Chelsea Manning hospitalized after suicide attempt, legal team say

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Chelsea Manning’s legal team said that the former intelligence analyst had tried to take her own life on Wednesday but was transported to a hospital where she was recovering.

The Alexandria sheriff, Dana Lawhorne, said: “There was an incident at approximately 12.11pm today at the Alexandria adult detention center involving inmate Chelsea Manning. It was handled appropriately by our professional staff and Ms Manning is safe.”

Manning has been in jail since May 2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. She was scheduled to appear in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on Friday for a hearing on a motion to terminate the civil contempt sanctions stemming from that refusal.

Andy Stepanian, a spokesman for Manning’s legal team, said in a statement on Wednesday that Manning “remains unwavering” in her refusal to participate the hearing.

“In spite of those sanctions – which have so far included over a year of so-called ‘coercive’ incarceration and nearly half a million dollars in threatened fines – she remains unwavering in her refusal to participate in a secret grand jury process that she sees as highly susceptible to abuse,” her attorneys said in a statement. “Ms Manning has previously indicated that she will not betray her principles, even at risk of grave harm to herself.”

In the motion filed last month, Manning’s lawyers argued that Manning had shown during her incarceration that she could not be coerced into testifying before a grand jury.

Manning served seven years in a military prison for leaking a trove of documents to WikiLeaks before Barack Obama commuted the remainder of her 35-year sentence in 2017.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/11/chelsea-manning-suicide-attempt-hospital

Needless to say I am very confused on multiple levels. Obama had given her clemency. She served 7 years in jail and was treated like crap there. You'd expect that she could get on with her life now.

Yet she is compelled to speak. Isn't that unconstitutional? No, apparently, she is being subpoenaed by a secret grand jury, and she is refusing to go, at least that is what Fox News is saying. So, I suppose she could go there and then decline to comment after a subpoena? Or say "I do not recall," but she's instead being quixotically principled.

Whose interest is this serving? Is all this intelligence, spy stuff, and Russian shenanigans going to be reported to Trump and Vlad?

Who is watching the Watchers?

 

[repoman]

You don't think the good old fashioned American military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is sufficient to explain this?

 

[Derec]

Well xir had issues for a while. Even when xir was called Bruce. That probably led xir to steal those files in the first place. So this is not exactly a surprising development.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do I always feel a need to take a shower after reading some users’ posts?

 

[Derec]

Why do I always feel a need to take a shower after reading some users’ posts?

I don't know - that is between you and your therapist.
But I think it's obvious (whether or not it has anything to do with CM's gender dysphoria) that CM has major issues. Normal people do not just steal classified information and give it to some Australian weirdo.

 

[ZiprHead]

Judge orders Chelsea Manning's release from jail in Virginia

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do I always feel a need to take a shower after reading some users’ posts?

Hate hurts everyone. The good news is a judge ordered her release, though a fine of $256K remains. Derec's got nothing. So feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled shower program.


Now I do think I've figured out the intel stuff finally. Recall Twitler was trying to go after Assange, offering deals in order to get him to get Trump off the hook. Pressuring Manning to give all kinds of Wikileaks info would allow the govt to gain leverage, additional charges against Assange to get him to say what they want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Needless to say I am very confused on multiple levels. Obama had given her clemency. She served 7 years in jail and was treated like crap there. You'd expect that she could get on with her life now.

Yet she is compelled to speak. Isn't that unconstitutional? No, apparently, she is being subpoenaed by a secret grand jury, and she is refusing to go, at least that is what Fox News is saying. So, I suppose she could go there and then decline to comment after a subpoena? Or say "I do not recall," but she's instead being quixotically principled.

Whose interest is this serving? Is all this intelligence, spy stuff, and Russian shenanigans going to be reported to Trump and Vlad?

Who is watching the Watchers?

Nothing unconstitutional about it. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself or your spouse, but that's it.

 

[Derec]

Derec's got nothing.

I certainly don't have hate. But CM is still somebody who stole classified data and gave it to Assange who distributed it irresponsibly. She (if that is the pronoun CM goes by) is definitely not a hero.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Needless to say I am very confused on multiple levels. Obama had given her clemency. She served 7 years in jail and was treated like crap there. You'd expect that she could get on with her life now.

Yet she is compelled to speak. Isn't that unconstitutional? No, apparently, she is being subpoenaed by a secret grand jury, and she is refusing to go, at least that is what Fox News is saying. So, I suppose she could go there and then decline to comment after a subpoena? Or say "I do not recall," but she's instead being quixotically principled.

Whose interest is this serving? Is all this intelligence, spy stuff, and Russian shenanigans going to be reported to Trump and Vlad?

Who is watching the Watchers?

Nothing unconstitutional about it. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself or your spouse, but that's it.

You saw I answered my question with a No, didn't you? Yes or No?

I will add that forcibly getting someone to testify over a crime they already served time for ought not be something we strive to do. And maybe it or something nearly it should be made unconstitutional. You shouldn't be made to suffer over and over for things you did a long time ago when you already served time, you are getting your life together, and shouldn't have it severely disrupted. What's more it's a possible kangaroo court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Needless to say I am very confused on multiple levels. Obama had given her clemency. She served 7 years in jail and was treated like crap there. You'd expect that she could get on with her life now.

Yet she is compelled to speak. Isn't that unconstitutional? No, apparently, she is being subpoenaed by a secret grand jury, and she is refusing to go, at least that is what Fox News is saying. So, I suppose she could go there and then decline to comment after a subpoena? Or say "I do not recall," but she's instead being quixotically principled.

Whose interest is this serving? Is all this intelligence, spy stuff, and Russian shenanigans going to be reported to Trump and Vlad?

Who is watching the Watchers?

Nothing unconstitutional about it. You can't be compelled to testify against yourself or your spouse, but that's it.

You saw I answered my question with a No, didn't you? Yes or No?

I will add that forcibly getting someone to testify over a crime they already served time for ought not be something we strive to do. And maybe it or something nearly it should be made unconstitutional. You shouldn't be made to suffer over and over for things you did a long time ago when you already served time, you are getting your life together, and shouldn't have it severely disrupted. What's more it's a possible kangaroo court.

Testifying isn't about suffering. It's about bringing other guilty parties to justice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You saw I answered my question with a No, didn't you? Yes or No?

I will add that forcibly getting someone to testify over a crime they already served time for ought not be something we strive to do. And maybe it or something nearly it should be made unconstitutional. You shouldn't be made to suffer over and over for things you did a long time ago when you already served time, you are getting your life together, and shouldn't have it severely disrupted. What's more it's a possible kangaroo court.

Testifying isn't about suffering. It's about bringing other guilty parties to justice.

It might not be in this case.

Also, while testifying is normally about bringing other guilty parties to justice, applying consequences to people including long jail time and fines of $500K is a terrible thing to do to someone in this particular case. It's excessive. So when I wrote the word "suffering" I was talking about the consequences, not the testifying. But you wrote: "Testifying is not about suffering." You're not quite addressing what I wrote.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You saw I answered my question with a No, didn't you? Yes or No?

I will add that forcibly getting someone to testify over a crime they already served time for ought not be something we strive to do. And maybe it or something nearly it should be made unconstitutional. You shouldn't be made to suffer over and over for things you did a long time ago when you already served time, you are getting your life together, and shouldn't have it severely disrupted. What's more it's a possible kangaroo court.

Testifying isn't about suffering. It's about bringing other guilty parties to justice.

It might not be in this case.

Also, while testifying is normally about bringing other guilty parties to justice, applying consequences to people including long jail time and fines of $500K is a terrible thing to do to someone in this particular case. It's excessive. So when I wrote the word "suffering" I was talking about the consequences, not the testifying. But you wrote: "Testifying is not about suffering." You're not quite addressing what I wrote.

Usually you stay in jail until you testify. Contempt doesn't have a maximum sentence.