Live data from Hacker News

Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

courtlistener.com

251–260 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#251
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know their motives, would you please be kind enough to share them with us? As an outsider it is kind of hard to see through superficial news posts.

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.

The funny and sad thing about that is in most of those cases Clinton had better plans to help those people than Trump did.

Take coal mining towns. Here was Clinton's plan for helping them [1]. Trump's plan was to cut environmental regulations and somehow coal towns would become great again.

[1] http://static.politico.com/b8/90/cbbc9c59413089d87e8d6340f13...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#252
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

>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! If you're talking about Trudeau, it took me literal seconds on Google to find the sexual harassment allegations against him.

Isn't that sad, I bet I could name any Male leader of any country and it would be just as easy to google and find allegations.

Trump was on a hot mic, it's not a "he said she said" in his case, it just a "he said". Don't get me wrong I think Trump did exactly what he promised to do, I was just pointing out the differences between the US and Canada. ;)

BTW there has been a few US Mayors that got caught smoking crack in the past too! Which is also very sad.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#253
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?

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…

> For Trump, the House chose not to do that, because (I believe) it would slow them down, and that wasn't acceptable to them.

The full House has to authorize a committee to to conduct an impeachment investigation and to vest it with the proper authority before the subpoenas become enforceable. The Democrats never did this because in that case, the Republicans in the House would have been able to send out their own subpoenas.

See also:

https://youtu.be/Z-9EOHyCZ4A

https://www.scribd.com/document/443783939/OLC-Opinion-Judici...

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if Assange was a Russian agent he still did nothing wrong regarding his actions of helping whistle-blowers publish their data.

He's charged with conspiracy for conspiring to commit a crime. That's illegal.

Which makes it interesting, then, that one of the people they're attempting to compel as a witness would rather die than agree with that.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interpretati…

Thank you for a very insightful reply that has made me reflect on my position. I am still concerned by the ethical ramifications of forcing people to testify against their friends and loved ones. I don't think it would necessarily result in a failed state if the prosecution were forced to rely on only willing witnesses and physical evidence. I am curious if you have any insight regarding the crime of making false sta…

Cheers for thoughtful dialogue on the Internet!

I should be clear: I don't personally support what the DOJ is doing to Assange. I even think the Espionage Act likely has Constitutional defects as applied to his case; it's just never been tested. And I think the Espionage Act should be repealed at the earliest possible moment. That being said, I think we're stuck with it, and our Constitution likely doesn't prevent it from being a law, albeit a bad one.

On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about the false statement laws, at least as they cover unintentional false statements (i.e. those without _mens rea_). I don't think our Constitution was meant to punish people criminal for actions that they aren't even aware of. Unfortunately, there is long precedent establishing that "strict liability" is permissible even in criminal law. It seems like a gross violation of due process to me, but unless and until something changes, we're stuck with it.

I think you've also hit on a much bigger problem I have with the justice system: this fairly absurd idea that law enforcement can do nearly whatever it wants, whenever it wants in order to seek its own ends. If I were to propose criminal justice reforms, I would focus first almost exclusively on police procedure. Forget about bail reform or sentencing guidelines: don't allow cops to lie to people while performing an investigation; strictly prohibit cops from making any innuendo that someone waiving his or her rights is somehow "looking guilty" or some such nonsense; and get rid of the plea bargaining system.

Essentially the only thing anyone should ever say to law enforcement in the US is, "I refuse to any questioning without my attorney present." Anything else you say to them can and will be used against you, and cannot be used for your defense, since it is hearsay. It's not too hard to see that the distribution of people who know how to respond to pressure from the cops to talk is heavily skewed toward the less privileged segment of the population. When you add in things like plea bargaining, which has resulted in even many innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit, I don't think anyone can call it justice.

It's late so I'm rambling, but I think there are serious problems with the justice system. I just don't think Chelsea Manning is a particularly great poster child for them.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#256
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)

What are you talking about? It was Russians (at least two independent Russian groups even) and CrowdStrike has only reiterated that. CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence. It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him. He doesn’t know where his source got it, even if his source was not Russian. I’m also pretty sure that no LEOs said any such th…

> CrowdStrike is also not the only source of that intelligence.

Who else examined the servers? The US Government stated in court that it relied exclusively on their analysis and never examined the servers at issue. One might think this was normally something they should be doing, but it's getting more common (e.g. with Bezos' phone, where the private company failed to decrypt the supposed malware, despite there being open source tools for WhatsApp decryption).

Given that they failed to identify the Ukranian P.A.S. malware or a bunch of Tor exit nodes, it's legitimate to question how definitively they were able to pin this on a specific APT.

> It doesn’t matter what Assange said, the only thing he could possibly know is who gave it to him.

A fair point, but one you should make to the US Government and the media who promulgated the myth that he would somehow get a pardon for saying exactly what he's repeatedly said in public for years now when the real story was that someone hoped to convince Trump of that and never actually got to talk to him.

Also, we do have some evidence against. The exfiltration happened at almost exactly the speed of a USB drive. That doesn't seem likely to be coincidental, or likely to randomly happen for internet exfiltration of data.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#257
post #246

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 Fif…

There's two schools of thought to civil disobedience. The first holds that one must surrender oneself to the authorities to distinguish civil disobedience from pure criminality. But the other holds that one should not surrender or plead guilty so as not to legitimize an unjust system.

Though I clearly am biased in favor of the former interpretation since it is IMO the most persuasive, her actions fail both. Any advocacy on her own behalf in front of the court (with the exception of genuinely extreme treatment like torture) would constitute legitimizing the proceedings. Under the latter interpretation, her only response would be to remain completely silent and refuse to cooperate at all. If we wanted evidence that she was trying to refuse the legitimacy of the court, we could see if she, for example, refused physically to move when summoned before a court, refused to say anything when addressed by the judge or any other officer of the court or refuse to file court proceedings. She might even refuse to eat or take some other drastic action. Instead, we see court pleadings, which all but imply that she respects the legitimacy of the court, just not its decision toward her.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#259
post #242

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 Fif…

> 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. You’re just saying that you support civil disobedience when you support it. Of course. But of course people can and do commit civil disobedience to protest things you don’t support.

I chose my words carefully. People who commit civil disobedience and accept their punishments make me stop and ponder. I may not agree with their positions, but I do take them seriously. I feel the same way about people who self-immolate. Hard to have a more credible commitment to some sort of cause than almost certainly killing yourself in an extremely visible way. There's very little I would set myself on fire for, so I have serious respect for those who do it, and it makes me stop and consider what I believe.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#260

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 Fif…

The judge’s distinction between punitive and coercive is important. Contempt of court is closer to police use of force than to criminal punishment. Faced with a hostile suspect, cops can do some nasty stuff. Electric shocks, beating with sticks, painful chemicals. But suppose they’re ordering you to stand up, and you’re deaf or paralyzed. The baton keeps landing and you keep not doing what they ask. Resisting arrest…

I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.
Post reply on HN