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

161–170 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#161

Post by lostgame »

westmeal wrote: post #116
an-allen wrote: post #101

Did they just charge her a quarter of a million dollars for refusing to speak. What a crock of thuggy shit justice department.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

Especially given its current leadership, I often turn away jobs of more than two times my salary - in USD (I live in Canada) - to avoid living in America.

That Trump ever got elected - or was ever seriously considered as a candidate - tells me that enough of the the population is seriously disturbed that I’d like nothing to do with it.

And then there’s the war atrocities...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#162

Post by cowsandmilk »

cfv wrote: post #120

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?

Congress has the same powers to jail you for being in contempt, they just haven’t in nearly a century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#163

Post by pera »

gargarplex wrote: post #6
whatshisface wrote: post #5

Looks like they are still fining Manning $256,000.00.

Where's the GoFundMe? I have a spare $1 to jump start the effort.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-chelsea-pay-her-court-fines

(https://twitter.com/SaveManning/status/1238272105180835841)

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#165

Post by surge »

jacobolus wrote: post #142
cfv wrote: post #120

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?

The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general) has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their constitutional/legal obligations. If the Congress really wants it can enforce its own subpoenas by putting anyone who refuses to testify in their own jail, without asking the DOJ for help. This is a power that hasn’t been used since 1934, and the current Congress has opted to w…

Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and balances.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-demo... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/democrats-...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#166

Post by Craighead »

101404 wrote: post #126
chx wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't perpetuate those lies.

Please don't continue forming false equivalencies

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#167

Post by FpUser »

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.

Do you mean the if the person is physically unable to pay the fine they would keep said person imprisoned? This is effin' crime on it's own.

I wish some country like Iceland would just offer her a refugee status (assuming she would want it).

This whole thing is really depressing.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#168

Post by joshgachnang »

surge wrote: post #165
jacobolus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is that the DOJ under Barr (and the administration in general) has no interest in cooperating with Congress or fulfilling their constitutional/legal obligations. If the Congress really wants it can enforce its own subpoenas by putting anyone who refuses to testify in their own jail, without asking the DOJ for help. This is a power that hasn’t been used since 1934, and the current Congress has opted to w…

Actually the way to settle differences between the branches is to use the third branch, the Judicial branch. Congress takes them to supreme/federal court, which decides if the subpoenas are valid and would then enforce the subpoenas and the executive branch then has to comply. Basic checks and balances. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/house-demo... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/d…

Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#169

Post by pentae »

lostgame wrote: post #161
westmeal wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

Especially given its current leadership, I often turn away jobs of more than two times my salary - in USD (I live in Canada) - to avoid living in America. That Trump ever got elected - or was ever seriously considered as a candidate - tells me that enough of the the population is seriously disturbed that I’d like nothing to do with it. And then there’s the war atrocities...

This says more about you than 'enough of the population being seriously disturbed'

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#170

Post by FpUser »

dragonwriter wrote: post #148
jessaustin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my observations of poor people with debts at local courthouses, this is a strictly theoretical legal position. It is a fact that poor people are charged money for their time spent in local jails. It is a further fact that when they can't pay those bills they are jailed again, and charged more money for this additional time in jail. I'm in Missouri, so if you want more details about this you can see anything…

It's not strictly theoretical, though it is, like all laws, imperfectly implemented, and particularly problematic because those to whom it is not properly applied also naturally lack the means to mount an effective legal challenge without outside aid, making it less likely that abusess will be corrected by higher courts than would be the case otherwise. But that's not a “the law allows imprisoning you for inability t…

So going down to basics you have a system that effectively ruins people for the f.. of it and without ANY repercussions for guilty. Dress it any like you want but the result are what matters. USSR also had nice constitution.
Post reply on HN