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

221–230 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#221

Post by onenine »

surge wrote: post #180
lostgame wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

She was convicted at a military trial. Obama commuted her sentence.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#222

Post by kbutler »

cfv wrote: post #154
kbutler wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/executive+pri... "The right of the president of the United States to withhold information from Congress or the courts." The article you mentioned cites executive privilege multiple times, and describes how it is unclear what the boundaries are. Simply saying "The House issued a subpoena and therefore the executive branch must comply" is just as invalid as "The executive…

Look, I'm asking for an actual memo here, I'm not interested in playing whatever game you seem to want to play. Can you help me find this thing please?

Not sure what memo you're seeking or what game you're declining.

You said you didn't know what the DOJ/Trump administration was standing on to not comply with the congressional subpoenas. I explained they were standing on executive privilege.

As the article you linked described, the Trump administration was asserting executive privilege, and conflicts between congressional demands and executive privilege assertions need to be mediated by the courts ("But each of the emerging fights raises somewhat different legal questions that courts would have to sort through."). When the administration asserted privilege and declined to comply with House demands, the House chose proceed without court rulings, though courts probably would have compelled testimony about information previously revealed in the Mueller investigation.

For more authoritative sources than your NY Times article provides, executive privilege has been recognized in various supreme court decisions, particularly in military and diplomatic issues, even in cases where the court decided the privilege did not cover the material demanded (like U.S. v. Nixon https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/#tab-opi...).

Executive privilege began as early as 1792 in George Washington's first term, when he decided he had authority to withhold information demanded by congress. https://www.thoughtco.com/presidential-executive-privilege-3...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#223

Post by krapp »

lonelappde wrote: post #213
lopmotr wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't but they're generally disadvantaged people or from places with a bleak economic future. So it's probably something to do with that. Maybe feeling left behind and looked down on by the rest of the country? Emotional reasons like that are very commonly reasons for people being unable to see the other's point of view. They don't articulate easily and don't translate into simple measures like money.

How great must someone's economic prospects be before to earn before it's no longer OK to be homophobic, racist, xenophobic and voting and voting for someone cynically exploit their ignorance? How is their misery somehow a reason that makes them required to vote for not just a Republican no matter what but the worst possible one who is not even a conservative but looks our for absolutely no one's interests on any sid…

The real question is, why are they going to vote for him again despite his failure to deliver on any of his promises, or to display even a modicum of competence at his job?

And when, after another four years, the wall still hasn't been built, globalism and automation still haven't been dismantled and the mines and domestic factories still haven't reopened, America's prestige still hasn't been restored, China still hasn't been broken, the Middle East still hasn't been pacified, and there still isn't a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage, who will they turn to?

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#225

Post by lopmotr »

lonelappde wrote: post #213
lopmotr wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't but they're generally disadvantaged people or from places with a bleak economic future. So it's probably something to do with that. Maybe feeling left behind and looked down on by the rest of the country? Emotional reasons like that are very commonly reasons for people being unable to see the other's point of view. They don't articulate easily and don't translate into simple measures like money.

How great must someone's economic prospects be before to earn before it's no longer OK to be homophobic, racist, xenophobic and voting and voting for someone cynically exploit their ignorance? How is their misery somehow a reason that makes them required to vote for not just a Republican no matter what but the worst possible one who is not even a conservative but looks our for absolutely no one's interests on any sid…

> homophobic, racist, xenophobic

You're using the "they're evil" argument.

> voting for someone cynically exploit their ignorance?

and the "they're stupid" argument.

Talk to real life ordinary Trump voters and see what they really feel. Have a long chat with them so they're comfortable with you and not making up quick defensive excuses. Real common people, not an extreme example dug up by the media.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#226

Post by anikan_vader »

It seems to me that the 1st Amendment should, in principle, give you the right to remain silent in any circumstances (including when you're subpoenaed). After all, shouldn't freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak - isn't remaining silent in of itself a form of expression?

I understand that this is not at all how the courts have interpreted the constitution, but it remains my gut interpretation - that individuals should have the right to freedom of speech and silence. I also believe, for the similar reasons, that lying to an FBI officer, when not under oath, should be constitutionally protected.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#227

Post by sigmaprimus »

lonelappde wrote: post #208
lostgame wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

Canada is like the US because most of the media consumed by its population is US content.

Canada is like the US because the Canadian enconomy is so intertwined with the US when the Dow Jones drops 10% in a day Canadians hurt too.

Canada is like the US because Wuhan Fever is killing their citizens too.

Canada is different from the US because if one of their citizens gets sick regardless of having insurance they will get the same treatment as a billionaire will, and if they get sick first they will get treated before the billionaire.

Canada is different from the US because if a Canadian billionaire gets sick they will just go to the US, pay the money and get treated before any US citizen does.

Canada is different from the US because even though the Prime minister wore blackface, as far as I know he never grabbed any women by the P000sy!

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#228

Post by DrScump »

cfv wrote: post #139
paulddraper wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Congress was explicitly told they could not do this by the DOJ, but news weren't clear on the legal reasoning, relaying instead the handwavy explanation by Barr on the popelike infallibility of the president's office. I'm really curious about the actual legal reasoning behind this, it's got to be a fascinating read.

The DOJ has no power over Congress in impeachment proceedings.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#229

Post by TaylorAlexander »

onenine wrote: post #211
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.

She was granted immunity for testimony. Had she testified, instead of willfully ignoring the court, she would not have been held in contempt.

Hadn’t she already given testimony on the subject in question? If I recall she refused to testify a second time because she had already done so.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#230

Post by baryphonic »

anikan_vader wrote: post #226

It seems to me that the 1st Amendment should, in principle, give you the right to remain silent in any circumstances (including when you're subpoenaed). After all, shouldn't freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak - isn't remaining silent in of itself a form of expression? I understand that this is not at all how the courts have interpreted the constitution, but it remains my gut interpretation - that indi…

While it might sound nice to want to sweep away compelled testimony, in this case the cure is much worse than the disease.

A major part of the Constitution's objective as specified in the preamble is to "establish justice." Certainly criminal elements - actual criminals, not people who are quasi-political prisoners like Assange - would love to be able to refuse to testify under any circumstances. Such an interpretation would be untenable and would lead to essentially a failed state. Thus we understand that the First Amendment does not mean that people cannot be called to testify in court.

Furthermore, keep in mind that your interpretation is directly contradicted by, well, the Constitution.

Sixth Amendment:

> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor [...]

Considering that the First and Sixth Amendments were proposed together and ratified at the same time, I think the idea that the First Amendment allows people not to speak under compulsion of court is untenable.

Finally, the text of the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law [...]" That framing is important: the right is against Congress enacting a law, not the courts granting an order compelling speech (like a subpoena) or forbidding it (like a gag order or keeping grand jury proceedings secret).

Post reply on HN