I was amazed that a Big Brother winner could be a spy. I am kind of disappointed now.
She has no guilt. She ought to feel no guild about what she has done. She should feel pride. Therefore she ought to plead “not guilty”. Okay, this is probably not a valid defense, since psychopaths like Trump feel no guilt for anything they do, even though they ought to. But if you are asked a direct question under oath, you ought to try and give the right answer.
If I were her, I wouldn’t. YOLO, and all that. But it would be right.
1 Like
It’s not mandatory.
1 Like
I’m abiding, right now
3 Likes
Is Reality Winner her name?
1 Like
Thanks for the Greenwald and Scahill apologetics, but I recall their actions. They failed to protect a source, period. Their failure specifically led to her, so yes, they’re responsible for her incarceration and should be responsible for her legal bills. They also owe her a massive apology. Greenwald especially turned into frantic spin afterwards, stating they were unable to comment in the aftermath. /eyeroll Which never shut him up about Ms Manning or Mr Snowden. The growth of his discretion is astounding.
Also, data doesn’t support. The Intercept ran 27 articles with her name between June 5 2017 and today. The Washington Post, which hasn’t been devoting much ink to her, ran 37 articles in the same time frame. The Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Augusta Chronicle have been better sources of in-depth articles, though less frequent than the WaPo. Same with Guardian, Democracy Now, and Politico.
I’m sure they’d be pleased to be so well defended.
4 Likes
maybe you’re in a Dickensian dystopia?
I know it’s not mandatory. The plea bargain might be “plead guilty and we don’t kill you, and hope we don’t change our minds.”
I don’t know. The only think I’ve heard is that she reached a deal. I’m sure the details are either already out there or are forthcoming.
As far as people executed for treason in the US, I don’t think that list is very long, but I don’t know.
She can’t be guilty of treason - they didn’t make that charge stick even against the Rosenbergs, because treason consists only in levying war or trading with an enemy. We have no ‘enemies’ since 1945 since we have not declared a war since them. Fewer than thirty persons have ever been charged with treason against the US, Only a handful were convicted, and none has ever been executed. John Brown and four of his party were executed for treason against the State of Virginia, not the US, and I beiieve that is the only execution for treason ever carried out in the US, unless you count the lynching of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
Espionage doesn’t have to be in the service of an ‘enemy’, That is what allowed the conviction of the Rosenbergs, who are the only civilians that the US ever executed for espionage in peacetime. (The only other US-citizen civilians to be executed for espionage were Ernest Peter Burger and Herbert Hans Haupt, tried by military commission in 1942.)
This does not count summary executions by the military. Few records have been kept of this practice.
Technically, we’re at war now - Afghanistan is a declared war. But making that stick would be difficult, true.
Iraq was a declared war, both times. As was Afghanistan. War authorizations by congress here:
True enough about the difference between treason and espionage.
As for records of military executions, they’re probably is some record, it’s just that we’re not privy to it.
1 Like
Isn’t Snowden still living in Moscow? Is Trump okay with that? What sick kind of game have Putin and Trump been playing? Sow discord and distrust, reap power. Divide et impera. How can real American patriots be okay with this?
Ms. Winner does not stand accused of trading with Iraq, so the 2002 AUMF is moot. The 2001 AUMF does not state a specific enemy, so I suppose that the President can declare any person, organization or nation has planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks - to the extent that it’s a declaration of war, it’s a blanket declaration of war against the entire world.
I wouldn’t put it past the current administration to declare that the FAKE NEWS MEDIA have aided the 9/11 terrorists by publishing things that SUPPORT TERRORISM by refusing to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and are therefore enemies of the United States. (Which would be upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4 on party lines, of course.)
1 Like
I question the wisdom of pleading guilty to this kind of charges. I would plea not guilty and hope for jury nullification.
It’s not just a Trump thing, either though. We’ve been putting people into long term detention since 2001. Much like the cold war, the question comes down to how do you win a war against a concept (terrorism).
I don’t think any of us know what we’d do in such situations. And she’s going to go to court in a red state, in a very red part of that state - I’m guessing the likelihood of jury nullification is pretty small.
2 Likes
Even in red states not 100% of the citizens are Republicans. And you only need one out of twelve to stop an unjust veredict.
Living in a red state and not being a republican myself (and formerly living in a much redder part of the state than I do now), I’m aware of that. But I do think you’re assuming that the legal system is somehow fair and equitable or that citizens are aware of things like jury nullification in the first place. It does take one, true, but the reality is that the defense might have a hard time finding that one, and anyone who would exhibit such tendencies or awareness in the least would probably find themselves stricken from the jury pool in the first place by the prosecution anyway. Do we know if she has a lawyer that she hired or a public defender? Public defenders are much more likely to push for a plea, in part because they tend to be overworked.
I guess what I’m saying is that the likelihood of such things are probably slim, in general, and I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to expect an individual to take that chance.
I know, and I am not expecting anybody to do it, I am just saying that it is a possible option. It gives you the opportunity to keep fighting, to publicize your point of view, and to create friction to gunk up and slow the machine.
As far as I know, educating people about jury nullification is not a crime yet. Knowing about it is part of your duty as a citizen and a juror. Nobody can force you to support an unjust veredict.
You’re right. Citizen awareness is another thing of course.
No. And I agree we should all be better educated on the criminal justice system. But most people don’t care until they are the ones who are having to navigate the system, I think. Like I said, I think most people would rather never have to do jury duty, which is a real shame, since it’s one of our most important actions as citizens. I think we seem to be in full agreement there. I don’t know how to change that attitude, except piecemeal through talking to others about it (talking about it in my classes, too).
1 Like
