I’m going to preface this by saying that solitary is bad, and Manning should not be in solitary. I’m slightly more ambivalent about, like, literally everything else.
I read the linked post, and . . . I just have no damn idea what to make of it.
Manning also cited the 1st amendment, arguing that the proceedings were being used to make an example of Manning and Assange as part of a wider effort to intimidate journalists, something which is understandably difficult to prove in a court of law.
I would like to hear from someone other than Manning or her lawyers about whether this is a real concern. Obviously it's hard to tell how this grand jury is going to proceed, but I thought that the whole point of questioning Manning was to find some relatively non-controversial basis to prosecute WikiLeaks. I really doubt that the government wants to turn the wikileaks fight into a huge first amendment battle - that's the battleground wikileaks would prefer I'm certain
But from Manning’s perspective, finding any hint that Manning had committed perjury at her trial in 2013 would give the prosecution fodder for undermining her credibility on the witness stand if they ever get their hands on Assange. So yes, Manning would not be facing any additional legal punishment for being found to have perjured herself, but she would face a great deal of collateral damage from it, thus her use of the 5th amendment.
wtf? this sounds a lot like the author saying that she's going to jail to protect Assange
Anyway, I’m not super familiar with the libcom blog, so I’m not really sure how much stock to put in all this. I still haven’t seen anything that changes my first impression, which was that Manning could stop tilting at windmills and just testify
Here’s the Media Bias/Fact Check page on Libcom.org
I’m sure she would be happy to testify, as long as it is 100% public and she can refuse to answer any questions. Neither of those are true for a grand jury.
Grand juries serve to gather information on dissidents far beyond what police and prosecutors could gather on their own; they have been used to isolate, divide, and destroy social movements since the 1960s. Grand juries are currently being used to target anarchists, anti-fascists, and indigenous water protectors who struggled at Standing Rock.
Sometimes there are no good choices, only less damaging ones. I believe Chelsea Manning knows this and I would have made the same choice as her. That doesn’t make the way the government is treating her right.
Grand Juries are a form of state power, and like most forms of state power can be used for good or bad. I’m not an anarchist who’s against all state power, and I don’t have a major beef with the Grand Jury system, although I may not agree with specific applications of that power and I would like to see accountability for prosecutors who abuse the system. In this specific case, investigating WikiLeaks feels to me like a legitimate application of state power for a legitimate interest of the state
Would it help to consider calling members and the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee…
Express your outrage that Chelsea Manning is being held. https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members
