
Chelsea Manning released from jail with expiration of grand jury - asadhaider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/chelsea-manning-released-from-jail-where-she-had-been-held-for-refusing-to-testify-in-wikileaks-case/2019/05/09/dbbbac4c-70ff-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95393ab8d565
======
basetop
It's insane the level of vindicativeness that government can reach. Worse than
any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist.

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.

~~~
netwanderer3
There are three facts that are not going to change anytime soon. Number one,
integrity is a trait not every human possesses, most don't so the power
balance will always be tilted to the other side. Number two, money still rules
this world and who has the most of it? Corporations! Number three, society is
not going to adapt to each individual, only the other way around.

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.

~~~
padobson
The math doesn't add up here.

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.

~~~
DuskStar
I mean, honesty is also a virtue. So's loyalty.

That doesn't mean we vote for loyal, honest politicians. (Just people who
present themselves as such, which can be significantly easier)

------
burtonator
I didn't realize this about US law but if you've already been convicted of a
crime OR they give you immunity you can be forced to testify.

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.

~~~
mehrdadn
> I didn't realize this about US law but if you've already been convicted of a
> crime OR they give you immunity you can be forced to testify.

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.

~~~
lixtra
> In fact it's quite a bizarre thing to codify in a constitution otherwise.

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.

~~~
mikro2nd
I'd suspect it's more about the state being pragmatic concerning the chances
you or I would lie to protect a family member - assuming we have no axe to
grind with said family member...

------
montecarl
"her lawyers reportedly asked that she be confined at home due to medical
issues, but the judge said US Marshals would address her care needs."

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.

~~~
bonniemuffin
The state of medical care in US prisons is really horrifying. Like this one
from four days ago, in which a mentally ill woman gave birth alone in her
cell.

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/us/woman-gives-birth-jail-
cel...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/us/woman-gives-birth-jail-cell-broward-
florida/index.html)

~~~
Shivetya
there isn't much US government managed health care that is worth a damn, just
ask veterans or Indians on reservations. 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 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

~~~
erentz
> there isn't much US government managed health care that is worth a damn,
> just ask veterans

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...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-
va-health-
care/2018/04/13/e5834d1e-3d9a-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.19d12e5691b4)

> 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.

------
tibbydudeza
It would probably have been better to join Snowden in Moscow ... the land of
the "free" is applicable if you go up against the military-industrial complex
and their agenda.

------
fwip
Unfortunately, she's got another subpoena next week for a separate case with
the same set of questions.

It seems like her freedom will be short-lived.

~~~
gatherhunterer
The current administration has already pardoned one American convicted of a
war crime and is considering a second pardon for a war criminal Navy SEAL who
was repeatedly reported by fellow soldiers, in one case for murdering a young
girl in front of other children without provocation. At least the policy is
consitent: if you murder civilians we have your back and whistle blowers will
be jailed at all costs.

Even former soldiers are appalled:
[https://wapo.st/2DZl4BJ](https://wapo.st/2DZl4BJ).

------
hnbroseph
rather than refusing to testify, couldn't you just answer with "i don't
recall" to every question (or variations as appropriate)?

~~~
whamlastxmas
If they have evidence that a person in your position should reasonably know
the answer, then you're in a bad situation. "I don't recall" doesn't fly very
well unless you're HRC being interviewed by the FBI

------
segmondy
So long as you didn't recently talk about it and don't ever plan on talking
about it. You can go in and claim not to remember.

------
blakespot
I’ll bet she gets picked up again in just days.

------
frittig
I wonder if Manning can pull the ol' Assange and hide in an embassy. It looks
like the government is willing to make an example and send Manning to jail for
an insanely long time, if not life. I personally would rather live my life in
an embassy than in prison (not that this is a choice that I would like to have
in the first place)

~~~
ceejayoz
Assange largely discovered "hide in an embassy" is the same as prison, if not
worse. Medical care is a huge issue.

------
tbarbugli
What's her reason to not testify?

~~~
whamlastxmas
She has nothing she can add that wasn't covered in her court martial, and
trying to get her to testify now is basically harassment and bullying

------
gatherhunterer
The above article ignores the reason for her release: the expiration of the
grand jury investigating Assange.

Washington Post article here:
[https://wapo.st/2E11CUW](https://wapo.st/2E11CUW)

~~~
eridius
> _Her release on Thursday comes after the period during which she could be
> held for failing to give evidence 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._

~~~
gatherhunterer
“The grand jury” is not descriptive of what the grand jury was investigating
and declines to point out that her grand jury ended years ago.

~~~
ceejayoz
This was not "her" grand jury.

~~~
Pfhreak
We don't do that here. Cut it out with those asinine scare quotes.

~~~
ceejayoz
My comment has absolutely nothing to do with her gender.

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_.

~~~
eridius
Why the scare quotes though?

~~~
ceejayoz
Because that was the incorrect part?

Same reason I might say "that wasn't a 'short' install..."

~~~
eridius
In the comment you're referring to, "and declines to point out that her grand
jury ended years ago", the "her" was absolutely correct because it was
referring to _her grand jury_ , not to the new one for Assange. The whole
comment was irrelevant, because it doesn't matter whose grand jury it was that
caused her imprisonment, but you're quibbling with the wrong thing and the
only outcome of your use of scare quotes is to make it look like you're taking
issue with her pronouns.

------
metildaa
About time this farce of a subpeona was ended. Chelsea already testified once
on the matter the subpeona was about iirc.

Edit: subpeona was not quashed, grand jury's term expired.

~~~
daveFNbuck
> Chelsea already testified once on the matter the subpeona was about iirc.

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.

~~~
polynomial
That's a pretty hardcore stance against self-reiterization.

