Chelsea Manning Sent Back To Jail For Refusing To Testify Before Grand Jury (npr.org) 362
After being released from jail earlier this month after the grand jury she refused to testify before expired, NPR reports that Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who provided information to WikiLeaks, has been sent back to jail. An anonymous reader shares the report: Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning was sent back to jail Thursday after refusing for a second time to comply with a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. "Facing jail again, potentially today, doesn't change my stance," Manning told reporters in Alexandria, Va., before U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga said she was in contempt of court. "I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury," Manning insisted. "So it doesn't matter what it is or what the case is, I'm just not going to comply or cooperate."
Manning said prosecutors had put her in an impossible position despite the Justice Department granting her immunity from self-incrimination. In addition to being held in custody for the duration of the grand jury's investigation or until Manning testifies, the judge ordered her to be fined $500 every day that she is in custody after 30 days and $1,000 every day in custody after 60 days, according to a statement by Manning's lawyers.
Manning said prosecutors had put her in an impossible position despite the Justice Department granting her immunity from self-incrimination. In addition to being held in custody for the duration of the grand jury's investigation or until Manning testifies, the judge ordered her to be fined $500 every day that she is in custody after 30 days and $1,000 every day in custody after 60 days, according to a statement by Manning's lawyers.
Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: Founders of the United States fought for & established, summed up by Thomas Jefferson, A Government Of, For, And By the People. Inherently making it a requirement of the people to be informed of what their business of government is doing.
How come we need leakers and publishers to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite simply because corruption and malfeasance are part of human nature.
Re:Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
There are levels of secrecy. Sweden, for example, the "Principle of Public Access" embedded in its constitution, guaranteeing public access to all government documents. Very limited exceptions exist: the security of the realm is one of them, and the secrecy must be specifically deemed necessary. But even those secrets have a time limit of 70 years.
They're an interesting nation, and I do wish the USA would follow their model in this policy.
Re: Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:2, Informative)
Russia doesn't think like you. Sweden is considered of great strategic importance to Russia. It holds the key to dominating the Baltic Sea and has vast natural resources. Russian spies are routinely deported from Sweden and they violate Swedish territory with ships and planes regularly (in addition to having submarines deep in Swedish waters at times).
Re: (Score:2)
Russia could take out sweden in a morning if they wanted. Any spying they do is probably industrial espionage, not military.
Re: Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that the full might of the USSR couldn't take out Afghanistan at all I think it's reasonable to suggest that Sweden (who actively train for guerilla warfare) would be bloody difficult to take out short of nuclear war.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd very much agree they're distinct nations with different military needs and responsibilities. Since the "gold vault" has been used to fund murder, arms deals, and drug dealing both in the USA and in other nations, it seems reasonable to demand that the books of the owners of the "gold vault" be exposed to the USA courts if not to the USA public.
Re: (Score:2)
for what purpose?
hint: http://3seas.org/Voice_of_Glob... [3seas.org]
What is not being allowed?
Re:Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Consider the belonging of Assange being turned over to the US gov by Ecuador, is there such information on other countries that the US gov should not have. Considering, in essence, his belongings are being taken in an act of theft, would this constitute espionage? How about the verified acts of the US gov. to commit espionage re: https://thefederalist.com/2018... [thefederalist.com]
The grand jury is a secret court and this is the problem, the sort of thing the Founders of the US fought against. Law 101, the law is not perfect and it is the spirit and intent of the law, when created, taking into consideration so to recognize and address exceptions to the law. The Declaration of Independence is the spirit and intent foundation of all viable US law.
What has been going is an illegal manipulation of the laws to create a bait and switch entrapment situation, these are independently illegal and combining them does not change their status. The grand jury already has all they need from Manning from Manning's court marshal and they know it. They want and need Manning to lie because there is a timeline deadline on what charges the US government needs to present to the UK gov in regards to extradition and that deadline is coming up. This is why the fines after 30 days and more after 60 days. Of course, as a backup Sweden has again, for the third time, reopened the investigation into allegations of rape but really there is no investigation left to do, but extradition from Sweden buys the US more time to fulfill the extradition requirement.
Simply Put: the US gov has no solid evidence against Assange, not even espionage. https://www.cnn.com/videos/bus... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This.
Scrub all the other bullshit and start over. The last charges I looked at had a 5-year sentence, max.
The US want's Assange put away for life, but they don't have concrete evidence.
The US better remember that Assange has a dead-man switch on a whole shit load of incriminating documents.
If he heads towards more than 5 years, he's gonna sing like a bird about US transgressions against allies, and electioneering by the current administration. Putin and Assange have that worked that out.
Consider the players
Re: (Score:3)
His free compatriots were very unlikely to feed him anything as in the embassy he was considered burnt and the subject of intense monitoring. What exactly is world shatterin
Re: (Score:2)
The dead man's switch trips if he's incarcerated or killed.
Keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the affected parties included in the insurance files are aware of what might be in them. As cryptocurrency dived many mining farms dumped their gear at bargain prices. Q: could such mining hardware in a farm or shared be reconfigured to solve the insurance file keys? Also, there is another Slashdot story about open source software to crack passwords... https://it.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
One way or another those insurance files will be opened for the public to see.
Re:Who are the criminally guilty? (Score:4, Informative)
A grand jury [wikipedia.org] is not a court. It's an investigative body which decides if enough evidence exists to bring charges against someone. While it operates similarly to a court (evidence is presented to a jury), the worst that can happen if a grand jury decides to indict you is that... you go on trial in a real court where you'll be given ample opportunity to refute evidence against you.
Sometimes the grand jury's investigations are kept secret to protect the person being investigated. The media tends not to be very responsible when it comes to juicy rumors. And when people like you who don't understand what it is a grand jury does read media stories that someone is being investigated by a grand jury, they can jump to the conclusion that the person is guilty. Not because they're on trial, but just because they're being investigated to see if they should go on trial. If the judge feels there's a substantial risk of that happening, s/he may order the grand jury's investigation to be kept secret.
Re: (Score:3)
The grand jury is a secret court and this is the problem,
Grand juries aren't to establish guilt. They're to determine if there's enough evidence to proceed with an indictment.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Culper Spy Ring, which spied on the British for George Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
She paid her price, so what's your point?
Re: Who are the criminally guilty? (+5, Informati (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous with and alteration of the subject line to make it seem you have a high agree score. You sound like the government propagandizing the American public. Try improving by sounding like a salesperson using non-sequiturs yes's to start and end with, with subtle BS sandwiched in the middle i.e. U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger when he addressed the media after Mannings recent Grand Jury appearance.
Grounds for refusal? (Score:4, Interesting)
I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury
What are her reasons for this? I'm not sure what a Grand Jury's powers are exactly, and what kind of questions they are asking her, but it seems to me there aren't really any legal grounds for such a refusal. That statement from her lawyers didn't exactly clarify things; there's a lot of grandstanding about the wider implications of the trial against Assange, and "freedom of press", but nothing about why she should be exempt from being questioned by the Grand Jury. Are they arguing that she or Assange are journalists or something?
Re:Grounds for refusal? (Score:5, Informative)
I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury
What are her reasons for this? I'm not sure what a Grand Jury's powers are exactly, and what kind of questions they are asking her, but it seems to me there aren't really any legal grounds for such a refusal. That statement from her lawyers didn't exactly clarify things; there's a lot of grandstanding about the wider implications of the trial against Assange, and "freedom of press", but nothing about why she should be exempt from being questioned by the Grand Jury. Are they arguing that she or Assange are journalists or something?
She isn't claiming to be exempt from being questioned by the grand jury, but rather that she shouldn't be compelled to answer since the grand jury process is being used as trial prep.
Re: (Score:3)
She definitely is claiming that. Manning clearly stated it's about all grand juries categorically:
“After two months of confinement, and using every legal mechanism available so far, I can —without any hesitation— state that nothing will convince me to testify before this or any other grand jury for that matter. This experience so far only proves my long held belief that grand juries are simply outdated tools used by the federal government to harass and disrupt political opponents and activ
Re: (Score:2)
But this? She doesn't refute she did something illegal. Even if you think that illegal thing was downright heroic, having to testify about it every year for the rest of your life seems perfectly reasonable to me, grand jury or otherwise.
I suspect Manning might be worried about retribution from the people she was working for. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Re: Grounds for refusal? (Score:2)
That's what grand jurors ARE FOR, preparing for trials... Why does Chelsea get to decide which legal proceedings she'll participate in?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury
What are her reasons for this? I'm not sure what a Grand Jury's powers are exactly, and what kind of questions they are asking her, but it seems to me there aren't really any legal grounds for such a refusal.
Grand Juries are like fact finding missions.
Grand Jury operates under a different set of rules. There is no pleading the 5th, Manning isn't incriminating himself, and isn't even the person of interest. GJ's do not declare anyone guilty, or have mistrials.
Put in the most simple way. You are asked a question, and you answer. If you refuse to answer, you can be held in contempt. Manning's refusal to answer questions places him directly in contempt of court, and for no apparent good reason.
Which is all to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And your post reveals that you like to go out of your way to be a rude asshole.
When someone makes the switch, it is polite to refer to that person using the pronoun that fits their new gender. But you don't care about polite; you want to be hostile. You want to make people feel bad and ashamed, and you go out of your way to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
And your post reveals that you like to go out of your way to be a rude asshole.
When someone makes the switch, it is polite to refer to that person using the pronoun that fits their new gender. But you don't care about polite; you want to be hostile. You want to make people feel bad and ashamed, and you go out of your way to do it.
I'm willing to give some leeway in this, Chelsea Manning entered public consciousness when she was still Bradley Manning and made her biggest media splash as Bradly, and first impressions stick. When I think of Manning I generally first think of her as "him" then correct myself, it's hard to make that adjustment especially when you haven't seen them much in their new gender.
I don't doubt that a well meaning individual will sometimes misgender them by accident. Now, if they're doing it on purpose and making
Re: (Score:2)
Don't push your opinions on others. You sound like an oppressive person for deciding "giving some leeway" might be warranted. You ultimately (like the person you replied to) thumbed down your fellow man for a disagreement on how they label a person.
Society's rules are being rewritten without everyone's approval. Fall in line, or get your head chopped off. No thanks.
I wasn't trying to push my opinion or thumb down anyone, I pointed out that the assumption that the other person was deliberately misgendering Chelsea Manning was unwarranted.
We can advance society to be more inclusive and understanding while still being accommodating to people who aren't quite keeping up.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't push your opinions on others. You sound like an oppressive person for deciding "giving some leeway" might be warranted. You ultimately (like the person you replied to) thumbed down your fellow man for a disagreement on how they label a person.
Society's rules are being rewritten without everyone's approval. Fall in line, or get your head chopped off. No thanks.
I wasn't trying to push my opinion or thumb down anyone
You don't get it. SJW AC is trying to demand what you say coonforms to their rules.
Their not quite sane attitude is that you must call a person by some specific gender, and go absolutely insane on you if to do not take the knee.
It's how they can take a fit and call me an asshole when there was nothing insulting in my post, then demand I be "polite"
It's like a new religion, with the same sort of hate filled dogma, with yelling and screaming for those who do not submit.
And we heead down that road,
Re: (Score:2)
"while still being accommodating to people who aren't quite keeping up"
And now you're talking down to those who refuse to conform to your newfound definition of enlightenment. You're insinuating that they're slower or less intelligent because their opinion differs from yours. Maybe they see this bullshit for what it is.
Actually I wasn't insinuating anything of the kind.
I said their views weren't changing as quickly as the rest of societies, no where did I imply this was due to being less intelligent or "slow".
People can mutilate themselves and call themselves whatever they want. That's freedom of choice. However, their choices do not require the participation or consent of other members of said society. That's also freedom. Don't like it? Tough. Because freedom.
Yeah, you have the freedom to be an asshole, and I have the freedom to call you an asshole and subject you to some limited degree of shaming, that's how healthy societies stay vibrant without being overrun by assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you have the freedom to be an asshole, and I have the freedom to call you an asshole and subject you to some limited degree of shaming, that's how healthy societies stay vibrant without being overrun by assholes.
What is important is which listing of genders do you ascribe to?
I personally believe that there is an infinite list, if we surrender to the concept that gender is not fixed, but a social construct where the individual set assigns a gender, and at least in Canada, you must take the knee and refer to them only as that self assigned gender - or be charged with a hate crime. For my own outlook, I take gender to mean sex. There are males, there are females, and there is intersex. You are born as male or femal
Re: (Score:2)
Those are two separate people, btw. I wrote the first comment.
I don't think you should call people assholes. Just understand that many people have different viewpoints on things. No one has a "right" to be called something.
I try to choose my words deliberately and I stand by that comment.
The AC I replied to wrote "People can mutilate themselves and call themselves whatever they want", that's not expressing a different viewpoint about gender changes.
First they use the term "mutilate" to describe the medical procedure, which has very negative connotations. Then they describe people identifying with their new gender as "call themselves whatever they want", which is very dismissive and insulting.
That's not just expressing a viewp
Re:Grounds for refusal? (Score:5, Informative)
Grand Jury operates under a different set of rules. There is no pleading the 5th,
The fifth amendment is supposedly a human right. If you can't plead the fifth to a grand jury, then either it's not a right, or the grand jury is unconstitutional. Any supreme court decision to the contrary, likewise.
Manning isn't incriminating himself, and isn't even the person of interest.
That's not how it works AT ALL. Anything said in court is a matter of record, and can easily be the basis of prosecution. It doesn't matter even slightly who the "person of interest" is — say the wrong thing in court, or in front of congress, or anywhere else really, and you can become a person of interest.
GJ's do not declare anyone guilty, or have mistrials.
That just doesn't matter, even a little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Jury operates under a different set of rules. There is no pleading the 5th,
The fifth amendment is supposedly a human right. If you can't plead the fifth to a grand jury, then either it's not a right, or the grand jury is unconstitutional. Any supreme court decision to the contrary, likewise.
Once you have been given immunity for your testimony there is no more pleading the 5th since you cannot incriminate yourself as you have been immunized. Since grand jury testimony is secret, even others cannot review your testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Jury operates under a different set of rules. There is no pleading the 5th,
The fifth amendment is supposedly a human right. If you can't plead the fifth to a grand jury, then either it's not a right, or the grand jury is unconstitutional. Any supreme court decision to the contrary, likewise.
Once you have been given immunity for your testimony there is no more pleading the 5th since you cannot incriminate yourself as you have been immunized. Since grand jury testimony is secret, even others cannot review your testimony.
Pretty much exactly. Manning was given immunity, and is raising a constitutional objection against testifying that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is a giant loophole I reckon, it means you may be forced to incriminate someone else, the whole idea of the right to remain silent was because inquisitors where forcing people to speak and getting out of hand with it. Now they are locking someone up and fining them for simply not speaking. The loophole should be closed.
What is the point of immunity if you're going to be locked up and fined? That really makes no sense. If you're immune then you shouldn't be locked up.
1 person has a right to silence
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Jury operates under a different set of rules. There is no pleading the 5th,
The fifth amendment is supposedly a human right. If you can't plead the fifth to a grand jury, then either it's not a right, or the grand jury is unconstitutional. Any supreme court decision to the contrary, likewise.
Manning was given immunity from prosecution. His testimony would result in no prosecution, therfore no 5th amendment association. Source text : Prosecutors had bestowed legal immunity on Ms. Manning for her testimony, she said, but she responded to each question by saying she refused to answer because it violated her constitutional rights. Source link https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
She was mistaken about both the law and the constitution.
We start out with the 5th amendment:
No person shall be held
Re: (Score:2)
I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury
What are her reasons for this? I'm not sure what a Grand Jury's powers are exactly, and what kind of questions they are asking her, but it seems to me there aren't really any legal grounds for such a refusal.
The United States is in the company of Liberia as the only country that still uses the grand jury system for judicial fishing expeditions. The reason is specifically because of the oft-quoted observation that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, if he wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
Would her testimony in front of this grand jury aid _anyone_ other than the NSA and other abusive espionage agencies whose activity she helped reveal? The grand jury is seeking to expose the leaks so that other personnel can be prosecuted, and the leaks closed.
Re: (Score:2)
To answer your question, instead of the "i know you are but what am i, child shit" the Grand jury already has all the information they need from Mannings Court Marshall and they know it, but they want Manning to Lie. https://www.cnn.com/videos/bus... [cnn.com] Isn't it Obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Jury testimony and deliberation are supposed to remain secret. However, given the US House of Representatives predilection for ignoring the law, I don't see where anyone would put themselves at risk making any statements before such a court.
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Juries operate in secret, they can include or ignore any inconvenient bits.
They already have testimony from the court martial
It's probably a perjury trap
The only official purpose seems to be catching Assange with a very flimsy case.
All of this is from memory based on widely reported stories from numerous freely available sources, including TV and radio. Try them some time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Manning said prosecutors had put her in an impossible position despite the Justice Department granting her immunity from self-incrimination."
Sorry no fifth plea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5th does apply with grand juries. You still have to appear but don't have to testify about things that may implicate your guilt.
Regardless (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what you think of her(or him) or Assange, this is a direct assault on the freedoms of the press.
Effortless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sent in this story two days ago, and I don't even get a mention when you post it....
Who knows how they pick stories? I've sent in really relevant stories in the past, and seen silly crap get chosen. So I just don''t bother any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows how they pick stories? I've sent in really relevant stories in the past, and seen silly crap get chosen. So I just don''t bother any more.
It is and always has been a popularity contest, I've had the same experience twice. And both times, my submission was superior to what actually hit the front page, much later than my submission.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows how they pick stories? I've sent in really relevant stories in the past, and seen silly crap get chosen. So I just don''t bother any more.
It is and always has been a popularity contest, I've had the same experience twice. And both times, my submission was superior to what actually hit the front page, much later than my submission.
Pretty much this.
Refusing to participate in a kangaroo court (Score:5, Insightful)
proceedings is now a crime?
LOL, and I am old enough to remember the time when the US would call such people who refused to cooperate to the Soviet "justice" system "heroes" and "prisoners of conscience".
This whole affair is a disgraceful and lame attempt to scare everyone who might expose war crimes of a powerful nation into silence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is quite impossible for me to "get a subpoena" by this specific kangaroo court, because I am quite far from its jurisdiction.
But I am not the issue here, the issue is Manning, who is a prisoner of conscience, being tortured because of the refusal to testify in the made-up case against Assange.
It is a shame that your country is involved in this kind of behavior.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He could still show up and invoke the fifth or something like "I don't recall". But he's simply refusing to show up and cooperate with the courts just to keep himself in the media.
Re:Refusing to participate in a kangaroo court (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently he cannot "invoke the fifth" because of the way his questioning was set up by the prosecutors. And why should anyone be forced to participate in a farcical show trial like this one anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in this case I'm claiming it. And I do so because it is obvious. From what little we can see, the only way the case against Assange can go forward is by having Manning testify against him. This is why he is under pressure, which is quite close in my book to "cruel and unusual punishment". It is also obviously rooted in politics and not "justice".
When an injustice is committed legally, it isn't any less of an injustice. The only difference is that it requires more determination and more effort to rectif
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite impossible for me to "get a subpoena" by this specific kangaroo court, because I am quite far from its jurisdiction.
But I am not the issue here, the issue is Manning, who is a prisoner of conscience, being tortured because of the refusal to testify in the made-up case against Assange.
It is a shame that your country is involved in this kind of behavior.
Well if Assange assisted Manning in obtaining classified documents from the US government, then yes, the US government does have a case against Assange.
That's how the journalists generally stay in the clear. You can be a passive recipient of leaked data, but you can't actively assist in the leaking.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing about this case that can convince an impartial observer that it is not a manufactured one. The 9 year delay, the pressure on Ecuador, the treatment of Manning, all give this "case" a very distinct, Kafkaesque image, typical of a regimes that the US is claiming to be an antagonist of.
The many instances of the US government punishing whistleblowers and trying to scare international journalists (like it was done with Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda) show that this is a US policy and not an o
Re: (Score:2)
Serious charges against 'Mr.Dollar Ton' coming up in 3... 2... 1...
I confess, I both mu Russian and Mandarin are quite good and I considered buying a Huawei phone once. I guess that's enough for "rape" charges and a lifetime of Gitmo.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have misunderstood who does the licking of boots.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you get a subpoena and you fail to appear, you can be in serious trouble
Well, that *used* to be the case until the current administration, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But it only works for those few who appoint the judges and their friends, not for everyone.
most likely issue (Score:2)
Chelsea is probably being cited for contempt of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She.
Seriously people. She.
Re: (Score:2)
>"She. Seriously people. She."
Either works in this case, depending on type of conversation. Every cell in his body is male. He was born male, he developed as a male, he was presented as male most of his life. But....
As a matter of respect and politeness, personally, in conversation, I would use whichever of the two sets of gender pronouns in which people visibly present themselves. I would urge others to do the same.
One thing I would never use is the ridiculous "ze" stuff, however. And I would vigor
Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
Manning said prosecutors had put her in an impossible position despite the Justice Department granting her immunity from self-incrimination.
Unfortunately for Manning, legally you can only refuse to testify against a spouse or if it will incriminate yourself for that which you may be prosecuted. The law makes no exemptions for fealty.
There are no legal grounds for refusing to testify and Manning will be jailed for contempt until complying.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for Manning, legally you can only refuse to testify against a spouse or if it will incriminate yourself for that which you may be prosecuted. The law makes no exemptions for fealty.
So what? He's obviously refusing to testify on the grounds that he might be incriminated in a crime for which he has not yet been tried in the process of testimony. That's a human right, according to the constitution. You can't reasonably claim that he's not claiming it on that basis unless you know what he would say, and until he says it, you don't know what it is. And frankly, he doesn't have to have committed any crimes for that to be true, because the government has already demonstrated a willingness to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chelsea Assange then?
You can only refuse to testify against a spouse for crimes committed while you are married, not those which occur before the union.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange, where is your offer to help? (Score:2)
With Manning being fined, its great to see Wikileaks and Assange stepping up to pay the fines for her.
Wait...... Oh, it doesn't affect Julian, why would they help.
Re: (Score:2)
With Manning being fined, its great to see Wikileaks and Assange stepping up to pay the fines for her.
Maybe Assange is who Manning is protecting.
The Chinese-Russian States of America. (Score:2, Interesting)
I should make a news site, consisting solely of news from the US, with the names, dates and locations changed to China, Russia, Soviet Russia or early Nazi Germany, and see how much Americans suddenly are outraged at this sort of thing, suggesting offensive war, murder, and hate in the comments.
Then I should translate them back to the original story and post them under unamerican names.
The results would be hilarious! :)
Isn't this excessive fine breaking any laws? (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this excessive fine breaking any laws? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to comply with the court and then you don't have to.
"Do as you're told and you won't get hurt" (or fined) is a message for hostages, not citizens nor even prisoners. Legitimate regimes make prisoners of citizens. Terrorists take them hostage.
Re: Isn't this excessive fine breaking any laws? (Score:2)
Y'all are missing the point ... (Score:5, Informative)
Her commutation and immunity does not shield her from further charges.
Immunity does not include shoplifting at Walmart.
There's a tight, set, scope that her attorney agrees to. Questions by plaintiff and answers by defendant outside that scope would put her in peril. She can't be tried twice for the same crimes, but she committed many more crimes than she was convicted of. Also, immunity does not include perjury.
Her best play is to refuse to testify, no matter how long it takes. The math is there. The courts will not be fucking with her for 35 years.
The 411 here is that the US doesn't have enough evidence to convict Assange and jail him for more than 5 years, if at all.
Good (Score:2)
No Double Jeopardy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
What makes you think there is any case of double jeopardy going on here? YOU could be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury on the matter of someone else's possible crime. And not because you're in any sort of jeopardy whatsoever. But because the prosecutor in the case wants the grand jury to hear what you have to say about something you may be able to contribute to their understanding of whether or not to indict. No jeopardy for you. Unless, that is, you decide to blow off the subpoena because you're a
He should never have been pardoned (Score:2, Insightful)
He broke the law - period.
Consistency (Score:2)
"I will not cooperate with this or any other grand jury," Manning insisted. "So it doesn't matter what it is or what the case is, I'm just not going to comply or cooperate."
Manning said prosecutors had put her in an impossible position despite the Justice Department granting her immunity from self-incrimination.
Isn't that exactly what every democrat argues is supposed to happen when someone refuses a subpoena?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Thanks, TRUMP! (Score:2)
Really?
Which administration caught, charged, prosecuted, and incarcerated Chelsea?
Which administration commuted her sentence?
What is it that the Trump administration did that was so horrible in comparison to what the previous administration did?
Oh, and for the record - she was guilty and deserved prison time. Her personal values and opinions don't change the oath she swore.
American citizens do. (Score:2, Interesting)
Those who get to vote in a democracy, and count a s people: Corporations.
For us, the livestock, all rights went away with the "USA PATRIOT ACT" (it's really called that!!). Now you can just be deported into a concentration camp, err, "black site", and don't even have the right to a call or a lawyer.
Remember that Guantanamo Bay (one of many!) still exists. Still holding American citizens^Wlivestock without trial. Still torturing them.
A fact, so horrible, that if you ever let it fully raise into your consious
Re: (Score:2)
Those who get to vote in a democracy, and count a s people: Corporations.
Why make such a blustery and obviously false assertion? What's your point? Yes, the PEOPLE who actually make up a business can vote, because, you know, they're people who can vote. There is no mechanism for incorporated entities like the NAACP or Facebook or Greenpeace or the NRA or General Motors to vote. Quit with the childish nonsense.
Now you can just be deported into a concentration camp, err, "black site", and don't even have the right to a call or a lawyer.
Factually incorrect, and you know it. Name one US citizen that has been "deported" to such a place. Or are you referring to foreign nationals engaged in terrorism or comb
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do, they don't have the right to not show up to court though.
Re:No special treatment (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this sums it up. https://external-preview.redd.... [external-preview.redd.it] People want more protections from the government but the hand is heavy. Oh you don't like "hate speech" ? Well guess what, those laws used to silence those you don't agree with can just as easily be used to silence you.
Personally my closest political association would be Libertarian. I believe the government should be fiscally conservative while liberal socially.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats kind of a contradictory stance, you want a fiscally conservative government that is socially liberal?
Where do you think all the money for socially liberal programs comes from?
Re:You want No special treatment (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Everyone should be able to refuse to testify to a grand jury. No special treatment for grand juries to allow them to ignore the right to remain silent and the right to not self-incriminate. No special treatment for government lawyers who claim that choosing not to prosecute for it somehow makes self-incriminating testimony somehow not self-incriminating.
Re: (Score:2)
She was given immunity for any crimes uncovered in her testimony. There is no right to not self incriminate when there is no chance of incrimination unless you are directly related to or are a spouse of the person the testimony may incriminate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Everyone should be able to refuse to testify to a grand jury. No special treatment for grand juries to allow them to ignore the right to remain silent and the right to not self-incriminate. No special treatment for government lawyers who claim that choosing not to prosecute for it somehow makes self-incriminating testimony somehow not self-incriminating.
So you believe that no immunity should ever be offered? You need to tell us why you want the 5th amendment eliminated.
Y'all ought to go read it, then give us your argument. It is pretty specific, and the grand jury modifies it a bit in favor of defendants with immunity. But please tell us why you hate the 5th. By the way - Manning has the right to refuse to testify. The judge then has the right to find him in contempt.
Because Grand Jury inquiries are sealed (Score:2)
that's why it's not incriminating.
Not how any legal system anywhere works (Score:2)
Not just our legal system but pretty much going back to the magna carta era in terms of obligation to testify. So basically every legal system.
Re: You want No special treatment (Score:2)
She's not under arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress cannot compel someone to break the law. If they want Barr to release the unredacted document, then they need to pass a law rescinding the legal protections surrounding the grand jury information. I'm sure the American public would be much appreciative of such a law stripping them of privacy protections. Should make for good election fodder. The Democrats very much know this and are grandstanding merely to rile up complete fucking morons like yourself.
As for the tax information, what legislative pur