Slashdot Mirror
Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing To Testify On WikiLeaks (apnews.com)
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.
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."
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
funny how morons keep focusing on the transgender thing - i guess they're too stupid to see the forest for the trees eh.
Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
Manning didn't get pardoned, her sentence got commuted. So she is still technically considered guilty of her crimes.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You can always take the fifth. It's a right, regardless of other process. Pardon invalidates a conviction (it's preemptively in-hand). A pardon does not apply some blanket immutable legal change of status.
No, that's not true. There are some caveats, but generally if the government guarantees that you cannot self-incriminate (either via a pardon or a plea agreement) then you may be compelled to testify.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
> 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.
She was pardoned by Obama. This is Trump/Republicans trying to go barround it. Most likely denied questioning to protect herself.
Her sentence was commuted. Obama specifically said he wasn't pardening her, he felt that her sentence was out of proportion to what others had received. He didn't even commute the whole sentence.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Lots of sub-clauses here, but this is the one that is key.
"I refuse to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate me"
This does not indicate that you have or haven't committed a crime, as there is no reasonable person who knows all the crimes they may or may not have committed. There are just too damn many, and the government can use ALL of them against you should you testify. And should you accidentally admit that you committed a crime (that you weren't aware of) they could AND HAVE used such as a witness against people, which is all the warning you need.
Under no circumstances should a person ever speak and answer questions of/from a federal agent.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Not a She. His XY Chromosomes says he's a male. That is how science classifies him.
Actually not quite. Classification is based on external appearance at birth, which is determined by the effect of androgens during pregnancy.
Even if a baby is known to be XY, phenotype trumps genotype.
Though somehow nowadays, we have people denying any biological basis to gender differences, and claiming things like occupation preference and aggression are purely cultural. So the logical conclusion is that you can be whatever sex you want. :-)
This makes perfect sense if you believe sex is a social construct
S/He could call themselves the Queen of England
NOT the same. Gender self-identification, unlike say racial or political identity, has a genuine, well-documented biological basis. Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself. In some cases it does not, and many people feel the best path is to live as the other sex.
The "two party system" is better described as "one party, two faces".
I hear of people trying to bring awareness for female genital mutilation, another thing that happens thousands of time every year.
You're comparing something forced on without consent to something entered into with full consent and at least over here considerable psychological evaluations and time spent in a reversible stage (hormone therapy). to compare the two is beyond disingenuous.
When this happens to men and we wrap this up in the euphemism of "gender reassignment surgery" then we celebrate it.
Kind of losing patience here.
Because it's not the same. You know like sex.
If you have sex with someone and you both consent, it's great. If you force sex on someone it's called "rape", it's bad and you shold go to prison for a long time. Even though they're both sticking your dick in someone.
My god! That's unpossible you say! How can some things which have physical similarities be so different!?
There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned".
OK lost patience.
Translation: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
That wasn't enough, now we celebrate the medical castration of men. We wrap it up in happy mouth noises and consider ourselves to be "helpful" in removing a man's ability to reproduce
Translation: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
SJW n. One who posts facts.