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

341–350 of 362 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#341

Post by surge »

michaelmrose wrote: post #284
surge wrote: post #177

Earlier 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'm sorry, but its in court records under sworn testimony in Ukraine and the NYT reported on it back IN 2015.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u...

The Mueller investigation turned up no evidence, that's pretty much proof the media and Congress chased a conspiracy theory for 2 years with no real evidence. There's hard evidence that Hunter was getting paid lots of money for a do nothing job he wasn't qualified for, and that Joe Biden did interfere at some point (for whatever reason, he did use his political power and got involved). That much isn't a conspiracy, his son got paid for a job everyone questions why he got it.

The real estate deals Trump Jr does now gets a fair pass because its the same thing, same as the $250k paid speaking engagements for Wall Street and corporations the Clinton's and Obama's get post Presidency. It's pretty obvious the pay off just comes afterwards.

People act sanctimonious about Trump, but they fail to realize Trump is a symptom, the cancer started from within.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#342

Post by boomboomsubban »

ailideex wrote: post #310
boomboomsubban wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both involve people refusing to testify, and why people are being treated differently is not obvious.

Chelsea Manning was not jailed or fined for refusing to testify in and of itself. I also refuse to testify, for example, but I'm pretty sure no cop will come arrest me and put me in jail and no court will fine me. Context is a thing, and it is relevant here.

She was jailed for refusing to testify, and any relevant context is not clear, hence asking "why?"

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#343

Post by Seenso »

SolarNet wrote: post #333
onenine wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now. Again, this violates the 5th amendment.

> Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now.

I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.

You might want read this: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...

> Again, this violates the 5th amendment.

That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#344

Post by atoav »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #323
cultus wrote: post #87

I sure hope she leaves the country after this. This will keep happening for the rest of her life. You really don't want to run afoul of the security apparatus.

I hope she stays. The country needs more people like Manning.

Which is precisely why she should go. The thing they did to Snowden is not exactly something that will scare Whistleblowers away.

If you want heros and whistleblowers who risk their life for the truth to stay, maybe start taking that freedom of speech thing you are so proud of a little bit more seriously..

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#345

Post by atoav »

cultus wrote: post #89
clairity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Maybe I don’t understand this system..." sounds like you understand the system pretty well. the US is grounded in a limited federal government and the right to vigorously oppose it (short of, say, revolt) without persecution (see: bill of rights). holding manning in jail for so long was persecutory and unjust.

It's common practice to hold even low level offenders for a year or more to extract a confession. NYC has been particularly infamous for this.

Doesn't make it right tho.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#346

Post by ailideex »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #342
ailideex wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chelsea Manning was not jailed or fined for refusing to testify in and of itself. I also refuse to testify, for example, but I'm pretty sure no cop will come arrest me and put me in jail and no court will fine me. Context is a thing, and it is relevant here.

She was jailed for refusing to testify, and any relevant context is not clear, hence asking "why?"

No, she was jailed because she was found to be in contempt of court.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#347

Post by dragonwriter »

ailideex wrote: post #310
boomboomsubban wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both involve people refusing to testify, and why people are being treated differently is not obvious.

Chelsea Manning was not jailed or fined for refusing to testify in and of itself. I also refuse to testify, for example, but I'm pretty sure no cop will come arrest me and put me in jail and no court will fine me. Context is a thing, and it is relevant here.

> Chelsea Manning was not jailed or fined for refusing to testify in and of itself.

Yes, she was.

> I also refuse to testify, for example,

You can't refuse to testify if you haven't been called.

You might be inclined to refuse to testify, but that's not the same as actually refusing.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#348

Post by creato »

surge wrote: post #338
creato wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but fuck me if he didn't do things as bad as Bush or worse. If you actually believe this, you grossly lack a sense of scale. Multiplying Obama's actions by 100 doesn't come close to starting the Iraq war.

He continued the war, he didn't pull out as promised. Got involved in Syria. He kept Guantanamo open. He upped the number of drone strikes. Knowingly killed a 16 year old US citizen who was not an enemy combatant or in a country like Iraq or Afghanistan. He extended the Patriot Act. All things he criticized Bush for. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/...

> He continued the war, he didn't pull out as promised.

What he promised: "my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war". [1]

That's not the same as "pull out".

> Got involved in Syria.

"Got involved" in an already ongoing crisis, and arguably a direct result of the Iraq war, is not the same as starting the Iraq war. Not even fucking close.

Syria: 2.5k troops [2] Iraq: ~300k troops [3], and we've been there 20 years.

Like I said, multiply Obama by 100x...

On the remaining points, I'm not claiming Obama was great on these issues. My only claim is that if you think Obama even remotely compares to Bush in terms of the amount of destructive policy the two brought about, you lack a sense of scale and perspective.

1. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/p...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_t...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Invasion

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#349

Post by boomboomsubban »

ailideex wrote: post #346
boomboomsubban wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was jailed for refusing to testify, and any relevant context is not clear, hence asking "why?"

No, she was jailed because she was found to be in contempt of court.

No, she was jailed to coerce her into testifying as she refused to. To be found in contempt of court, she would have needed to be charged.

Re: Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf]

#350

Post by nl »

somesortofsystm wrote: post #316
nl wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

a) My argument wasn't that it is correct, it is that it isn't baffling that people say it.

b) What kind of evidence wouldn't you deny?

Post reply on HN