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?
[deleted]
Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
311–320 of 362 posts
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Important: That link is _not_ intended for donations towards paying the fine, but rather Ms. Manning's legal defense!
Whats the difference? She needs x amounts of money.
In France, during the yellow vest protest, there was a similar online crowd-founding for a boxer who did fight with a cop and was sentenced to pay a fine.
From what I remember, with some crowd-funding platforms, it is against Terms Of Service to rise money to pay sentence's fine. I do not remember if laws in France forbid it or if it's for other reasons.
Here are some links about it :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46794480
https://www.scmp.com/sport/other-sport/article/2181379/forme...
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.
Though there is common law contempt, in the US it has been codified in statutory law[1]. The text of the law states that it is indeed a punishment for disobedience with the court.
In general, "revenge" is not the aim of any administration of justice; however, punishment is a tool, for better or worse, that is used in an attempt to achieve justice. Punishment is also the type of remedy that the state can do well. The maxim about "have hammer; see problem nails" applies to the state as well.
Keep in mind that the statute, enacted by Congress, explicitly allows the exact punishment Manning herself received. While holding her beyond the grand jury proceedings was considered moot, the fines themselves survived, as fines are wont to do.
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#314why do all you morons people lionise this person who is so obviously a vain, egotistical idiot
exactly the same with Julian Assange.
These morons people idolize these absolute imbeciles.
Where does my point of view come from:
1. Person has a motivation.
2. Decides on a way to achieve that.
3. Frames it as "exposing the evil/hypocricsy that is society/institutions"
4. Adopts the strategy of "1 versus the power"
BUT this does NOT effectively achieve their goal (has zero power against the power) but instead frames them as a martyr, condemns them to suffering, and serves to change nothing.
AND BUT everybody loses their mind and declares, hey this moron person really stuck it to the man and is making progress for their cause.
When in fact all they are is mentally ill living out a personification of their maladaptive masochistic self-narrative and savior-complex, but doing nothing for "the cause".
But every fucking moron person lionizes this idiotic, self-destructive behaviour?
I see a pattern where western society has large numbers of suicides and people praise this self-destructive idiocy.
Other notes:
- I am not making regard (here) to whether the nominal cause is a good idea or not.
- I am only attempting to expose the disingenuous ineffectiveness of lionized "folk heroes"
- AND the stupidity of their acolytes and fans
- AND hoping to get people to consider, IF you were the POWER that is the STATUS QUO, would you NOT want people to LIONIZE and IDOLIZE idiotic, ineffective "resistence" measures as a cathartic, zero-change control system to preserve your power and provide people with an impotent outlet?
- AND does this not somehow injure offend and waste the human person
- AND would not humans be better utilized by being directed to either: something genuinely creative, or something actually reformative, rather than deceptively reformative?
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason you choose your words so carefully is because you are upset that Manning tried to kill herself and did not "accept their punishments". Yeah... good take. Oh wait, actually the views you are advocating here are fascist and hurtful to democracy.
I didn't read it that way and I'm on the left.. I've participated in civil disobedience protests before (forming a human chain.) Obstructing passage is illegal, but I believed in what I did and was willing to accept detainment. The poster's perspective is that civil disobedience is illegal (almost by definition), and as an illegal action it has risks (detainment, being roughed up), and the willingness of people to ta…
> I'm on the left..
That doesn't mean you aren't fascist, or hold a view that isn't hurtful to democracy.
Both 'sides' are equally capable of totalitarian/authoritarian thought.
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references) Re: Assange - yes - he is quite circumspect.
I don't get this at all. All the evidence points to it being the Russians, Putin himself said it might have been "patriotically minded" Russians, all US intel agencies say it was the Russians, all non -US agencies say it was the Russians. And you claim to be baffled as to why people say it was the Russians? Maybe it wasn't, but it's not exactly baffling why people say it is. There are no real counter theories at all…
What evidence? Press reports about intelligence agencies is not evidence.
Where is the direct, observable, undeniable evidence?
If you don't have it, then don't keep parroting the nonsense.
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically waiving a lot of your normal American rights. "waiving your rights" is a very weird concept, particularly in the "land of the free".
The US armed forces are not run as a democracy; it is an oligarchical tiered serfdom as near as I can peg it. When you sign up, nearly everything you agree to is in a binding legal contract with the US government, and if you breach contract, it is very different than breaching a normal contract. Part of that contract is that normal courts of law and their rules are secondary to military courts and all of their very,…
here's James Mattis's take on the difference between civilian courts and military courts:
> ...remember that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is established under the U.S. Constitution, because our framers knew that those we give weapons to in this country have to be governed by a different set of regulations than the population at large.
> And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was the latest in a history of these rules that came out in the late 1940s and modified often since then, the defense is actually stronger. The defendants' rights are actually stronger in a military court than in a civilian court. Just read F. Lee Bailey's book, "The Defense Never Rests." And as one of the most aggressive defense counsels in our history, he said he would rather a court--defend--defend in a military court than a civilian court in his book.
> And the reason is you have more rights in order to prevent the military court system becoming what you and I would call a "kangaroo court." So, you give the defense more rights. And when that court acts, you--for most of us in the military who have an intimate knowledge of it, we have a great deal of confidence that justice has been adhered to, in the true sense of what justice is all about toward a person accused of a crime by the government.
this is a good interview, worth reading in full:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2019/12/...
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ha…
This virus may change that. Until this point unemployment was quite low and the stock and housing markets were doing well. Nearly everything takes a backseat to the economy for American voters, despite what they say.
I doubt it. Trump supporters will blame any negative effects on Democrats and the liberal media conspiracy spreading panic and misinformation in order to sabotage him as they already do.
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#319TLDR; the Assange grand jury was dismissed today so Manning is ordered released but she still owes the coeercive fines which amount to $256,000.
That is obscene. I can just about understand contempt of court incarceration for not testifying (though I have extreme reservations on the practice) but such punitive and life-debilitating fines strike me as purely malicious.
Despite rhetoric and protestation otherwise, "purely malicious" is a pretty good description of the US legal system.
Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do it again. Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty,…
The Ukraine "stuff" was a conspiracy theory. The Russian "thing" was an actual collaboration between our enemies and our presidents flunkys that nobody seriously denied happened.
I don't think so. The American meddling in Ukraine before Trump even was in office is highly suspicious. You could argue that it was a justified reaction to the Crimean invasion, but saying there wasn't any stuff is completely dishonest. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a public defender. He was even praised for doing so. This hypocrisy seriously damages any credibility of those accusing Trump of meddling in Ukraine.
Of course you should ask yourself what Russia and America are even doing in Ukraine in the first place, but that is probably a lot more comprehensive.
Some news papers argue Biden didn't pressure the public defender out of office, but that would be clearly fake news. As I said, there are people on record praising him for doing so.