
Chelsea Manning sent back to jail after refusing to testify before a grand jury - Tomte
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/chelsea-manning-back-to-jail/index.html
======
hombre_fatal
Seriously? The article and the previous one linked really don't explain her
objections to the grand jury system and I have to do my own research to figure
that out?

What comically bad coverage. How do you write an article about someone having
objections to something (esp of this magnitude) without explaining what their
objections are nor what that thing even is?

I have nfi what a grand jury is without further research, so neither do 90% of
people reading the article. Probably because explaining it alone outs it as a
ridiculous, self-evidently awful system, and CNN wouldn't want to do that.

~~~
gatherhunterer
Here's the Washington Post article:
[https://wapo.st/2W98fyO](https://wapo.st/2W98fyO)

The last time I linked to a WaPo article on Chelsea Manning (the last time she
was jailed) a mod changed the link so if you find a more informative article
you can always post a link and it might be changed.

I don't actually find this to be vastly different in content than the OP but
it does seem to give a little more exposition and a little less in terms of
boilerplate statements from the attorneys.

Here are some cherry-picked excerpts:

> Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but
> fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be
> unacceptable.

> [The judge] said he hopes that while incarcerated “Ms. Manning would reflect
> on the principles she says she’s embracing ... and whether those views are
> worth the price she’s paying for them.”

> Manning herself told the judge directly: “I would rather starve to death
> than change my principles in this regard.”

~~~
throw20102010
To expand a little, I think the biggest issue that Chelsea has with a grand
jury is that the entire process is sealed. If it were a public hearing then
she would be much more likely to testify, because we would know what was
asked, what was answered, and we would know what this entire process is about.

We only assume that this grand jury is about Julian Assange (because what else
would Chelsea's testimony be relevant for?), but we actually don't know. This
could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never
find out. An opaque justice system is probably not a good thing, since we just
have to trust that the people in charge will do the right thing- and we have
seen countless times throughout history that the people in charge often do the
wrong thing and attempt to cover it up.

~~~
travmatt
That makes sense, because a public one sided show trial definitely couldn’t be
abused by prosecutors to smear people they have no intent of indicting. Is
that actually a position people really believe?

~~~
throw20102010
At least a public deposition would allow people to come to their own
conclusion. If Chelsea felt that public questioning was one sided and a smear
campaign then she could release a statement afterwards filling in the context
and pointing out the other side of the story.

With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything, so a one sided smear
campaign during a grand jury can lead to an indictment and Chelsea would have
no opportunity to offer her side of the story without risking more jail time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> With a grand jury it is illegal to discuss anything

No, it is not; grand jury secrecy rules apply to attorneys, court officials,
grand jurors, and government staff to whom material is disclosed to assist
attorneys, but not to witnesses called before the grand jury.

So, actually, not only would Manning be allowed to present her side of the
story, no one with actual knowledge of her time before the grand jury would be
allowed to contradict it.

~~~
travmatt
Additionally, it’s pretty nonsensical to claim that prosecutors will use
public show trials to smear opponents, but allowing them to publicly smear
opponents would make the proceeding more fair?

------
andy_ppp
I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this
strong under this much pressure.

We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to
protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up
charges against your enemies and journalists in general. It feels like we’ll
be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time
and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy. It doesn’t seem very
easy to save them especially with the politicisation of the Supreme Court.

How do we fight these things?

~~~
devoply
You can't lump one thing with another. In this case there is a law that says
you must do what a judge orders. That applies to anyone under scrutiny from
the justice system.

~~~
scotty79
Could she just testify and say "I don't remember." and "I don't understand."
all the time?

That's pretty much what all CEOs and such do when they are testifying.

~~~
ak39
That’s weaseling out. She isn’t doing that here even though she could. She
just doesn’t want to do that because I imagine she is principled. That’s
honorable.

~~~
scotty79
I don't argue with that.

But that's one silly law that judge can compel you to talk but you can easily
weasel your way out of it by saying things that might be true and give no
information.

I think such law shouldn't exist as it can only harm only truthful, principled
people but can do nothing to any wrongdoer.

~~~
trickstra
In principle, wrongdoers always have more options available than moral people.
Because being moral prevents you from using some ways that would be considered
immoral, while the wrongdoers don't have those restrictions, therefore can and
will weasel out. In the movies the good side wins even despite this
limitation, then heroes are celebrated for their morality and bravery, but in
the real life... well...

------
skilled
>> __Today, Chelsea was not only put back in jail, but Judge Anthony Trenga
ordered her to be fined $500 every day she is in custody after 30 days and
$1,000 every day she is in custody after 60 days. This is unprecedented.

[https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1129158920499605504](https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1129158920499605504)

Wtf....

~~~
sadris
It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt.

Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
I'm actually pretty confused; does the USA not have a law that protects an
individuals right not to testify if they'd incriminate themselves by doing so?
That's seen as a pretty fundamental thing where I live.

~~~
jlgaddis
The U.S. certainly does. It's set out in the Fifth Amendment to our
Constitution.

In this instance, however, Chelsea Manning has been given immunity from
prosecution -- meaning she can't "plead the Fifth".

~~~
TheCondor
There is that, but it’s also a grand jury. There technically isn’t any
jeopardy there, they convene and recommend what a prosecutor should do and
it’s all supposed to be secret with pretty strict punishment for violating
that.

Fair or not, this is an interesting stand to take.

~~~
darkrabite
Because the hearing is secret. If you even show up, they could claim you said
anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony.

By even showing up, you are putting yourself at risk from people thinking you
snitched.

~~~
travmatt
>If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they
want based on that made up testimony.

I’d be interested in reading your proof of this, because I’m fairly certain
you just made this up.

------
harry8
Sounds like desperation is setting in for the prosecution, doesn't it? Secret
proceedings, torturing witnesses...

At least they're competent, right? Except the part where they accidentally
leaked secret information with cut and paste errors of court documents, that
was pretty Mr Bean.

~~~
Shivetya
just remember, many of the same people here would be cheering on the Justice
Department for using similar tactics against people they don't like. You can
see it in the comments all the time.

That is why Justice can get away with it. They should be prevented completely
from being able to use these tactics. The outrageous fines, the outrageous
costs to defend against them which even some well off cannot afford, and the
use of the press to twist the message to their liking.

Until we realize that everyone deserves the same treatment we will never
change the system.

~~~
influx
Thank you for saying this. If it was Alex Jones in jail for the same reasons,
you can bet folks would be cheering.

~~~
harry8
Glenn Greenwald would not. My politics and Glenn's are very different but one
of the reasons I respect him is his steadfast commitment to principle
especially when it applies to people you loathe. Read Glenn, disagree, sure, I
do often. But read Glenn.

------
colechristensen
I occasionally make comments supporting the basic actions of the government
based on the data available which are wildly unpopular.

This time something different: why do people support Manning's decision / find
her treatment inappropriate?

Respect for sticking up for beliefs? I get that and share those feelings even
if I don't share the specific beliefs.

But do people feel the 5th Amendment covers "incriminating" yourself after
you've been convicted and served time (and don't have any risk of further
convictions)?

Do people want the 5th to include incriminating people you like?

What specifically about the grand jury system in place here do you think is
problematic or unconstitutional?

~~~
michaelt
Often there is a widely held, low-resolution understanding of the
constitution, and when you get into the high-resolution details there are
exceptions that seem like the complete opposite of the widely held
understanding.

For example, a naive reading of the commerce clause would say the fact
Congress can regulate commerce among the states would not apply to a farmer
growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. But surprise! Wickard v.
Filburn [1] says that counts as interstate commerce.

Likewise, the low-resolution understanding of the fifth amendment is that you
can't be forced to testify; and the low-resolution understanding of being
granted immunity for something is you can't be sent to jail for reasons
related to it. And yet, here we are.

A lot of Americans like the constitution - so much so, everyone in congress
and the military and suchlike swears an oath to uphold and defend it. When
people see these things that are a reversal of what they understand the
constitution to say, it's understandable they don't like it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)

------
reacweb
She has all my respect. Congratulations for fighting for our freedom.

------
sschueller
I am so disgusted by this I have no words. Where is the outrage? Why aren't
people marching on the streets?

~~~
empath75
All she has to do is testify. She’s doing this to herself. She’s not the one
being charged here.

~~~
nullc
Ironic username is ironic.

------
bikeshed
the grand jury system makes a mockery of the US justice system.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

------
bsder
I don't see any mention of an offer of immunity.

If I didn't have immunity, you can be damn sure I wouldn't be answering any
questions on a subject that might get me prosecuted again.

~~~
shakna
> We "never once made this about anything other than obtaining immunized
> testimony in furtherance of an investigation," he said, adding that "all we
> want is her to truthfully answer questions as our constitutional republic
> requires of our citizens."

Immunity does appear to be on the table as part of the request, though I'm not
sure why you would browbeat someone into testifying with jailtime and threats
that amount to bankruptcy if you aren't seeking to entrap them in some
fashion.

~~~
Kalium
The public has a claim to every person's evidence.

If a person has evidence that a court of law wishes to obtain, under American
law the court is permitted to compel immunized testimony. Someone who refuses
to comply is likely to be treated as someone who has committed an act of
contempt of court.

Chelsea Manning isn't special here. Anyone who refuses to testify before a
grand jury is likely to be treated this way. There's no need to postulate that
it's a further attempt to punish someone for political reasons to explain all
events here.

~~~
shakna
I don't see any need to call her as a witness here.

Her testimony is on file, and some parts of it are even a matter of public
record. She has already extensively testified in the past.

In most court cases, there is a wish to limit the number of witnesses in a
case. Where you can take testimony by reports, affidavits, and other records,
you take it, as it speeds up the process considerably.

The only reason to call Manning is if you believe that you can show that new
testimony conflicts with old testimony.

~~~
davrosthedalek
So she is not testifying because she doesn't want to repeat herself? That
seems silly. No, there is something she doesn't want to say, because it would
incriminate someone she doesn't want to incriminate. I doubt it's herself.

~~~
shakna
I haven't expressed any opinion on why Manning has made the choices they have.
I may or may not agree.

I have questions for the court, because they have chosen to act in a way that
doesn't seem to follow standard procedure. My query is one of legal practice.

~~~
davrosthedalek
You stated that the only reason they seek testimony is to entrap her. If that
would be true, that leaves two options: Either she would say the same thing as
before, because that was the full story. What is the reason than for not doing
so except that she doesn't want to repeat herself? Or she fears that she would
fall into that trap (which I'm not sure could exist because of double jeopardy
/ immunized testimony).

But it's a wrong dichotomy. It's more likely the judge suspects that she knows
something incriminating about somebody else, maybe Julian, she doesn't want to
tell. Which answers your question about legal practice.

~~~
shakna
Immunised testimony is only covers certain events.

Seeking new testimony when complete testimony is already on file, leaves open
the door to parallel construction of unrelated cases. The witness may be
convinced to say something that violates the terms of previous deals.

If the judge truly believes her testimony might aid in convicting Assange they
have no reason not to already use the extensive testimony on file. Manning has
already been extensively interrogated about Assange, for a number of years.
The court has those filings available to it.

There is no reason to expect that new testimony with new evidence is
available.

------
pvaldes
Maybe she should try to become a politician after this experience. It seems
that they are the only allowed to do anything they want and get away with it.

~~~
arainwater
Well, she already tryied
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#U.S._Senate_ca...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#U.S._Senate_candidacy)

------
iso-8859-1
"There's nothing dishonorable in fulfilling your obligation as a United States
citizen,"

So if she wasn't a US citizen, how would this be different?

