Chelsea Manning released from jail with expiration of grand jury

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/chelsea-manning-released-from-jail-where-she-had-been-held-for-refusing-to-testify-in-wikileaks-case/2019/05/09/dbbbac4c-70ff-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95393ab8d565

by asadhaider • 7 years ago

266 125 7 years ago

washingtonpost.com

metildaa3• 7 years ago

About time this farce of a subpeona was ended. Chelsea already testified once on the matter the subpeona was about iirc.

Edit: subpeona was not quashed, grand jury's term expired.

ceejayoz6• 7 years ago

It's not quashed.

"Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center earlier today," her lawyers said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, even prior to her release, Chelsea was served with another subpoena," the statement adds. "It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned [to custody].

metildaa3• 7 years ago

This grand jury is certainly on a fishing expedition.

daveFNbuck• 7 years ago

Chelsea already testified once on the matter the subpeona was about iirc.

The article said that too. Is she saying she spent 62 days in jail because she'd rather not repeat herself? That seems extremely odd if true.

polynomial• 7 years ago

That's a pretty hardcore stance against self-reiterization.

gatherhunterer3• 7 years ago

The above article ignores the reason for her release: the expiration of the grand jury investigating Assange.

Washington Post article here: https://wapo.st/2E11CUW

ceejayoz6• 7 years ago

The above article ignores the reason for her release: the expiration of the grand jury investigating Assange.

No, it doesn't.

eridius3• 7 years ago

Her release on Thursday comes after the period during which she could be held for failing to give evidence expired.
"Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center earlier today," her lawyers said in a statement.

gatherhunterer3• 7 years ago

“The grand jury” is not descriptive of what the grand jury was investigating and declines to point out that her grand jury ended years ago.

dang• 7 years ago

That article seems to contain more information, so we'll switch to it from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48223178.

montecarl• 7 years ago

"her lawyers reportedly asked that she be confined at home due to medical issues, but the judge said US Marshals would address her care needs."

That is a terrifying sentence to read after having learned about the medical care provided (or not provided...) in US prisons. It almost reads to me as if they planned on killing her.

fwip2• 7 years ago

If you want even more evidence, look up her medical treatment before her sentence was commuted. They nearly succeeded at killing her that time.

rcw4256• 7 years ago

They've already failed to provide necessary post-surgery care, resulting in potentially permanent, intractable medical complications, according to this declaration filed three days ago while she was still imprisoned: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.405498... (paragraph 13)

bonniemuffin• 7 years ago

The state of medical care in US prisons is really horrifying. Like this one from four days ago, in which a mentally ill woman gave birth alone in her cell.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/us/woman-gives-birth-jail-cel...

Shivetya• 7 years ago

there isn't much US government managed health care that is worth a damn, just ask veterans or Indians on reservations. when people outside the country keep lamenting the US doesn't have government provided healthcare they need to realize the examples we have are both horrible and many doubt that they have the capacity to not inflict the same shoddy care on the current system.

Most jails and prison care is the same because it is all government managed. while the private jails, which are a very small minority, have problems they are held to higher standard that government does not apply to itself.

the prison/jail system is just a money machine for the sheriff and police unions of the country and therefor actively supported by the politicians they support/control. California had to be compelled by the Federal Courts just to reduce overcrowding and provide better health care

burtonator• 7 years ago

I didn't realize this about US law but if you've already been convicted of a crime OR they give you immunity you can be forced to testify.

They did this in Aaron Swartz's case and gave people immunity to force them to testify.

I was friends with Aaron and felt that he was mostly a hero in this situation though he was probably guilty of misdemeanor trespass.

It was troubling to see how upset it made my friends that they were going to be forced to testify against someone they loved or were friends with.

tptacek3• 7 years ago

Of course you can be forced to testify. That goes all the way back to English common law. The public has a claim to every man's evidence.

A strict privilege against self-testimony is somewhat distinctive to our US system. Even countries that share it with us, like the UK, limit it; for instance, in the UK, your refusal to testify against yourself can be held against you.

saagarjha• 7 years ago

In what way? Can they automatically assume the worst possible thing you could have said?

yeahforsureman• 7 years ago

Privilege against self-incrimination is a generally recognised international standard and, for example, lies at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

arethuza• 7 years ago

Nitpick: I believe that is England and Wales, not the whole of the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#Scotland

I think NI is also different.

xxpor2• 7 years ago

That's right. The 5th amendment only protects you from self-incrimination. If theres no risk of you being charged with a crime you can't refuse to testify.

You could perhaps come up with a 1st amendment case but I think that wouldn't have much of a chance of going anywhere.

umanwizard• 7 years ago

How can there be no risk of self-incrimination?

Even if they give you immunity for the specific thing you’re testifying about, what if your testimony reveals that you’re guilty of some completely different crime?

peterkelly• 7 years ago

You absolutely can refuse to testify. It just means you have to go to jail.

That's exactly what Manning did, and will likely do so again.

mehrdadn4• 7 years ago

I didn't realize this about US law but if you've already been convicted of a crime OR they give you immunity you can be forced to testify.

Yeah, and it's not obvious why. The insight you're seeking here is that the right against self-incrimination was intended to be a solution to the problem of forced confessions (torture, etc.). It's not there because of some kind of belief that you really have some kind of fundamental human right to testify against yourself. In fact it's quite a bizarre thing to codify in a constitution otherwise.

mehrdadn4• 7 years ago

Here's some reading since it seems many were interested in the topic: https://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/products/books/abstrac...

The Supreme Court traces the roots of our Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to the protections the English courts and Parliament granted to those religious dissenters who were compelled to take oaths when called before the ecclesiastical courts, as well as the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber. These courts used the “oath ex officio” to force heretics from the Church of England to swear before God to truthfully answer all questions, even before the heretics even knew the nature of the accusations against them. By use of the oath in conducting their investigations of religious heresy, these courts left witnesses with the “cruel trilemma” of (1) refusing to take the oath, which constituted contempt and subjected the person to torture; (2) taking the oath and telling the truth about their religious beliefs, which, if heretical, was punishable by death; or (3) taking the oath and lying, which was also punishable by death. In other words, this inquisitorial system countenanced methods of interrogating persons designed to lead only to confessions.
[...] Parliament eventually abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber and, in 1662, passed a law providing that “no man shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually called ex officio or any other oath whereby such persons may be charged or compelled to confess to any criminal matter.” By the late eighteenth century, as the English common law courts began to recognize the presumption of innocence, trial judges in criminal cases began to afford defendants the right not to incriminate themselves, establishing the privilege against self-incrimination as a fundamental rule of evidence.

lixtra• 7 years ago

In fact it's quite a bizarre thing to codify in a constitution otherwise.

I don’t know about the US but in many jurisdictions you cannot be forced to testify against close family (spouse, children).

It’s clearly about the state not creating a cruel situation.

toomanybeersies• 7 years ago

How does spousal privilege play into all this?

grecy2• 7 years ago

you can be forced to testify

What does forced mean?

What happens if you just say no? Contempt of court?

redler• 7 years ago

We may see this question explored publicly in great detail in the coming months.

wespiser_20183• 7 years ago

Yes, you will be issued a Subpoena, and the presiding judge for the case can sentence you with Contempt of Court if you fail to testify. The idea is to keep you in jail under Contempt charges until you do whatever the judge wants.

The longest sentence for contempt of court is H. Beatty Chadwick (1994 - 2009), which was over a divorce settlement. Susan McDouglas went to jail over not answering questions about Bill Clinton in civil case, and was pardoned by him later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

gdhbcc• 7 years ago

You go to prison forever

wespiser_20183• 7 years ago

I would say that "forcing" testimony, can only be done under duress, in a situation like forcible coercion or torture. I'm not familiar with the Swartz's case and its parallel investigations, but in principle people aren't "given' immunity and "forced" to testify, but rather they choose a deal with the prosecution that included leniency for themselves and were no longer protected by the 5th amendment as a criminal defendant.

Manning exactly illustrates this point, no one is "forcing" her to do anything. She doesn't want to talk, so she won't! You always have a choice.

xenadu02• 7 years ago

in principle people aren't "given' immunity and "forced" to testify, but rather they choose a deal with the prosecution that included leniency for themselves and were no longer protected by the 5th amendment as a criminal defendant.

That's not exactly true. In the US you can generally be compelled to testify if you are not the one on trial unless you claim the 5th (the law generally recognizes that court proceedings are part of the record and testimony there could be used to bring charges against you later).

There can be a series of escalations and motions before the judge, eg where the judge asks you in closed court to give more details so he/she can rule on whether the 5th applies. In theory you could refuse to give any details by claiming even the tiniest detail would put you at risk of prosecution. Ultimately if the prosecutor offers you blanket immunity you can no longer claim the 5th because the threat of prosecution has been eliminated.

Similarly if you refuse to testify for fear of your own safety the government can offer to protect you, up to and including putting you into witness protection which eliminates the objection.

The general principle seems to be you have a series of objections you can raise. Each one imposes a higher and higher cost on the government, forcing them to decide just how important your testimony really is.

This is all separate from the material witness procedures, which have been abused somewhat in recent times. The theory there is there is an imminent thread to your life _or_ you are a serious flight risk. In those cases you get jailed until trial despite not even being accused. As you can imagine prosecutors have sometimes used the threat of losing your job, house, etc while jailed awaiting trial to coerce testimony.

droithomme• 7 years ago

no one is "forcing" her to do anything. She doesn't want to talk, so she won't! You always have a choice.

Pedantically true, yes. If I hold a gun to the witnesses head and demand they testify or I will pull the trigger, no one is "forcing" them to do anything. They have the choice to refuse to testify and suffer the consequences.

It's the same with Manning. She has the "choice" to be thrown in prison because she refuses. Usually doing something under threat of deprivation of live or liberty is legally considered being forced to do something.

I can rob a bank at gunpoint and then argue that the bank "chose" to give me the money, since they always had the option to refuse, just as you are arguing here that Manning has the "choice" to testify. When there is a threat of deprivation of life or liberty, that is not considered a free choice. It's coerced, under duress, also known as forced.

nullc• 7 years ago

They can't, however, force the testimony to be useful.

I don't fully understand why she didn't testify here. The events were so long ago and so stressful. If it were me I wouldn't be able to remember much with any confidence.

But I'm glad she has been released now and I hope it did some good.

pacificmint• 7 years ago

But I'm glad she has been released now and I hope it did some good.

Well, she’s only been released because the term of the grand jury expired. She’ll be called to testify again, and if she refuses to testify again, she will most likely be locked up again.

So this is more a temporary development, rather than a resolution of the issue.

StanislavPetrov2• 7 years ago

I think its pretty clear that she refused to testify out of principle. None of the war criminals exposed by Manning's leaks have been charged or tried for their crimes. The government's refusal to charge the war crimes, which are central to the entire case, completely undermine any pretense of "justice". As usual, the government is using its infinite power to punish those who exposed wrongdoing, while completely ignoring the actually wrongdoing that was exposed. I find it quite admirable that Manning refuses to be used as a tool to further this charade of injustice, at great personal expense. Being held in "contempt of court" is no vice when the court, and the prosecutors, have done everything possible to earn that contempt.

For those unfamiliar with the still unprosecuted war crimes exposed by Manning (and published by Assange):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

mysterydip• 7 years ago

Isn't that why they give people immunity? "We will let you get away with (whatever) in exchange for aiding us in frying this bigger fish"

Miner49er• 7 years ago

Can anyone who knows law explain why the 1st amendment doesn't apply here? I understand the 5th doesn't apply, but it seems like the 1st should. Has this ever been decided in court?

fwip2• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, she's got another subpoena next week for a separate case with the same set of questions.

It seems like her freedom will be short-lived.

gatherhunterer3• 7 years ago

The current administration has already pardoned one American convicted of a war crime and is considering a second pardon for a war criminal Navy SEAL who was repeatedly reported by fellow soldiers, in one case for murdering a young girl in front of other children without provocation. At least the policy is consitent: if you murder civilians we have your back and whistle blowers will be jailed at all costs.

Even former soldiers are appalled: https://wapo.st/2DZl4BJ.

tbarbugli• 7 years ago

What's her reason to not testify?

whamlastxmas2• 7 years ago

She has nothing she can add that wasn't covered in her court martial, and trying to get her to testify now is basically harassment and bullying

_rpd• 7 years ago

She doesn't want to testify in a non-public forum because it could cause her activist collaborators to become suspicious of her.

segmondy• 7 years ago

So long as you didn't recently talk about it and don't ever plan on talking about it. You can go in and claim not to remember.

blakespot• 7 years ago

I’ll bet she gets picked up again in just days.

hnbroseph• 7 years ago

rather than refusing to testify, couldn't you just answer with "i don't recall" to every question (or variations as appropriate)?

whamlastxmas2• 7 years ago

If they have evidence that a person in your position should reasonably know the answer, then you're in a bad situation. "I don't recall" doesn't fly very well unless you're HRC being interviewed by the FBI

ThrustVectoring• 7 years ago

In the general case, maybe. The objection here is specifically over providing non-public testimony. Even if your secret testimony didn't cover anything new or wasn't useful, how do other people know that?

frittig• 7 years ago

I wonder if Manning can pull the ol' Assange and hide in an embassy. It looks like the government is willing to make an example and send Manning to jail for an insanely long time, if not life. I personally would rather live my life in an embassy than in prison (not that this is a choice that I would like to have in the first place)

ceejayoz6• 7 years ago

Assange largely discovered "hide in an embassy" is the same as prison, if not worse. Medical care is a huge issue.

basetop• 7 years ago

It's insane the level of vindicativeness that government can reach. Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist.

Of course the government is like this to mere peasants. If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master. Expose war crimes - then you are public enemy #1. Be part of the wealthy elite who destroys the financial system and ruins the lives of millions - it's just good ol' boys being good ol' boys.

And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments and corporations.

dsfyu404ed• 7 years ago

If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master.

Anyone who draws the ire of government and doesn't have people on the inside (in the right places) protecting them WILL get screwed. The rich just have enough money to drag out the process and make that more difficult so you don't see them getting screwed over little things.

pvaldes• 7 years ago

Shouldn't have the acts of Manning granted a little sympathy also among many people inside at this moment? I bet that not everybody is pro-war.

Rich people would have much more offshore properties, business, friends or economic relationships with other countries. They would have much more to lose by wars or unstability than common people [Unless directly feeded by war promoting systems].

vlan0• 7 years ago

And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments...

I think we should be careful about blaming government itself. But instead focus on the _people_ that make up the government. It seems there is a serious lack of equal representation throughout our government. For the most part, it has become a matter of who has the larger bank roll.

It would be interesting to see a government with forced equal representation across the entire socioeconomic spectrum.

codq• 7 years ago

Exactly.

It's astounding to hear the hateful Libertarian view of government, understanding that it's exactly those kinds of people who often seek that kind of power, and make the worst kinds of politicians that create the vindictive, hateful government that Libertarians on the ground rail about.

It's a self-perpetuating anti-government cycle that helps no one.

netwanderer3• 7 years ago

There are three facts that are not going to change anytime soon. Number one, integrity is a trait not every human possesses, most don't so the power balance will always be tilted to the other side. Number two, money still rules this world and who has the most of it? Corporations! Number three, society is not going to adapt to each individual, only the other way around.

As a result of these three facts, sometimes life can get pretty tough if you don't join the other side. Integrity was more valued in the past but it simply does not have the same weight in today society as modern competition has ramped up everywhere making everything much more difficult for the average citizen. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming a villain. In other words, we either throw integrity out of the window and survive, or we die with it.

balabaster• 7 years ago

I'm still with Robin Hood. I agree though, integrity seems to be in remarkably short supply of late. The older I get, the flakier people seem to be when it comes to showing up when they said they would.

bumby• 7 years ago

Curious, is this rosy retrospection or are there objective measures that integrity was more of a mainstay in the past?

_emacsomancer_• 7 years ago

Also the way that politics works, there tends to be self-selection by those of little integrity. Those who desire power are frequently those least suited to it. It is unlikely that those who demur with 'nolo episcopari' attain positions of importance in a representative democracy.

padobson• 7 years ago

The math doesn't add up here.

Either integrity is a virtue, or it's not. Either it's something people value, or it's not.

If it's something people value, then it should be one of the attributes people weigh when they choose a spouse/job/politician/cell phone carrier. If it is, then the marketplace of spouses/jobs/politicians/cell phone providers should be incentivized to provide integrity, and also to broadcast that their competitors do not.

I would argue this happens pretty regularly. Samsung using Apple's battery throttling in it's ads comes to mind.

So integrity definitely factors into the marketing calculus of politicians and corporations, but maybe the market doesn't value it enough to offer it the primacy you're looking for.

turk732• 7 years ago

We force them to deal with us individually. I think that is the difference that we must maintain or we quickly become collectivized.

Individual rights.

Honestly, I think a great first step would be alcohol and drug testing for politicians and zero tolerance.

GVIrish2• 7 years ago

This has nothing to do with vindictiveness. Simply put, if you refuse to testify in court, you can be held in jail for contempt of court. Manning was offered an immunity deal but decided she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead.

She could have walked out of jail at any time had she chosen to testify. In accordance with the law, she has been released because the grand jury has concluded.

One can argue whether someone can/should be compelled to testify, but Manning was not singled out for extra punishment here.

sloum2• 7 years ago

I disagree with the premise of your comment GVirish.

she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead

That is not the case. As clearly stated bboth in the linked article and by her legal team. She is happy to testify in a public hearing (which I agree is the proper place), but not in a closed door meeting away from democratic due process monitored by the citizenry of the country.

erentz2• 7 years ago

Honestly when this happened my thought was Chelsea should just testify. I know it was stupid because it was all previous testimony and they didn't need it. But she's done and suffered enough, forget principals, give the vindictive bastards their testimony whenever they want it and try to enjoy your life in between.

turk732• 7 years ago

And every day when I say what you just said, I get downvoted on here. What is with people?

You have to realize: They do this unethical crap in our names. We own this.

smoyer• 7 years ago

"Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist."

When we elected Der Fuhrer in the last presidential election, weren't we asking for exactly this? I expected the "establishment" to become less hawkish during Obama's reign but that didn't happen either. I love my country but at this point I don't have a whole lot of hope for her (and now I'm probably on an NSA watch-list - I guess I should point out that I have no intention of harming anyone).

tibbydudeza• 7 years ago

It would probably have been better to join Snowden in Moscow ... the land of the "free" is applicable if you go up against the military-industrial complex and their agenda.

Chelsea Manning released from jail with expiration of grand jury

Related Stories