Chelsea Manning sent back to jail after refusing to testify before a grand jury

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/chelsea-manning-back-to-jail/index.html

by Tomte • 7 years ago

213 129 7 years ago

edition.cnn.com

bsder• 7 years ago

I don't see any mention of an offer of immunity.

If I didn't have immunity, you can be damn sure I wouldn't be answering any questions on a subject that might get me prosecuted again.

red_trumpet• 7 years ago

Yeah, how can they force her to testify if that would mean incriminating herself? Though I'm not a lawyer, this seems to contradict my idea of a [Rechtsstaat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat?wprov=sfla1).

WillPostForFood• 7 years ago

The article has a quotation that suggests there was immunity:

We "never once made this about anything other than obtaining immunized testimony in furtherance of an investigation," he said, adding that "all we want is her to truthfully answer questions as our constitutional republic requires of our citizens."

tssva• 7 years ago

They can't force her to testify if it would incriminate herself. That isn't what is happening here.

If she has been offered immunity then she can't incriminate herself. Also answering questions regarding an offense she has already been convicted of isn't incriminating herself.

If during her testimony she believes that answering a specific question would incriminate herself she can refuse to answer it upon that basis.

What she can't legally do is refuse to answer any questions whatsoever.

shakna4• 7 years ago

We "never once made this about anything other than obtaining immunized testimony in furtherance of an investigation," he said, adding that "all we want is her to truthfully answer questions as our constitutional republic requires of our citizens."

Immunity does appear to be on the table as part of the request, though I'm not sure why you would browbeat someone into testifying with jailtime and threats that amount to bankruptcy if you aren't seeking to entrap them in some fashion.

Kalium• 7 years ago

The public has a claim to every person's evidence.

If a person has evidence that a court of law wishes to obtain, under American law the court is permitted to compel immunized testimony. Someone who refuses to comply is likely to be treated as someone who has committed an act of contempt of court.

Chelsea Manning isn't special here. Anyone who refuses to testify before a grand jury is likely to be treated this way. There's no need to postulate that it's a further attempt to punish someone for political reasons to explain all events here.

mirimir• 7 years ago

I don't understand it either. I gather that she has been offered immunity from further prosecution.[0] But perhaps she's concerned about the potential for discrepancies vs testimony from her trial.

I assume that her testimony from her own trial can be used by the grand jury. But maybe she plead the 5th some in her trial, so they want immunized testimony about any of that. Or maybe there's stuff that she just wasn't asked about.

0) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/government...

empath753• 7 years ago

Because they need her testimony to charge assange.

throw201020103• 7 years ago

I don't think it's about that. Chelsea already served a prison term for stealing classified documents. President Obama commuted the sentence, but did not pardon her, so she's already been convicted and served her entire sentence. Because of double jeopardy, she can't be tried again for stealing those documents, and I don't think she's done anything else that's criminal.

I think this is about not supporting what she feels is supporting an unjust and corrupt system. I don't blame her. I doubt that I would act the same way, but she felt strongly enough about the Army's actions in Iraq to break the law while fully aware of the consequences. She's probably got the guts to keep her word when she says she has ethical concerns about the grand jury and won't be answering any questions.

boucher3• 7 years ago

People who testify to grand juries are automatically granted immunity with respect to that testimony, unless it is explicitly waived. That automatic immunity negates their right to invoke the 5th amendment under the law.

narag• 7 years ago

Wild guess: she's asked to testify about Assange. Assuming he's guilty, either she incriminates him or lies. Lying to the jury wouldn't be covered by immunity, would it?

andy_ppp2• 7 years ago

I’m constantly impressed with how brave she is, I’m not sure I would be this strong under this much pressure.

We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up charges against your enemies and journalists in general. It feels like we’ll be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy. It doesn’t seem very easy to save them especially with the politicisation of the Supreme Court.

How do we fight these things?

techntoke• 7 years ago

Because they offered immunity and is likely being held in contempt. They should just disclose what is happening behind the scenes, but my guess is they are worried that they'll compromise an ongoing investigation.

boucher3• 7 years ago

Grand juries are secret by law. Nobody involved is allowed to talk about what happens in the grand jury, or even to acknowledge the subject of the investigation.

devoply• 7 years ago

You can't lump one thing with another. In this case there is a law that says you must do what a judge orders. That applies to anyone under scrutiny from the justice system.

scotty792• 7 years ago

Could she just testify and say "I don't remember." and "I don't understand." all the time?

That's pretty much what all CEOs and such do when they are testifying.

gdhbcc• 7 years ago

There were plenty of laws banning black people from Sitting on the wrong place in the bus, and yet if someone were to defend the jailing of someone due to violating that law you'd be talking about the injustice that was.

The law is the law is only an argument if you're willing to always take it to it's full logical conclusion, so my question to you was, if this judge was ordering you to do something you felt was morally horrifying, such as for example sterilizing someone without their consent (as has been done in the past), would you accept it and do it?

jillesvangurp• 7 years ago

Selectively applying laws (or not) is fundamentally what politics is about. The law is a tool here and it is being wielded by the very people who directly or indirectly were implicated by Manning. If the same amount of diligence were applied to the rather severe crimes that Manning unveiled, you'd have a point.

But of course that's not what has happened. Most of the people involved walk free having been pardoned or not even charged at all. Especially at the top level nobody suffered any consequences.

Manning is in jail because high ranking politicians want her to be there. Judges are doing as they are told here.

threatofrain• 7 years ago

The reality of the law has lumped political consideration with legal housekeeping. As a small individual you don't get to choose that, you only get to choose your response.

darkhorn• 7 years ago

Same with North Korea, Kingdom of France, British Empire, East Germany, etc. They had/have laws that say you must do what a judge orders.

austincheney4• 7 years ago

Jails are to isolate violators of law or legal process from the general public regardless of any opinions there upon. Putting a person in jail for contempt of court is legally just even if the underlying court case is absurd because it is the judicial process that is at threat.

austincheney4• 7 years ago

Are people downvoting because they are hypersensitive about Manning or because something I wrote is not logically valid?

abc-xyz• 7 years ago

If it was that black and white then you better jail 99+% of the population who happens to jaywalk, drive a little too fast, drive past a yellow light, ride a bicycle without a helmet, etc.

Also, why would you want to focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation? The vast majority of those imprisoned are of no danger to society, and the way the US (and most other countries) focus on punishing someone for making a mistake greatly increase the chance that they'll continue to break the laws in the future and become a burden to society.

dragonwriter7• 7 years ago

We seem to have completely lost our way at this point, I thought jail was to protect the public not persecute political prisoners to build trumped up charges against your enemies and journalists in general.

The integrity of the grand jury process, which is itself an essential protection of the integrity of the criminal justice system, is a public interest that needs protected.

It feels like we’ll be really lucky if our rights and freedoms survive over the next little time and Chelsea Manning is at the forefront of this atrophy.

If her assault on the grand jury system were successful, yes, Manning would be at the forefront of the atrophy of key rights.

How do we fight these things?

By vigorously defending the grand jury system, which protects people's names from being dragged through the mud attached to serious federal criminal charges without vetting of probable cause in a process in which government agents are obliged to secrecy against attacks like those Manning is making.

andy_ppp2• 7 years ago

It’s only the US and Liberia who kept the grand jury process from English common law, why did every other country get rid of it? Because secret trials are wrong and the law works fine without them.

bikeshed• 7 years ago

the grand jury system makes a mockery of the US justice system.

dang• 7 years ago

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

harry82• 7 years ago

Sounds like desperation is setting in for the prosecution, doesn't it? Secret proceedings, torturing witnesses...

At least they're competent, right? Except the part where they accidentally leaked secret information with cut and paste errors of court documents, that was pretty Mr Bean.

raducu• 7 years ago

Coming from a totally different justice system -- this seems nuts to me.

It's impossible to fine someone someone per DAY while they are refusing to testify where I live; you can probably do it ONCE, you probably give them a jail sentence, but you cannot perform this arm-wrestling torture thing.

Shivetya• 7 years ago

just remember, many of the same people here would be cheering on the Justice Department for using similar tactics against people they don't like. You can see it in the comments all the time.

That is why Justice can get away with it. They should be prevented completely from being able to use these tactics. The outrageous fines, the outrageous costs to defend against them which even some well off cannot afford, and the use of the press to twist the message to their liking.

Until we realize that everyone deserves the same treatment we will never change the system.

influx• 7 years ago

Thank you for saying this. If it was Alex Jones in jail for the same reasons, you can bet folks would be cheering.

yardie3• 7 years ago

The have the current president dead to rights on multiple obstruction charges, yet the Justice Department does nothing.

AnIdiotOnTheNet2• 7 years ago

Those are normal day-to-day exercises for the US justice system, not a sign of desperation.

maxlybbert5• 7 years ago

Secret proceedings,

Grand jury proceedings are kept secret, but they aren’t limited to state secrets cases. They are actually a Constitutional right for everybody charged with a serious crime in the US.

torturing witnesses

I assume you mean that holding Manning in jail qualifies as “torture,” which I consider a strange definition of “torture.” Are all federal prisoners being tortured? If so, does that violate the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Should they all be freed?

They certainly are pressuring this witness, but it’s actually not out of the ordinary for the US criminal justice system. The prosecutors handling Operation Varsity Blues have the same tools, and will use them this way if they think it will help. Valerie Plame’s time in jail was for contempt for refusing to appear in front of a grand jury because by doing so she wouldn’t be able to keep a journalism source secret.

sschueller• 7 years ago

I am so disgusted by this I have no words. Where is the outrage? Why aren't people marching on the streets?

empath753• 7 years ago

All she has to do is testify. She’s doing this to herself. She’s not the one being charged here.

nullc2• 7 years ago

Ironic username is ironic.

sloum• 7 years ago

I do not think there is anyone questioning that she is doing this to herself. The outrage is in regard to the system that allows this to happen. I think there is a long history in this country of standing up against laws and rule that people find unjust/imoral/unethical, our country wouldnt exist otherwise. She is, in many ways, a patriot for making this stand. The court is doing what is in their power to do, she is merely pointing out that the court should not have this power. She is in a uunique position to have this sort of a platform and she is not squandering that position.

silversconfused3• 7 years ago

Helping them convict assange could undo the public benefit of her previous actions. How could she morally do that, regardless of who's authority compels her? She's doing the right thing.

colechristensen• 7 years ago

I occasionally make comments supporting the basic actions of the government based on the data available which are wildly unpopular.

This time something different: why do people support Manning's decision / find her treatment inappropriate?

Respect for sticking up for beliefs? I get that and share those feelings even if I don't share the specific beliefs.

But do people feel the 5th Amendment covers "incriminating" yourself after you've been convicted and served time (and don't have any risk of further convictions)?

Do people want the 5th to include incriminating people you like?

What specifically about the grand jury system in place here do you think is problematic or unconstitutional?

yardie3• 7 years ago

Grand juries are secret and procedurally unnecessary. They are trying to drum up enough evidence to go to real trial. The fact that their grand jury exploration rests entirely on her testimony means the prosecution’s case is fairly weak as it stands.

she’s being jailed on an option.

michaelt• 7 years ago

Often there is a widely held, low-resolution understanding of the constitution, and when you get into the high-resolution details there are exceptions that seem like the complete opposite of the widely held understanding.

For example, a naive reading of the commerce clause would say the fact Congress can regulate commerce among the states would not apply to a farmer growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. But surprise! Wickard v. Filburn [1] says that counts as interstate commerce.

Likewise, the low-resolution understanding of the fifth amendment is that you can't be forced to testify; and the low-resolution understanding of being granted immunity for something is you can't be sent to jail for reasons related to it. And yet, here we are.

A lot of Americans like the constitution - so much so, everyone in congress and the military and suchlike swears an oath to uphold and defend it. When people see these things that are a reversal of what they understand the constitution to say, it's understandable they don't like it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

emilfihlman• 7 years ago

Why should I be required to say anything to the government? It's my speech and it's protected.

travmatt5• 7 years ago

Reading more of the opinions here makes it fairly clear that the people holding said opinions don’t really have any understanding about the reason Manning is being held in contempt, or any real understanding of the American legal system. Most seem to have typed “why grand juries are bad” into google and are repeating nuanced positions in ways that don’t really fit.

skilled• 7 years ago

> Today, Chelsea was not only put back in jail, but Judge Anthony Trenga ordered her to be fined $500 every day she is in custody after 30 days and $1,000 every day she is in custody after 60 days. This is unprecedented.

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/1129158920499605504

Wtf....

sadris• 7 years ago

It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt.

Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

DarkWiiPlayer• 7 years ago

I'm actually pretty confused; does the USA not have a law that protects an individuals right not to testify if they'd incriminate themselves by doing so? That's seen as a pretty fundamental thing where I live.

zamalek• 7 years ago

And yet, someone who is likely broke in more ways than one, is demonstrating that she has more.

reacweb2• 7 years ago

She has all my respect. Congratulations for fighting for our freedom.

pvaldes2• 7 years ago

Maybe she should try to become a politician after this experience. It seems that they are the only allowed to do anything they want and get away with it.

arainwater• 7 years ago

Well, she already tryied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#U.S._Senate_ca...

hombre_fatal• 7 years ago

Seriously? The article and the previous one linked really don't explain her objections to the grand jury system and I have to do my own research to figure that out?

What comically bad coverage. How do you write an article about someone having objections to something (esp of this magnitude) without explaining what their objections are nor what that thing even is?

I have nfi what a grand jury is without further research, so neither do 90% of people reading the article. Probably because explaining it alone outs it as a ridiculous, self-evidently awful system, and CNN wouldn't want to do that.

ZeWaren• 7 years ago

It's like what's happening all over the French news all the time: you get told people are going on strike and on demonstrations, but you're never told why they're doing it anymore.

gatherhunterer• 7 years ago

Here's the Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/2W98fyO

The last time I linked to a WaPo article on Chelsea Manning (the last time she was jailed) a mod changed the link so if you find a more informative article you can always post a link and it might be changed.

I don't actually find this to be vastly different in content than the OP but it does seem to give a little more exposition and a little less in terms of boilerplate statements from the attorneys.

Here are some cherry-picked excerpts:

Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be unacceptable.
[The judge] said he hopes that while incarcerated “Ms. Manning would reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing ... and whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.”
Manning herself told the judge directly: “I would rather starve to death than change my principles in this regard.”

throw201020103• 7 years ago

To expand a little, I think the biggest issue that Chelsea has with a grand jury is that the entire process is sealed. If it were a public hearing then she would be much more likely to testify, because we would know what was asked, what was answered, and we would know what this entire process is about.

We only assume that this grand jury is about Julian Assange (because what else would Chelsea's testimony be relevant for?), but we actually don't know. This could be a political witch hunt for any variety of reasons, and we might never find out. An opaque justice system is probably not a good thing, since we just have to trust that the people in charge will do the right thing- and we have seen countless times throughout history that the people in charge often do the wrong thing and attempt to cover it up.

iso-8859-1• 7 years ago

"There's nothing dishonorable in fulfilling your obligation as a United States citizen,"

So if she wasn't a US citizen, how would this be different?

Chelsea Manning sent back to jail after refusing to testify before a grand jury

Related Stories