Chelsea Manning released from jail with expiration of grand jury
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Of course the government is like this to mere peasants. If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master. Expose war crimes - then you are public enemy #1. Be part of the wealthy elite who destroys the financial system and ruins the lives of millions - it's just good ol' boys being good ol' boys.
And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments and corporations.
Anyone who draws the ire of government and doesn't have people on the inside (in the right places) protecting them WILL get screwed. The rich just have enough money to drag out the process and make that more difficult so you don't see them getting screwed over little things.
Rich people would have much more offshore properties, business, friends or economic relationships with other countries. They would have much more to lose by wars or unstability than common people [Unless directly feeded by war promoting systems].
Yes, but not the right people it seems.
I think we should be careful about blaming government itself. But instead focus on the _people_ that make up the government. It seems there is a serious lack of equal representation throughout our government. For the most part, it has become a matter of who has the larger bank roll.
It would be interesting to see a government with forced equal representation across the entire socioeconomic spectrum.
It's astounding to hear the hateful Libertarian view of government, understanding that it's exactly those kinds of people who often seek that kind of power, and make the worst kinds of politicians that create the vindictive, hateful government that Libertarians on the ground rail about.
It's a self-perpetuating anti-government cycle that helps no one.
What helps no one is to perpetually increase the power of government, making the target ever more enviable to the absolute worst kinds of people. This is an inescapable truth of power.
By what mechanism would a libertarian put a check on the capital's natural tendency to accumulate wealth and power upwards?
As a result of these three facts, sometimes life can get pretty tough if you don't join the other side. Integrity was more valued in the past but it simply does not have the same weight in today society as modern competition has ramped up everywhere making everything much more difficult for the average citizen. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming a villain. In other words, we either throw integrity out of the window and survive, or we die with it.
Either integrity is a virtue, or it's not. Either it's something people value, or it's not.
If it's something people value, then it should be one of the attributes people weigh when they choose a spouse/job/politician/cell phone carrier. If it is, then the marketplace of spouses/jobs/politicians/cell phone providers should be incentivized to provide integrity, and also to broadcast that their competitors do not.
I would argue this happens pretty regularly. Samsung using Apple's battery throttling in it's ads comes to mind.
So integrity definitely factors into the marketing calculus of politicians and corporations, but maybe the market doesn't value it enough to offer it the primacy you're looking for.
That doesn't mean we vote for loyal, honest politicians. (Just people who present themselves as such, which can be significantly easier)
Individual rights.
Honestly, I think a great first step would be alcohol and drug testing for politicians and zero tolerance.
She could have walked out of jail at any time had she chosen to testify. In accordance with the law, she has been released because the grand jury has concluded.
One can argue whether someone can/should be compelled to testify, but Manning was not singled out for extra punishment here.
> she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead
That is not the case. As clearly stated bboth in the linked article and by her legal team. She is happy to testify in a public hearing (which I agree is the proper place), but not in a closed door meeting away from democratic due process monitored by the citizenry of the country.
And ultimately grand jury proceedings are non-public and they are a key part of our judicial process. To say it's not part of democratic due process is incorrect. There are a number of reasons for grand jury proceedings to not be public, particularly in national security cases.
One can disagree with grand juries as a legal concept, which is fine, but if you refuse to show up, there are legal consequences.
To your point about grand juries: many states do not use them anymore due to similar outrage as we are seeing here. There is widespread belief that secret tribunals are the things of kangaroo courts and backwater justice systems that people tend to despise (think ussr/north korea). They are largely used by governments to silence political opposition and hide that fact as much as possible.
Anyone who believes that grand juries are removed from the democratic process because they are confidential should probably learn more about the American legal system before they form their arguments.
You have to realize: They do this unethical crap in our names. We own this.
When we elected Der Fuhrer in the last presidential election, weren't we asking for exactly this? I expected the "establishment" to become less hawkish during Obama's reign but that didn't happen either. I love my country but at this point I don't have a whole lot of hope for her (and now I'm probably on an NSA watch-list - I guess I should point out that I have no intention of harming anyone).
They did this in Aaron Swartz's case and gave people immunity to force them to testify.
I was friends with Aaron and felt that he was mostly a hero in this situation though he was probably guilty of misdemeanor trespass.
It was troubling to see how upset it made my friends that they were going to be forced to testify against someone they loved or were friends with.
A strict privilege against self-testimony is somewhat distinctive to our US system. Even countries that share it with us, like the UK, limit it; for instance, in the UK, your refusal to testify against yourself can be held against you.
That said you cannot convict anyone on adverse inference alone.
It seems that this is the case, based on Griffin v California: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/380/609.html
> Comment to the jury by a prosecutor in a state criminal trial upon a defendant's failure to testify as to matters which he can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge or by the court that the defendant's silence under those circumstances evidences guilt violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland
I think NI is also different.
You could perhaps come up with a 1st amendment case but I think that wouldn't have much of a chance of going anywhere.
Even if they give you immunity for the specific thing you’re testifying about, what if your testimony reveals that you’re guilty of some completely different crime?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity seems to be the reference. Seems to cover the exact issue: "In the United States, the prosecution may grant immunity in one of two forms. Transactional immunity, colloquially known as "blanket" or "total" immunity, completely protects the witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his or her testimony. Use and derivative use immunity prevents the prosecution only from using the witness's own testimony or any evidence derived from the testimony against the witness. However, if the prosecutor acquires evidence substantiating the crime independently of the witness's testimony, the witness may then be prosecuted."
Immunity, like double jeopardy, is limited to a given court. For example a state prosecutor can grant immunity in exchange for testimony, but in the case of overlap with federal law the witness can still be prosecuted in a federal court.
If that is not how immunity works, then how can the government force anyone to testify? The government does not know what (unrelated) crimes I may have to confess to in order to give truthful testimony on the matter in question.
That's exactly what Manning did, and will likely do so again.
Yeah, and it's not obvious why. The insight you're seeking here is that the right against self-incrimination was intended to be a solution to the problem of forced confessions (torture, etc.). It's not there because of some kind of belief that you really have some kind of fundamental human right to testify against yourself. In fact it's quite a bizarre thing to codify in a constitution otherwise.
> The Supreme Court traces the roots of our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to the protections the English courts and Parliament granted to those religious dissenters who were compelled to take oaths when called before the ecclesiastical courts, as well as the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber. These courts used the “oath ex officio” to force heretics from the Church of England to swear before God to truthfully answer all questions, even before the heretics even knew the nature of the accusations against them. By use of the oath in conducting their investigations of religious heresy, these courts left witnesses with the “cruel trilemma” of (1) refusing to take the oath, which constituted contempt and subjected the person to torture; (2) taking the oath and telling the truth about their religious beliefs, which, if heretical, was punishable by death; or (3) taking the oath and lying, which was also punishable by death. In other words, this inquisitorial system countenanced methods of interrogating persons designed to lead only to confessions.
> [...] Parliament eventually abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber and, in 1662, passed a law providing that “no man shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually called ex officio or any other oath whereby such persons may be charged or compelled to confess to any criminal matter.” By the late eighteenth century, as the English common law courts began to recognize the presumption of innocence, trial judges in criminal cases began to afford defendants the right not to incriminate themselves, establishing the privilege against self-incrimination as a fundamental rule of evidence.
I don’t know about the US but in many jurisdictions you cannot be forced to testify against close family (spouse, children).
It’s clearly about the state not creating a cruel situation.
With self-incrimination, if the government decides to force testimony from you (which inevitably implies a guilty confession), you'll get punished one way or another regardless of what you say (which apparently historically meant choosing between torture and death). This means two things: (1) innocent people will get punished either way (which is obviously the opposite of what you want), and (2) guilty people won't have any incentive to tell the truth either (which is also not what you want either)—they'll instead have incentive to say whatever will minimize their punishment, which is determined by the government, not by the truth. So it's pretty much entirely a lose-lose situation, and not something that'll make a justice system (whom you're charging with the task of finding the truth) achieve its goal. Spousal testimony, on the other hand, is entirely different in that respect: as far as the relationship between you and the government is concerned (which is, recall, what the goal of the bill of rights was—again, it wasn't written as a manifesto on human rights), you actually have a huge incentive to tell the truth here, because you don't get punished by the government for providing guilty testimony against your spouse. Same exactly thing happens when you're provided immunity: you don't get punished, and therefore society gets to extract the truth out of you, with decent confidence that it'll get what it's looking for. Therefore, as far as the constitution being concerned, spousal privilege probably didn't need to be written in there, because the right against self-incrimination already sufficiently achieved its restriction and goal.
What does forced mean?
What happens if you just say no? Contempt of court?
The longest sentence for contempt of court is H. Beatty Chadwick (1994 - 2009), which was over a divorce settlement. Susan McDouglas went to jail over not answering questions about Bill Clinton in civil case, and was pardoned by him later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal
Manning exactly illustrates this point, no one is "forcing" her to do anything. She doesn't want to talk, so she won't! You always have a choice.
That's not exactly true. In the US you can generally be compelled to testify if you are not the one on trial unless you claim the 5th (the law generally recognizes that court proceedings are part of the record and testimony there could be used to bring charges against you later).
There can be a series of escalations and motions before the judge, eg where the judge asks you in closed court to give more details so he/she can rule on whether the 5th applies. In theory you could refuse to give any details by claiming even the tiniest detail would put you at risk of prosecution. Ultimately if the prosecutor offers you blanket immunity you can no longer claim the 5th because the threat of prosecution has been eliminated.
Similarly if you refuse to testify for fear of your own safety the government can offer to protect you, up to and including putting you into witness protection which eliminates the objection.
The general principle seems to be you have a series of objections you can raise. Each one imposes a higher and higher cost on the government, forcing them to decide just how important your testimony really is.
This is all separate from the material witness procedures, which have been abused somewhat in recent times. The theory there is there is an imminent thread to your life _or_ you are a serious flight risk. In those cases you get jailed until trial despite not even being accused. As you can imagine prosecutors have sometimes used the threat of losing your job, house, etc while jailed awaiting trial to coerce testimony.
Pedantically true, yes. If I hold a gun to the witnesses head and demand they testify or I will pull the trigger, no one is "forcing" them to do anything. They have the choice to refuse to testify and suffer the consequences.
It's the same with Manning. She has the "choice" to be thrown in prison because she refuses. Usually doing something under threat of deprivation of live or liberty is legally considered being forced to do something.
I can rob a bank at gunpoint and then argue that the bank "chose" to give me the money, since they always had the option to refuse, just as you are arguing here that Manning has the "choice" to testify. When there is a threat of deprivation of life or liberty, that is not considered a free choice. It's coerced, under duress, also known as forced.
For instance, my testimony gets me out of jail, but it helps put my friend in jail: the degree my testimony impacts that sentence, and the sentence itself, have to be factors in the decision.
Thus, and without getting into Manning's thought process, I wouldn't be surprised if she believes the negative effects (real or perceived) of her testimony outweigh the stay in jail.
I don't fully understand why she didn't testify here. The events were so long ago and so stressful. If it were me I wouldn't be able to remember much with any confidence.
But I'm glad she has been released now and I hope it did some good.
Well, she’s only been released because the term of the grand jury expired. She’ll be called to testify again, and if she refuses to testify again, she will most likely be locked up again.
So this is more a temporary development, rather than a resolution of the issue.
For those unfamiliar with the still unprosecuted war crimes exposed by Manning (and published by Assange):
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/10/428634/Syria-Assan...
"US had planned to topple the Syrian government long before 2011, the year that the brutal conflict broke out in the country."
"In his new book, Assange points to a cable pertaining to US Ambassador William Roebuck, who served as the Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus between 2004-2007, about plans for overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the time."
The book based on the Wiklieaks files (Assange wrote an introduction):
https://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Files-World-According-Empir...
The book was not published by the writers of the article. They just wrote that the book exists and what is revealed.
I would also like a link to NYT or WaPo but they avoided to cover the book (and even more to analyse the materials leaked). At least you can still buy the book. The material itself is still reachable on the wikileaks site.
That is a terrifying sentence to read after having learned about the medical care provided (or not provided...) in US prisons. It almost reads to me as if they planned on killing her.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/us/woman-gives-birth-jail-cel...
Most jails and prison care is the same because it is all government managed. while the private jails, which are a very small minority, have problems they are held to higher standard that government does not apply to itself.
the prison/jail system is just a money machine for the sheriff and police unions of the country and therefor actively supported by the politicians they support/control. California had to be compelled by the Federal Courts just to reduce overcrowding and provide better health care
This seems to be incorrect. The VA has problems that should be addressed, but it's still preferable to most veterans than any alternative, which is why they pushed back against Medicare for All's initial proposal to replace the VA with Medicare. Now it retains the VA. We've been in a bunch of silly wars for 18 years now producing a constant flow of new veterans, the VA needs beefing up to deal with that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths...
> when people outside the country keep lamenting the US doesn't have government provided healthcare they need to realize the examples we have are both horrible and many doubt that they have the capacity to not inflict the same shoddy care on the current system.
Most people are "lamenting" that the USA has, what is it now, 30 million people without access to health care? And has 30-40k deaths every year due to lack of access. The expectation is for universal coverage. Not coverage based on circumstance or wealth.
Most people on Medicare defend it regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. It should be noted that Medicare isn't "government managed health care" it's a payer to private health care providers. The health care providers are still private and privately run, there's no government hospital and doctors don't work for the government. At the moment the popular opinion in the US is not asking for the government to take over all health care management in that way, but instead to provide everybody with access to healthcare by expanding the popular Medicare program to everyone.
It seems like her freedom will be short-lived.
Even former soldiers are appalled: https://wapo.st/2DZl4BJ.
Washington Post article here: https://wapo.st/2E11CUW
No, it doesn't.
> "Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center earlier today," her lawyers said in a statement.
It's that the grand jury in question wasn't dealing with her case at all. The grand jury was tasked with Julian Assange, who isn't female, but more importantly isn't Chelsea Manning.
Same reason I might say "that wasn't a 'short' install..."
Edit: subpeona was not quashed, grand jury's term expired.
> "Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center earlier today," her lawyers said in a statement.
> "Unfortunately, even prior to her release, Chelsea was served with another subpoena," the statement adds. "It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned [to custody].
Because she is refusing to testify, and it is producing significant public backlash, and she was released eventually anyway.
Seems like it worked out fine for Chelsea.
The article said that too. Is she saying she spent 62 days in jail because she'd rather not repeat herself? That seems extremely odd if true.