
Chelsea Manning Can Remain in Jail for Another Year, Judge Rules - danso
https://gizmodo.com/chelsea-manning-can-remain-in-jail-for-another-year-ju-1837022114
======
blackflame7000
Why doesn't she just testify with the tried and true method of "I don't
remember / I don't recall"?

~~~
ppseafield
> In February 2019, Manning received a subpoena to testify in a US government
> case against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange (the existence of which had been
> accidentally revealed in November 2018), which was proceeding under
> prosecutors in Virginia.[220] Manning condemned the secrecy of the hearings
> and announced she would avoid testifying,[221] saying "we've seen this power
> abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to
> contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by
> participating in this predatory practice."[222] Manning also said she had
> provided all the information she had in 2013 during her court martial and
> that she stood by her previous answers.[223]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2019_jailing_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#2019_jailing_for_contempt)

------
CretinDesAlpes
I am European with not so much knowledge about the US justice system, but
between this, Julian Assange's recent events [1] and this guy's book [2], it's
hard to believe it is an independent and a fair system.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Extradition_hea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings)
[2] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
europe-47765974](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47765974)

~~~
cdumler
We don't have an independent and fair system. It's been highly political and
corrupt for a long time, it's just now more blatantly obvious. Partly, this is
because of the internet making it easier to make things public and partly
because the rich and powerful are feeling less obliged to hide their actions.
Too much power has been centralized into just a few hundred people in the U.S.

~~~
CretinDesAlpes
Is there any book you would recommend on this topic?

------
redblacktree
This led me down the rabbit hole of finding out how a person could have a
moral problem with Grand Juries. Fascinating stuff. It seems they're sometimes
used as an information-gathering tool and a method for stifling free speech.
Having done further reading, I applaud Ms. Manning's principled stance.

One explanation:
[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-10929-3_...](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-10929-3_22)

------
noobiemcfoob
How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel?

/I'll table the unusual bit.

~~~
ncallaway
I think the "cruel and unusual" clause requires both to provide any
protection.

It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are
cruel. I think anyone would agree. However, that phrase in our constitution
explicitly leaves the door open for our criminal justice system to perform
cruel behaviors, as long as they are in line with the standards of the day
(or, if you're an originalist, of the standards of 1791).

So, my response would be that you've tabled the only portion of the debate
that is relevant. I'll freely concede that the criminal justice system is
cruel, but I wouldn't then argue that the system falls afoul of the 8th
amendment.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
I can accept your argument, even if it leaves me grumpier than when I first
asked the question.

States convention, anyone?

~~~
ncallaway
I mean, I would totally agree that the criminal justice system in our country
is fundamentally broken and has been for a very long time.

I think there's a _ton_ of opportunity to totally re-work the criminal justice
system within the confines of the current amendments. I think that kind of
change would be a lot more politically feasible in the near-term (as in, you
could make such changes with 45-55% of the population's acceptance, rather
than 65-80%).

The 8th amendment says "you can't be worse than X", but it doesn't put any
constraints on how "good" we can make the system. I think the political
reality is that we need to improve the system significantly _before_ we can
constitutionally constraint ourselves to that new bar.

------
atonse
How does this not fall under your 5th amendment right to not be forced to
testify against yourself?

~~~
dragontamer
> How does this not fall under your 5th amendment right to not be forced to
> testify against yourself?

She's not testifying against herself. She's testifying against Assange.

Manning has already been tried, found guilty, and then pardoned for her
crimes. She's basically immune to anything she testifies. But investigators
need the evidence as they're building a case against Assange.

~~~
votepaunchy
Manning’s sentence was commuted, not pardoned.

------
close04
Memory loss seems to be a popular (albeit weak) defense in Washington. [0] I
always wondered if trials that accept this as a valid defense aren't setting a
precedent. Is there a freedom to subjectively reject such a testimony absent
any clear evidence that the person does remember?

[0] [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/washington-
defense...](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/washington-defense-
trump-russia-239914)

~~~
openasocket
It's a fairly popular defense in legal proceedings. Lawyers have a couple ways
to combat it.

\- Compelling testimony. Something like "if you testify that you helped this
guy rob a bank, we won't go after you for the crime." Usually this involves
signing documents swearing to what your testimony is, so you can't go back
later.

\- Getting more than just testimony. Getting documents (emails, texts, phone
records) is often much more valuable because you can't play the "I can't
remember" card with those. And lawyers can use those as evidence, and
sometimes use the information in those records to get testimony (i.e. "How
could you not remember sending all these emails setting up the bank robbery?!"
\-- "OK, OK, I was there")

\- If it's egregious, you can be sanctioned by the court. If you're claiming
you don't remember if you saw the defendent murder 3 people right in front of
you last week, you better have a pretty good reason for why you can't
remember.

------
crooked-v
Are these fines dischargeable in bankruptcy? If so, there's not much point in
adding more on top of an already unmanageable amount.

------
jonathanstrange
This shows the whole world how hopeless the US injustice system is. None of
this would be possible in a civilized country.

~~~
skrause
> _None of this would be possible in a civilized country._

I think the same concept exists in many civilized countries. In Germany it's
called Erzwingungshaft
([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzwingungshaft))
and can be up to half a year for refusing to testify (though you can refuse to
testify against yourself or close relatives without repercussions, similar to
the 5th amendment).

~~~
italophil
In Germany Ordnungshaft
([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungsmittel))
is the measure for refusing to testify. It is strongly regulated and can't
extend longer than 6 weeks without going to a higher court.

Erzwingungshaft is incarceration for failure to pay fines or penalties.

~~~
skrause
No, it's the other way round if you read the actual law: [https://www.gesetze-
im-internet.de/stpo/__70.html](https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/stpo/__70.html)

(1) Ordnungshaft is what you get if you fail to pay the fine (Ordnungsgeld)
for refusing to testify.

(2) Erzwingungshaft is a separate thing, has nothing to do with a fine and can
be up to half a year.

