ago
      Lawyers charge a lot per hour but also have large overheads, especially trial lawyers. The amounts mentioned in the fundraising page seem small. I am guessing Chelsea Manning already gets a discount and that they will have to raise much more later on. A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years. A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers. Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases. But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    Put food on the table? Are you for real? Lawyers who work at the law firms that have expertise to represent Chelsea Manning are probably in 0.1% of top earners worldwide. If they can't work pro bono, who can?
    - minot 11y ago
      I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.
      - vdaniuk 11y ago
        A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0] Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table. [0] http://www.globalrichlist.com http://www.globalrichlist.com
        nicboobees 11y ago
        Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc... Money well spent if you ask me.
        nicboobees 11y ago
        I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    That depends. Not everyone needs to work for money. There are also people who set aside certain amount of hours per week for pro bono work. Not everything has to be about money all the time.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > (eg, the lawyers need to eat). At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture. I have never seen a poor lawyer.
    - icelancer 11y ago
      My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        > criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.
        bmelton 11y ago
        That depends on your definition of typical, I suppose. http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/ There's indeed a lot of potential to make third-house money as a lawyer, but it is by no means a given, and it seems a lot less likely than you think.
        tat45 11y ago
        "Typical lawyers" make well under $100k per year. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/... Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical hourly rate. However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are working schlubs just like the rest of us.
        TallGuyShort 11y ago
  - analog31 11y ago
    In my view, a side effect of our legal system is that it's a very generous public gift to lawyers. And there's probably a perverse incentive for lawyers to manipulate that system to make it more lucrative and exclusive (e.g., more complex, so that regular people can't take care of their own minor legal issues). As such, I see no problem with maintaining a more equitable distribution of legal support. The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.
LGBT_2000 11y ago
Very possible. Being a despised minority sucks.
- mahouse 11y ago
  How is this exactly related to what’s happening? I’m baffled by that conclusion (or accusation).
  - LGBT_2000 11y ago
    Transgender people are probably more hated than any other minority and hate-speech that would be completely unacceptable made about any other group often goes unchallenged when made about members of the transgender community. So it's not at all surprising a member of this group is having trouble finding her legal defence. And that's a problem.
    - nicboobees 11y ago
      You don't think you're slightly playing the victim card here at all do you?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        How is it "playing the victim card"? Do you think it's untrue?
        npizzolato 11y ago
        She can't get free council because either 1. She's trans. 2. Her case is complex with many elements to it, requiring a large amount of money and time by many different people to argue correctly. Or some combination of the two. I think 2 is far more likely here, while you seem to only think 1 is a factor. I find that position obsurd.
    - pluma 11y ago
      I'm not sure Bradley Manning would have had a considerably bigger chance of getting pro bono defense than Chelsea Manning does now. Her transition may be a factor, but I'd wager it's not the biggest one by far -- even Snowden is widely regarded as a traitor in the US and he was considerably more nuanced about what confidential information he handed to the press.
afarrell 11y ago
This is for the appeal. For the trial, the accused have a right to counsel. In federal court, public defenders are paid a nontrivial amount. In state court...
dogma1138 11y ago
The lawyers may very well not take any money but that's not what you need the money for. For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out. The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.

chatman 11y ago

Very difficult to judge from the donation page as to how likely is the success in the case. I would happily donate if I see there is a good chance of a win.

acqq 11y ago
What if the chance is 1%? She can still be one of the 100.

andrelaszlo 11y ago

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered normal? "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." - Universal Declaration of Human Rights §7 "If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way" - Pericles (431 BC)

humanrebar 11y ago
> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.
- Coding_Cat 11y ago
  Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare but to a much lesser degree I'm inclined to believe.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    In the US, you're already entitled to an attorney for your defense. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good attorney.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      That's why you should be able to chose the court appointed attorney within reason.

fche 11y ago

(Curious what the basis of the appeal is to be.)

steve19 11y ago
I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to. There were several legal motions prior to the guilty plea and on which it was predicated that are quite likely to be the subject of the appeal, particularly the motions to dismiss all charges (first for Constitutional due process violations involving unlawful pretrial punishment, second for violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)

srose3100 11y ago

Sadly the odds will be stacked against her but I think it's worth donating if you can.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

steve19 11y ago
Justice is indeed blind. Manning had her day in court. Nobody disputes what she did, or that is was illegal. She pled guilty and was convicted. Now arguing that this is not fair is something else alltogether.

anon3_ 11y ago

A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. He is a traitor who has endangered lives. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.

icebraining 11y ago
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law. So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place. If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them. Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
- anon3_ 11y ago
  > So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. > Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals. Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals. Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by. Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed. The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".

transfire 11y ago

So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way that it makes them want to become a woman? I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.

jessaustin 11y ago
It would be an interesting awful power to have, but I have to think that such a power would have had more "terror value" against extremely sexist Arab extremists than against random E-4s who are considering leaking some war porn to wikileaks. Why dump Osama in the ocean when you can just convince her she's a woman? All her former allies will reconsider their terrorist activities. By all accounts, however, Manning's gender issue was present before enlisting, and certainly before she had access to classified materials.
amyjess 11y ago
It's been pretty thoroughly established that reparative therapy doesn't work on trans people. What makes you think it'll work on cis people?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor Manning was not convicted of treason. > when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin. Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.

wtbob 11y ago

It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them. He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
- cheriot 11y ago
  Exposed traitors? Such as? The cabals are online so it should be easy to back up that statement.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > He exposed traitors. Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort? No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.
  - glass- 11y ago
    So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor. No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not. Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legitimate action against an armed group or individual within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't like the decision of those whose job it was to decide.

im3w1l 11y ago

I have started to forget parts of this story. Does anyone know of a good refresher text?

justwannasing 11y ago

Sorry. I've already contributed to the funerals of those harmed by what Manning leaked.

andrelaszlo 11y ago
Honest question: who were they? The last thing I read [0] had no direct connections between the leaks and people being harmed. "Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said." 0: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning...
- cm2187 11y ago
  It hasn't shown any wrong doing either. The only thing that made any noise was some records of some collateral damage, for which the US army already disclose statistics routinely and the absence of which would be surprising in any war. One can only claim to be a whistleblower if there is any wrongdoing exposed. Most reviewers of these notes mentioned that the US diplomacy was rather doing its job well.

fruzz 11y ago

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

dysfunction 11y ago
It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).
delecti 11y ago
Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions. Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
amyjess 11y ago
I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably. And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
- ionised 11y ago
  > And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.
542458 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Simulacra 11y ago

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

joshie_woshie 11y ago
I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.
driverdan 11y ago
So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?
- Simulacra 11y ago
  I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.
  - almost 11y ago
    Whistleblowing almost always involves breaking at least one law. The general trend has been to bring in more laws to make it less likely that it is possible legally in any given situation. To say "I support whistleblowing but only if no laws are broken" is almost meaningless.
almost 11y ago
Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere

Simulacra 11y ago

To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as "..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we forgive and forget their actions, simply because it was in the interest of making America better? To righting what they perceived was unjust policy? I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior. Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

megaman22 11y ago

Perhaps some of the money spent on transitioning her would have been more profitably spent on legal defense?

happyscrappy 11y ago

Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man ... Stan: Or woman. Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off. Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg. Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan? Stan: I want to be one. Reg: What? Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. Reg: What!? Stan: It's my right as a man. Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan? Stan: I want to have babies. Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?! Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. Reg: But you can't have babies. Stan: Don't you oppress me. Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan — you haven't got a womb. Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? STAN starts crying. Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry. Reg: What's the point? Francis: What? Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies? Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality...