
Chelsea Manning jailed for contempt of court - jbegley
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/433213-chelsea-manning-jailed-for-contempt-of-court
======
pera
Anecdotally by the same judge who ordered a $5,000-a-day fine to Ladar Levison
from Lavabit, back in 2013, until he provided the SSL private keys in
electronic form (originally he printed them in 11 pages of 4pt text).

~~~
tuxxy
I wonder how far you can take the "electronic form"...

Could you compress it, base64 it, hex encode it, then base64 encode it again
(this time URL-safe), then hex encode it, etc? I wonder what kind of response
that would elicit heh.

~~~
tedunangst
Spoiler alert: the judge will not be amused.

~~~
refurb
Indeed. If your goal is just to make the judge more pissed off and more likely
to take it out on you, this is a great approach.

If your goal is to help yourself, please don't do this.

------
tuxxy
Secret Grand Juries have been used to prosecute activists for decades now. In
fact, there's been a historical movement to do exactly what Chelsea is doing
and resist them.[0] I have a friend who did just this and was held in contempt
for a year or so.

What's odd about Chelsea's case is that she's decided to _refuse_ to testify
straight up. Normally, various resistance activists would have a statement of
resistance that they would answer to any of the questions that the Grand Jury
would have.

To give some insight on Grand Juries, you're not allowed to have a lawyer
present during questioning and you _must_ answer the question or be held in
contempt. They've been used to violate our rights for decades now.

0\. [http://grandjuryresistance.org/](http://grandjuryresistance.org/)

~~~
evgen
This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the role of grand juries in the
legal system. A grand jury is used to determine of there are sufficient facts
for the state to make an indictment and therefore to protect the accused they
are _always_ secret. They are not used to prosecute people, they are used as a
filter to prevent unwarranted prosecution.

~~~
tuxxy
It's as if no one is even reading the link I posted in response to this.

> Today, FBI, police harassment and secret grand juries are being used to
> attack Muslims and other immigrants, Black, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native,
> anti-war, anarchist, environmental and animal rights activists and
> movements. These incidents are not isolated, and they are not happening
> because the government wants to "solve crimes." They are an attack on all
> our movements: an attempt to divide us, isolate outspoken individuals,
> create fear and distrust among us, and rewrite our history of resistance as
> "criminal."

The government will use secret grand juries to get activists to testify
against other activists, thus splitting up movements and pitting the
participants against each other. It undermines basic democratic principles no
matter how grand juries were _supposed_ to be used. It's historically been
used as a weapon of the state to fight against activists. This goes back to
the days of McCarthyism.

~~~
evgen
I read the link and rejected its pages of persecution-complex thesis and lack
of worthwhile supporting evidence.

The grand jury compels activists to testify when they are involved with or
witness to crimes and conspiracies. The witnesses are not picked at random or
for political purposes, but some political groups that have violent edges will
sometimes find themselves facing a society that does not share its
appreciation of "direct action". Some of the more radical elements of the
groups you mention _are_ criminal and dealing with the via criminal
prosecution is much better than the alternatives (which is not to just leave
them alone but rather to treat them as terrorists, traitors, unlawful
combatants, or simply line them up against a wall and shoot them.)

~~~
tuxxy
The US and Liberia are the only countries that use Grand Juries for
preliminary hearings.

I'm quite appalled at the juxtaposition in your response. You claim to not
support the direct action used by activists, yet your suggestions for
"alternatives" to Grand Juries are far more violent and combative than
anything the activists are doing -- even going so far as to suggest to line
them up against a wall and execute them.

There are plenty more alternatives for a functioning Democracy than Grand
Juries.

------
threatofrain
Likely for ideological reasons as Chelsea Manning was offered immunity for the
testimony. The paper mentioned interestingly that Chelsea has served the
longest sentence for leaking information.

~~~
joe_the_user
Offering limited immunity and demanding testimony is standard procedure for
grand juries and civil libertarians have been complaining about the way in
which this has been abused for years.

The only way out of this sort of thing is making the legal argument the person
simply isn't going to testify and the jailing is basically punishment, not
coercion (where is considered OK here since it's supposedly not _self_
incrimination). If anyone could considered unwilling to testify, it would be
Manning, since she's already served a huge sentence for leaking information.

------
andrewla
It was apparently the closed nature of the grand jury. She's happy to testify
in public, and claims that all questions that were asked were reiterations of
questions that she has answered in other forums, including her court martial.

~~~
dragontamer
Yeah, but that's complete baloney. I understand Manning wants to keep her
beliefs or whatever, but there's no law protecting that kind of behavior.

The 5th Amendment is against SELF-incrimination. The US Government is 100%
allowed to force you to spill your secrets about other people.

Furthermore, not all details of a case is made to a jury. Only the details
deemed acceptable (ie: impermissible evidence is kept away from the Jury, to
help provide a more fair trial). So its not like everything should be public.

\------------

Does anyone have a general idea for what is going on exactly? Like what this
Wikileaks case is even about? I feel like Manning is a red-herring, irrelevant
to the main story. Its like Manning is the "clickbait" portion of the article,
but nothing else is elaborated upon.

~~~
philip1209
I believe that, if you have immunity, then you can be forced to testify -
because you already cannot incriminate yourself. It's a weird legal loophole.

~~~
btilly
I didn't believe you so I hit google. Several links later, including
[https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power...](https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-
to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html), I am now convinced that you're
right.

Thanks! I learned something today!

I also learned that immunity, when properly granted, protects you from both
federal and state law. That _has_ to be abusable...

------
cynoclast
For being unwilling to testify against a journalist it's worth pointing out.

~~~
delecti
For being unwilling to testify _non-publicly_. She's entirely willing to
testify publicly. It's a strange hill to make a stand on, but I suppose that's
her call to make.

~~~
lbotos
Why do you think that's a strange hill?

This is someone who thinks the system is trying to protect itself, and they
would like to expose that at all costs.

to use 2019 parlance, it seems really "on-brand".

~~~
xxpor
It's because there's no such thing as a public grand jury. that's not how the
system works.

This is all very cut and dried. whoever her lawyer is is doing her a huge
disservice. She has immunity and a subpoena. That means she's going to testify
whether she likes it or not.

~~~
fastball
Except that they can't actually force her to testify.

~~~
sigzero
True but they can then send him to jail.

~~~
DelaneyM
This is the only "him" on the page and her new name is the only reference, so
you can't argue ignorance...

This is just blatant bigotry and has no place in Hacker News.

~~~
LMYahooTFY
You can argue an innocent slip of the tongue. It's not like the commenter
knows her personally.

Calling it out as "blatant bigotry" feels far more intolerant. People aren't
either total saints or total bigots.

~~~
delecti
I would argue that calling out "blatant bigotry" is addressing behavior. It
doesn't automatically make the person a total bigot to blatantly demonstrate
bigotry.

~~~
LMYahooTFY
I agree with your statement, but I disagree that there was a clear
demonstration of bigotry.

A slip of the tongue does not equate to intolerance IMO. Not everyone adjusts
as quickly and easily as one might desire or expect.

~~~
delecti
Sure, but I wasn't saying it was. I was just saying that describing behavior
as "bigotry" is different from calling the _person_ a bigot.

I agree that a single misgendering is far from enough to label someone a
bigot, and isn't enough to even conclusively be described as bigotry.

------
justcorrect
pretty straightforward, given immunity for testimony and still refuses to
testify. If this were Mueller prosecuting, everyone would be cheering.

------
thinkingemote
Is a custodial sentence mandatory for contempt of court? Seems like the
prosecutors didn't want it.

~~~
wl
This isn't a sentence. This isn't a crime being punished. It's civil contempt.
It's designed to coerce the person in custody into complying with the court
order. It's often said that in such circumstances that the person being
detained "holds the keys to their own jail cell."

~~~
gnode
That doesn't mean that the coercion couldn't be: pay a fine for each day you
fail to comply, as is commonly used to coerce corporate persons.

Putting someone in a cell for something when they're not a danger or flight
risk is barbarism.

~~~
learc83
The most common reason for holding someone in contempt is for refusing to
follow an order to pay money. Ordering them to pay more money isn't going to
be effective. There really isn't anything else you can do. You can take their
stuff, but if they had assets that could easily be seized, you would do that
in the first place.

Corporations can be fined into compliance because making money is generally a
corporation's only purpose. The closest equivalent for and individual is
removing time from their life--jail time.

A jail cell is basically the last resort to force compliance. It's also what
will eventually happen to individuals running a corporation if they keep
defying court orders.

~~~
gnode
That's true, but in this case it's not being used as a last resort, but
seemingly as a matter of course.

------
pmoriarty
I first read about this on Boing Boing[1], which said Manning believes that _"
since testimony before grand juries is secret, grand juries can create fear by
suggesting that some members of a political community may be secretly
cooperating with the government. In this way, grand juries can seed suspicion
and fear in activist communities."_

I'm not sure how not being in a grand jury absolves activists from suspicions
of secretly cooperating with the government, because one doesn't need to be in
a grand jury to secretly cooperate with the government. In fact, if secrecy in
cooperation was paramount, then participating in a grand jury would seem to be
counterproductive to maintaining such secrecy.

Later, the article states:

 _" By serving Chelsea Manning with a grand jury subpoena, the government is
attempting once again to punish an outspoken whistleblower for her historic
disclosures. We stand with Chelsea in support of her refusal to participate in
this repressive and undemocratic process._

 _" Grand juries are notoriously mired in secrecy, and have historically been
used to silence and retaliate against political activists. The indiscriminate
nature of grand juries means the government can attempt to artificially coerce
a witness into perjury or contempt. Chelsea gave voluminous testimony during
her court martial. She has stood by the truth of her prior statements, and
there is no legitimate purpose to having her rehash them before a hostile
grand jury."_

If Manning is willing to testify truthfully and publicly on the subject, then
I'm not sure how participating in a grand jury would expose her to either
perjury or contempt. It's only if she lied or refused to testify that she
could be charged with perjury or contempt, right? But she's not refusing to
testify altogether and is not saying she's going to lie, so where does the
purjury and contempt worry come from?

Finally, why does the statement refer to a "hostile grand jury"? How is a
grand jury hostile?

[1] - [https://boingboing.net/2019/03/03/chelsea-
resists.html](https://boingboing.net/2019/03/03/chelsea-resists.html)

------
doe88
The DC of Alexandria seems to be to security issues what the eastern DC of
Texas is to patent trolls. Both specialized in stretching the law to its
limits.

------
Tomte
I understand that she feels thankful to Julian Assange, and doesn't want to
harm him, but I don't see why she should be allowed to choose not to testify.

"Because I testified in a different trial years ago" isn't terribly
convincing.

------
iron0013
Especially coming immediately after Manafort got off easy, this is an absolute
travesty.

~~~
Simulacra
It's worth noting that murderers have gotten less time. If you recall,
prosecutors threatened Aaron Schwartz with massive jail time that totally
didn't fit the crime.

------
mugwump
Not an "intelligence officer", an E-4 specialist. Terrible journalism.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-
manni...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-manning-
wikileaks-contempt.html), since the thread that had that URL attracted more
comments even though it was posted later.

------
duxup
With wikileaks coordination with Trump and Co.... I gotta wonder if folks who
gave wikileaks info earlier on regret who they gave the information to.

Leaking to some group on the internet, you really don't know their motives /
affiliation or if it might change.

~~~
jonny_eh
It should but cognitive dissonance is strong.

~~~
whatshisface
Wikileak's "affiliation" is perceived to be the opposite of whoever the last
group they exposed was. You could easily "change it," just send something
exposing someone else. Clearly, this is not how affiliation works; suggesting
that they might not have much of an affiliation in the first place.

~~~
duxup
For the record I said coordination. My comment about affiliation was purely a
comment on the fact that you just don't know what the future might hold.

------
mLuby
How is this not double-jeopardy? Manning already served her term for a
Wikileaks-related matter.

~~~
teraflop
This has nothing to do with double jeopardy. Being convicted of a crime does
not grant you immunity from prosecution for future charges of a similar
nature.

(And in any case, refusing to testify in front of a grand jury is not a
remotely similar charge to espionage; the fact that they're both "Wikileaks-
related" is irrelevant.)

