Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime The Courts Government United States

Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing To Testify On WikiLeaks (apnews.com) 461

The Associated Press is reporting that Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, "has been sentenced to jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating Wikileaks." From the report: U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ordered Manning to jail for contempt of court on Friday after a brief hearing in which Manning confirmed she has no intention of testifying. She told the judge she "will accept whatever you bring upon me." Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial. The judge said she will remain jailed until she testifies or until the grand jury concludes its work. Manning's lawyers had asked that she be sent to home confinement instead of the jail, because of medical complications she faces. The judge said U.S. marshals can handle her medical care. Prosecutor Tracy McCormick said the jail and the marshals have assured the government that her medical needs can be met.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing To Testify On WikiLeaks

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @02:35PM (#58238940)

    I think it's very telling that both under a strident Democratic administration, and now a Republican one, that the investigation and hatred for Wikileaks is exactly the same. This is why I often maintain there is really very little difference between the two parties...

    I do feel sorry for Manning though, sending her to jail and not even letting her be confined to home is bullshit. As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify. I think it's sad they can get away with this.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:12PM (#58239206)

      > As Wikileaks has said on Twitter, this is simply an effort to coerce Manning to testify.

      I suggest you brush up on your basic civics because, yes, that's exactly the point of being held in contempt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court). This is not because she's affiliated with Wikileaks; this is not because she leaked classified information. This is specifically because she has been subpoenaed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena) meaning her testimony is NOT optional. This is in no way an unusual or unfair outcome of refusing to testify and she is not being singled out. If you are subpoenaed by a grand jury and refuse to testify, you get thrown in jail until you cooperate. Doesn't matter who you are.

      Wikileaks saying that on Twitter like they're somehow making a revelation or leveling an accusation is extremely stupid attention seeking behavior as is pretty much standard operating procedure for them.

    • Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

      As for the two parties, one is the Liberal philosophy and one is the Conservative philosophy. They're polar opposites, with degrees of how strongly people push those philosophies. That's the real difference, and it's important. Legislators and administrators will take the country in different directions d

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Fifth amendment stuff should probably apply here, although I don't see what law they can possibly use to compel a witness in an investigation not related to any law which that witness may have broken.

        Fifth Amendment protects against SELF Incrimination.

        It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just g

        • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          It should be noted that NOTHING said before a Grand Jury can be used to bring criminal charges against the speaker. So if you're called to a Grand Jury, and they ask you "Did YOU murder that family?", if you say "Yeah, it was me that did it" then you just got away with murder....

          That is not remotely true, says the licensed attorney.

          The fifth amendment says that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you fail to assert the fifth amendment and voluntarily answer the question "Did YOU mu

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Perhaps it just never occurred to you that the DOJ is non-partisan and its consistency and continuity says nothing about the differences between political parties.

      Of course, nothing you post demonstrates the slightest insight.

    • by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:21PM (#58239632)
      You do know that it is an effort to force Manning to testify? It is a legal option that judges have and is used every day to compel someone like him.
    • is that I think the Dems can be redeemed. There are folks like Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez & Ro Khanna who fight for the working class and the every day man/woman. There's an entire wing of the party (called "Justice Democrats") working to change the party from within. I know of no such movement in the Republican party. The closest the GOP has is Rand Paul's brand of libertarianism, but that ultimately leaves me at the mercy of folks with thousands of times more money than me.
      • Trump seems to think that he's fighting for the worker. At least, a lot of laborers I know favor the wall, and even here on Slashdot workers have favored his changes to the H1b system. Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration from Mexico too. He thought it undercut labor wages.
  • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @02:42PM (#58238994) Journal

    Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @02:45PM (#58239016)

      So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

      Could be a desire not to endanger people Manning may have worked with or contacted within Wikileaks or even within the military. And of course, from the summary: "Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process, and that she already revealed everything she knows at her court martial."

      • You can be compelled by the court to testify in a case unrelated to you (other than you being a witness). Refusal to do so is contempt of court, and can result in jail time (not prison). Your desire to protect someone does not override the court's responsibility to get at the truth.

        This seems like an odd reason to refuse to comply with the court. Grand jury [wikipedia.org] hearings (they determine if there's sufficient evidence for a case to go to a real trial) act as a shield against government harassing innocents by
    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.

      • The sentence was commuted, but is that the same as pardoned? I'm unclear as well.

        No, it isn't. I messed up. Several posters corrected me.

    • Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?

      She had her sentence commuted, she did not receive a pardon. She can be compelled to testify and could possibly plead the fifth depending on why she claims a fifth amendment right.

    • That means she can't take the fifth

      By the fifth I assume you mean the right to remain silent. You have this right to not incriminate yourself, it does not prevent you from having to testify specific information about something when the court has subpoena you.

      Speaking of grand juries and the Fifth Amendment:
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of

  • She refuses to testify because she doesn't like the secrecy. But then she claims that she's already revealed everything there is to say. And somehow twists this into some sort of idealogical battle? This is a *very* fuzzy headed individual. Sigh. I guess that it's pretty common across the board. Humanity has put rationality in the back seat for the time being.

    She won't win this fight unless she's ready to sit out the jail sentence. When a grand jury pulls you up and says "talk" you don't get a say in t
  • The rule of law is alive and well, in the USA, thank goodness. And if you defy a court of law, you will pay a price.

    So, Chelsea better get comfortable unless she wants to answer questions.

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:00PM (#58239504)

    ... certain matters at her trial.

    There are other matters that the feds thought were unnecessary to pursue because they already had enough to put her away.

    Even the Obama decision did not upset prosecutors. However, the US is gearing up for an Assange trial once Ecuador releases Assange to London.

    For that reason, additional actions by Manning, declared moot at the time, are now important to the Assange trial.

    Those same facts would also incriminate Manning and expose her to possible further litigation. I predict an immunity deal for her.

    • They apparently had already offered full immunity for testimony before the Grand Jury and she refused to testify anyways.

  • I don't like how this process works, you testify or else. You can take the 5th and not testify, but you cannot pick and choose your questions. It's all or nothing, so as soon as you answer ONE question, you have no choice, even a question like "What is your name?" is enough.

    That being said, Manning has competent legal counsel and immunity from prosecution for any possibly related crimes, so there is no pleading the 5th. But if you refuse to testify, jail is the result. Manning knows that, Manning's legal

  • But I guess she really likes jail. I mean, you could both lie under oath and get away with it, or even tell the truth and know that it won't make shit difference on the opinion of the government (which in the US, has been proven to be the entity that controls justice) about Wikileaks. Even so, Chelsea prefers to go back to jail. Somebody needs to tell Chelsea that it's already too late to trust in heroic actions against that state.

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.

Working...