131–140 of 362 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t make sense. Courts are independent (in theory) whereas HR is directly paid by and depending on the company.
> Courts are independent (in theory) In the last couple years the {in practice} part has made this independence completely untrue.
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.
She is in jail for refusing to testify in front of a secret jury. The grand jury is essentially a politically motivated persecution of Julian Assange. She has already spent 7 years in jail for her part in the Wiki leaks mess and then they threw her in jail again. She released tapes to Assange documenting US killing of civilians. She is clearly a psychologically damaged person and now they are just trying to break her…
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.
Shameful? Yes. Freedom of the press for trying to persecute a Russian agent? Well... Sources: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-de... https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... And so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt It frequently is, IF the debt is to the legal system.
You cannot legally be jailed for failing to pay a debt, even to the legal system; you can be jailed for refusing to do so, but that requires ability to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> completely untrue. That would explain why the government never loses in court ever, ever, right?
One could argue that its merely lost to another government faction. Ala intra-aristocratic strife.
Scumbag judges should be thrown off for this. Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off.
> Scumbag judges should be thrown off for this. > Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off. It's not bullshit. Manning was basically obstructing justice by disobeying a court order. If sanctions like this didn't exist, people wouldn't have any incentive follow court orders at all, and the court system would become ineffec…
Using a method which has been called incompatible with basic human rights (by the EU), has been labeled as torture (by the UN), and compared to the governmental processes of countries like North Korea, China, and Iran (by various reporters).
Also notably the immunity they granted her would not have protected her from various other legal troubles. The law in question (which then implies use of coercive incarceration) is a violation of the 5th amendment protections of self incrimination.
I don't really care if those break down.
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?
Presidents being impeached (and their administrations) have always refused Congress's requests for testimony and documentation. Congress can take the President to court and compel documents and testimony (or else face contempt of court and imprisonment like Manning). The House did exactly that for Nixon and Cliton. For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt It frequently is, IF the debt is to the legal system.
You cannot legally be jailed for failing to pay a debt, even to the legal system; you can be jailed for refusing to do so, but that requires ability to pay.
Yes, they don't have to jail you, but they absolutely can and do.
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?
Presidents being impeached (and their administrations) have always refused Congress's requests for testimony and documentation. Congress can take the President to court and compel documents and testimony (or else face contempt of court and imprisonment like Manning). The House did exactly that for Nixon and Cliton. For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't…
I'm really curious about the actual legal reasoning behind this, it's got to be a fascinating read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the difference? She needs x amounts of money.
The link above goes to paying her legal team. Her fine will come from her own funds separately. Your lawyers don't pay your fines, you do personally. Ideally, her legal team or someone would put up a separate fundraiser for her fine, that goes specifically to paying that. I for one would definitely donate.