Perhaps some of the money spent on transitioning her would have been more profitably spent on legal defense?
Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
141–150 of 175 posts
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gideon v. Wainwright established that indigent defendants are entitled to free legal representation. There's no such right for non-indigent defendants.
Not even when the price of legal representation is above my means to pay?
Note that "Cannot pay" is often interpreted to mean "Has already mortgaged the house and liquidated all things", not "has an empty checking account".
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really? Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. > Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it,…
Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes. That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point? There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals. Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to…
> What's your point?
1. Why does need a fund? It won't make much difference, he has already confessed.
2. There are plenty of other people with their lives on the line who don't get the kind of sympathy he did.
He built nothing. He didn't rise ranks. He's a childish, selfish heartbreaker who hasn't shown an inkling of remorse for the damage he has caused.
> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Also, while I don't have an example of it, his security clearance also required a pledge. (Found it: The SF-312 http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_a...)
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926
These often state how leaking of such information can cause great damage. Snowden did the same pledge.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator. A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
> A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose. There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despit…
I kind of doubt the strategy will be to seek acquittal. They will probably try to build some sympathy and convince the court it was her intention to do good for America, not to help an enemy or earn money. They will probably also plead diminished capacity due to depression and gender dysphoria (if that sort of thing flies in military court). Hope for a lighter punishment and return to society before she's an old lady…
> I kind of doubt the strategy will be to seek acquittal
I'd be fairly surprised if two of the key points on which the defense will assert that legal errors were made at trial are not:
(1) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to due process by way of unlawful pretrial punishment, and
(2) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to speedy trial.
(Note that both of these trial-court legal decisions preceded, and formed part of the context for, the guilty plea; prior to those events, Manning had not entered a plea.)
The idea that the appeal will focus only on sentence seems to me to be quite unlikely.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person?
Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible.
If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness".
Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#148So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way that it makes them want to become a woman? I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
> I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor
Manning was not convicted of treason.
> when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you…
> but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off
Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then.
It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking.
> How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else?
That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence.
> Your argument is rooted in envy
Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright? The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try t…
> You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator. A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
It's worth bearing in mind that rich people play an important role in restraining the power of government. Our founding fathers were, after all, the wealthy elite of their time. Despots and dictators crack down on wealthy people who do not fall in line, and guaranteeing independent legal representation (which the Constitution does) is a bulwark against such overreach.