
Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense - hendi_
https://freedom.press/chelsea
======
andrelaszlo
I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your
disposal to get a "fair" trial.

I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money
you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against
you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction.
Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k?

How can this be considered normal?

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law." \- Universal Declaration of Human Rights §7

"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private
differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to
reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere
with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way" \- Pericles (431 BC)

~~~
rayiner
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here.
This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated,
because otherwise they lose.

There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is
accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who
leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing
that, despite those things, for various reasons Manning should nonetheless be
found not guilty, or at least her sentence should be reduced. They will try to
make the case not about straightforward factual events, but about Manning's
intentions and motivations, the nature of the information involved, the impact
of the disclosures, the broader social and political implications of finding
her guilty, etc.

A straightforward legal procedure would certainly be cheaper. It'd also be one
that would find Manning guilty without even considering the mitigating factors
she's relying on for her defense.

~~~
andrelaszlo
So basically the point is that it doesn't apply for cases where you need a
complicated defense?

To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person -
where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the
people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies.

I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the
difference in our (moral?) thinking lies.

Isn't it close to the idea that the state should provide a humane living
standard for those who can't provide for themselves. Such as not starving,
basic healthcare etc - but anything beyond that is something that every person
has to earn themselves. This seems like something close to a moral conviction
to liberal-minded people, sometimes. "If you can afford it, you deserve it."

I'm wondering if it's the same thinking that guides you here. A basic "throw
them in jail if they did it" law that doesn't allow for complicated cases, and
a deluxe version that takes into account other things than "straightforward
factual events", for those who can afford it?

I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm just not getting your point.

~~~
rayiner
The question is, how do you make the system more fair? One way to make it more
fair is to make it cheaper, and the way to do that is to reduce its
complexity. But what does a less complex system look like?

Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state)
requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases
would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state
elements. It's very time consuming, and therefore expensive, to litigate the
question of what someone was thinking when they took certain actions. Did
Manning leak that information? Was that information classified? If so, she's
guilty. No need to spend lots of time and money arguing about what she was
thinking or what motivated her to leak the information.

What you're talking about is a slightly different issue--who should bear the
cost of allowing ordinary people to mount complicated and expensive legal
defenses? That's outside the scope of what I'm talking about above.

~~~
knodi123
> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that
> is to reduce its complexity.

You've made a good case against _that_ solution. But I remain far from
convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both
sides be salaried employees of the state.

~~~
pdabbadabba
There's a lot going on here. Partly, I think we're conflating having the best
possible defense with having a fair trial. The latter probably does not
require the former and, in any case, it is probably not possible under any
reasonable system to provide the former for everyone. I think many defendants
_do_ receive fair trials, whether they can afford representation or not--
though this does not mean their representation could not have been better.

In fact, today, for poor defendants, the lawyers on both side are already
salaried state employees. Moreover, _federal_ defenders and some state public
defenders (particularly in big cities) are actually very good. Believe it or
not, these are highly coveted jobs, despite the dismal pay and stressful work.
But that doesn't mean it isn't still possible to go hire an even better
lawyer. And, when your life is on the line, this is just what people will do
if they can possibly afford it.

This will result in disparities, but it's unclear how we could prevent this
short of preventing people from hiring private attorneys. This seems like a
non-starter, so it's probably better to focus our resources on making sure
everyone's representation is adequate, than on making sure everyone's
representation is the same.

But the other problem, of course, is that, although many public defenders are
actually extremely gifted, their offices don't receive _nearly_ enough
funding. This means that, although it is possible for a given defendant to
receive good representation (and some do), in the aggregate public defenders
offices simply cannot properly do all the work that needs to be done. This is,
in theory, an easy problem to solve, but unfortunately, there is little public
interest in solving it. Prosecuting criminals is popular. Defending them is
not. (Of course, the whole point is that not all defendants _are_ criminals,
and we need good lawyers to help the system distinguish between the two. But
that's not the message that sticks with people, for some reason.)

~~~
knodi123
so, it sounds like you're saying we could get a "pretty good" or maybe "good
enough" solution with nothing more complicated than a drastic bump in funding
to public defenders' offices?

~~~
pdabbadabba
I think that's probably right. The system wouldn't be perfect (in particular,
you'd still have the problematic specter of the rich hiring whole teams of
expert attorneys, giving rise to the suggestion raised here that the rich can,
to some degree, buy the justice system), but I think it would be adequate so
long as the defendant's resources were typically comparable to the resources
brought to bear by the prosecution in a particular case. (Bearing in mind
that, for run of the mill cases, the prosecution will not exactly throw every
dollar they have at it either.)

This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the
government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given
case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to
suggest it as a solution.

It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing
returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of
one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of
expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough
facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also
often a bit hyperbolic.

------
Simulacra
To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as
"..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization
that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through
the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was
right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we
forgive and forget their actions, simply because it was in the interest of
making America better? To righting what they perceived was unjust policy?

I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and
say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for
America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America
should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior.

Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied
equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye
to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for
America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation
for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy
towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.

------
fruzz
I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions
favourably use the right name and pronouns.

Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns.

That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her
favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

~~~
542458
I'd suggest a more innocuous explanation: those who view her actions
favourably are more "up to date" with her situation (including coming out as
trans), while those who don't are less up to date and might not be aware.

In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very
justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I
don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no
longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have
made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's
important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning
was still a "he".

[1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a
certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting
anything what Manning did was irresponsible.

Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?

~~~
npizzolato
This is the case for me. There's nothing nefarious about it. When the case was
prominently in the media, "he" was Bradley Manning, and so that's what I think
of when I see any headline just referring to her as Manning. It's only after
reading the article or comments I am reminded that she is "Chelsea" now.

For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I
haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.

------
Simulacra
I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of
leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise,
they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even
be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

~~~
almost
Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any
situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A
stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty
ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere

~~~
Simulacra
I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it
will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments.
There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good
of a nation.

~~~
almost
That's quite an extreme view. I'm sure you've already taken into account the
horrifying laws that have existed and do exist in the U.S. and other
countries. I'm not sure why you mention multiple laws and good of the nation
as you've already stated your position is that it doesn't matter what law is
broken or what mitigating circumstances there are.

------
fche
(Curious what the basis of the appeal is to be.)

~~~
steve19
I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the
charges she pled guilty to.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the
> charges she pled guilty to.

There were several legal motions prior to the guilty plea and on which it was
predicated that are quite likely to be the subject of the appeal, particularly
the motions to dismiss all charges (first for Constitutional due process
violations involving unlawful pretrial punishment, second for violation of the
Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)

------
toni
So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on
Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's
resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?

~~~
batou
Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so
they want money so it's not a complete loss.

Horrible but probably true.

~~~
bitJericho
I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of
causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

~~~
ekianjo
> (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about
being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday
and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture.

I have never seen a poor lawyer.

~~~
icelancer
My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to
pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and
not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and
time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.

~~~
ekianjo
> criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market
> rates

So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.

~~~
tat45
"Typical lawyers" make well under $100k per year.

[http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/...](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary)

Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all
the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying
specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical
hourly rate.

However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are
working schlubs just like the rest of us.

------
im3w1l
I have started to forget parts of this story. Does anyone know of a good
refresher text?

------
srose3100
Sadly the odds will be stacked against her but I think it's worth donating if
you can.

------
justwannasing
Sorry. I've already contributed to the funerals of those harmed by what
Manning leaked.

~~~
andrelaszlo
Honest question: who were they? The last thing I read [0] had no direct
connections between the leaks and people being harmed.

"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who
headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of
WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at
Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone
who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the
disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."

0: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-
manning...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-
sentencing-hearing-pentagon)

~~~
cm2187
It hasn't shown any wrong doing either. The only thing that made any noise was
some records of some collateral damage, for which the US army already disclose
statistics routinely and the absence of which would be surprising in any war.
One can only claim to be a whistleblower if there is any wrongdoing exposed.
Most reviewers of these notes mentioned that the US diplomacy was rather doing
its job well.

------
anon3_
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law.

He is a traitor who has endangered lives.

If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the
identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for
them.

~~~
icebraining
_A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law._

So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?

Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in
any civilised place.

 _If you want to talk about people 's rights - what about the rights of the
identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for
them._

Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them
due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?

~~~
anon3_
> So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?

Sure, but money doesn't change the facts.

After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.

> Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them
> due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?

There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe
they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.

Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of
people defending the facts. He's confessed.

~~~
icebraining
_Sure, but money doesn 't change the facts. After a confession - the reality
of the outcome changes._

That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal
defence. What's your point?

 _There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe
they don 't go to the news about it, they're private individuals._

Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to
news organisations. The rest just passes us by.

 _Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of
people defending the facts. He 's confessed._

The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her
legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".

~~~
anon3_
> What's your point?

1\. Why does need a fund? It won't make much difference, he has already
confessed.

2\. There are plenty of other people with their lives on the line who don't
get the kind of sympathy he did.

He built nothing. He didn't rise ranks. He's a childish, selfish heartbreaker
who hasn't shown an inkling of remorse for the damage he has caused.

> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
> that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which
> I am about to enter. So help me God.

Also, while I don't have an example of it, his security clearance also
required a pledge. (Found it: The SF-312
[http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_a...](http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_assets/documents/sf312.pdf))

[http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926](http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926)

These often state how leaking of such information can cause great damage.
Snowden did the same pledge.

------
transfire
So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being
turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way
that it makes them _want_ to become a woman?

I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex
change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them
to buy me an aspirin.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex
> change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor

Manning was not convicted of treason.

> when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.

Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to
actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a
result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically
necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still
wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would
actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.

------
megaman22
Perhaps some of the money spent on transitioning her would have been more
profitably spent on legal defense?

------
wtbob
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to
contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his
country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for
whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would _love_ to get a
good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them.

He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who
violated his oath and betrayed his country?

He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.

~~~
wtbob
> He exposed traitors.

Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against
[the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be
levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our
enemies, giving them aid and comfort?

No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.

~~~
glass-
So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a
helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero
while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.

~~~
wtbob
> So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that
> a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero
> while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.

No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not
treason, because…it's not.

Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken
identification, or legitimate action against an _armed_ group or individual
within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor
was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't
like the decision of those whose job it _was_ to decide.

~~~
ionised
Those whose jobs it is 'to decide' have shown themselves untrustworthy and
unwilling to uphold justice.

So fuck 'em, time for others to take on the responsibility.

Manning, Snowden and whoever else in future has access to information that
would serve public interest and decides to risk their lives and their freedom
to make it known.

They have my full support.

~~~
flyryan
The documents regarding that incident were pulled from an Inspector General's
folder regarding an open investigation. That hadn't shown themselves to be
anything. They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning
tainted the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being
served.

There is a difference between releasing data that is strictly related to the
public interest and taking massive amounts of data, including information
about very sensitive operations and diplomatic discussions and releasing them
without regards to the damage they may cause. It's reckless.

~~~
ionised
> They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning tainted
> the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being served.

Let's be realistic. This never would have seen the light of day and those
involved would never have faced justice.

------
chatman
Very difficult to judge from the donation page as to how likely is the success
in the case. I would happily donate if I see there is a good chance of a win.

~~~
acqq
What if the chance is 1%? She can still be one of the 100.

