Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning Freed Again, but Her Refusal to Testify Comes With a $256,000 Price Tag

She was imprisoned for a year as she resisted a grand jury's investigation of WikiLeaks.

|

Chelsea Manning will be released from federal detention, but her freedom comes with a court debt of $256,000. Such is the price of resisting a subpoena.

Manning is famous for passing along archives of military documents to WikiLeaks while she worked as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. She was caught, arrested, and convicted of several espionage charges (but acquitted of having "aided the enemy"). She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but President Barack Obama commuted her sentence and freed her near the end of his second term.

Yet her troubles weren't over. The Department of Justice was still trying to build a case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. It subpoenaed Manning and tried to force her to testify to a grand jury about her relationship with WikiLeaks. She refused to cooperate, even after they granted her immunity, and was jailed for this almost exactly a year ago.

Even after Assange was charged with several counts of espionage (itself a dangerous assault on the First Amendment rights of anybody engaging in the act of journalism), the feds hung on to Manning, imprisoning her again after the first subpoena expired.

Now a judge has finally ended her detention, ruling yesterday that "Ms. Manning's appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose." United States District Judge Anthony Trenga then ordered her immediate release.

But she also was being fined $1,000 per day for contempt for her refusal to testify in addition to her imprisonment. Trenga is maintaining that judgment against her, ordering her to pay $256,000 in fines she racked up during that time, stating that the payments are "necessary to the coercive purpose of the Court's civil contempt order."

The imprisonment appears to have been terrible (again) for Manning, and earlier in the week her lawyers reported she had attempted suicide. She also attempted suicide during her original sentence for her leaking back in 2016.

NEXT: New York Bans Gatherings of 500 People Unless They Are Children Penned in Enclosed Spaces

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. “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
    If he didn’t want to face consequences, he should not have betrayed his oath and country.

    1. Did not betray anybody except the police state you seem so enamored of.

      Read the Declaration of Independence sometime, and ponder how well it applies today more than in 1776.

      1. When you get a security clearance, you agree to not divulge that information under penalty of law. This is completely voluntary, no one is ever forced to get a clearance or agree to those terms. If you do and then leak stuff anyways, that is a betrayal.

        The government has a very solid breach of contract case here. Even if you agree that releasing all that information was good for society, he still broke a contract he had when he did it. Enforcing contractual agreements and preventing (or punishing) fraud are legitimate roles of government under libertarian thinking, no?

        The government isn’t making that argument, but the whole “Manning did nothing wrong!” crowd isn’t right either. It may have been a net positive, but this person definitely did something wrong to get there.

        1. My oath to the constitution preempts my religion, my family, my life and any and all government rules or contracts.

          Manning acted correctly. The contract with the feds is made illegally and in bad faith.

          1. By this logic, keeping any secrets from foreign nations is unconstitutional. A curious view, to be sure.

            1. By that logic, you could fit anybody into size 0 pants.

              1. You can, depending how much flesh you’re willing to carve off.

                Manning only ‘acted correctly’ if he knew what he was releasing, which notably he did not. That isn’t proportional, or even sane when you consider that diplomats say unfavorable things about foreign dignitaries on the regular.

                Flushing tons of documents out into the open about our diplomats abroad isn’t quite the same thing as illustrating actual illegal activity within our intelligence services, wouldn’t you say? What horrible abuses did Manning shed light on, again?

                1. Murder of civilians by US forces and the coverup that followed.

                  1. So I take it if you fire bomb a city, as long as you nail one or two rapists it’s all good then.

                    1. No.

                      If the US military firebombs a city in violation of treaty and the US Constitution and the ROE, exposing the video of it to the American people after the military tried to cover it up, is a good thing.


                    2. No.

                      If the US military firebombs a city in violation of treaty and the US Constitution and the ROE, exposing the video of it to the American people after the military tried to cover it up, is a good thing.

                      But they got the one bad guy in that city, which is enough to excuse the rest as you’ve repeatedly pointed out. Doesn’t matter what else Manning leaked, there was one bad thing there. It could have been nuclear missile codes and that would be fine. Right?

                      Oh, sorry, I forget we’re basing arguments on belief, lies, and feelings. Carry on.

          2. My oath to the constitution preempts my religion, my family, my life and any and all government rules or contracts.

            All I hear is “When my wife says women and black people can vote I tell her to shut the hell up!”

          3. This isn’t even about an oath. When you get a security clearance you are agreeing to certain rules. If you can’t uphold those rules, then don’t agree. If you agree then fail, then you can be punished.
            This is more like a voluntary contract agreement than upholding an oath.

            I have little sympathy for those who agree to rule, then break them. If you don’t like the rules, don’t agree to them.

            Also, the military works under the UCMJ which you voluntary agree to when you enlist. I believe SCOTUS as agreed that you can voluntarily give up constitutional rights.

          4. My oath to the constitution preempts my religion, my family, my life and any and all government rules or contracts.

            You realize that your oath to the Constitution that you swear upon enlistment is actually a contract that requires you to follow the lawful orders of people appointed over you? And that the NDA you sign for a clearance is one of those orders?

            You should probably give a long hard think about what you think you know about that oath you swore…because you’re wrong. And Manning is a traitor.

            1. I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God).”

              That’s true, unless those orders are in fact, unconstitutional.

            2. Lawful orders cannot include lying to Congress. Manning exposed that the system to report malfeasance was irreparably broken by a completely lawless government.

              The cover up was the crime exposed.

              It cannot ever be a crime to expose criminal activity. Manning exposed criminal activity by the US Military and a corrupt administration and they are illegally pursuing a campaign of malicious prosecution for exposing them.

              1. And yet, we have intelligence community members that lied directly to congress and got off the hook. The same intelligence community that also got off the hook for what Snowden exposed.

                But thank god we know that some civilians died in a war zone illegally. After all, everyone knows that shit doesn’t happen. Not to lessen the horribleness of war, but that is war. What Snowden exposed is just daily life here in the U.S., in direct violation of the law and constitution, and you’ll note it’s still going on.

                We can argue over which is ‘worse’, but it’s hard to ignore that Snowden didn’t fuck over anyone innocent whereas Manning sure as shit did. And Snowden is the only one of the two that’s probably going to die in a foreign country for his revelations. Probably at the end of a CIA-funded gun too, but that strays a bit into conspiracy theory territory I suppose.

                1. I am not trying to compare Snowden to Manning.

                  I would not convict either.

                  However, I would LOVE to see Snowden brought back to run the NSA. I would not hire Manning to stock shelves at a grocery store.

                  Anyway you slice it, the issue here is that the federal government of the United States illegally covered up illegal activities and were outed with incontrovertible evidence published to the American people and the world and we the people are powerless to bring them to justice despite overwhelming evidence of criminal activity.

                  Manning is nothing. The lying, cheating feds are a problem we need to deal with.


                  1. Anyway you slice it, the issue here is that the federal government of the United States illegally covered up illegal activities and were outed with incontrovertible evidence published to the American people and the world and we the people are powerless to bring them to justice despite overwhelming evidence of criminal activity.

                    And any way you slice it, Manning didn’t give a fuck about collateral damage with his releases which sort of blunts the appeal of defending him. The fact he released ‘damning’ information that was already public also helps blunt the idea he was a patriot of any stripe.

                    1. The literal violence of refusing to use proper pronouns in this thread is appalling.

                    2. Not calling him a patriot. Just saying prosecuting him smells worse than anything he did.

                      I am not a Manning fan. I just think Clapper and Hillary and Bush and Obama and the list goes on and on of people we should be prosecuting far more aggressively than Manning.

                      Let Manning go. Federal law makes violating the 6th amendment a crime. In a year we will have all forgotten him.

                      I will never forget Hillary and Obama abandoning our soldiers during combat in Benghazi. Never EVER!

                    3. Ah, cool. I think Jeb here is just another sock after all. I should have known.

              2. Lawful orders cannot include lying to Congress. Manning exposed that the system to report malfeasance was irreparably broken by a completely lawless government.

                Actually, no, he didn’t. He didn’t know what he leaked. He just randomly grabbed classified material and sent it out.

                Manning’s case didn’t involve anyone lying to Congress.

        2. “Government” is a concept. You can’t enter into a contract with a concept.

      2. Not really. It wasn’t like Manning discovered something and then handed it over. Manning just handed over. Had zero idea of what they were distributing. Released everything they could get their hands on. Just wanted to be the next Snowden. Snowden provided things that were useful and didn’t put lives at stake. Manning provided troop locations, plans, etc. Just so happens there was some dirt in there.

        1. It wasn’t like Manning discovered something and then handed it over. Manning just handed over.

          THIS.

          Snowden saw wrongdoing by the government and whistleblew to the people. Manning just downloaded confidential material randomly because he was assmad, some of it got people killed.

          Snowden is a hero and should be given a pardon and a medal, Manning can rot in jail for all I care.

        2. Manning is an angry petulant little homo who was pouting over how much he didn’t serving in the military, which he entered voluntarily, and of HIS own will. Then HE chose to violate his national security agreement as part of HIS tantrum. Not for any altruistic, or patriotic reason.

          So really, the little asshole deserves what HE gets, and it’s a real shame that the recent suicide attempt wasn’t successful. Then we wouldn’t have to endure any more nonsense from this attention seeking little drama queen.

          1. He also assaulted coworkers (including a female) and he should have been kicked out of the military long before he was.

            Manning is a piece of shit.

            1. I wasn’t aware of that. So he’s even worse than I said.

          2. And you know this petulant little homo so well how??

            1. What the hell?

              1. Sorry, I hate ad hominem and reacted poorly. My apologies. You simply stated your opinion and did not deserve my reply.

          3. Robert Bergdahl too.

            Fucking whiny bitches.

            1. Bergdahl IMO is not in the same class and should be tried, found guilty and shot.

              1. But in your view, his leaving a corrupt and illegal military was heroism. Why then would you have him shot? Treason is patriotism, after all.

                Holding the ideas that the federal government is inherently corrupt along with the idea the military should shoot deserters is…a curious mental loop you’ve constructed.

                1. The federal government is not inherently corrupt.

                  The actions Manning exposed were.

                  When our government is corrupt, it is because of the actions of it’s agents, not because it was created to be so.

                  The difference between Manning and Bergdahl to me is that Manning believed he had evidence of serious criminal activity that demonstrated specific and egregious government corruption.

                  Bergdahl believes government, or at least the US government, is “inherently” corrupt. That is a profound distinction and a view shared by the likes of Bernie Sanders and that AOC nutjob.

                  1. Maybe he only believed they were inherently corrupt because he knew about those civilian deaths, yo. Prove he didn’t without relying on the military that covered up the deaths in the first place, according to you.

        3. “Had zero idea of what they were distributing.”

          Did Manning have a mouse in his pocket?

      3. I think you might be thinking of Snowden rather than Manning.

        Dumping a ton of shit out of the State department that you didn’t even read out into the open as a temper tantrum isn’t quite the same thing as revealing unconstitutional behavior by the intelligence services.

        It’s also worth nothing that no one really gives a shit about Manning or what he released. He’s off pretty much scott free, whereas Snowden can’t return to the U.S. without fearing for his life.

        Guess Obama didn’t feel that Snowden deserved any consideration when he was busy letting Manning out of jail.

        1. Oh, and nevermind that Manning only ‘got off’ because the government was pretty sure they could use him to get a guy that seems to actually believe in freedom of information.

        2. I owe no loyalty to any State. I owe loyalty to fellow humans who do not agress against me.

          1. It’s not even a question of loyalty, dunce. We know Manning wasn’t loyal, but the thing here is that he was dangerously disloyal and a tool to boot.

            I’d bet if you were a diplomat to Saudi Arabia who reported abuses by the regime you would feel pretty agressed upon if supposedly classified communications with an expectation of privacy were, say, mailed directly to the house of Saud without redaction and with your name and addressed emblazoned at the top.

            I defend Snowden for his actions, he at least seems to be trying to curtail actual illegal abuses by the government. We can not say the same of Manning, and it has nothing to do with his gender-swap fantasies.

            1. Manning exposed murder of civilians by US soldiers.

              I would not suggest anyone committing murder while in uniform should expect privacy in any way.

              You are assuming the things Manning exposed were not criminal acts that violated multiple treaties and the US Constitution as well as the oaths the soldiers took. They absolutely were criminal acts just as egregious as the FBI coup against Donald Trump.

              This is just the deep state maliciously prosecuting the people who saw the crimes and tried to say something about them.

              1. We should all be thankful that Manning got lucky that there was something in there, but then we’d have to explain why he released all that other shit that had nothing to do with malfeasance huh.

                After all, as long as you kill one bad actor you are excused for all the innocent people you shot around them. Some moral framework you have there.

                1. I don’t know that Manning published without first believing there was malfeasance. Maybe you know, but I don’t and won’t speculate.

                  Once there is evidence of criminal activity you follow where the evidence takes you. Manning exposed not only the murders but the cover up to conceal the evidence.

                  When Eric Garner was murdered by Pantaleo the only person arrested and charged with a crime was the guy who shot the video and published it to Youtube.

                  This is the same cover up. We have been dealing with this so long the Declaration of Independence itemizes this same behavior as an act of war that demands a response.

                  1. So I take it you agree. If you firebomb a city, but burn a few rapists, it’s totally A-Ok. Collateral damage is fine if you catch some insurgents. Some civilian deaths are fine as long as you get one bad guy.

                    Full fucking circle.

                    1. No I don’t agree.

                      Firebombing a city of civilians is unconstitutional just like the sacking of Atlanta was unconstitutional.

                      Lincoln should have been hanged. Boothe is a hero and always was.


                    2. Lincoln should have been hanged. Boothe is a hero and always was.

                      Ah, I see. You really are just 100% crazy.

          2. I owe loyalty to fellow humans who do not agress against me.

            Bradley took an oath to his fellow soldiers and forsook that oath and loyalty with the information he shared. Those fellow soldiers never aggressed against him and may never even have known him.

        3. Snowden didn’t pretend to be a woman like Manning does. That was the difference for Obama.

        4. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bradley-manning-leaks_n_3788126

          Manning was sentenced to 35 years. The thugs at Abu Ghraib only got 10.

          Snowden for President 2024.

          1. I think he should come back from Russia to try and run for elected office.

            He won’t make it out of the airport without getting snatched up by the FBI and sent to jail, but he should definitely try. It’ll save us a lot of time and paperwork.

      4. He betrayed hundreds of people in the field resulting in many deaths and a loss of resources America.
        Unlike Snowden, Manning did not care who was harmed or killed.
        Can you imagine the hysteria if Trump had made such a political and pandering pardon?? Worse than pardoning Roger Stone!

    2. Bradley kept his oath. The US Federal govt has not, will not and has no intention of ever keeping their oaths.

      We lose nothing by setting this little geek home.

      We trample the Bill of Rights by keeping him/her/it in prison for exercising the rights gifted us by our Creator and protected by our constitution to the detriment of liberty and justice for all.

      Judge needs to be captured, tried and found guilty for violations of title 18 sections 241 and 242 and incarcerated per the law. Legal immunity for govt employees is an act of war per the D of I and needs to be treated as such.

      1. Bradley kept his oath.

        He kept no oath. God? Country? Corps? Which one did he keep an oath to? Even your fabricated “Oath to the Constitution”, show me where it comes remotely close to covering what he did? Where does the constitution say anything about soldiers not covering up actions they believe to be illegal in a foreign conflict? Not even the most liberal of military judges would find him innocent.

        1. Human rights.

          What oath has the US government, or any government, ever kept to the humans who created it and supposedly control it?

          1. So it’s a human right to reveal private communications between diplomats and the State Department? I take it when you send emails to your beer buddies you aren’t at all mad when people open them and read them aloud to your coworkers?

          2. Human rights.

            OK, show me the oath to human rights that Manning took. Seems to me that someone who took an oath to human rights was either forsaking the oath by joining any military, forsaking it by having joined the military and then taking the oat or was doing all of the above in bag faith.

            1. ‘oat bag’?

              ‘taking the oath, or was doing all of the above in bad faith.’

              Damned phone.

              1. Totally need an edit button here… 🙂

        2. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the lawful orders of the president. The orders he received were unlawful as they covered up illegal murders of civilians by US soldiers.

          Once he discovered those crimes his duty was to report them. Since the reporting mechanism was compromised by an illegal attempt to cover up the crimes, Manning did what ALL Americans do. He spoke out to the American people and brought proof of criminal actions.

          I would not expect any judge to be liberal particularly a military judge. However, the reason we put a civilian in charge of the military is to ensure civilian control and civilian rules to govern over the military.

          In this case military rules and protocol were specifically broken by the highest echelons of the service (just like they did with FISA and that Navy Seal Trump Pardoned). It is our duty as civilians to ensure control of our military and this is one way that is done.

          Our government and our military are off the rails and have been for 20 years. Discipline is out the window. Manning is a symptom. Not the cause.

          Obama (who I intensely disliked) did one or two things right. Pardoning Manning is one of them.

          1. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and obey the lawful orders of the president. The orders he received were unlawful as they covered up illegal murders of civilians by US soldiers.

            So you’re able to name the soldier who gave Manning an illegal order? Because he was not ordered to cover up any illegal murders, there was no cover up, and you’re full of shit. The “illegal murders” had already been disclosed by the WSJ, two of whom’s reporters were killed in the exchange, and Manning took files from a JAG (outside even his supervisor’s command). Manning basically stole court documents in the proceedings or investigation of the “crime” you claim he was disclosing. It’s just as likely he fucked up a criminal trial as blew the whistle on “illegal murders”.

            Even if you don’t agree with my assessment and are wholly willing to subscribe to whatever flights of fancy Manning may’ve had, he plead guilty. Meaning you have to fabricate a complete other story separate from Manning’s, the military, and the WSJ to rectify your story with anything resembling reality.

            Since the reporting mechanism was compromised by an illegal attempt to cover up the crimes,

            This is *unequivocal* horseshit. Manning released internal documents of events and crimes already known. Moreover, no attempt was made by Manning to notify the chain of command. Manning had a history, almost since the beginning, of raising false alarms to the chain of command about personal issues which they could do nothing about. If the Army failed at anything it was at not having kicked Manning to the curb harder, faster, and sooner. And a big part of the reason they failed at that mission was because of shitbags like you that, whether you liked Obama or not, cheered him for pardoning Manning while treating more principled and more vital oath keepers, dissident or not, worse.

            1. Notifying the VA chain of command of illegal activity in a hospital gets people fired. Epstein didn’t commit suicide, he had evidence and was murdered.

              The men who tried to stop the massacre at My Lai were similarly denounced as traitors by members of Congress and the US military. That was in the 60s. Today they would be ‘suicided’.

              If a soldier witnesses a crime by other soldiers and sees the cover up, what exactly is his duty? Did we not hang the SS for violating German law against murder when they just followed orders?

              What is the higher law, the Constitution or orders?

              I understand military discipline. I am suggesting such discipline has been undermined by multiple corrupt US regimes and that to regain it, we need accountability at the highest levels.

              If I see a police officer commit murder, do you want me to report him to the police?? In 1980 I would have. In 2020, not a chance. I would report him to the people and let the mob have him because there can be no justice in a post 9/11 US federal court.

              Which by the way is why 90% of people charged by the feds plead guilty. It doesn’t mean they are. It means they can’t win in a rigged court.

              1. Notifying the VA chain of command of illegal activity in a hospital gets people fired. Epstein didn’t commit suicide, he had evidence and was murdered.

                The men who tried to stop the massacre at My Lai were similarly denounced as traitors by members of Congress and the US military. That was in the 60s. Today they would be ‘suicided’.

                If a soldier witnesses a crime by other soldiers and sees the cover up, what exactly is his duty?

                What does this have to do with crimes that Manning didn’t witness?

                You seem to be fundamentally confused about who broke the law and who didn’t.

                I understand military discipline.

                You don’t understand any discipline, military or otherwise. You can’t avoid lying for attention except to find a shinier object to focus your attention on.

                1. I believe Manning broke a lower law in reporting the violations of MUCH higher law. It seems a former president agreed.

                  I also think Manning is seriously mentally ill and that issuing a subpoena to testify for the prosecution of another is against the 6th amendment of the US Constitution.

                  In both cases it seems to me, our government is prosecuting a pipsqueak in an effort to cover up much larger crimes against the Constitution.

                  Trump was right. The game is rigged. There are two sets of rules in play.

                  Part of discipline is staying on topic and part is controlling one’s self. Calling people names is not conducive to reasonable or disciplined conversation. Please be civil. 🙂

        3. Which one did he keep an oath to?

          You’re asking an idiot who keeps forgetting what case he’s talking about (mixing up Snowden and Manning) to logically explain his alleged train of thought.

          Don’t try to get blood from a stone.

          1. No, I know the difference.

            I would forget Manning and promote Snowden.

            I would also try to remove that judge for violating title 18 sect 242 for issuing a subpoena that forces someone to testify for the prosecution.

      2. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You just blindly hate government. Which isn’t any better than blindly trusting government.

        1. Sorry, carried a CEOI behind the iron curtain during the cold war.

          I am well aware of the rules and the law.

          I don’t hate anything or anyone. I love our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence and will support them to my dying breath.

          1. How do you feel about upholding voluntary agreements between two parties?

            1. I support them so long as the agreement is made in good faith.

              1. The agreement is basically you are privy to secret information, and you keep your mouth shut about secret information.

                1. Not always… Serpico, Snowden for example.

                  Both are examples of a deal made in bad faith where secrets were being kept to the detriment of Americans and in violation of the US Constitution and Federal law.

          2. So when you were supposedly a CEOI behind the iron curtain, you released all the signals information you received to the soviets?

            Gosh, so brave!

          3. Sorry, carried a CEOI behind the iron curtain during the cold war.

            Bullshit.

            When you were just wrong I didn’t have a problem with it. Willfully lying makes you worse than scum than Clapper and anyone you claim to have been covering up ‘illegal murders’.

            Fuck off and die. We probably would’ve won the Cold War sooner without you.

            1. Hey now, as long as he released classified information to the Russians while he was supposedly over there he can still be intellectually consistent.

              Unless, of course, he thinks that American forces never killed some civilians in the cold war. A claim that, I would note, no on could rationally believe. Any civilian deaths on the part of American forces would justify releasing troop locations and nuclear missile location to the Soviets. Anything less would be unconstitutional.

              /sarc, just in case.

              1. The prosecution of Manning is about protecting people who need to be held accountable, not about prosecuting Manning.

                1. Who was protected by Manning being prosecuted, exactly? ‘Those people’, am I right?

                  1. In this case, the judge and agents illegally prosecuting Assange.

                    Just like prosecuting the Bundys deflected charges away from the criminals at the FBI who violated the Constitution during the raid. The did the same at Waco and at Ruby Ridge too.

                    It’s legal sleight of hand to get the masses to think they are doing something when really all it does is enhance the narrative of the cover up.

            2. I did a good job keeping the CEOI, KY-57 Vincon and fills safe. I stole a few of them from Battalion TOCs during CIC training to help our boys learn to keep them close but always gave them back, after a day of them panicking and searching of course. 🙂

              I wore mine around my neck with 550 cord even when jumping because I would rather have died due to decapitation than lost my CEOI.

              Nope. I joined freely and left honorably and if you did too, thank you for your service, brother.

              1. Please, explain why you didn’t leak classified material to the Soviets even though America was illegally killing civilians at the time. Bonus points if it actually makes coherent sense.

                1. I was not aware of us killing civilians at any time. Had I been, I would have been obligated to report such crimes. At no time would that obligate me to hand over a CEOI.

                  Do you enjoy seeing your straw man burn?

              2. I wore mine around my neck with 550 cord even when jumping because I would rather have died due to decapitation than lost my CEOI.

                So you tied the files around your neck with 550 paracord? Lemme guess, you delivered briefcases full of money, handcuffed to your wrist, to the Panamanians too.

                I joined freely and left honorably

                No you didn’t.

                1. So you tied the files around your neck with 550 paracord?

                  Yep. It was a little booklet bound with a steel ring about the size and shape of my Ranger Handbook. We didn’t even wear wrist watches or rings for static line jumps, but that book never left me from the time it was issued until the time I returned it.

                  Lemme guess, you delivered briefcases full of money, handcuffed to your wrist, to the Panamanians too.

                  This is just being silly…

                  1. This is just being silly…

                    So is “I jumped out of a plane behind the iron curtain with secret codes tied around my neck for a ranger battalion during the cold war.”

                    1. Not sure what you find silly. We took it deadly serious.

                      Don’t call me a Ranger. I never went for that qualification. I would have had to re-enlist to get a shot at it.

                      I was airborne infantry and to get an M21 you spend 6 months as an RTO and 203 gunner. To run a PRC77 in Berlin in ’87 you needed a Vinson and a CEOI.

                    2. Not sure what you find silly. We took it deadly serious.

                      No you didn’t and you don’t now. There are actual soldiers all over the internet. In one thread you’ve bragged about you exploits more than all of them combined. More importantly, it’s not like your deeds lend greater credibility to your arguments and if you’d done the job you claimed to do, you would know that.

                      I was airborne infantry and to get an M21 you spend 6 months as an RTO and 203 gunner. To run a PRC77 in Berlin in ’87 you needed a Vinson and a CEOI.

                      M21 as in the weapon system? So, secret codes behind the iron curtain *and* you were a sniper?

                      You’re so full of shit.

    3. He was and is a traitor to his nation, and in former days would have been executed on the spot.

    4. Please provide evidence of who that oath was made to.

  2. Bradley Edward Manning is a man.

    1. It’s funny how so many people get so righteous about that shit. Who cares? Only people who have no better argument. They know they have no plausible attacks on the message (governments suck, voluntary wars suck, standing armies suck, corruption sucks) so they fall back on attacking the messenger.

      Go fuck yourself, slaver-of-missing-intellect.

      1. I’m not righteous about it. I just made a statement and you overreacted like a tranny with an autoimmune disorder.

        With all due respect, go fuck YOURSELF, faggot.

        1. Burn that straw! Is that what you meant by “faggot”?

          1. Fuck off.
            GG’s right you know.

      2. Historical accuracy isn’t attacking a messenger and, if it is, the messenger has loads of issues with rationality and personal integrity and shouldn’t be trusted. Bradley Manning worked as an intelligence officer, shared the documents, got caught, and convicted. The narrative may be that Bradley then became Chelsea or the person who was formerly known as Bradley did those things.

        But you wouldn’t say (except to reinforce your own delusional idiocy) that monarch caterpillars migrate south every year because they don’t, despite being the same creature of a different form.

        1. Insulting a messenger instead of rebutting the message is the definition.

          1. Insulting a messenger instead of rebutting the message is the definition.

            Prove it.

      3. Get some perspective……..

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpnV5ao7h4

    2. Now he’s a Eunuch.

    3. He’s a man, but he’s allowed to change his name. Like Henry Deutschendorf (aka John Denver).

      1. Stage names are very different than delusional mental patients demanding that we all enable them to sustain the delusion that they are not the gender they were born as.

    4. …and no amount of bizarre surgery will change that genetic code.

  3. “She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but President Barack Obama commuted her sentence and freed her near the end of *his* second term.” [emphasis added]

    Oops.

    1. Never mind, Obama’s second term. And he still identifies as a man, so all’s good.

      1. By every account including his own, Bradley was still a man when he was sentenced.

        1. Easier to think of yourself as a woman having sex with men than as a man getting raped by other men in prison.

          1. Easier to insult people than rebut their message or their actions.

            1. Is it an insult? How do you know?

          2. Easier to think of yourself as a woman having sex with men than as a man getting raped by other men in prison.

            Maybe, IDK. Either way, facts is facts, Bradley enlisted, shared the documents, and got caught. Maybe he had ideations about becoming Chelsea before then but, that can’t be reasoned out or determined as fact.

          3. Poor Bradley. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

            1. Have you check with her cell mates?

              1. Did they incarcerate it with men or women?

      2. mom jeans and bike helmet say otherwise.

  4. If you are granted immunity, which he was, you have no right to refuse to testify to a grand jury. If Manning would rather it he go to jail than Assange, that is his choice.

    Reason will occasionally complain about the ability to compel testimony before a grand jury. It never seems to occur to them that the testimony might be needed for a case that it wants justice. If some day a cop refuses to testify against his partner in a shooting case, I seriously doubt reason would be jumping up and down demanding they be allowed to do so without consequence.

    And Manning is a he not a she. It is absolutely pathetic how a magazine that calls itself “reason” will participate in the tyrannical lie know as “transgenderism”.

    1. Notice that when Manning was in prison everyone forgot? It was like silence. It appears that unless you’re posting on social media all the time then those that are considered heroes are quickly forgotten by those claiming that they’re heroes.

    2. And Manning is a he not a she. It is absolutely pathetic how a magazine that calls itself “reason” will participate in the tyrannical lie know as “transgenderism”.

      Entirely unsolicited no less. Like I said above, I could see “reason” or reasonable accommodation in saying Chelsea Manning was just released from prison. I wouldn’t do it but I could see a rationalization. But they state that Chelsea stole the documents, which is, at best, akin to saying tadpoles hop around and eat flies and, moreover, it’s not like Chelsea is phoning them up and saying “You said Bradley shared the documents with Wikileaks, please correct this.” They are willingly choosing to engage in self-retardation for nothing other than their own purposes.

      1. I agree. They should change their name to “Dogma”, and their catch phrase to “PC minds and PC markets”

    3. “”If you are granted immunity, which he was, you have no right to refuse to testify to a grand jury.””

      Perhaps they should revoke the immunity and file new charges.

      1. The government has no power to force witnesses to testify, except to compel witnesses for Defendants (6th Amendment).

        1. That has nothing to do with your refusal to testify against someone else. That would allow her to compel witnesses for her defense.

    4. If you are granted immunity, which he was, you have no right to refuse to testify to a grand jury. If Manning would rather it he go to jail than Assange, that is his choice.

      That’s exactly what happened. Manning’s sentence on the espionage charges were commuted by Obama. Not sure why that discussion is dominating the comments. If you have a problem with that then blame Obama, not Manning.

      She served her time for the failure to testify to a grand jury and should be released because there is no longer a grand jury to testify to. We shouldn’t hold her in prison forever just because we are mad that she beat the espionage charge, which is what it seems that many on this comment thread are arguing.

      1. Not sure why that discussion is dominating the comments.

        Because there are shitbags claiming that Manning was a hero for committing the crimes to which he plead guilty. Like calling Bernie Madoff a hero of capitalism.

        We shouldn’t hold her in prison forever just because we are mad that she beat the espionage charge, which is what it seems that many on this comment thread are arguing.

        I haven’t seen anyone say it should still be in prison for refusing to testify. I have seen quibbling that it shouldn’t have been pardoned by Obama, which *is* and argument against Obama.

        There is also, and this has been as much by Manning’s design as anyone’s, long before he was even put in charge of intelligence in Iraq, a distinct question exists of whether Manning is capable of making objective calls about reality and bringing such decisions and information to the chain of command appropriately. His service record prior to and during his service suggests otherwise. It’s just as likely (IMO more) that Manning was found to be too inept or otherwise incapable to have committed espionage rather than knowingly committing espionage for a cause which he should’ve been deemed innocent.

        1. It’s more likely that Snowden was a spy than Manning precisely because Manning is too nutballs to do anything like that intentionally. At best someone could have goaded him into it, but good luck getting the specific material you are after from that guy. Snowden comes across as intelligent and measured, which I would think would be necessary for such a deep cover operative.

          That said, it’s pretty improbable that either of them was a spy in my view.


          We shouldn’t hold her in prison forever just because we are mad that she beat the espionage charge, which is what it seems that many on this comment thread are arguing.

          See, I’ve read plenty of comments about this today and I haven’t seen a single person make that argument. Implied or otherwise.

          Saying that he ‘beat’ the espionage charge is amusing though. He didn’t. He was convicted of it. Implying he was somehow innocent is to rewrite the past, but I won’t pull a ‘seems people are saying’ caveat. I suspect it was a misstatement, even though it seems like a custom made straw man.

    5. There is no authority to force witnesses to testify except for Defendants (see 6th Amendment).

      I know the government would like this power but they simply dont have it.

  5. No one can bring themselves to state the obvious: A mentally deranged person revealed a lot of classified information without even reading it precisely because they were mentally unbalanced.

    No one can bring themselves to say this, it seems, because it would mean admitting that transgender individuals have a disease, like a schizophrenic, and maybe shouldn’t be in charge of things that you don’t want mildly crazy people in charge of.

    I wouldn’t want a manic-depressive to be in charge of, say, explosive ordinance for one. I’m honestly not even saying that just because someone is transgender they can’t keep a secret. It does seem that Bradley was a little too sensitive about their sexuality to be in charge of sensitive information, though.

    In fact, the biggest irony of all this is Mannings actions actually hurt his own cause. Now, in the future, if anyone wants to point out a reason why transgender people shouldn’t serve they can point squarely at him for an example, however unreasonable. Oops!

    Me, I just don’t want anyone with a potentially compromising mental illnesses to be in positions where irrational behavior can have national consequences.

    1. Manning served time for the espionage charge and had her sentence commuted by Obama. She is free of those charges. Don’t like it, then you should have a problem with Obama not Manning.

      Using this grand jury thing to keep her in prison forever because we don’t like that Obama commuted her sentence is ludicrous. Don’t you believe in the rule of law?

      1. Not sure what you think I’m saying, but my point would indeed be that Obama was a fuckwad for letting Manning off the hook while keeping Snowden out of the U.S. for life.

        That doesn’t make Manning any less of a fuckwad himself, of course.

        I’m not in favor of keeping Manning in jail for this particular thing indefinitely, but for what he did before he probably should have stayed there. And I can’t give Obama any positive credit for it since it clearly had nothing to do with what Manning did, but rather who Manning claimed to be after the fact and that his releases didn’t do anywhere close to the amount of damage to his administration as Snowden did.

        Pardon the lesser offense as an olive branch while crushing the guy with weighty revelations into dust. Makes sense to me, and it worked didn’t it? It was probably just a bonus that it also pandered to the LGBTQ alliance, which was one of his wings of support.

        “Most Transparent Administration In History” indeed.

        1. Your previous post didn’t mention Obama once, and mentioned Manning by name, pronoun, and whatever disorder you think she has. You can understand my inability to understand your point was about Obama.

          Thanks for clarifying in the followup though.

          1. I don’t know if you read what you write, but you brought up Obama.

            1. I brought up Obama because your beef for the reason that Manning isn’t in prison for espionage should be with Obama. You even acknowledged that in your next post.

              Anyway, I’m glad that you acknowledged that we shouldn’t keep Manning in prison on this grand jury thing. Many of the comments upthread from you and others made me think that’s what people were in favor of.

              1. I don’t know why you’d think my beef would be primarily with Obama for what Manning did.

                I blame Obama for a shitty call on who to let off the hook, and Manning was a shitheel for what he actually did. They’re two actions, and I’m perfectly capable of thinking they are both shitty for different reasons while still having some overlap on that venn.

                Sort of like how I can think it’s a good thing to let Manning off the hook in this particular case while still thinking he should be in jail for what he did before.

                Glad we’re in agreement on this particular though, indefinite detention is virtually never a good outcome. The only exception to that I can readily think of are people who would otherwise be executed. They can rot for all I care, but at least there’s the chance they might one day be exonerated.

          2. Your previous post didn’t mention Obama once, and mentioned Manning by name, pronoun, and whatever disorder you think she has.

            I think Bradley Manning should still be in prison for espionage. The decision to let him/it/her out was made incorrectly. The decision to let him/it/her out while continuing to pursue Snowden as a criminal is just as, if not more, incorrect *and* inconsistent. The decision to let Manning and Winner out is equally dumb (though Winner is/was considerably less consequential).

            Look ma! No “Obama” (or “Trump”).

          3. Leo, there is o ‘she’ involved here. Period.

        2. I agree, Obama let Manning off the hook to score political points. Obama is a known liar so I really doubt he cared about the information Manning divulged, only insofar as it did not reveal corruption in Obama’s administration.

          On the other hand, Snowden’s revelations were extremely damaging, and he’s a white male who’s quite happy to remain so. It’s not useful to anyone to grant him clemency, and that’s why he’ll get none.

    2. It’s good to see someone call transgenderism what it is.

  6. So if Bradley doesn’t pay the $256,000 are they going to throw him back in jail for contempt?

  7. Disaffected right-wing authoritarians who excoriate Manning while defending war criminals and torturers (Cheney, Feith, Bybee, Yoo, Addington, Jessen, Mitchell, Bradbury, Rumsfeld, Hayne, setc.) are among my favorite faux libertarians and low-grade persons.

    Carry on, clingers. As long as your betters permit, that is . . . perhaps another seven months or so.

    Anybody familiar with the limitation period governing prosecution of war crimes?

    1. You left Obama and Clinton off the list, gecko.

  8. “”As long as your betters permit, that is . . . perhaps another seven months or so.””

    So you admit your betters are Joe Biden followers.

    1. That’s setting the bar low, even for him.

  9. So, anybody have a theory as to what basis Manning could possibly use to justify this persistent refusal to testify to the grand jury?

    Because “the truth might hurt people I’m obligated to” certainly isn’t one of them.

    1. Following the orders of his leftist handlers?

      No, that can’t be it. Bradley doesn’t have a history of faithfully following orders.

    2. So, anybody have a theory as to what basis Manning could possibly use to justify this persistent refusal to testify to the grand jury?

      Insanity.

    3. The 6th amendment to the US Constitution.

      1. Which part applies, do you think?


        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

        1. None of it. Since this is how the feds believe they have a right to subpoena him, and this doesn’t apply, we agree.

          If Assange’s defense needs Manning’s testimony, the worm turns and Manning needs to man up or forever be the b***h.

          I see nothing in the 6th that permits the prosecution to subpoena a witness. Nothing at all.

          1. DRM: So, anybody have a theory as to what basis Manning could possibly use to justify this persistent refusal to testify to the grand jury?
            Jeb Kerman: The 6th amendment to the US Constitution.
            BYODB: Which part?
            Jeb Kerman: None of it.

            Jesus Christ are you sure you didn’t land on your head when you were jumping out of airplanes into Mother Russia?

            What a fucking tool.

            1. FFS. Jesus Christ! Are you sure?

            2. Per the 10th if a power is not enumerated in the US Constitution, that power belongs to the people and the states, not the federal govt.

              The 6th amendment does not allow the judge to compel Manning to speak on behalf of the prosecution. The judge is misusing the 6th and violating the 1st, 5th and 10th amendments.

              It is our duty per our founding document to thwart tyranny which this judge appears to be engaging in.

              Manning is simply doing his duty to uphold the US Constitution in the face of a judge who is violating the 1st, 5th and 10th amendments.

      2. So, you, too, can think of no rational grounds to justify Manning’s refusal to testify.

        1. IMO you are thinking about this backwards. We own the government and we delegate specific, enumerated powers to it. At least, that’s what the good book says.

          Can you show me where the judge thinks he has the power to compel Manning’s testimony?

          ‘Cause it’s not the 6th, and if it’s not the 6th; the 10th makes such things the purview of the states and that makes the judge a felon under title 18 section 242 for violations of the 5th.

          1. You can’t determine I’m “thinking about this backwards” from my posts, because I didn’t ask about the law or the power of the state at all, or make any comment on whether Manning should be subject to compulsion to testify.

            I asked a purely ethical question about Manning’s own internal justification, not a question about law or any external power. As was entirely obvious from the example grounds I raised and dismissed, a possible ethical principle that had nothing to do with law or any external power.

            To my question, “the Sixth Amendment”, or any other comment about law or government powers, is nothing but a non sequitur.

            1. Fair enough. I thought you were looking for the legal reason.

              Morally, all Americans have a duty enumerated in our founding document to impose our way of life upon the federal government and to alter it when it becomes tyrannical.

              A judge illegally issuing subpoenas to harass a person into testifying in an illegal trial against a political target is the very definition of tyranny.

              When the judge holds our people and our laws in contempt it is our duty to stand for our founding principles and thwart him.

  10. Manning has a penis. It’s a “HE”.

    1. Wouldn’t that be had?

      1. In January 2017, Manning wrote to The New York Times that although months had passed, she had still not seen a surgeon.At the time of Manning’s release from prison in May 2017, her attorney stressed that she would be pursuing her own medical care and “building her life on her own terms, separate from the military”. Manning subsequently stated via her verified Twitter account that her healthcare from the military had stopped on May 16, 2017,and that she had secured a private health plan. She said her gender transition while in prison had cost “only $600 over 2 years”,explaining that the Department of Defense “got meds at a markdown”. Although the Army had agreed in September 2016 to allow her to have gender transition surgery, the operation was not performed before her release.

        On May 22, 2017, Manning’s 2014 lawsuit seeking a federal court to order the Defense Department to provide hormone therapy and other treatment for her gender identity condition was dismissed because, her ACLU attorney explained, “she is free”.
        2018

        Drugs do not a chopped off penis, make.

    2. Can you confirm this?

    3. Irrelevant since the penis is not what makes him male. If you watched porn, LC, you’d know girls have penises too.

      1. Is that you, Henry Darger?

  11. I don’t really understand Reason’s take on this whole situation. A person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, under the Fifth Amendment. Fine.

    But, that wasn’t the case here.

    So, what is the issue? Is Reason making a constitutional argument? There doesn’t seem to be any coherent thread or argument in the article.

    1. As I understand the argument, the question is, where does a federal judge get permission to demand Manning’s testimony?

      The 6th Amendment grants federal courts the power to compel testimony in federal court on behalf of the defense. The prosecution is not mentioned nor is the court on behalf of the court itself.

      The 10th says if a power is not specifically granted in the Constitution it belongs to the states and the people, not to a federal judge.

      So why was Manning in jail for a year and why is there a fine?

      That’s how I understood it anyway.

      1. Your understanding looks correct to me. The list of enumerated powers is not long, but just about anything can be willfully distorted or misconstrued by deft application of ignorance, superstition, altruism, self-deception or envy.

      2. Okay, I think I get it.

        I would say that Article I gives Congress broad power to enact legislation, such as the Rules Enabling Act (which gives courts the power to promulgate rules and procedures, including the subpoena power). Article III seems to contemplate that Congress is free to establish federal courts as well and, arguably, rules pursuant to which they will operate.

        I think that answers it.

        1. Let me start by saying I’m not at all an expert on court rules, but on its face any rule that can force testimony on behalf of the government seems to violate the first amendment. Congress can’t force speech, and neither should it be allowed to empower the courts the same rights. The idea of being in contempt of court and it being punishable by a year in prison gives judges and the state too much power to prosecute a case, in my opinion.

          That thinking seems to potentially interfere with a defendant’s right to face his accuser, and in that case of course the state shouldn’t be able to compel the testimony at the point of a gun, but should be forced to drop the charges if the accuser isn’t willing to testify. But there is very clearly no similar right of a prosecutor to compel testimony written in the language of the constitution. In fact it should be prohibited by even the most simple reading of 1A.

          1. If your position is correct, then it would mean the Sixth Amendment is a violation of the First Amendment.

            1. I would concur if the 6th permitted forced testimony for the prosecution. But the 6th only permits forced testimony for the defendant.

              I believe the thinking here is that government cannot compel you to speak on behalf of the government. But government tyranny is such a dire threat to liberty that speaking out against government on behalf of liberty and justice can be compelled.

              1. //I would concur if the 6th permitted forced testimony for the prosecution. But the 6th only permits forced testimony for the defendant.//

                But what is “forced testimony”? Better yet, *who* is forcing it? Even though it is being carried out for the benefit of a defendant, the government compels the testimony, not the defendant. That would mean the 6th amendment is a violation of the 1st.

  12. I read a bunch of the Manning material on Wikileaks. Mainly it recorded how the Dems covered up the GOP asset-forfeiture crash by short selling foreign economies that bought into or whose politicians were bribed into the same mystical prohibition laws that wrecked the US economy. The gains paid for a lot of the TARP outlays. The 1972 LP platform contained language to disarm these sorts of fraud.

  13. No worries. Someone will put the money up for our hero.

  14. For those whining about constitutional violations: https://jim.com/treason.htm

  15. He was imprisoned for a year as he resisted a grand jury’s investigation of WikiLeaks.
    There FIFY, to conform to reality.

  16. Alots of comments, Bradley Manning is an XY, a convicted felon, of his Security Clearance, giving aid to the enemy and being an asshole. Obama is being treated by history very accurately and unkindly. From this to Title IX, etc.

    Try Assange, convict asshole boy and execute him.

  17. Whatever else can be said about Bradley Manning, he sure makes one butt ugly chick.

  18. Releasing information to everyone, all sides, is not treason….wrong. It is sharing reality, truth which every person on earth has a right to.

    If you don’t want to be hurt by truth, don’t lie.

    1. Like you do about the Joooooosssss?

      1. Yes, exactly like that.

  19. “her”

    You misspelled “his.”

  20. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream……… Read more

  21. I think BRADLEY Manning’s case is a very hard one to understand. On the one hand HE violated HIS oath so HE is clearly guilty. But what HE did was for the greater good in my opinion. This is one of the few cases that are truly grey and don’t have a clear right answer.

    1. Your confusion is yours alone created by your own internal conflict. Once you recognize your internal conflict you will have the opportunity to discern the single unambiguous question that represents the issue. Once this has been done the single truthful answer will become immediately obvious and eliminate your confusion.

      Or you may be a confused bigot by refusing to accept the truth.

      I suggest that the unambiguous question is something like, “do people need the right to not be lied to in order to make decisions based on reality in their own best interest?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.