• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chelsae Manning Jailed by Grand Jury

Mr Brad Manning should never see the other side of the fence, in a MEN'S prison.
 
The various whistleblowers should receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, if we lived under an honest government.
 
Gladiator said:
How long will Chelsea Manning spend in jail? Are Grand Juries permitted by the US Constitution? When is this Grand Jury term over? Will the next Grand Jury jail Chelsea for more time? Can Chelsea challenge the Grand Jury in Court?

"Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was jailed Friday after refusing to answer questions from a federal grand jury in Virginia looking into the release of documents to WikiLeaks.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton told Manning that she would remain in federal custody “until she purges or the end of the life of the grand jury,” a statement from her representatives said.


Manning told reporters earlier in the day that she was prepared to go to jail following the closed contempt hearing."


Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify before grand jury in Virginia


Breaking News Thread:

Chelsea Manning being detained after judge holds her in contempt



//
Click to expand...

I'm sure he will keep up with his his dilating.
 
Fledermaus said:
Any, you know, EVIDENCE this is true?
Click to expand...

NYT said:
Manning has said she objects to the secrecy of the grand jury process and already revealed everything she knows at her court-martial. She said prosecutors have granted her immunity for her testimony, which eliminates her ability to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech," she said in a statement released after she was taken into custody.
Click to expand...

Chelsea Manning Jailed for Refusing to Testify on Wikileaks - The New York Times

It's my opinion based on the fact that they want her to give a new testimony , with a guaranteed immunity , otherwise she will face up to another 2 years in jail for contempt.

I stinks of , say what we want you to say without any consequences or face 2 more years in jail.

She has integrity and told them she stands by here original testimony instead of selling people out to avoid jail time .
 
oneworld2 said:
Chelsea Manning Jailed for Refusing to Testify on Wikileaks - The New York Times

It's my opinion based on the fact that they want her to give a new testimony , with a guaranteed immunity , otherwise she will face up to another 2 years in jail for contempt.

I stinks of , say what we want you to say without any consequences or face 2 more years in jail.

She has integrity and told them she stands by here original testimony instead of selling people out to avoid jail time .
Click to expand...

Chelsea Manning sez....

The words of a traitor might resonate with you.

But please, show where they want her to lie about wiki leaks.
 
Fledermaus said:
Chelsea Manning sez....

The words of a traitor might resonate with you.

But please, show where they want her to lie about wiki leaks.
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to understand why people with a decent/functioning moral compass might find her actions highly commendable .
 
oneworld2 said:
In the Grand Jury court , where else did you think ?
Click to expand...

Intentional ignorance noted.

You claimed she is to lie. Where is that stated in your link. Or anywhere other than your imagination...

"The reason for the trial is to get Chelsea to lie about what Wikileaks did so they can make a better case to go after Wikileaks people"

Your claim.
 
She couldn’t identify with the gender she was born with; perhaps she couldn’t identify with the values of the country she was born in. If we accept gender fluidity, why not loyalty fluidity?
 
Fledermaus said:
Intentional ignorance noted.
Click to expand...

Don't like it given back to you, do you ?

You claimed she is to lie. Where is that stated in your link. Or anywhere other than your imagination...

"The reason for the trial is to get Chelsea to lie about what Wikileaks did so they can make a better case to go after Wikileaks people"

Your claim.
Click to expand...

I gave my opinion , I never claimed it to be a incontestable fact. I told you that in my response to you earlier but you just chose to ignore it , obviously.Anyone not suffering from a compulsion to argue for the sake of it would understand that.

The link I supplied was given to show that she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony should she give one . It confirmed that didn't it ?

I also supplied it to show that she was given jail time for not co-operating for reasons of moral integrity. It confirmed that too didn't it ?

The Grand Jury case is aimed at trying to charge WikiLeaks over the release/publication of classified material that has proved damaging to the US pr image. The view is that they want her to say that Wikileaks in some way guided her into doing what she did when she has already stated that it was all her own doing and that she did it of her own volition. That's no good for them.

So , they have given her immunity for her testimony ( Ie if you lie there's nothing anyone can do about it ) and threatened her with jail time should she not co-operate with the courts proceedings.

Thus it doesn't take a genius to work out what they want her to say , knowing she won't be punished if she lies but also knowing she could be serving up to two years jail time for refusing those terms.

That's why my opinion is that they want her to lie and it is based on those facts above

Your opinion is based on a unquestioning devotion to the state achieved through indoctrination IMO........... did you get that ?..............IMO
 
RobertU said:
She couldn’t identify with the gender she was born with; perhaps she couldn’t identify with the values of the country she was born in. If we accept gender fluidity, why not loyalty fluidity?
Click to expand...

There just one glaring and obvious hole in that analysis IMO

She absolutely did identify with the often expressed " values of the county " only to find that the very people spewing those values out don't actually believe in them themselves. It's part of an ongoing PR campaign to manufacture consent amongst the public so they support the actions that serve their elite interests.

Trying to use her gender issues as a stick with which to beat her and question her morality/loyalty only brings in to question your own IMO You should , perhaps , remind yourself about the fact that while she stood by , and continues to stand by ,those alleged national values , those that have ****ed her over for doing so , didn't and haven't since , as their treatment of her has shown

Those that are bemoaning her actions haven't the capacity to see such obvious contradictions because they are still firmly stuck to Plato's cave wall
 
joko104 said:
On contempt, most state laws are very different from federal rules of court.

In both state and federal court, "direct contempt" is immediately punishable by the judge, meaning the judge and immediately have the person locked up. "Direct contempt" usually means misconduct in the courtroom, like shouting obscenities at the judge. However, the person MAY ask for a trial.

The difference is "indirect contempt." Generally that means "contempt" not in the court. For example, refusing to turn over documents in discovery can be treated as "indirect contempt." In that instance, in state court usually you can not be jailed until AFTER a trial (usually brief and before the judge). However, in Federal court you go to jail for indirect contempt and trial comes later - often months or years later. That is one reason federal judges are so powerful. They can send anyone to jail at anytime for contempt - even if indirect - and the person sit's there unable to post any bond for months and months until the judge gets around to a trial.

(Some of that applies to divorce and child support/custody.)
Click to expand...

I've always found it curious that the centralized federal government is viewed as a protector of civil rights, but that in actual cases of trial justice the federal courts ignore the more defendant friendly rights accorded in state courts.

But then, one supposes that the more centralized and remote the government, the less accountable (and more tyrannical) they can be.
 
oneworld2 said:
Don't like it given back to you, do you ?



I gave my opinion , I never claimed it to be a incontestable fact. I told you that in my response to you earlier but you just chose to ignore it , obviously.Anyone not suffering from a compulsion to argue for the sake of it would understand that.

The link I supplied was given to show that she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony should she give one . It confirmed that didn't it ?

I also supplied it to show that she was given jail time for not co-operating for reasons of moral integrity. It confirmed that too didn't it ?

The Grand Jury case is aimed at trying to charge WikiLeaks over the release/publication of classified material that has proved damaging to the US pr image. The view is that they want her to say that Wikileaks in some way guided her into doing what she did when she has already stated that it was all her own doing and that she did it of her own volition. That's no good for them.

So , they have given her immunity for her testimony ( Ie if you lie there's nothing anyone can do about it ) and threatened her with jail time should she not co-operate with the courts proceedings.

Thus it doesn't take a genius to work out what they want her to say , knowing she won't be punished if she lies but also knowing she could be serving up to two years jail time for refusing those terms.

That's why my opinion is that they want her to lie and it is based on those facts above

Your opinion is based on a unquestioning devotion to the state achieved through indoctrination IMO........... did you get that ?..............IMO
Click to expand...

So you have no real reason to claim "The reason for the trial is to get Chelsea to lie about what Wikileaks did so they can make a better case to go after Wikileaks people".

You could have just said that.

But noooooooo.......

No evidence of anyone wanting her to lie. Just your rather *ahem* biased opinion....
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
So you have no real reason to claim "The reason for the trial is to get Chelsea to lie about what Wikileaks did so they can make a better case to go after Wikileaks people".

You could have just said that.

But noooooooo.......

No evidence of anyone wanting her to lie. Just your rather *ahem* biased opinion....
Click to expand...

I gave the reasons and you chose to ignore them

I told you it was my opinion and you chose to ignore that too

Thus your comments are based solely on a wish to argue for the sake of it

You might need to grow up and stop ignoring what people say to your questions just so you can argue with them............... it's ridiculously childish imo
 
oneworld2 said:
I don't expect you to understand why people with a decent/functioning moral compass might find her actions highly commendable .
Click to expand...

Exactly what "decent moral compass" is that? Is it the same one that made Manning break his oath of service and betray brothers in arms, and his country? Is it that the compass that told him to ignore the law and release hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents so as to undermine a freely elected government of the people? Is it the compass that directed him to set off a panic and scramble in the Obama administration, closing down streams and skirting foreign assets to safety because they helped American troops or civilians? Did that moral compass tell him to chill foreigner willingness to share information, or work with Americans, because he was a narcissistic and vindictive little misfit?

We will never know what damage he did because we will never know what foreigners will never trust Americans to keep a secret, or who may have disappeared (willingly or otherwise). What we do know its Manning decided that he should undermine the American people and the Obama administration so as to aid the enemy and undermine the war effort.

In that he is a traitor and should have been convicted of such and shot. That after his 35 year sentence was commuted he shows his gratitude by covering up for an anti-American organization (as we now know) is disgusting. His sense of loyalty is still with the enemy.

Some moral compass.
 
maxparrish said:
Exactly what "decent moral compass" is that? Is it the same one that made Manning break his oath of service and betray brothers in arms, and his country? Is it that the compass that told him to ignore the law and release hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents so as to undermine a freely elected government of the people? Is it the compass that directed him to set off a panic and scramble in the Obama administration, closing down streams and skirting foreign assets to safety because they helped American troops or civilians? Did that moral compass tell him to chill foreigner willingness to share information, or work with Americans, because he was a narcissistic and vindictive little misfit?

We will never know what damage he did because we will never know what foreigners will never trust Americans to keep a secret, or who may have disappeared (willingly or otherwise). What we do know its Manning decided that he should undermine the American people and the Obama administration so as to aid the enemy and undermine the war effort.

In that he is a traitor and should have been convicted of such and shot. That after his 35 year sentence was commuted he shows his gratitude by covering up for an anti-American organization (as we now know) is disgusting. His sense of loyalty is still with the enemy.

Some moral compass.
Click to expand...

The moral compass of people that are loyal to the principles and standards of moral decency over loyalty to the state that is ****ting on them whilst at the same time expounding them as their own values and standards, especially if that includes their own state.

If an SS officer had tried to alert his own people and/or the world to the actions going at death camps in Poland during the second world war you would have called him a traitor with a dodgy moral compass too I suppose ? And you would want him shot as a traitor too ?
 
oneworld2 said:
The moral compass of people that are loyal to the principles and standards of moral decency over loyalty to the state that is ****ting on them whilst at the same time expounding them as their own values and standards, especially if that includes their own state.

If an SS officer had tried to alert his own people and/or the world to the actions going at death camps in Poland during the second world war you would have called him a traitor with a dodgy moral compass too I suppose ? And you would want him shot as a traitor too ?
Click to expand...

If someone joined the SS, swore allegiance, and then covertly did everything he could to harm his "brothers in arms" in war diplomacy and combat, he should know that being shot as a traitor is a typical and legal penalty for betrayal. And least that fellow would likely be honest, admitting the was against the German government and state and seeking to destroy it.

Manning, on the other hand, pretends NOT to be against his country or government, just someone who wants to "create a debate". Were he own up to his being a traitor, I would be more than happy to tip my hat to him on the day of his execution.
 
maxparrish said:
If someone joined the SS, swore allegiance, and then covertly did everything he could to harm his "brothers in arms" in war diplomacy and combat, he should know that being shot as a traitor is a typical and legal penalty for betrayal. And least that fellow would likely be honest, admitting the was against the German government and state and seeking to destroy it.

Manning, on the other hand, pretends NOT to be against his country or government, just someone who wants to "create a debate". Were he own up to his being a traitor, I would be more than happy to tip my hat to him on the day of his execution.
Click to expand...

Right, so you would still like to see the SS officer shot for trying to alert the world about the crimes being committed by his military in the death camps. Well, at least you are consistent even if I find your moral compass lacking.

I would say the SS officer would find himself in the very same situation with the Reich powers as Manning has found with US powers. You are only assuming that our SS officer's actions were because he was " against the government ." He may well have been for the government but against the death camps and thus chose to sacrifice his contractual obligations to the state for the greater moral good of trying to shut down the camps

We can agree to disagree , you hold that loyalty to the state trumps loyalty to moral decency and I disagree with that. Recall I spoke of a moral compass , not a loyalty one. To quote/paraphrase Mark Twain , " loyalty to the country always , loyalty to the government when they deserve it "
 
oneworld2 said:
I gave the reasons and you chose to ignore them

I told you it was my opinion and you chose to ignore that too

Thus your comments are based solely on a wish to argue for the sake of it

You might need to grow up and stop ignoring what people say to your questions just so you can argue with them............... it's ridiculously childish imo
Click to expand...

I get it. You have your opinion.

And your opinion isn't based on anything tangible. The link provided had nothing about your imagined lies.

You might want look at my signature....
 
Fledermaus said:
I get it. You have your opinion.

And your opinion isn't based on anything tangible. The link provided had nothing about your imagined lies.

You might want look at my signature....
Click to expand...

You " get it " finally , good for you.

My opinion is based on a reasonable assessment of the available information , your opinion is based on blind servitude to the state

Your signature is fine , the problem is you don't apply it to your own input here
 
oneworld2 said:
You " get it " finally , good for you.

My opinion is based on a reasonable assessment of the available information , your opinion is based on blind servitude to the state

Your signature is fine , the problem is you don't apply it to your own input here
Click to expand...

An assessment of WHAT exactly?

Your claim is that "they" want her to lie.

You have presented zero citation, support or documentation for that claim. Your "assessment" appears to be based on your fantasy and nothing else.
 
oneworld2 said:
Right, so you would still like to see the SS officer shot for trying to alert the world about the crimes being committed by his military in the death camps. Well, at least you are consistent even if I find your moral compass lacking.

I would say the SS officer would find himself in the very same situation with the Reich powers as Manning has found with US powers. You are only assuming that our SS officer's actions were because he was " against the government ." He may well have been for the government but against the death camps and thus chose to sacrifice his contractual obligations to the state for the greater moral good of trying to shut down the camps

We can agree to disagree , you hold that loyalty to the state trumps loyalty to moral decency and I disagree with that. Recall I spoke of a moral compass , not a loyalty one. To quote/paraphrase Mark Twain , " loyalty to the country always , loyalty to the government when they deserve it "
Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote suggests that I would "like" the SS officer to be shot, if only because I would be foreign enemy of Nazi Germany in a moral cause and I don't "like" to see allies terminated. None the less, I see nothing inherently immoral about executing traitors or spies, no more than I see anything inherently immoral about a call to arms, or fighting in a war.

As such, no one joined the SS without knowing exactly what its attitude and mission was, and no one was required to stay in the SS if they didn't like its disgusting mission. His "violation of contract" (say if he ignored his his duty) would not have been an issue, the issue would be his illegal and surreptitious actions to undermine the states goals, just as Manning has done, which is the exact definition of betrayal. Otherwise the words betrayal, duplicity, breach of trust, bad faith, and treachery don't have any applicable meaning at all.

And I am not saying that "the State" trumps anything, but it is a reality that when a person chooses to pursue the state as a their enemy in a surreptitious manner of bad faith, there are consequences moral in war: execution. That person is not a POW in enemy uniform, they are a saboteur and traitor in the state's uniform - and trial and execution is a risk.

Manning was and still is an enemy of the country, he is loyal to WikiLeaks - an organization that is willing to serve anyone (including Trump) to undermine US policies. He is not an enemy of the United States because he is driven by moral outrage over mass killings of civilians in death camps, or the killing of six million Jews in campaign of genocide. Rather, he decided that he disagreed on how a war was conducted and by golly he has a right to harm the nation's soldiers and endanger its operations to express his discontent.

And in return, I say the nation had the right to have put him in front of a firing squad, and in retrospect, should have done so.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
An assessment of WHAT exactly?

Your claim is that "they" want her to lie.

You have presented zero citation, support or documentation for that claim. Your "assessment" appears to be based on your fantasy and nothing else.
Click to expand...

I have provided the relevant information on which I base my opinion but , as ever , you chose to completely ignore it. That's a definite YOU issue and colours so many of your posts on this site it's untrue :roll:

Read back and look at the use of logic and reason against the circumstances and my opinion is perfectly reasonable................... btw you have provided FA as usual
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom