Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:30AM   Printer-friendly

Chelsea Manning sent to jail for refusing to testify in WikiLeaks case

Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning will be held in jail until she testifies before a grand jury or that grand jury is no longer operating, a federal judge in Alexandria ruled Friday.

Most of the hearing at which prosecutors argued for Manning to be held in contempt was sealed, but the court was open to the public for Judge Claude M. Hilton's ruling. "I've found you in contempt," Hilton said. He ordered her to custody immediately, "either until you purge yourself or the end of the life of the grand jury."

Manning was called to testify in an investigation into WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website she shared classified documents with back in 2010. Manning served seven years of a 35 year prison sentence for her leak before receiving a commutation from President Barack Obama.

Outside court before the hearing, Manning said she was prepared to go to jail. "These secret proceedings tend to favor the government," she said. "I'm always willing to explain things publicly."

Older article. Also at BBC, The Guardian, and Associated Press.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:20PM (3 children)

    by pe1rxq (844) on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:20PM (#812007) Homepage

    The US is founded on treason... or do you still consider it a British colony?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:21PM (2 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:21PM (#812028) Journal

    >The US is founded on treason
    genocide*

    but you are arguing that history is peppered with rape and murder so those are fine.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)

      by pe1rxq (844) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:34PM (#812045) Homepage

      No, I am arguing that laws should not be treated as absolutes. There is historic precedent to consider treason to be ok in some cases.
      Same actually with e.g. murder: the whole idea behind the Geneva conventions is that it can be ok to kill.....

      So there is no absolute law, only grey areas and a lot of opinions and dissagrement on the shade of grey....

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 10 2019, @01:13PM

        by Bot (3902) on Sunday March 10 2019, @01:13PM (#812277) Journal

        Laws should be absolute. Sometimes not STRICT, if you get the difference. I don't like draconian laws either.
        The problem is that if you start considering law flexible, then you give more power to someone else, namely who is in charge of applying law. The more flexible the law, the more absolute the power in the hand of the judge.

        Same if the laws are too many or if precedent rulings trump laws.

        --
        Account abandoned.