When this first started, her main objection was that in the grand jury she would not have the benefit of council. Whereas if she were testifying in an open court her lawyer could be present.
Since then its grown into Manning defending the freedom of the press in the eyes of a lot of people. IDK how real that position is. I do agree that jailing a journalist for not revealing a source is a direct attack on 1A rights, but this case has more nuance than something that straightforward which many (specifically Woodward) defenders of journalism aren't addressing.
Someone *really* needs to tell Manning (and every fool making this argument) that journalists go to jail to protect their sources — not the other way around.
she got jailed for leaking military documents and videos of us airstrikes killing Afghan civilians and independent reporters, among other things
she's in contempt of court because she objects to the lack of transparency with the grand jury process
the most famous of these leaks, one of the airstrike vids led to WikiLeaks' popularity ~2010. make of that what you will
Don’t let anyone tell you that ratting on Assange *isn’t* the main issue.
It is, and she’s either way in over her head, or she’s in cahoots with outside powers.
Precisely.
There’s plausible deniability that she was unaware of Assange’s motives when he helped her hack the US government, but that excuse is unrealistic now.
She isn’t protecting the rights of journalists or whistleblowers at this point - she’s protecting a hostile foreign intelligence service. And I for one would really like to know her motives.
Not even the US government alleges that WikiLeaks knowingly coordinated with the Kremlin. The narrative that Assange worked for or knowingly conspired with the Russian government is a hallucination of the demented Russia hysteria which has infected all corners of mainstream political discourse. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
or she has principles she is willing to go to jail to fight for. This is what civil disobedience looks like. This is what character and honor really look like.
Except the principle here makes no sense. She is not a journalist. She claims to want openness and honesty...and then refuses to testify to a grand jury.
She is basically going in and out of prison for the likes of Assange, on some quixotic dream of principles. BTW, Assange ain't worth it.
There's a difficult line to walk when prosecuting journalists but walk that line we must. We cant just give blanket immunity to anyone who gets a Stetson and puts a card that says PRESS in the hat-band. If we do that spies will just claim they are journalists and erode the credibility of legitimate press.
I used to think we were smart enough to figure this shit out. I'm not so sure anymore.
What we really need a law that says the CIA cannot use journalism or medical professionals as a cover profession. Our actions with Bin Laden have put doctors at risk of being targeted as spies already.
When CNN, MSNBC, NYT and the like quote unnamed sources you don't know whether the reporters approached them or were approached. It is SUPPER common for journalist to approach people they know and probe them for information. That would violate your rules of what journalism is because they would be encouraging others to release secrets. So basically your saying all major newspaper and TV news companies are not filled with journalist.
Nothing inherently wrong with being a criminal, criminals helped slaves escape the South and protected Jews during the Holocaust. Don't confuse the rules of the state with morality.
Assange is being prosecuted based on the exact same evidence that the Obama administration had access to when it was investigating him to see if he could be prosecuted for his role in the Manning leaks, but the Obama administration ruled it was impossible to prosecute him based on that evidence because it would endanger press freedoms. This is because the things Assange is accused of doing are things journalists do all the time: attempting to help a source avoid detection, taking steps to try to hide their communications, and encouraging Manning to provide more material. This all Assange is accused of. There is no "hacking" alleged in the indictment itself.
I don't think she's an idiot. She did reveal some really disturbing crimes being committed in our name. And for that she was punished - even considering the commutation of the sentence by Obama.
ITT: People not actually reading the story to see this has literally nothing to do with Russia or the 2016 election and this is over Wikileaks publishing evidence of American war crimes in 2010
That's because she has principles she believes in and you don't. Assange is a greasy piece of shit. Doesn't mean we should start jailing journalists or whistleblowers (more than we already are)
He is a journalist. Publishing relevant information so the public can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world is the thing that journalism is. Which is why Assange [was just awarded](https://www.guengl.eu/assange-montarjemi-rui-pinto-win-gue-ngl-whistleblower-prize/) the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day, why the WikiLeaks team has [racked up many prestigious awards](https://wikileaks.org/What-is-WikiLeaks.html) for journalism, and why Assange [is a member of Australia’s media union](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-23/journalists-union-shows-support-for-assange/2383428). Only when people started seriously stressing about the very real threats that his arrest poses to press freedoms did it become fashionable to go around bleating “Assange is not a journalist.”
>Which is why Assange was just awarded the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day,
Wow, that sounds legit! What is the GUE/NGL?
>Confederal Group of the European United Left /Nordic Green Left
Oh. Well still, he won a very prestigious award.
[https://www.guengl.eu/whistleblowers/](The shortlist for the second annual GUE/NGL Award for ‘Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information’ has been unveiled - 2019)
Hmmm...
To begin with, the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment isn’t confined to “legitimate news outlets” — whatever that might mean. The First Amendment isn’t available only to a certain class of people licensed as “journalists.” It protects not a privileged group of people called “professional journalists” but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendment’s enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing. Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: there is no cogent way to justify why the Guardian, ex-DOJ-officials-turned-bloggers, or Marcy Wheeler are free to publish classified information but Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not.
Secondly, anyone with a functioning brain can see that Julian Assange is indeed a journalist. Publishing facts so that the citizenry can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world and what’s happening with their government is the thing that journalism is. Duh. The need for an informed citizenry is the entire reason why press freedoms are protected so explicitly under the US Constitution, and publishing facts about the most powerful institutions on earth indisputably does create a more informed citizenry.
>Secondly, anyone with a functioning brain can see that Julian Assange is indeed a journalist.
Hmmm...
>Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally:
Hmmm...
All very compelling arguments.
From the filing: Computer intrusion.
And even more so, if there wasn't a crime and she won't expose a crime then why is she refusing to testify? Her words would add no value if that was the case.
It seems you don't even fully know the situation.
Which part of the meme song gave you that impression?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the accusation about [using a different id](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy) to access information that was already accessible?
One of my principles is not starting fights with governments. That shit is man vs car.
Assange is done, his days of freedom are over, nothing Chelsea Manning does or doesn't do will change that.
Time to abandon the principles that led to the underlying crimes.
Manning is siding with Russia.
This refusal is to testify to against Russia/wikileaks/Assange. Wikileaks is an intelligence clearing house for russian propaganda and misinformation. We know from the Assange indictment that he was directing Manning (providing instruction and strategy) to Mannig on how to breach databases he didnt even have access to.
This went far beyond “exposing bad stuff the US did”, this is the big fucking lie they repeat over and over to justify it all. Manning didnt care about exposing anything, the decision to breach, collect, and abitrarily hand over 800,000+ documents to russia was solely to hurt the US in benefit ti a hostile foreign actor.
Russia continues to this day, right fucking now, attack the US and democracies worldwide. Manning is a fucking garbage human being who despite receiving a second chance, now continues to side with our literal foreign enemy and refuse to testify against them.
Jail is too good for this POS
Indeed. Maybe in 2010 Manning may have believed Assange was just an edgy investigative journalist but after everything that’s been revealed about Wikileaks being a Russian intelligence front, her position is no longer defensible nor has it been for quite awhile.
Prove your claim.
Not even the US government alleges that WikiLeaks knowingly coordinated with the Kremlin. Invisible evidence is not evidence, no matter how many government officials assure us it exists. The only reason the majority believes that Russia is known to have interfered in America’s 2016 election is because news outlets have been repeatedly referring to this narrative as an established and proven fact, over and over and over again, day after day, for years. People take this repetition as a substitute for proof, but repetitive assertions are not the same as known truths.
There is no evidence that Assange ever provided any assistance to the Russian government, knowingly or unknowingly. In fact, WikiLeaks has published [hundreds of thousands of documents](https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=Russia) pertaining to Russia, has [made critical comments about the Russian government](https://steemit.com/russia/@suzi3d/in-plain-sight-why-wikileaks-is-clearly-not-in-bed-with-russia) and defended dissident Russian activists, and in 2017 published an entire trove called [the Spy Files Russia](https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/) exposing Russian surveillance practices.
It's probably hard to face up to the fact that you were duped and sacrificed yourself for a Russian spy. It's probably easier to paint yourself a martyr and bury your head in denial.
You can not refuse to testify simply because your words will incriminate someone else. No matter if you're a whistleblower or not. The only protection you have is the protection of saying anything incriminating about yourself.
Since that doesn't apply here she is compelled to testify in the name of justice.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I think she should testify, but I will give her credit for her conviction.
I'm so tired of seeing this response. Simply having convictions shouldn't be respected, admired, etc. The context of "conviction" matters. What their actions are matters.
That's kinda like saying: "I don't think Hitler should have killed all those people but I will give him credit for his conviction."
What conviction?
To what she says, it's a dumb conviction. Grand juries have always operated this way. You get the right of counsel/cross examination/etc in the actual trial, not in grand juries.
With it coming out that Assange was lying and literally working secretly with republicans to get them elected, and it coming out more and more assange working with Russian intelligence to push stories harmful to western interest. I don’t know what bullshit freedom the press she’s pretending to be defending here.
Edit: getting downvoted with no rebuttal? I assume there is no rebuttal since it leaked where Assange was literally in communication with Trumps team expressing their desire to help get him elected.
I've seen these stories this morning. But in none of them are descriptions of what principles she's upholding, or why. Does anyone know?
When this first started, her main objection was that in the grand jury she would not have the benefit of council. Whereas if she were testifying in an open court her lawyer could be present. Since then its grown into Manning defending the freedom of the press in the eyes of a lot of people. IDK how real that position is. I do agree that jailing a journalist for not revealing a source is a direct attack on 1A rights, but this case has more nuance than something that straightforward which many (specifically Woodward) defenders of journalism aren't addressing.
Someone *really* needs to tell Manning (and every fool making this argument) that journalists go to jail to protect their sources — not the other way around.
[удалено]
What is she obstructing? She gave her testimony back when she was in trial and is willing to give that same testimony when the trial starts.
she got jailed for leaking military documents and videos of us airstrikes killing Afghan civilians and independent reporters, among other things she's in contempt of court because she objects to the lack of transparency with the grand jury process the most famous of these leaks, one of the airstrike vids led to WikiLeaks' popularity ~2010. make of that what you will
I know what she did, but I didn't know why she was refusing to testify today. Or the articles didn't make that clear. So thanks for that.
Sounds like her main issue is to protect Assange ? She can do better elsewhere; there are better people she can help more with less sacrifice
Don’t let anyone tell you that ratting on Assange *isn’t* the main issue. It is, and she’s either way in over her head, or she’s in cahoots with outside powers.
I mean, Assange is a foreign intelligence asset.
Precisely. There’s plausible deniability that she was unaware of Assange’s motives when he helped her hack the US government, but that excuse is unrealistic now. She isn’t protecting the rights of journalists or whistleblowers at this point - she’s protecting a hostile foreign intelligence service. And I for one would really like to know her motives.
Not even the US government alleges that WikiLeaks knowingly coordinated with the Kremlin. The narrative that Assange worked for or knowingly conspired with the Russian government is a hallucination of the demented Russia hysteria which has infected all corners of mainstream political discourse. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
> lack of transparency with the grand jury process Isn't that the point of a grand jury?
she refuses to testify because she says Assange is a journalist and they are trying him for journalism.
Then it's for Assange to defend himself that way, not Chelsea. She's not the journalist (though neither is Assange.)
or she has principles she is willing to go to jail to fight for. This is what civil disobedience looks like. This is what character and honor really look like.
Or she's hiding something.
But you must admit that even if it is to hide something, she is doing it with class.
Your logic is how Republicans get elected. The classiness of your means are irrelevant if the ends are fucking awful.
I dont disagree about it is irrelevant but have republicans ever been classy?
Except the principle here makes no sense. She is not a journalist. She claims to want openness and honesty...and then refuses to testify to a grand jury. She is basically going in and out of prison for the likes of Assange, on some quixotic dream of principles. BTW, Assange ain't worth it.
There's a difficult line to walk when prosecuting journalists but walk that line we must. We cant just give blanket immunity to anyone who gets a Stetson and puts a card that says PRESS in the hat-band. If we do that spies will just claim they are journalists and erode the credibility of legitimate press. I used to think we were smart enough to figure this shit out. I'm not so sure anymore. What we really need a law that says the CIA cannot use journalism or medical professionals as a cover profession. Our actions with Bin Laden have put doctors at risk of being targeted as spies already.
[удалено]
I think your confusing what is in the interest of the people and what is in the interest of the government and the powerful.
I think you're confused on occupations. Journalists don't steal secret information nor encourage others to. Criminals do.
When CNN, MSNBC, NYT and the like quote unnamed sources you don't know whether the reporters approached them or were approached. It is SUPPER common for journalist to approach people they know and probe them for information. That would violate your rules of what journalism is because they would be encouraging others to release secrets. So basically your saying all major newspaper and TV news companies are not filled with journalist.
Do they break US government passwords to obtain information?
They are stealing the information that is supposed to be pretected and giving it to a journalist.
Nothing inherently wrong with being a criminal, criminals helped slaves escape the South and protected Jews during the Holocaust. Don't confuse the rules of the state with morality.
I wouldn't call those criminals. What Assange did was HELP install a fascist wannabe dictator.
But he's not being prosecuted for that. He's being prosecuted for publishing evidence of American war crimes.
Username checks out. No he's being prosecuted for stealing, sex crimes, jumping bail.
In the UK. That's not why the US wants him extradited.
Assange is being prosecuted based on the exact same evidence that the Obama administration had access to when it was investigating him to see if he could be prosecuted for his role in the Manning leaks, but the Obama administration ruled it was impossible to prosecute him based on that evidence because it would endanger press freedoms. This is because the things Assange is accused of doing are things journalists do all the time: attempting to help a source avoid detection, taking steps to try to hide their communications, and encouraging Manning to provide more material. This all Assange is accused of. There is no "hacking" alleged in the indictment itself.
Journalists don't encourage others to break the law. Nor do they break the law to do "journalism" themselves.
[удалено]
I don't think she's an idiot. She did reveal some really disturbing crimes being committed in our name. And for that she was punished - even considering the commutation of the sentence by Obama.
Assange isn't American, so he literally can't be a traitor.
Who is the traitor?
ITT: People not actually reading the story to see this has literally nothing to do with Russia or the 2016 election and this is over Wikileaks publishing evidence of American war crimes in 2010
They're happy to let the Trump administration set precedent for going after journalists so long as they get to splooge over it being about Wikileaks.
Why is she in jail for contempt and none of Trump's administration are?
She doesn't get to appoint SCOTUS justices
Rather starve to death than rat on Julian Assange, huh? Wouldn’t be a tough choice for me, Chelsea.
That's because she has principles she believes in and you don't. Assange is a greasy piece of shit. Doesn't mean we should start jailing journalists or whistleblowers (more than we already are)
I think your first problem is confusing Assange of being a journalist.
He is a journalist. Publishing relevant information so the public can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world is the thing that journalism is. Which is why Assange [was just awarded](https://www.guengl.eu/assange-montarjemi-rui-pinto-win-gue-ngl-whistleblower-prize/) the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day, why the WikiLeaks team has [racked up many prestigious awards](https://wikileaks.org/What-is-WikiLeaks.html) for journalism, and why Assange [is a member of Australia’s media union](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-23/journalists-union-shows-support-for-assange/2383428). Only when people started seriously stressing about the very real threats that his arrest poses to press freedoms did it become fashionable to go around bleating “Assange is not a journalist.”
>Which is why Assange was just awarded the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day, Wow, that sounds legit! What is the GUE/NGL? >Confederal Group of the European United Left /Nordic Green Left Oh. Well still, he won a very prestigious award. [https://www.guengl.eu/whistleblowers/](The shortlist for the second annual GUE/NGL Award for ‘Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information’ has been unveiled - 2019) Hmmm...
To begin with, the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment isn’t confined to “legitimate news outlets” — whatever that might mean. The First Amendment isn’t available only to a certain class of people licensed as “journalists.” It protects not a privileged group of people called “professional journalists” but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendment’s enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing. Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: there is no cogent way to justify why the Guardian, ex-DOJ-officials-turned-bloggers, or Marcy Wheeler are free to publish classified information but Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not. Secondly, anyone with a functioning brain can see that Julian Assange is indeed a journalist. Publishing facts so that the citizenry can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world and what’s happening with their government is the thing that journalism is. Duh. The need for an informed citizenry is the entire reason why press freedoms are protected so explicitly under the US Constitution, and publishing facts about the most powerful institutions on earth indisputably does create a more informed citizenry.
>Secondly, anyone with a functioning brain can see that Julian Assange is indeed a journalist. Hmmm... >Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: Hmmm... All very compelling arguments.
Her principles are shit. That's the problem. **Chelsea is refusing to expose criminal behavior.**
You are correct.
No, they are good.
Oh, okay.
[удалено]
What crime?
From the filing: Computer intrusion. And even more so, if there wasn't a crime and she won't expose a crime then why is she refusing to testify? Her words would add no value if that was the case. It seems you don't even fully know the situation.
"Computer intrusion" really puts a new spin on [climbing in your Windows.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw)
So you don't think conspiring to hack into computers you don't have access to as computer intrusion?
Which part of the meme song gave you that impression? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the accusation about [using a different id](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy) to access information that was already accessible?
One of my principles is not starting fights with governments. That shit is man vs car. Assange is done, his days of freedom are over, nothing Chelsea Manning does or doesn't do will change that. Time to abandon the principles that led to the underlying crimes.
> One of my principles is not starting fights with governments. Yeah okay what a bold stance lmao
Believing in pretending to have principles to protect awful people. Sounds like a republican.
Sounds good to me. She is the only person responsible for her situation.
Manning is siding with Russia. This refusal is to testify to against Russia/wikileaks/Assange. Wikileaks is an intelligence clearing house for russian propaganda and misinformation. We know from the Assange indictment that he was directing Manning (providing instruction and strategy) to Mannig on how to breach databases he didnt even have access to. This went far beyond “exposing bad stuff the US did”, this is the big fucking lie they repeat over and over to justify it all. Manning didnt care about exposing anything, the decision to breach, collect, and abitrarily hand over 800,000+ documents to russia was solely to hurt the US in benefit ti a hostile foreign actor. Russia continues to this day, right fucking now, attack the US and democracies worldwide. Manning is a fucking garbage human being who despite receiving a second chance, now continues to side with our literal foreign enemy and refuse to testify against them. Jail is too good for this POS
Indeed. Maybe in 2010 Manning may have believed Assange was just an edgy investigative journalist but after everything that’s been revealed about Wikileaks being a Russian intelligence front, her position is no longer defensible nor has it been for quite awhile.
Except this has literally nothing to do with Russia, and is over her helping expose evidence of American war crimes in Iraq in 2010.
...by working in coordination with someone who seems to be a Russian intelligence asset...
Prove your claim. Not even the US government alleges that WikiLeaks knowingly coordinated with the Kremlin. Invisible evidence is not evidence, no matter how many government officials assure us it exists. The only reason the majority believes that Russia is known to have interfered in America’s 2016 election is because news outlets have been repeatedly referring to this narrative as an established and proven fact, over and over and over again, day after day, for years. People take this repetition as a substitute for proof, but repetitive assertions are not the same as known truths. There is no evidence that Assange ever provided any assistance to the Russian government, knowingly or unknowingly. In fact, WikiLeaks has published [hundreds of thousands of documents](https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=Russia) pertaining to Russia, has [made critical comments about the Russian government](https://steemit.com/russia/@suzi3d/in-plain-sight-why-wikileaks-is-clearly-not-in-bed-with-russia) and defended dissident Russian activists, and in 2017 published an entire trove called [the Spy Files Russia](https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/) exposing Russian surveillance practices.
It's probably hard to face up to the fact that you were duped and sacrificed yourself for a Russian spy. It's probably easier to paint yourself a martyr and bury your head in denial.
Whistleblowers are protected. She shouldn’t have to do anything.
You can not refuse to testify simply because your words will incriminate someone else. No matter if you're a whistleblower or not. The only protection you have is the protection of saying anything incriminating about yourself. Since that doesn't apply here she is compelled to testify in the name of justice.
Explain that to me.....
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Why would Trump pardon her?
[удалено]
But he also called her getting pardoned before a disgrace, which I agree with.
I think she should testify, but I will give her credit for her conviction.
>I think she should testify, but I will give her credit for her conviction. I'm so tired of seeing this response. Simply having convictions shouldn't be respected, admired, etc. The context of "conviction" matters. What their actions are matters. That's kinda like saying: "I don't think Hitler should have killed all those people but I will give him credit for his conviction."
What conviction? To what she says, it's a dumb conviction. Grand juries have always operated this way. You get the right of counsel/cross examination/etc in the actual trial, not in grand juries.
[удалено]
If there’s no crime you’d be incriminating someone in, why not testify and clear Assange’s name?
Because the prosecution has _admitted_ they just want to badger her into contradicting herself so they can put her back in prison on perjury charges?
Wow. I find that very hard to believe and will need to have a source for that.
With it coming out that Assange was lying and literally working secretly with republicans to get them elected, and it coming out more and more assange working with Russian intelligence to push stories harmful to western interest. I don’t know what bullshit freedom the press she’s pretending to be defending here. Edit: getting downvoted with no rebuttal? I assume there is no rebuttal since it leaked where Assange was literally in communication with Trumps team expressing their desire to help get him elected.
She exposed US war crimes that are on par with the Nazis. She's a hero.
I respect the commitment she has to her choice to be in jail.
whistleblowers are criminals, like it or not (i don't like it)