
Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] - pera
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.412520/gov.uscourts.vaed.412520.41.0.pdf
======
cfv
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her
financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those
people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?

~~~
jacobolus
The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general)
has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their
constitutional/legal obligations.

If the Congress really wants it can enforce its own subpoenas by putting
anyone who refuses to testify in their own jail, without asking the DOJ for
help. This is a power that hasn’t been used since 1934, and the current
Congress has opted to work through the courts / make appeals to the electorate
instead of applying it.

~~~
surge
Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the
third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal
court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the
subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and
balances.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-
demo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-democrats-
need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-
should-appeal-directly-roberts/605413/)

~~~
servercobra
Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold
people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken)

~~~
surge
So do it again.

Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff
about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good
for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he
was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them,
the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia
thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought
their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they
really cared.

~~~
michaelmrose
The Ukraine "stuff" was a conspiracy theory. The Russian "thing" was an actual
collaboration between our enemies and our presidents flunkys that nobody
seriously denied happened.

~~~
raxxorrax
I don't think so. The American meddling in Ukraine before Trump even was in
office is highly suspicious. You could argue that it was a justified reaction
to the Crimean invasion, but saying there wasn't any stuff is completely
dishonest. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a public defender. He was even
praised for doing so. This hypocrisy seriously damages any credibility of
those accusing Trump of meddling in Ukraine.

Of course you should ask yourself what Russia and America are even doing in
Ukraine in the first place, but that is probably a lot more comprehensive.

Some news papers argue Biden didn't pressure the public defender out of
office, but that would be clearly fake news. As I said, there are people on
record praising him for doing so.

~~~
mcherm
In your post you said several things about "Biden". Could you clarify just who
that is? I believe there is an intentional rhetorical trick being used to
conflate to people with that surname. I can't say whether your use of it was
intentional, but it would help if you clarified who you were talking about.

------
jason_slack
Ms. Manning. Thank you. Living a life under public scrutiny isn't for
everyone. I appreciate your sacrafice and sticking to what you felt was right.

------
fareesh
From my understanding this whole ordeal appears to be vengeful and a complete
miscarriage of justice. It's almost as if it's being done to make an example
and have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers.

Based on reading the news over the years it seems like the US DOJ has had
quite a poor track record in general.

The Aaron Swartz case, the attitude towards Assange/Manning and a record
number of prosecution of whistleblowers, doctoring of emails to obtain FISA
warrants, running guns to Mexico. An attorney general was held in contempt at
the time, and it looks like the current one might be too, someday, if not
worse.

Incidentally I also read the recent OIG memo about rampant supervisor-
subordinate romantic relationships in the DOJ, violating all sorts of
workplace protocol.

I am sure there is plenty of great work coming from the department that you
never hear about but all this stuff makes it seem like in some ways the
department has been run very unprofessionally for at least 10+ years now.

Also disappointing has been the apparent timidity of the American news media
who, until William Barr, seemed to be very soft on the DOJ.

------
cultus
I sure hope she leaves the country after this. This will keep happening for
the rest of her life. You really don't want to run afoul of the security
apparatus.

~~~
bufferoverflow
I hope she stays. The country needs more people like Manning.

~~~
atoav
Which is precisely why she should go. The thing they did to Snowden is not
exactly something that will scare Whistleblowers away.

If you want heros and whistleblowers who risk their life for the truth to
stay, maybe start taking that freedom of speech thing you are so proud of a
little bit more seriously..

------
jlgaddis
If anyone knows of a (legit) way to donate or make a payment towards her
$256,000 in fines, please do share the details.

~~~
mindslight
Why would you want to throw away money paying an illegitimate debt? Donate to
a trust that will take care of her instead.

~~~
ohyeshedid
I imagine it's going to be hard for her to find employment, and if she doesn't
pay those fines she'll eventually end up in custody with even more fines.

~~~
wayoutthere
It's generally hard for trans people to find employment, period -- and I doubt
she has meaningful job skills given her extended imprisonment. That said,
trans people rally around our own so she shouldn't have trouble surviving; but
whether or not that life is existentially fulfilling is another question...

Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt (though many
states will certainly try). They can do all sorts of things like garnish your
wages, but federal courts don't throw people in jail for being poor.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's generally hard for trans people to find employment, period -- and I
> doubt she has meaningful job skills given her extended imprisonment.

She's a celebrity speaker with a large upper-middle-class fan base, so as long
as their interest doesn't go somewhere else she’ll probably do okay.

Of course, if her opponents don't do their part to keep her in the news, the
attention will wane.

> Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt

It's not. Though it's quite possible she could now be charged with criminal
contempt and imprisoned for that.

She could also be jailed for refusing to pay her existing debt (but not for
inability to pay.) But note that isn't always an easy line to draw, and a lot
of time the latter is dressed up as the former, though with sufficient
litigation (which someone has to fund) to challenge it, higher courts may
reverse it.

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
I mean, I'd pay to see her speak.

~~~
jacquesm
I'd pay just for what she did. It would be nice if she pointed us to a place
where we can donate directly to her.

------
einpoklum
The judge assumes without comment that it was justified to hold Manning in the
first place, and finds that she must now pay $256,000 for refusing to
collaborate with the government anti-freedom-of-the-press campaign against
Julian Assange.

Shameful.

~~~
chx
Shameful? Yes.

Freedom of the press for trying to persecute a Russian agent? Well...

Sources:

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-
de...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-details-
suggest-julian-assange-is-a-russian-agent)

[https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-
concluded-t...](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-
that-assange-has-ties-to-russian-intelligence/)

[https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-
russia...](https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties)

And so on.

~~~
dependenttypes
Even if Assange was a Russian agent he still did nothing wrong regarding his
actions of helping whistle-blowers publish their data.

~~~
Godel_unicode
He's charged with conspiracy for conspiring to commit a crime. That's illegal.

~~~
dependenttypes
This is irrelevant to what I am saying. I am not talking about whether what he
did was illegal, I am just saying that he did nothing wrong. After all there
is nothing wrong with a lot of things that are or were illegal.

------
greg7mdp
Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's
presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistleblowers and
government openness.

~~~
Melting_Harps
> Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on
> Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistle-blowers
> and government openness.

And Trump praised Wikileaks, and by extension Julian Assange, during his
campaign and now [1] look at where things are?

The sooner people realize the type of person drawn to politics is inherently
the same (supposed party factions and names are irrelevant when looked at
objectively and by outcome) and have ALL lied and manipulated to get to the
position to do so, the better we will be as a Species and will hopefully lead
to building viable alternatives.

These people are the epitome of the narcissistic, sociopaths everyone rants
running large corporations, except these are they type who will do and say
anything to be elected: this is why I think seeing your Trumps or Berlusconi
be elected would be useful if people were open to seeing it for it what truly
is. Instead you get division and discord when we all intuitively realize that
this is a myopic system that always leads to this inevitable outcome.

Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it
better.

If there was a time for this kind of Governance, and I grant you it may have
been useful during initial colonization/Industrialization; it has since become
clear with how this, environmental ecocide, financial/banking malfeasance,
climate change, and now Corona Virus pandemics are handled that it HAS LONG
exceed its last glimmer of utility.

1: [https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/us-assange-and-
wikileak...](https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/us-assange-and-wikileaks/ar-
BB10Z2Wl)

~~~
JetSpiegel
> Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it
> better.

Citation effing needed. I would argue those are outliers of sociopaths that
reached positions of power, they don't represent every head of state, let
alone all elected public officials.

~~~
Melting_Harps
Sure: The Clinton's are my favorite example, not least of which because I
lived with a crazy kool-aid drinker who swore Hillary was the Messiah come
back to save the Earth when she was a total crony:

[http://www.clintoncashbook.com/](http://www.clintoncashbook.com/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKqWHkg5xmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKqWHkg5xmc)

Obama has already showed himself to be an enabler for the Military Industry
Complex as he expanded the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (went in Yemen, Syria,
Ukraine etc...) and went deeper on extra-judicial wars and rendition camps,
then went deeper with the use of Drone Warfare, such that he was called the
Drone King. Which makes sense because how did a formerly unknown Senator form
IL become a 2-term president who seemingly eroded Citizen Rights? His war on
whistle-blowers is already outlined. And was a Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer
no less!

Worth noting, Trump from a supposed contrasting party, expanded drone warfare
even further [1]. Further solidifying my point(s). And Trump doubled down on
not just drone war-fare and its secrecy, but also went further than Obama on
prosecuting whistle-blowers [2].

I'd say something about the Bush dynasty but I think its very easy to see
their alliances to the Saudi family and previously Nazi-sympathizers to build
their wealth and eventually political clout.

FYI: I'm an anarchist, and I don't have a political affiliation so I can
scrutinize both 'parties' objectively and what is consistent (In the US) is
that politicians always side with War and interventionism, and are often
benefactors of some cronyism--they may decry it, but it happens.

Dick Cheney is the like the poster-child of what these people embody. Those
that fail to 'play the game' are often berated and marginalized and subject to
unfair (often illegal) practices when they run for office as they will not
participate in the order of things: eg Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders come to
mind.

I highly recommend Jermey Scahill's work.

1: [https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-
do...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-
drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers)

2: [https://theintercept.com/2019/05/21/why-you-should-care-
abou...](https://theintercept.com/2019/05/21/why-you-should-care-about-donald-
trumps-war-on-whistleblowers/)

~~~
JetSpiegel
> I highly recommend Jeremy Scahill's work.

Seconded, I wasn't referring to Hillary "Jill Stein/Tulsi are Russian assets"
Clinton.

I'm not even American, so my interest on American politics is academic at best
(eventually the trends trickle down to other countries). The US is ahead of
the rest of the Global North in complete institutional breakdown.

I just don't believe we should paint "politicians" with a broad brush. Most of
them (like in all professions) are too ignorant to be evil, they just go with
the flow. The the zeitgeist changes, they will change with it.

I'm no anarchist, so I believe the zeitgeist can be changed, but that goes
against entropy, you need to apply energy to keep it changed. It's not a one-
shot revolution that does it. Life is too depressing otherwise...

------
eatbitseveryday
The last page states she will owe $256,000 in fines and the motion to dismiss
them was denied. Really?

~~~
Zenst
With a law degree going to cost you near on $150,000 in student debt, you
start to think of limited options and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage)
has many forms.

~~~
adventured
Depends entirely on where you go. Your $150,000 figure will get you a law
degree from an elite top 20 law school, which will earn you a starting median
income as a lawyer of $175,000+ in the private sector.

The median lawyer in the US will earn $4 or $5 million over their law career,
at a present $120,000 per year.

The median lawyer from an elite school will earn more than twice that over a
career.

$150,000 is a reasonble entry fee considering the immense income potential,
which is what you're buying access to.

If you just want a law degree and are not worried about the income potential,
you can alternatively go to a cheaper school (public + in-state) and slash the
student debt dramatically.

~~~
vonseel
Plenty of lower income lawyers out there, but yeah. Like anything, the best
candidates get the best jobs. You’re not going to a top firm if you graduate
at the bottom of your class and went to an average school, unless you have
some other magical quality or connection.

------
sp332
Did something in particular change so they no longer needed her testimony, or
did they finally accept her argument that she already told them what she knew
and had nothing more to say?

Edit: Oh I didn't see that the Assange grand jury was dismissed today!

~~~
ci5er
She attempted suicide and a judge decided that she need not be incarcerated to
compel her to be a witness.

~~~
callahad
That's not _at all_ what the court order says.

~~~
ci5er
It also makes the reasonable point that the Assange grand jury had been
dismissed, but IIRC (and it's only been two or three hours) the court's
statement was clear that incarceration to compel was not necessary. (Probably
motivated more by the grand jury's conclusion than the suicide), but if you'd
like to tell all of us what you think they said, that would be super!

------
baryphonic
On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the
Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange.
(I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's
administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.)

On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity
per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fifth Amendment privilege
doesn't apply. She has no privilege against testifying against friends or
people she wishes to lend moral support, and especially not when being called
to testify in a (secret) grand jury proceeding.

She could have chosen either to comply with the court order or face contempt
proceedings as a form of civil disobedience. Instead, she's arguing that she's
special and that contempt proceedings need not apply.

I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to
injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds
some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. By trying to avoid
punishment for her contempt of court, Manning has done nothing to sway the
minds of the people who need to be convinced (i.e. Congress or maybe the
Justice Department).

~~~
closeparen
The judge’s distinction between _punitive_ and _coercive_ is important.
Contempt of court is closer to police use of force than to criminal
punishment. Faced with a hostile suspect, cops can do some nasty stuff.
Electric shocks, beating with sticks, painful chemicals. But suppose they’re
ordering you to stand up, and you’re deaf or paralyzed. The baton keeps
landing and you keep not doing what they ask. Resisting arrest is a punishable
crime! But they can’t just beat you to death on the side of the road for it.
They’d have to actually get a conviction, and even then, beating isn’t a
sentencing option.

Contempt of court is the nightstick. Obstruction of justice is the resisting
arrest charge. That may be on the table for her. But you can’t just keep
holding someone in contempt until they do the thing they’ll never do, or once
you no longer need it. She’s not asking for special treatment, that is just
how contempt works.

(Not a lawyer).

~~~
baryphonic
I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable
analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.

~~~
closeparen
Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can
use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.

~~~
baryphonic
Though there is common law contempt, in the US it has been codified in
statutory law[1]. The text of the law states that it is indeed a punishment
for disobedience with the court.

In general, "revenge" is not the aim of any administration of justice;
however, punishment is a tool, for better or worse, that is used in an attempt
to achieve justice. Punishment is also the type of remedy that the state can
do well. The maxim about "have hammer; see problem nails" applies to the state
as well.

Keep in mind that the statute, enacted by Congress, explicitly allows the
exact punishment Manning herself received. While holding her beyond the grand
jury proceedings was considered moot, the fines themselves survived, as fines
are wont to do.

[1][https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401)

~~~
closeparen
You're right, there is such a thing as criminal contempt, which can be used
punitively. But it is a crime for which you have to be charged and convicted.
Chelsea Manning's contempt is the civil variety, which must have a coercive
purpose.

------
whatshisface
Looks like they are still fining Manning $256,000.00.

~~~
gargarplex
Where's the GoFundMe? I have a spare $1 to jump start the effort.

~~~
sp332
[https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-
needs-...](https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-
funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena)

~~~
gargarplex
Contributed $10.

------
bosswipe
TLDR; the Assange grand jury was dismissed today so Manning is ordered
released but she still owes the coeercive fines which amount to $256,000.

~~~
ineedasername
That is obscene. I can just about understand contempt of court incarceration
for not testifying (though I have extreme reservations on the practice) but
such punitive and life-debilitating fines strike me as purely malicious.

~~~
wl
I'm sure her representation, who likely are working pro bono, will challenge
the fines.

~~~
iandanforth
They did, as part of that order those challenges were denied. No idea if they
can appeal that bit. IANAL.

------
wyldfire
Can Manning avoid the fines by declaring bankruptcy?

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
That’s not how it works Michael.

You don’t “avoid” fines by declaring bankruptcy. You can go through a
bankruptcy process and as the debtor you may be forgiven from certain things
that the other side will clearly never receive money from, but this isn’t a
clean slate trick you just do and walk away from.

You basically convert your obligation into distrust. And can “refinance” some
debts including judgments against you.

So, could Manning go through bankruptcy and have the court never receive their
money, yes. But I wouldn’t say this is “avoiding the fine”, just changing it.

~~~
GordonS
I have no idea what the implications of bankruptcy are in the US, but it
sounds like you are alluding to something serious - aside from no credit, what
would Manning face in this scenario?

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
No, you are entirely misreading that. You don’t just get everything reset to
zero. So bad credit, yes, but also maybe a condition is that you are still on
the hook for legal fees but they have been worked down to 50,000 and the
payments have been rescheduled to 20 years.

It’s a legal process, not an eraser.

------
ohyeshedid
It's a shame lamo didn't make it to see this. I know it really fucked him up
to out her. That would be such a nightmare situation to be in.

~~~
ryanlol
>I know it really fucked him up to out her

Did it really? Lamo was a person who’d go out of his way to seek out kids to
snitch on just to amuse himself.

~~~
ohyeshedid
According to his own words, yes. I knew lamo for just shy of 20 years.

I will not defend his character; his regular drug abuse and mental health
issues could make him unpredictable, mean, vicious, etc. I've never called him
a friend, but he was a peer, had a keen mind, and was fascinatingly unique.

I'm not defending him, but as someone that spent years conversing with him and
sharing information, both online and in person, including discussions about
this exact topic: Yeah, it really messed him up. Anyone that he was
comfortable conversing with would say the same.

------
andy_ppp
I’ve said it before but the idea of secret courts trying to coerce people into
doing things seems extremely backwards and regressive. Maybe I don’t
understand this system but it doesn’t seem to be about getting justice. If
there is testimony already given as well it seems doubly wrong, inconsistent
and hateful.

~~~
clairity
> "Maybe I don’t understand this system..."

sounds like you understand the system pretty well. the US is grounded in a
limited federal government and the right to vigorously oppose it (short of,
say, revolt) without persecution (see: bill of rights).

holding manning in jail for so long was persecutory and unjust.

~~~
cultus
It's common practice to hold even low level offenders for a year or more to
extract a confession. NYC has been particularly infamous for this.

~~~
atoav
Doesn't make it right tho.

------
epx
At last some good news today.

------
anikan_vader
It seems to me that the 1st Amendment should, in principle, give you the right
to remain silent in any circumstances (including when you're subpoenaed).
After all, shouldn't freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak -
isn't remaining silent in of itself a form of expression?

I understand that this is not at all how the courts have interpreted the
constitution, but it remains my gut interpretation - that individuals should
have the right to freedom of speech and silence. I also believe, for the
similar reasons, that lying to an FBI officer, when not under oath, should be
constitutionally protected.

~~~
baryphonic
While it might sound nice to want to sweep away compelled testimony, in this
case the cure is much worse than the disease.

A major part of the Constitution's objective as specified in the preamble is
to "establish justice." Certainly criminal elements - actual criminals, not
people who are quasi-political prisoners like Assange - would love to be able
to refuse to testify under any circumstances. Such an interpretation would be
untenable and would lead to essentially a failed state. Thus we understand
that the First Amendment does not mean that people cannot be called to testify
in court.

Furthermore, keep in mind that your interpretation is directly contradicted
by, well, the Constitution.

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to
> have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor [...]

Considering that the First and Sixth Amendments were proposed together and
ratified at the same time, I think the idea that the First Amendment allows
people not to speak under compulsion of court is untenable.

Finally, the text of the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law
[...]" That framing is important: the right is against Congress enacting a
law, not the courts granting an order compelling speech (like a subpoena) or
forbidding it (like a gag order or keeping grand jury proceedings secret).

~~~
anikan_vader
Thank you for a very insightful reply that has made me reflect on my position.

I am still concerned by the ethical ramifications of forcing people to testify
against their friends and loved ones. I don't think it would necessarily
result in a failed state if the prosecution were forced to rely on only
willing witnesses and physical evidence.

I am curious if you have any insight regarding the crime of making false
statements to federal agents [1]. This actually is a law passed by congress
that seems to interfere with free speech.

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

~~~
baryphonic
Cheers for thoughtful dialogue on the Internet!

I should be clear: I don't personally support what the DOJ is doing to
Assange. I even think the Espionage Act likely has Constitutional defects as
applied to his case; it's just never been tested. And I think the Espionage
Act should be repealed at the earliest possible moment. That being said, I
think we're stuck with it, and our Constitution likely doesn't prevent it from
being a law, albeit a bad one.

On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about the false statement laws,
at least as they cover unintentional false statements (i.e. those without
_mens rea_). I don't think our Constitution was meant to punish people
criminal for actions that they aren't even aware of. Unfortunately, there is
long precedent establishing that "strict liability" is permissible even in
criminal law. It seems like a gross violation of due process to me, but unless
and until something changes, we're stuck with it.

I think you've also hit on a much bigger problem I have with the justice
system: this fairly absurd idea that law enforcement can do nearly whatever it
wants, whenever it wants in order to seek its own ends. If I were to propose
criminal justice reforms, I would focus first almost exclusively on police
procedure. Forget about bail reform or sentencing guidelines: don't allow cops
to lie to people while performing an investigation; strictly prohibit cops
from making any innuendo that someone waiving his or her rights is somehow
"looking guilty" or some such nonsense; and get rid of the plea bargaining
system.

Essentially the only thing anyone should ever say to law enforcement in the US
is, "I refuse to any questioning without my attorney present." Anything else
you say to them can and will be used against you, and _cannot_ be used for
your defense, since it is hearsay. It's not too hard to see that the
distribution of people who know how to respond to pressure from the cops to
talk is heavily skewed toward the less privileged segment of the population.
When you add in things like plea bargaining, which has resulted in even many
innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit, I don't think
anyone can call it justice.

It's late so I'm rambling, but I think there are serious problems with the
justice system. I just don't think Chelsea Manning is a particularly great
poster child for them.

------
willart4food
And here all along I thought that she was already out.

Bad for me for being out of touch.

Awful for the Justice system for this clusterfuck!

------
thrownaway954
so she is ordered released but still has to pay $256K in fines. i was so
hoping that those fines would be waved.

------
noja
Manning for President!

------
autonoshitbox
This is fantastic news.

~~~
ci5er
Why?

I'm not familiar with the facts of the case.

And, I further realize that facts are almost completely immaterial to
motivated reasoning about the case, but...

... assuming that you (or someone) is a straight-shooter, why is this
"fantastic news"?

~~~
karthikshan
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning)

tl;dr she was a whistleblower facing the wrath of the people she outed

~~~
jswizzy
Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.

~~~
kick
She was a whistleblower, hence everyone with a hint of credibility saying she
was.

Also, it's customary on HN to point out when you have a conflict of interest.
You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and
probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to
your work.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Can you help me understand the difference between leaker and whistleblower?

~~~
smsm42
Whistleblower is commonly understood to uncover illegal, criminal or otherwise
punishable activity within the organization, that is being hidden. Thus the
metaphor of "blowing the whistle" \- as in, attracting attention to something
untoward going on. However, just releasing secret documents which do not
contain the proof of any specific criminal, or otherwise untoward, behavior is
not "whistleblowing". For example, Manning released 251,287 US Diplomatic
cables and 482,832 Army reports - unless you consider the whole US Diplomatic
corps and US Army to be a criminal enterprises, this goes way beyond
whistleblowing, as described above.

------
an-allen
Did they just charge her a quarter of a million dollars for refusing to speak.
What a crock of thuggy shit justice department.

~~~
westmeal
Land of the free, home of the brave.

~~~
lostgame
Especially given its current leadership, I often turn away jobs of more than
two times my salary - in USD (I live in Canada) - to avoid living in America.

That Trump ever got elected - or was ever seriously considered as a candidate
- tells me that enough of the the population is seriously disturbed that I’d
like nothing to do with it.

And then there’s the war atrocities...

~~~
lopmotr
Before you write off 50 million people as "seriously disturbed", you should
find out their motives. Not the cherry-picked mockery of them you see on
social media, but their more common motives. To make such a crude judgement as
you did, you have to be ignoring some huge factor. If you conclude that factor
is "they're stupid" or "they're evil", then you haven't found it. This applies
generally to many controversial ideas. Being unable to see it from any other
point of view doesn't make you right.

~~~
aeyes
If you know their motives, would you please be kind enough to share them with
us? As an outsider it is kind of hard to see through superficial news posts.

~~~
Causality1
As a Democrat-voting libertarian with very Republican family, I think Jonathan
Pie encapsulated it perfectly just a few days after the election:
[https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs](https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs)

The truly sad part is that the Democratic party seemingly hasn't learned
anything in the last four years, and are well on their way to dooming us to
another four years of Trump.

~~~
surge
Jimmy Dore, Tim Pool, and hundreds of others on the left have explained so
well what was happening and is still happening. People who talk to people, not
people who sit in high rises offices in major expensive cities and listen to
themselves on Twitter all day which is a fraction, of a fraction of the
population (majority of people don't even have time to tweet or care if they
did, the loudest voices there are not representative of political thought for
the majority of Americans). DNC has doubled down and moved further in the
direction that lost them the last one. People have missed that Republicans
have moved left or more center cause of Trump, gay marriage is something Trump
doesn't care about at worst and supports at best, same thing on marijuana
legalization. People who voted for Obama voted for Trump, the Christian right
vote for Trump or don't vote at all because who else are they going to vote
for.

In my state, NAFTA fucked over a lot of people, people working factory jobs
are now working two jobs, Clinton's brought that into reality, and she still
advocated for that and other trade deals like TPP. Bernie might have had a
chance then, because he stood against it, he's since said things like "white
people don't know what its like to be poor", turning it into a race issue
instead of a class issue, stopped talking about worker rights, he sure doesn't
now, even without the DNC's help, people watched how the DNC played Bernie and
rigged things against him, changed the rules and sacrificed their morals to
let billionaire in and keep saying anyone they don't like, even on their own
side, is a Russian asset, they know they're just as dishonest. They see rich
white people at the top of the DNC, the people the DNC says we're supposed to
hate, and recognize the sheer hypocrisy of it all. In the last 4 years they've
sinked to Trump's level, and got down in the mud with him.

------
fallingfrog
Thank god. It’s a mockery of the idea of America as a land of freedom when we
have political prisoners who we abuse in this way.

------
resters
It’s so sad that one of the most courageous soldiers in the history of the US
military has been treated so horribly by the government.

~~~
pstuart
The US Military has no real oversight, and to question it is to have one's
patriotism questioned. It's beyond vexing.

------
Zenst
I'm wondering if jail is a safer or less safer place in light of the current
pandemic.

Let's face it, if you got your freedom after so many years only to be handed a
facemask on your way out and told - you will need this. Has to suck at some
level.

~~~
japhyr
Being confined in an unhealthy space is a very bad place to be right now. This
would be a great time to release nonviolent offenders.

~~~
Zenst
Only if they have somewhere to live, so they can isolate themselves if they
need or want too. Adding to the homeless would be placing them at greater risk
with less medical and people to look out for than any prison.

Homeless people are overlooked at the best of times, at the worst, they can't
isolate, they live day by day. We should be focusing in assisting them as by
helping them, we also help everybody else as nobody wants to be spreading this
and some won't have that choice.

