Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#71

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

Zenst wrote: post #17

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.

> BREAKING: NYC Defenders call for immediate release of vulnerable incarcerated New Yorkers in response to #COVID19.

"A coronavirus outbreak in our overcrowded, poorly maintained jails and prison facilities would be devastating, swift, and deadly."

https://twitter.com/LegalAidNYC/status/1238218556610940929

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#72

Post by andy_ppp »

LiquidSky wrote: post #62
andy_ppp wrote: post #20

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.

>secret courts This was a normal public federal district court, not the FISA court or the like. Or did you mean the concept of grand juries? > trying to coerce people into doing things If people aren't voluntarily complying with orders and subpoenas, what would you suggest be done?

The concept of grand juries.

I would actually say it’s almost impossible to compel people to be witnesses. If the witness believes the court to be politically motivated (which you can’t believe it isn’t) then morally of course it’s the correct decision not to testify. I for one wouldn’t give a shit at this point, I’d say just about anything to make these people leave me alone. Another problem with the coercion aspect of this, my testimony couldn’t be trusted...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #7

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

Really. The validity of the contempt wasn't undercut, the grand jury was dismissed which terminated any basis for additional contempt sanctions not already incurred (unless criminal contempt charges are filed, but that's a separate bucket of consequences.)

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#74

Post by acqq »

andy_ppp wrote: post #20

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.

I also don't understand. I've tried to find more material about what was going on, especially re. dismissal of Grand Jury mentioned:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15788218/united-states-...

And I don't understand if it is actually accessible (the meaning of "sealed" there).

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#75

Post by _ph_ »

umvi wrote: post #48
ci5er wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.

Well, there are many different... idealogical alignments in America. Some believe Manning is a hero who followed her conscience and leaked classified information in order to inform the public of secret crimes the government/military committed. Others think what Manning did was incredibly reckless and treasonous, tantamount to selling secrets to the enemy (just without the "selling" part) So to answer your question, p…

I don't think this should be reduced to her original actions. She was sentenced as a consequence of them, she served 7 years until the rest of the sentence was communted by Obama.

So the real question is: was it appropriate to throw her back into prison, under very harsh conditions, just to force a statement from her. I think there is very good reasons to doubt that, independant of the stance about her original actions. From that perspective, I think her release is good news.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#76

Post by wayoutthere »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #67
mindslight wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#78

Post by elihu »

Zenst wrote: post #17

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.

If I remember right, Iran was recently forced to release a lot of prisoners because of COVID-19 outbreaks in their jails. (The inmates are expected to return to jail when conditions are safe to re-open the jails.)

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#79

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

kick wrote: post #45
jswizzy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.

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.

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

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#80

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

kick wrote: post #45
jswizzy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.

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.

The gun camera footage, maybe, but the state dept. cables were not blowing any whistle.
Post reply on HN