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

201–210 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#201

Post by lonelappde »

agf wrote: post #193
surge wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize she was jailed and charged under Obama right? This was the President that was supposed to shine a light on corruption and protect whistleblowers when they first campaigned. The joke here is you think there's that much of a difference. One acts bad and does bad things, the other acts good and does bad things. The only difference is the media loved the last one and hates the new one.

Certainly the previous comment was conflating things that happened in the past with what's happening how. I was sometimes disappointed with the reality of the Obama presidency, like may others. But this comment is just ridiculous. From the policies, to the personal conduct, to their respect or lack thereof for the rule of law, the two administrations and the actions of the two in and out of office are wildly differen…

The fact remains that millions of people are screaming holy hell about things "Trump does" that they were silent about 4 years ago when Obama did them.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#202

Post by dependenttypes »

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.

> 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.

How do you know that? I don't see anything in their profile. Was it a post that they made?

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#203

Post by surge »

agf wrote: post #193
surge wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize she was jailed and charged under Obama right? This was the President that was supposed to shine a light on corruption and protect whistleblowers when they first campaigned. The joke here is you think there's that much of a difference. One acts bad and does bad things, the other acts good and does bad things. The only difference is the media loved the last one and hates the new one.

Certainly the previous comment was conflating things that happened in the past with what's happening how. I was sometimes disappointed with the reality of the Obama presidency, like may others. But this comment is just ridiculous. From the policies, to the personal conduct, to their respect or lack thereof for the rule of law, the two administrations and the actions of the two in and out of office are wildly differen…

This is the part where I remind people that Obama drone striked a 16 year old US citizen without trial in a non active war zone and a cafe full of civilians because someone bad might be there (and wasn't so just killed a bunch of innocent people). That's a war crime tantamount to murder.

You're right in some respects Obama is worse. I definitely feel like I could have a beer with him, but fuck me if he didn't do things as bad as Bush or worse. People called Bush the same names they called Trump now, so it doesn't mean as much anymore.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#204

Post by jldugger »

anthm1988 wrote: post #11

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.

Random hypthetical: Imagine you are charged with a crime, and know for certain a witness can exhonerate you beyond any reasonable doubt. Maybe they don't like you, maybe they have something to gain from a guilty verdict. But you also know their testimony would not incriminate them at all -- they are also innocent, and the 5th amendment does not apply.

You have a fifth amendment to witnesses in your defense, which this person is denying you. It seems reasonable to me that a coercive power like this should exist, even if we disagree with any given specific application of it.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#206

Post by onenine »

SolarNet wrote: post #136
Seenso wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Secret politically motivated court systems. 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…

The top of this order:

By Order dated May 6, 2019 [Doc. 2], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding ("Grand Jury").

All she had to do was testify truthfully about the matters she was being asked about. Fifth amendment is irrelevant in this context.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#207

Post by onenine »

elif wrote: post #141
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?

I believe it has to do with the paperwork you sign when you enlist. Basically waiving a lot of your normal American rights.

This was a grand jury proceeding. While this was about a matter that happened while she was in the military, anyone that is granted immunity but refuses to testify could be held in contempt by the court.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#208

Post by lonelappde »

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...

Canada is like the US but lite. Ontario's government just replac car license number plates with blocks of color of the party in power, led by the brother of the former Toronto mayor who smoked crack with gang members, on video, while he was mayor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/torontosun.com/news/provincial/...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#210

Post by baryphonic »

On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.)

On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fifth Amendment privilege doesn't apply. She has no privilege against testifying against friends or people she wishes to lend moral support, and especially not when being called to testify in a (secret) grand jury proceeding.

She could have chosen either to comply with the court order or face contempt proceedings as a form of civil disobedience. Instead, she's arguing that she's special and that contempt proceedings need not apply.

I respect people who commit civil disobedience, especially in reaction to injustice like the Espionage Act. It's a credible signal that someone finds some particular law wrong. But this is not that scenario. By trying to avoid punishment for her contempt of court, Manning has done nothing to sway the minds of the people who need to be convinced (i.e. Congress or maybe the Justice Department).

Post reply on HN