Reason Roundup

Chelsea Manning Freed From Federal Detention but May Be Forced to Return Next Week

Plus: life imitates The Onion at Guantanamo Bay, "chaos" in Alabama legislature over abortion vote

|

Chelsea Manning was allowed to leave the federal detention center in Virginia. She had been held there since early March in an attempt to compel her testimony to a grand jury about Manning's 2010 release of a huge cache of government documents to WikiLeaks.

"Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center," Manning's lawyers said in a Thursday statement. But the whistleblower is still not in the clear:

Unfortunately, even prior to her release, Chelsea was served with another subpoena. This means she is expected to appear before a different grand jury, on Thursday, May 16, 2019, just one week from her release today.

"It is therefore conceivable that she will once again be held in contempt of court, and be returned to the custody of the Alexandria Detention Center, possibly as soon as next Thursday, May 16.

Chelsea will continue to refuse to answer questions, and will use every available legal defense to prove to District Judge Trenga that she has just cause for her refusal to give testimony.

On March 5, an Eastern District of Virginia judge denied Manning's initial motion to quash a subpoena compelling her to testify before a grand jury and give testimony. The next day, Manning appeared before the grand jury but refused to answer any questions.

"Yesterday, I appeared before a secret grand jury after being given immunity for my testimony," she said in a March 7 statement. "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. 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.'"

Manning was found in civil contempt and, on March 8, taken to the Alexandria Detention Center. She was held in "administrative segregation," which her lawyers describe as "conditions that amount to prolonged solitary confinement."


QUICK HITS

NEXT: California's Rent Control Advocates Are About To Get What They Want, Good and Hard

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.

  1. Unfortunately, even prior to her release, Chelsea was served with another subpoena.

    Everyone expects the grand jury inquisition.

    1. Hello.

    2. Nice Adams apple on Chelsea.

      Did he pick his fem-name to troll the Clintons?

  2. New Age writer and Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson has qualified for the primary debates on CNN.

    As long as you’re not libertarian. That’s twoo new age. Also, who?

    1. This new platform put an errant w in one of my words.

      1. thought new synonym for doubly.

  3. A run-down mansion, the Getty connection and a man the neighbors never saw: The tale of the huge weapons cache at a Los Angeles home

    Accusations of having weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment allow police to act like having a bunch of guns is bad or illegal.
    2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. If you think common sense gun safety legislation is unconstitutional, you need to read more Michael Hihn.

      #BanAssaultWeapons
      #UnbanMichaelHihn

      1. Fuck off, Hih…wait…he did fuck off?

        1. He could be dead in a ditch for all we know. Here’s hoping!

        2. “Even fools are thought wise when they keep silent; with their mouths shut, they seem intelligent.” – Proverbs 17:28

    2. What’s a Tony neighborhood?

    3. I hate the stories where they imply the [person’s] huge cache of weapons and ammo is a crime in and of itself.
      But it’s from California, which is like, you now, a different country.

      1. It’s weird because I’ve seen several of these stories with such labeling but the details show the person had 3-5 firearms and 1000 rounds of ammunition. The wife and I bring about that much to the range for a day. We’ve run through about half that amount of ammo in an hour rotating on a lane. Neither of us are big gun enthusiasts, but target shooting is a hobby we indulge in occasionally.

  4. …a depressing tale about how cheap life is in jail, even for those who haven’t been convicted of a crime.

    A jailer is just an industry worker who moves you along their conveyor belt.

    1. And sells you marlboros for $200 a pack.

  5. “Donald Trump is painting Joe Biden as Hillary Clinton with a longer record of failure. Is he right?”

    LOL

    Hillary Clinton was literally the most qualified Presidential candidate ever. From her time as First Lady to US Senator to Secretary of State, she had an unblemished record of success.

    #StillWithHer

    1. And Good ol’ Joe is even more qualified since he has been living on the government teat longer. And he rides 19th century transport, just like we all should.

      1. He is also a self described ‘fingertip politician’. So you get all the Hillary baggage, plus a lot of the rapeyness of Bill Clinton.

        That’s one hell of a combination.

        1. Sounds bigly.

    2. Still with her in the losers circle. Congrats

  6. New Age writer and Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson has qualified for the primary debates on CNN.

    I’m going to need a bigger bowl of popcorn.

  7. Kim Jong Un eyed ‘famous’ basketball players to help smooth denuclearization deal

    I was assured by reason staff that Trump is a tyrant and for some reason Trump did not give NK our best Black basketball players.

    1. Where’s Dennis Rodman when you need him?

      1. Dennis… are magaritta’s gay? (The Interview)

      2. Rodman? Probably strutting down the street in Vegas wearing a wedding dress with a huge entourage around him.

  8. Party City says it is closing 45 stores amid a global helium shortage

    [In you best helium voice] HELIUM SHORTAGE… WTF!?!

    1. As Mr. Buttplug explained in the case of Sam’s Club, all store closings are the result of Drumpf tanking the economy.

    2. I’ve actually been wondering when the other shoe was going to drop with these stores due to that exact issue, although it seems a little stupid that a party store can only survive on balloon sales.

      1. It’s probably their big margin item these days. A lot of dry goods you can get elsewhere, like Amazon. Balloons are unwieldy, and they do charge quite a lot. It’s probably their big item.

        Though, I also don’t know how many 45 is versus the company as a whole.

        1. Quick google search says 900 total, so while it’s not business-crippling, that’s still a pretty nasty hit.

    3. It’s only the 2nd most abundant element in the universe. Maybe they’re waiting on the sun to increase production?

      1. The problem is that helium’s too light for the Earth to retain it, and it doesn’t form any heavier molecules. So however abundant it is in the universe, any that gets into our atmosphere winds up escaping into space. The only helium you find on Earth is from the alpha decay of radionuclides caught in impermeable rock formations.

        1. You must be fun at parties.

          1. Lol!But still, I read something in financial stuff about helium being scarce(er).
            Haven’t been here for a while. Not liking the new format At All.

    4. I thought I had read in Reason (like a Ronald Bailey article) that there are huge reserves but there is some kind of market problem, because government.

    1. Let me get one thing straight. WOULDN’T

      1. I am pretty sure he still has balls. This is one time that “best of both worlds” is not something you want.

        1. #NotEvenCrustyWould

          1. #NeverUnderestimateCrustysThirst

          2. Of course, but would Tony?

        2. Wasn’t there some brewhaha about the government pay for Bradlsea’s transition?

          1. He was court-martialed, so no VA care for him.

            Even his commuted sentence wont put taxpayers back on the hook for paying for his medical care.

            1. I was specifically referring to the reassignment surgery.

              1. Yeah. Not quite medical care. Still, I’m on his/her side. Free the…
                Manning!!!

  9. ENB must be looking to hit the bars early today. This Roundup was more like roping a few stray calves.

  10. http://www.foxnews.com/world/more-ties-between-iran-and-al-qaeda-emerge

    More evidence of Al Quada Iran ties. That should surprise no one who knows more than just enough to be dangerous about the middle east.

  11. Joe Biden brings in massive cash haul at Hollywood fundraiser that draws donors from across the country

    As a left-libertarian, one of my main areas of disagreement with my progressive friends is money in politics. I think it’s great that our system allows the super-wealthy to have disproportionate influence — whether it’s the Koch Brothers funding open borders advocacy, or Hollywood moguls promoting Democrats.

    1. At some point you have to leave the audience wanting more. You have become like a band that gets played on the radio until everyone is sick of them. You should pick a few good trolls a day and do them.

      1. Sorry to disappoint you. But #Resisting this illegitimate Russian puppet government is a full time job.

        Expect my commenting frequency to increase until Drumpf has been removed from office.

        1. It is good to play the classics but “Russians!” is out of date. You need new material.

          1. LOL

            That’s weak even for you. Mueller’s investigation proved the most prominent #TrumpRussia voices like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann have been correct all along. So of course you want to change the subject.

          2. comedians recycle stuff. Give OBL a break.

            Even Jack Benny had a bad day.

            The day he turned 40.

      2. I don’t know if he will ever reclaim the glory of my personal favorite hit… “net neutrality will lead to the Handmaids Tale by limiting abortion access”.

        He needs to combine the stupid in new and unexpected ways again

        1. The net neutrality take is kind of his Sergeant Pepper. Hard to top that.

    2. I agree. The part I’m conflicted about is whether all donations should be publicly disclosed. The purist libertarian in me says, “No.”, but the practical libertarian says, “Unlimited contributions with full public disclosure seems to be a good balance and work well.” My practical libertarian always wins, as I don’t think I’ve seen purist libertarianism affect any benefit to the world.

  12. Chealsea Manning is a man and should be referred to as a “he”. He is not a she and never will be no matter how badly those who wish to enslave us into liars with newspeak wish it to be so.

    And Manning has served his sentence. He can’t be tried again for releasing that information and has no reason to refuse to answer questions other than that he is a piece of shit.

    1. Chealsea Manning is a man and should be referred to as a “he”.

      Who are you to compel speech?

      1. Only if you consider following the conventions of language and reality “compelled speech”. You are free to call a dog a cat or a mountain a canyon but that doesn’t make the usage correct or doing so any less of a lie.

        I don’t lie because the powers that be insist that I do so in the name of “tolerance”. I would highly suggest that you and everyone else refuse to do the same. If such nonconformance is too much for you, well that is too bad.

        1. I like the quote from Tarzan –
          “You can call a jackal a lion, but it will not make him brave.”

      2. And as far as Grand Juries, go, yes. If you have evidence of a crime and revealing it doesn’t incriminate you, you have a legal obligation to turn it over if the court asks. You don’t have to volunteer it but if the court asks you should have to answer. Without the power of subpeona, courts couldn’t function. If you don’t understand what I mean, what if Manning were a cop who had knowledge that an innocent person was in prison for a crime they didn’t commit and the Grand Jury asked him about it. Do you think he should be able to say no even if answering the question wouldn’t violate his right against self incrimination? I sure as hell think he should have to answer.

        1. Since that particular example happens all the time, it might not be your best argument.

        2. Technically the Constitution only provides for defendants being able to force witnesses before a court.
          6A: […]to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor[….]

          Article III does discuss jurisdiction for the federal courts and you cannot force a party in dispute to appear for federal civil court. If they failed to appear, the party that did show in court would likely get a default against the absent party.

        3. The good news for anyone wanting to avoid saying anything, is that it’s truly impossible to determine what’s legal and what’s not. No human knows all illegal things in the US (and the state they are in), so refusing to speak because you might incriminate yourself is ALWAYS valid.

          (Someone, please argue with that logic!)

          1. Manning was specifically given immunity; no part of the testimony demanded could be used in a prosecution, therefore there was no risk of incrimination.

            1. Not trusting the government is a wise strategy.

    2. Give it up, John. If even 80 year old Ron Paul has no problem calling her “she,” you know you are a dinosaur holding on to reprehensible values that will soon be viewed with the same disdain as racist labels.

      1. Go fuck yourself. If you will tell this lie, what other lie won’t you tell? You may enjoy a boot on your face but I don’t and never will. What is it like to be such a coward you won’t say a simple truth for fear of offending a bunch of people who hate you anyway?

        The “he” versus “she” is literally Winston saying he loves big brother. The point of things like this is to humilate you. Everyone knows it is a lie. But it being a lie is the point. In fact, the more outragious the lie the more degrading it is for people to tell it and the more power a totalitarian ideology is asserting when it forces people to tell it.

        That is the process you are aquiessing to. I hope it makes you feel proud.

        1. The “he” versus “she” is literally Winston saying he loves big brother.

          Or it could just be common courtesy. I don’t think you should be compelled to call anyone by any pronoun other than the one you choose. But I also don’t see a benefit personally in not acquiescing to someone’s wishes in this particular case.

          How would you like it if I insisted on calling you she/her against your wishes, and then demanded you to prove your gender to me if you wanted me to change?

          1. And let me further say that I don’t think your position is bigoted. I just don’t really understand why this is a hill you want to die on.

            However, if it were ever determined to be criminal to mislabel someone, then I’d be right there with you.

            1. And let me further say that I don’t think your position is bigoted. I just don’t really understand why this is a hill you want to die on.

              Yes it is bigoted. I am bigoted against people who expect me to tell humiliating lies. I have more self respect than to not be bigoted against such people and things. It is a shame you don’t.

              And yes it probably will be criminal at some point to tell the truth and no you will not be right there with me. If you won’t stand up for the truth now when the only consiquence of doing so is being called a “bigot”, you will not stand up for it when the consiquence is jail. You will just rub your chin and say what a shame it is and how wrong the law is but you won’t break the law or commit any act of civil disobedience. You will just virtue signal about you care about the evil bigots’ rights to.

              Totalitarianism doesn’t come from government. It comes from society. And by humiliating yourself and lying for the approval of the totalitarians you have internalized the oppression and submitted to it.

              Ask yourself this, is there anythiugn you won’t say if saying it is deemed “polite” or tolerant? what is your line. What lie won’t you tell if you are told to tell it. You don’t have one. The next lie they tell you to tell you will tell it just like you are telling this one.

              1. If you won’t stand up for the truth now when the only consiquence of doing so is being called a “bigot”, you will not stand up for it when the consiquence is jail.

                Oh fuck off. I’m fairly agnostic about this whole issue, but there’s a world of difference between being called a bigot and being thrown in jail. I don’t want anyone to be imprisoned for anything they say (imminent threats aside, etc), whether it be a Holocaust denier or someone who can’t say the words “Chelsea Manning” without having an ulcer.

                1. Look dumb ass. They don’t just one day criminalize something. It starts by getting people to believe that something is bad.

                  And if you think telling the truth about Manning being a man is the same as denying the holocoust you are a fucking moron and beyond hope already. He is not a woman and never will be. Genes mean something.

              2. “Once your faith persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life…. Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.”—Voltaire

          2. <Or it could just be common courtesy. I don’t think you should be compelled to call anyone by any pronoun other than the one you choose. But I also don’t see a benefit personally in not acquiescing to someone’s wishes in this particular case.

            It was polite to tell Big Brother how much you loved him. He liked that. Call it politeness doesn’t make it any less of a lie or any less degrading to tell it.

            How would you like it if I insisted on calling you she/her against your wishes, and then demanded you to prove your gender to me if you wanted me to change?

            You can call reality anything you like. If you want to pretend it is something other than what it is, that is your problem not mine. I don’t owe you anything other than scorn if you want to lie and pretend.

            All you are doing here is rationalizing your submission. Yes, you are being tolerant and polite by telling this lie and degrading yourself. That is the entire point.

        2. “You may enjoy a boot on your face but I don’t and never will”

          Was it not just a few post ago that you make the argument that someone must answer questions in court?

          The boot is fine so long as it is you who gets to decide who’s face it is planted.

      2. And yes, I am very bigoted towards the mentally ill who insist on my playing along with their illness.

      3. >>>If even 80 year old Ron Paul

        wwrpd?

        1. He’d look in their pants – if he saw a vagina it’s a girl – if there’s a cock, it’s a boy.

    3. And if he/she doesn’t want to incriminate anyone else?

      1. He can go to jail. You lose sight of the larger issue here because you don’t like the crime. Take your objection to the crime out of it. What if instead of espionage this were a murder case and Manning knew who the killers were but refused to tell the court when asked. Would you think Manning was so noble then? Do you think his right “not to cooperate” should trump the victim’s right to justice and society’s right to have a dangerous person put in prison? I don’t.

        1. I just dont think the state has a constitutional right to compel witnesses for Grand Juries or for a prosecution. Defendants DO have a constitutional right (6A) to compel witnesses in their favor to attend.

          Even the Founders gave a decided advantage to defendants with regard to witness being forced to testify. It was by design to make the state’s position to go after people more difficult.

          1. So,victims have no rights in this process? Why is the victims’ interest in justice have no weight in the procedings while the defendents’ interests in defending himself do? They both should have weight. And while a guilty person going to jail is worse than one walking free, a guilty person walking free is still a harm and something that your right to not snitch on your friends should outweigh.

            1. The case is being brought forth by the state, though, not the victims. And no, I’d prefer that the state couldn’t compel my speech in any case, even if it means bad things might go unpunished.

              1. So if I am a crooked cop and my buddy frames you and throws you in prison, my right to be an asshole and not be compelled to rat out my buddy outweighs your right to not be framed?

                This is why no one takes Libertarians seriously. They are incapable of balancing different interests or understanding there could ever be such a thing as a lesser of two evils or a moral dilema.

                1. I’m an An-Cap. Show me how I’m logically inconsistent.

                  There are no “balancing of interests” and the “lesser” evil may not be.

                  Always do the right thing, damn the consequences. I’m not a Utilitarian of any kind.

                  If a Nazi asks you if you are hiding Jews in your attic, and you don’t want to lie or refuse to answer and give away that there are, then you SHOOT THE NAZI!

                  1. Lying is technically speaking an evil and a bad thing to do, except when it isn’t. It is always a balancing of interests. If it were not, then there would be no need for practical eithics and there would be no such thing as an ethical dilema.

                    Your Nazi example is rife with dilemas. What if hiding the Jews puts your children’s life in danger? If they Nazis find the Jew they shoot not just you but your entire family. Where do you get off having the right to risk your children’s lives without their consent? But turning in the Jews is wrong too.

                    1. “Lying is technically speaking an evil and a bad thing to do, except when it isn’t.”

                      It always is.

                      “It is always a balancing of interests.”

                      John: “Thou shalt not murder, unless…”

                      “What if hiding the Jews puts your children’s life in danger?”

                      Shoot the Nazi.

                      “If they Nazis find the Jew they shoot not just you but your entire family.”

                      Shoot the Nazi.

                      “Where do you get off having the right to risk your children’s lives without their consent?”

                      I’m their caretaker until they age out. Then they can shoot the Nazi.

                      Did you read that part about not being a Utilitarian, John? I’m not really concerned about results, only doing the right thing, which is an absolute.

                    2. “Where do you get off having the right to risk your children’s lives without their consent?“

                      It’s not the Jews hiding in the attic that is putting the children’s lives at risk.

                      It’s the Nazis.

                2. The only people who have this moral dilemma, are those that believe that choosing evil is a correct answer.

                  They attempt to quantify the evil as “lesser” than others, but in the end, they always choose evil.

  13. http://www.janusmotorcycles.com/halcyon-250-2019

    These things are way cool. I think I would want one of these over a Royal Enfield.

  14. 18 years, thousands of dead, trillions of dollars. We’re right back where we started. Our leaders have failed us. It’s time our troops in Afghanistan came home.

    Putin’s favorite Democrat Tulsi Gabbard continues to promote a cowardly foreign policy. She’s still by far the worst Democrat running for President.

    1. Come on, you know Obama ended that war years ago.

  15. Reason finally publishes a review of They Shall Not Grow old, six months too late and failing to mention Mademoiselle From Armentières. What a cesspool of mellinial philistines reason has become.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9mCN9eeYXM

    1. I’m thinking they did it five months late to give you something to complain about. For proof, I offer the fact that you had nothing to say about it when the movie was out.

      1. I had a lot to say about it and saw it in the theater. But don’t let reality get in the way of your usual “leave reason alone!!” cry de coeur.

        1. I guess I missed all your comments complaining about Reason not covering the movie when it was out. It happens.

          1. I am sure I have missed plenty of your cri de coeurs.

            1. Probably. I do so many every day that even I lose track of them all.

  16. “Report: Air Quality Harmed as Texas Oil Production Booms”
    […]
    “…There were at least 30 occasions from December 2016 to April of this year that sulfur dioxide levels measured at one location exceeded federal health standards, according to the report, adding that oil and gas operators in and around Ector County self-reported 2,564 unauthorized releases of air pollution from 2014 to 2017.”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2019-05-09/report-air-quality-harmed-as-texas-oil-production-booms

    So it seems of 2,564 releases, 30 over the span of 30 months have resulted in (unspecified) over-spec amounts of one gas?
    Do we have a fainting couch available?

    1. Understand also that “exceeding federal health standards” can and likely does mean at one moment during the day it exceeded the levels in one place.

    2. Not that there is anyone living in West Texas, but it takes some fraction of a thousandth of the federal health standards to make the whole countryside smell like rotten assholes, if you are really talking about air quality.

      1. Not that there is anyone living in DC, but it takes some fraction of a thousandth of the Congress to make the whole countryside smell like rotten assholes, if you are really talking about air quality.

  17. The Senate removed an amendment that added exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

    If your belief is that it is a life, then how can you justify this exception in the first place.

    1. Rape life /= real life

      because rape

  18. So, was there a motion?

  19. Comey comedy.
    https://tinyurl.com/yxnhd3z7

    Mr. Comey also dismissed another defense of Mr. Trump — that the president by definition cannot obstruct justice by exercising his legitimate constitutional powers to run the executive branch.

    “The president is not above the law.” he said, calling the theory pushed by, among others, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz “crazy and a recipe for lawlessness.”

    More like obstruction of injustice in this case. No underlying crime, no crime by Trump, all resulting from an illegitimate FISA warrant put in place through a baseless dossier. Hmmmmm……

    1. The FBI keeps trying to restore the unconstitutional and extralegal independence from the Executive Branch it had under J. Edgar Hoover and to which it feels entitled.

    2. Comey calling Dershowitz crazy is cute.

  20. This is for you legal eagles:

    What if he petitions for release on the grounds that the warrant of commitment describes a different person – a female person – when he is clearly male?

    I guess he’d fire his lawyer for attempting that.

    1. He’d be held in the male side of the prison if he did that.

      1. gently

  21. “she”

  22. Bradley Manning.

  23. Please, please, please. No more Bradley/Chelsea pictures. He wasn’t pretty to start with. The makeup doesn’t help.

  24. […] Chelsea Manning was allowed to leave the federal detention center in Virginia. She had been held there since early March in an attempt to compel her testimony to a grand jury about Manning’s 2010 release of a huge cache of government documents to WikiLeaks. “Today marked the expiration of the term of the grand jury, and so, after 62 days of confinement, Chelsea was released from the Alexandria Detention Center,” Manning’s lawyers said in a Thursday statement. But the whistleblower is still not […] Chelsea Manning Freed From Federal Detention but May Have to Return Next Week: Reason … […]

  25. […] federal courthouse in Virginia. She is now back behind bars for this refusal, after being released just last week from 68 days’ confinement (much of it in […]

  26. […] courthouse in Virginia. She is now back behind bars for this refusal, after being released just last week from 68 days’ confinement (much of it in […]

  27. […] federal courthouse in Virginia. She is now back behind bars for this refusal, after being released just last week from 68 days’ confinement (much of it in […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.