Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning Jailed Because She Won't Testify About WikiLeaks

"I will stand by my principles," Manning says.

|

Suzanne Cordeiro/Reuters/Newscom

Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning has been put back behind bars after she refused to testify before a federal grand jury about WikiLeaks. Manning famously gave the website hundreds of thousands of classified documents about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.

Manning previously told reporters that she expected to be jailed over her decision. "In solidarity with many activists facing the odds, I will stand by my principles," she said yesterday, according to The New York Times. "I will exhaust every legal remedy available. My legal team continues to challenge the secrecy of these proceedings, and I am prepared to face the consequences of my refusal."

Manning also told Judge Claude Hilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that she "will accept whatever you bring upon me," CBS reports. Hilton appears to have taken her up on that, telling Manning that she'll remain behind bars "until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury," Manning's representatives said in a statement to NBC.

The prosecutor in the case, Tracy McCormick, said the medical needs of Manning, who is transgender, will be met while she's incarcerated, and that she'll be released if she decides to cooperate. "We hope she changes her mind now," McCormick said, according to CBS.

Manning also appeared before the grand jury on Wednesday. Manning wouldn't answer any questions then either, citing her constitutional rights. "I responded to each question with the following statement: 'I object to the question and refuse to answer on the grounds that the question is in violation of my First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights,'" she said. "All of the substantive questions pertained to my disclosures of information to the public in 2010—answers I provided in extensive testimony, during my court-martial in 2013."

Convicted in 2013 of leaking classified documents, Manning served four more years of her 35-year prison sentence. In 2017, her sentence was commuted by then-President Barack Obama.

For more Reason coverage of Manning, click here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

172 responses to “Chelsea Manning Jailed Because She Won't Testify About WikiLeaks

  1. I am prepared to face the consequences of my refusal.

    Facts in evidence suggest otherwise. Like you’d whine about the magazines and attempt suicide rather than face the consequences of your actions.

    1. She already spent four years in jail after conviction. Is that not facing the consequences?

      At any rate, “prepared to face the consequences” does not mean lying back and enjoying it. There is nothing wrong with fighting the consequences.

      I’d think an actual individualist libertarian would applaud any disruption of Statism.

      This smells of double jeopardy to me, a non-lawyer.

      1. She already spent four years in jail after conviction. Is that not facing the consequences?

        I didn’t say Manning didn’t face any consequences, I’m saying Manning is lying when saying “prepared”.

        If you say you’re prepared for the punishment of your crimes and less than four years into your 35 yr. sentence you complain about your access to magazine subscriptions and try to hang yourself, it’s pretty clear that you weren’t prepared to go the distance.

        Snowden is and was prepared. Manning is a spineless coward that can mouth the words of braver men.

        1. “Manning is a spineless coward that can mouth the words of braver men.”

          Says the guy too damn chicken to sign his own name to his own comments.

          1. First, a modest amount of intelligence could get the average person to my identity. I’m not hiding.

            Second, unlike Manning my identity doesn’t take priority over facts presented and criticisms leveled.

            Last, worst to worst, I’m a coward who will level criticisms at people and hide behind a fake name. I’d say you can just call me Bradley Manning but I manage not to break the law and criminally and unduly implicate my peers when I do so.

            1. You sound like a real pants-pisser, mad-c.

              1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

                click here =====?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

              2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

                click here =====?? http://www.payshd.com

            2. “First, a modest amount of intelligence could get the average person to my identity. I’m not hiding.”

              I’m pretty average, and I don’t give a damn what your identity is. I’m only noting that you are afraid to write your own opinions under your own name.

              ” I manage not to break the law and criminally and unduly implicate my peers when I do so.”

              In that case, you have nothing to fear. You should be proud to stand by your statements.

      2. “She”
        Do we have to play along?

        1. No. Don’t signify that transtesticle bullshit.

        2. Not only do we have to play along….But, we also have to for it!

          “The prosecutor in the case, Tracy McCormick, said the medical needs of Manning, who is transgender, will be met while she’s incarcerated, and that she’ll be released if she decides to cooperate”

    2. Don’t be a dick, mad.casual.

      1. Not a dick. Just another disaffected, right-wing faux libertarian.

        1. Yup. Because Manning leaked actual battlefield intelligence in theater and got off because he whined loud enough about being a special enough case while better men and women both before and contemporaneously were punished worse for less severe crimes.

          Disaffected, right-wing libertarian? Might as well hurt my feelings by calling me a Kulak.

          OT: Did I hear right? Reason banned you for posting links to kiddie porn?

          1. If only her name were Hillary Clinton, she would have got away with leaking classified information.

            1. As a natural born woman, Hillary Clinton’s leaks are easier to conceal.

            2. If only her name were Hillary Clinton, she’d be an actual female. Oh, wait. Perhaps a lizard female. But a female, nonetheless.

        2. I have to agree with you on this one, Rev., even though I usually scoff at your drivel.
          The fauxbertarians around here show their true colors when the story is about anyone undermining the war machine.

          1. When you risk getting your own people killed, you aren’t a whistleblower. You’re just a traitor. If getting your own people killed doesn’t mean anything to you, then you too are a traitor.

            1. By your people do you mean LGBTQXDGH????

          2. The fauxbertarians around here show their true colors when the story is about anyone undermining the war machine.

            He didn’t undermine the war machine. Not one iota. Trump has done far more to slow the war machine than Manning could ever possibly hope to do and Reason will gush over Manning and begrudgingly ‘indian give’ credit Trump through gritted teeth.

            The Rev. isn’t even a one trick pony. He makes Michael Hihn look well read and Old Mexican reasonable and even handed. Agreeing with him is almost intellectually and ideologically worse than agreeing with OBL without realizing what he’s saying is honest satire.

      2. Snowden dumped documents proving deliberate illegalities by government agencies. He was a legitimate whistleblower.
        Manning dumped everything his crazy ass could find, and didn’t give shit whether it was a legitimate secret of not.

        There’s a world of difference between what those two did.
        There should be a pardon and a statue of Snowden. Manning should rot in jail.

  2. Tony’s pin up shot at his locker at the low impact work out gym.

    1. What attracts so many bigoted right-wing malcontents to an ostensibly libertarian website?

      Nowhere else to go? Did Stormfront start charging?

      1. You should have the ever living shit beaten out of you with a 2×4.

      2. The most bigoted Americans are older white urban Progressives

      3. bigoted
        Feeding a Body Dysmorphic Disorder isn’t being tolerant.

      4. “What attracts so many bigoted right-wing malcontents to an ostensibly libertarian website?

        Nowhere else to go? Did Stormfront start charging?”

        Brietard comments go by so fast, so the fauxbertarians don’t have time to fap to their own comments. And The Federalist is too low-brow.

      5. What attracts an Intolerant Progressive Fascist Virtue-signaling Big Govt. Liberal dope like you to a Libertarian website?

        1. Also jealous of the cocktail parties.

  3. She’s pulling a sovereign citizen.

    1. Wrong story bro this one’s about a guy.

    2. And now he’s sovereign over 35 square feet of prison cell.

  4. So… we’re going along with the delusion that Bradley is a girl because Reason likes releasing government documents?

    1. Deadnaming transgender people is an act of violence. Please don’t do it.

      #TransWomenAreWomen

      1. Are transwomen men becoming women, or women becoming men? A more vague term cold not be invented. A more vague gender could not exist, pretty much by definition.

        1. Transwomen are women. They always were female. Even if they have or had full beards.

          Some science deniers will assign gender to babies at birth based on superstitious nonsense like “I see a penis, therefore this child is a boy.” But the latest research shows that’s exactly the wrong approach. Gender is determined by how we identify ? not by chromosomes or genitalia or hairiness.

          #ILoveScience

          1. Don’t forget they have periods and need tampons. You had that one readymade for you and you missed it.

            #slipping

          2. Stop trolling us

            1. This really gets under OBL troll’s skirt.

          3. I’m going to call the state lottery commission on Monday and tell them I identify as a “Powerball WInner”. That’s my gender. They better fork over some big bucks or they’re bigots.

          4. I have a very simple test for determining gender identity: would I fuck you if I was really drunk. Manning definitely fails that test.

            1. Most are even uglier than him!

          5. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…The latest research shows profound Sex Change Regret is growing!…The latest research shows that because of ignorant sanctimonious dopes like you, there is more & more acceptance, legitimization and glorification of the LGBT lifestyle every year, but compared to the at large population, these people have way higher rates of Drug Abuse, Alcoholism, Depression, Suicides & Suicidal thoughts, Domestic Violence, STDs/AIDs & Pedophilia & these rates have not gone down even with all this legitimization of their lifestyle in the last 15 years….Their problems do not stem from society’s intolerance, but from psychological & emotional illnesses deep within! They are sick puppy dogs & need intense therapy!

          6. Many women in former Soviet Union have big beard very glorious. Also ankles thick like large barrel of tank gun. Most glorious revolutionary woman strong and stout unlike American girl who snap like twig under adversity of Siberian winter.

        2. The old term Eunuch is sufficient for MTF transitioning. I propose Nuenuch for FTM.

      2. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

        Deal with it. He looks stupid in lipstick.

      3. Poisoning boys with hormones and puberty-blocking drugs and then cutting off their cocks and balls because they don’t conform to certain sexual stereotypes is bigotry-fueled violence.

      4. OBL, what is ‘deadnaming’, and how does it apply to these transtesticles?

        1. It’s using the person’s given name rather than the one made up after deciding they are the other gender. Not agreeing with it, but explaining if you haven’t heard the term

    2. Don’t you, a presumed libertarian, appreciate disrupting and upsetting the State, especially when the State is vastly overstepping its moral bounds?

      Does your hatred of sex changers outweigh your supposed libertarian hatred of over-powerful States?

      1. Fuck you. Start respecting other people’s unwillingness to play along.

        Also, I don’t see where he said anything negative about disrupting the state. He sort of maybe alludes to it with “releasing government documents” but otherwise nada.

        1. Why do people who get so riled about references to transgender women expect the liberal-libertarian mainstream to ‘play along’ with referring to people who believe in childish superstition and similar nonsense as adults?

          Carry on, clingers. In all of your faux libertarian, disaffected glory.

          1. I hope someone murders you in an extremely violent manner.

            1. You would love to meet Arty face to face. Once he knew who it was before him, he would whine and beg nervously., as the dread and realization that his continued existence would solely be at my discretion.

            2. Can we just settle for docking his dick?

          2. No one has ever made you, or anyone, “play along”, you blithering bigoted Downsy parrot.

            You have never ever been compelled to say anything about God you didn’t want to. You are too stupid to even recognize your own blatant mendacity

            1. “No one has ever made you, or anyone, “play along”, ”

              Not for lack of trying you snivelly fuck.

              But you’re correct. You have never successfully made me go along and have no hope of ever doing so.

              Cry more about it now!

            2. Apologies i got that one all wrong.

      2. It’s not an either/or proposition. One does not need to deny reality to be libertarian.

        1. Although it often comes in handy.

        2. I think there is a middle ground where you can accommodate trans people without denying reality. I agree that it gets ridiculous when people insist that transsexuals are and have always literally been the sex they say they want to be. I feel like this is another case where the noisy asshole activists are ruining it for regular people who just want to live their lives by taking things too far.

          1. Apparently the LGs are none to happy with the T’s agenda and as usual the B’s can’t make up their minds.

            1. Even Ls and Gs rarely have common interests.

          2. Some men who think they are women are starting to play & dominate some women’s sports & some Lesbo athletes like Martina Navratilova are speaking out against it & rightfully so!…These trannys are delusional & sick & sane people who want no part of this grotesque charade should not lose their Natural & Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience & Association to willfully deny them housing, jobs, cakes, etc….

          3. “Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”
            -Barry Goldwater, 1964

          4. Zeb speaks the truth.

          5. What Zeb says.

      3. Don’t you, a presumed libertarian, appreciate disrupting and upsetting the State, especially when the State is vastly overstepping its moral bounds?

        He didn’t disrupt and upset the State. At best, he got a few of his individual peers convicted of war crimes they were ordered to or mistakenly perpetrated. Possibly endangering the lives of other peers.

      4. abababababcbcbabab you’re assuming anybody around here is libertarian. I dbout there are more than 9 at this point.

    3. No, I would assume “we’re going along” because Manning asked that people treat her as such. And yeh, I’m pretty sure Reason likes releasing government documents….like just about every single libertarian I’ve ever talked to does.

      1. So if a politician repeals tariffs and demands that you address him as your lord and savior, you would…?

        1. Is his name Jesus?

        2. There is a bit of a difference between using a different pronoun that has pretty much the exact same meaning and a title that implies a certain position of significance.

          I think you should refer to Manning however you want, though.

          1. You think being female is insignificant?

            1. Oh no he di’n’t!

      2. So if a politician repeals tariffs and demands that you address him as your lord and savior, you would…?

      3. I guess reason would have published D-Day plans in late May, and you would have cheered that on principle?

        There is a difference between Whistleblowing and releasing documents that only serve to harm this country, especially when taken out of context, like the selectively edited video clip of the Reuters journalists getting gunshipped

        1. There is a difference between Whistleblowing and releasing documents that only serve to harm this country,

          They didn’t harm the country. They harmed individual soldiers and fellow peers. Much of what he leaked was already known and the war continued on successfully. The only thing it definitively did was further demonize people who either made mistakes and/or were following orders.

          A generation earlier, Manning would be shouting ‘baby killer!’ at every vet returning from Vietnam.

    4. Witness the throes if a dying subculture clinging on to shreds of relevance. In 10 years, hating on transgenders will be rightly viewed with the same disdain as hating gays is finally seen now and as hating minorities of other races has been seen for decades. It must suck being a social conservative, always on the losing side against the rising acceptance of individuals that differ from the norm.

      Chelsea Manning is a hero and should be respected for standing up for her principles and for standing against the warmongering State.

      1. Like the dying culture of people who could speak English instead of Newspeak in Airstrip One. Dying for much the same reason.

        What does 2+2 equal today?

      2. In fifty or one hundred years, transsexualism will be viewed with horror and contempt as a medical atrocity, the same way we now look at bloodletting, lobotomy, wet sheets, anti-masturbation devices, forced sterilization, narcotic syrups for babies, electric shock therapy, prescribing tapeworms for weight loss, and the “experiments” of Dr. Mengele. Our grandchildren will not understand how our society could have been so stupid and cruel.

        1. You forgot phrenology.

          1. Hey, it’s just a hobby for some of us.

      3. Don’t you mean heroine you transfathead?

        1. I see heroin in Chelsea’s future.

      4. I do not hate LGBT people, but, I HATE the STATE forcing me to sanctify, legitimize & taxpayer fund their lifestyle & then force me to bow to the Special Rights they have been given, while others lose their Natural & Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Speech, Religion, Conscience & Association while trying not to be a part of their “lifestyles”

    5. I think it’s more about preserving their job prospects after Reason folds.

  5. *Bradley

      1. The artist formerly known as Bradley.

      2. Born Bradley Manning.

      3. Dzhugashvili

      4. JEHOVAH! JEHOVAH!

        1. You’re only making it worse for yourself!

      1. Or what? He can call himself whatever he likes.

        1. I’ll give you a dollar if you peek under OBL’s dress.

          1. It’s probably boring under there.

        2. I guess when your username is a racist attempt to insult the greatest President ever, of course your comments are going to be similarly bigoted.

          1. I wasn’t talking about Michelle, he actually ate a dog.

            1. What breed?

            2. What’s wrong with eating a dog? Or a horse? Or a chicken? Or a lamb?

              It that as bad as eating beef on a Friday, or a cheeseburger or shrimp cocktail, or a goat that wasn’t killed in a particular manner?

              From a libertarian perspective, I mean.

              1. No wonder Scooby is so nervous, with people like you around.

                1. Anyway, if eating dogs is so cool, how come you guys hate “dog-eat-dog capitalism”?

              2. What’s wrong with eating a dog? Or a horse? Or a chicken? Or a lamb?

                He said he factually ate a dog. You assumed it was wrong.

                From a libertarian perspective, I mean.

                You don’t have a libertarian perspective. The closest you come is saying libertarian while exposing your stupidity.

                1. I didn’t assume it was wrong. He was president of the United States and traveled the globe. Pres. Obama might well have been served dog in a country that doesn’t flatter American culinary silliness, and might have accepted such hospitality instead of ordering a huge bag of fat-and-salt-and-sugar fast food.

                  I question why anyone older than 10 or so would consider ‘ate a dog’ an insult, or a slur, or remarkable.

                  Carry on, clingers.

                  1. I question why anyone older than 10 or so would consider ‘ate a dog’ an insult, or a slur, or remarkable.

                    You and OBL are the only two posters I see making that assertion. I’d say talk amongst yourselves but he’s a satirical caricature and you’re one of the few kooks on this board just nutty enough to try and get and then pass off a reasonable answer from a cartoon character.

                    1. Mad is correct. You made the assumption that I thought it was a problem. That is on you.

                  2. “Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.8.19 @ 3:18PM|#

                    I didn’t assume it was wrong”

                    Yes you did.

                    “Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.8.19 @ 2:24PM|#

                    What’s wrong with eating a dog?”

              3. Is that your way of justifying your cock eating?

              4. I’m. It shocked you said that Arty. I remember an article about a coup shooting a restrained nine pound chihuahua ‘for his own safety’. You were for the shooting as I recall.

                Honestly, it would be so much fun to beat you brutally. Your chilling sails of agony and intermittent attempts at futile bargaining would be a true symphony of justice.

      2. Chicks with dicks?

        1. Heck, most of them are prostitutes….Sluts with Nuts!

  6. What is the testimony about? Is this related to the Manning’s specific dealings with them regarding the documents he (at the time) passed them, or is this a fishing expedition related to Russian meddling?

    1. Ugh, so much transphobia in this thread. Disappointing.

      1. Hi,

        I have a form of OCD that makes impossible for me to refer to anyone with pronouns other than those appropriate for their DNA. The fractionally small percentage woth DNA that makes that impossible, I have to refer to as “shim” etc. OCD sucks.

        Anyway, your Asphobia is pretty disgusting. Stop trying to force me to behave neurotypically.

        1. Yes, I too grow weary of nonsense from normies (that’s what I call neurotypicals). With their scattered minds, so driven by nonsense and uncontrolled emotions.

  7. Can’t Manning claim that he identifies as a 9-year-old and therefore can’t be held in an adult jail or be forced to testify?

    1. +1,000,000

  8. Mannings document dump wasn’t measured in any way. They essentially stole a huge trove of information, then dumped it without even looking at what was inside. Comparing Manning to Snowden is simply disingenuous and pretends there is no such thing as valid national security concerns.

    1. This. Snowden’s motivation (presumably) was to expose illegal surveillance by the government. Manning was throwing a hissy fit.

    2. Yeah never much of manning fan, if I recall it was mostly just state department officials talking honestly about foreign leaders. And I don’t care about his gender. But forcing citizens to give testimony is bullshit and i hope this judge is thrown into a wood chipper metaphorically speaking.

      1. if I recall it was mostly just state department officials talking honestly about foreign leaders

        Those leaks were later from other sources.

        Manning’s high points included general affirmation of the U.S.’s widely understood “pro-torture” stance. Personal evidence of some of the individual soldiers involved in the deaths of civilians and the understood coverup surrounding Obama’s drone strikes in Yemen. There were more minor foreign affairs issues that got leaked, but those the first two are the ones Manning and others cited as being the impetus or of primary importance.

        1. Yeah, there was doubtless some stuff that ought to have been leaked, hiding in the massive data dump. But he didn’t limit himself to releasing just stuff that ought to be released.

          1. Agreed. I’d have more respect for Manning if the release had been measured in some way. I’m not saying that nothing that was released was necessarily important, but at the same time even Mad.Casual above notes that it was already ‘widely understood’ so the confirmation of already known information was…not the most incredible or important release of information in the last decade.

            1. Thanks all, I forgot about all of that.

    3. ” Comparing Manning to Snowden is simply disingenuous and pretends there is no such thing as valid national security concerns.”

      We know what Manning got. We don’t know what Snowden got. I don’t know how you manage to compare something you know with something you don’t know.

  9. I will stand by my principles and call him Bradley

    But we totally need more trannies in the military because reasons

    1. Enjoy political irrelevance as America continues to improve against your wishes and efforts. I would expect you to be accustomed to it by now.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Local Reverend Found Guilty
        Eunice Today
        By Joyce Billings
        March 3, 1996

        Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland told his parishioners they could benefit themselves while doing God’s work if they invested in his ‘Progressive Christian’-based company, which lent small amounts of money to entrepreneurs in developing countries.
        Instead, a jury in Lafayette, LA agreed that Kirkland defrauded his friends and flock out of thousands of dollars.
        Kirkland told investors they would make their money back with profit, all while fueling growth in developing countries. But that never happened.

        Kirkland’s crime was brought to light by a parishioner, whose name is being withheld because she is a minor. She reported to police that Kirkland explained his scheme to her, professed his love, and wished she would run away with him, along with his ill gotten game.

        1. Why so cranky, Rockabilly?

          Finally figure out that you lost the culture war and are destined to spend the rest of a bitter, disaffected life obsequiously complying with the preferences of your betters?

          1. Stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger, rube.

            1. Arty doesn’t have the guts. Plus o suspect that would be a complicated endeavor for his little progtarded brain.

        2. sounds about right. Except the part about anyone ever believing Kirkland

    2. Do you call Mohammed Ali Cassius Clay?

      1. S’what his momma named him.

      2. As far as I know, he never claimed to be THE Mohammed.

      3. Ok, I decided to call HIM, Chelsea!

      4. No, I call him Muhammad Ali!

  10. Should I be surprised that this comment section is entirely obsessed with what is between Manning’s legs rather than, you know, the double-jeopardy BS that our government is pulling?

    1. They’re just trolls. Don’t worry about it overmuch.

      In any case, it’s not “double jeopardy.” It’s much worse. She’s being held in contempt of court?I.e. held indefinitely at the whim of the judge?for refusing to testify against Assange. The joke is she had immunity imposed on her to avoid her refusing to self-incriminate, which in any sane legal system would be a clear violation of her right not to speak.

      1. Except it isn’t. This isn’t the most uncommon practice. If he can’t self incriminate. Then he can answer the questions put to him. They did the same thing to Sam Giancana, among others.

        1. Except it isn’t. Except it isn’t.

          Especially across UCMJ and DOJ cases.

      2. Really hard to take you seriously when you keep referring to a man as if he were a she.
        It’s an inaccurate base to start from. If you’d used quotes, like “she” or “her”, you’d be ok.
        But referring to a man as if it were a woman is delusional, and pretty much destroys any credibility.

  11. The easiest way to avoid a contempt jail sentence under a testimony demand is to say that you cannot swear to tell the truth on the stand.

    Tell the judge that you cannot tell the truth, so if you are asked any questions, you will open yourself to perjury charges and therefore plead the 5th Amendment so you do not incriminate yourself.

    Manning is a felon, so he should additionally argue that the state of the current federal law treats his felon class as suspect to serve on juries and to own guns and ammunition. As as such he protests forced testimony to a Grand Jury until the 2nd Amendment is restored to all ex-felons. Refuse to testify to a Grand Jury based on 1A reasons.

    Only criminal defendants have the constitutional right …to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor….. Grand Juries do not have that constitutional right to compel witnesses.

    1. Fuck that noise you right-wing faux libertarian. Dude shaved his Adam’s apple. He was a hero.

    2. That is, actually, an almost certain path to a contempt ruling. Face palmingly stooopid.

      1. Clearly, Manning needs to try something since I wont appear did not work out.

  12. Well Wikileaks is in bad odor now because they had the bad taste to reveal the Dem Party secrets which should be regarded as sacred. Manning is just covered in their stink due to the past association and 8s subject to being unpersoned.

  13. “She”. Odds that Bradley the sniveling Okie PFC identifies as a dude again in 5 yrs tops?

    1. Yikes. You know it’s almost certainly a train wreck down there already.

  14. The most polite pronoun to use, if one wants to retain one’s own dignity, when speaking of a transgender person is “it”

  15. She’s a braver man than I.

    1. LOL

      This is non-hive mind Tony – funny dude, in a good way

      1. He has some good quips and the rare sober take on things. Still overall infuriating, but occasionally entertaining

  16. No one made the “And here I thought his balls had been removed…” joke?

  17. I am more interested in knowing when she is going to finish the sentence Obama stupidly commuted.

  18. Why does the defendant admit to knowing anything about Wikileaks? Was it any more than a data dump?

  19. “Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning has been put back behind bars after she refused to testify before a federal grand jury about WikiLeaks. ”
    ‘I object to the question and refuse to answer on the grounds that the question is in violation of my First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights,’

    What’s the legal theory that she has no right to remain silent?

    It’s not like she didn’t show up. She’s not withholding property.

    1. The right to remain silent is about being silent to avoid self-incrimination. If answering the questions being put to you does not create a risk of self-incrimination, then a subpoenaed witness can be compelled to testify.

    2. Because it is a trap.

      She has nothing else to say.

      Under expert questioning they could try to trip her up. That is what lawyers for the prosecution do.

      She has no defense under a grand jury and is accused of no crime. That is all past. Why should Chelsea be forced to undergo this horrible interrogation again?

      Where are the libertarians here?

      I could care less about the snarky comments here. This person however wierd Chelsea may seem to some, however repulsive that may seem to you which is no harm to anyone else, has the same rights as any other individual.

  20. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  21. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://xurl.es/BestUSA

  22. “Manning famously gave the website hundreds of thousands of classified documents about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.”

    you mean “infamously gave”. the documents leaked were not, like the Pentagon papers, targeted at specific abuses of government authority. some were connected to illegal or unConstitutional government activity, but many more were not. they were day-to-day documents reserved by classification to protect sources, methods, etc., rather than anything that indicated wrongdoing. the indiscriminate leak of those documents, over and above those that indicated abuse, are what makes her a criminal rather than a whistleblower. unfortunately, the same applies to Snowden – he had specific documents that revealed an illegal program, but chose to leak a wide variety of documents that addressed many more programs than the illegal ones.

  23. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.

    ???????? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  24. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.

    ???????? http://www.Geosalary.com

  25. Your confusion is understandable, but this blog is called The Volokh Conspiracy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.