Judge Orders Chelsea Manning Released From Jail (npr.org) 104
A federal court on Thursday ordered Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst who has jailed for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, must be released. From a report: Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said in court documents it was discharging the grand jury. He noted 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." The court order also canceled a hearing on Manning scheduled for Friday afternoon. The news comes a day after lawyers for Manning said she attempted to commit suicide while in federal custody. "On Wednesday, March 11, 2020, Chelsea Manning attempted to take her own life. She was taken to a hospital and is currently recovering," Manning's attorneys said in a statement. Alexandria, Va., Sheriff Dana Lawhorne confirmed that "an incident" took place at the adult detention center in Northern Virginia just after noon on Wednesday.
Reading between the lines (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Reading between the lines (Score:2)
"Aaron Swarz, who did not suffer the cruel agony of the gulag time he had been railroaded into for liberating the "non-profit" research hoarding of JSTOR."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh. No, Aaron Swarz was engaging in wholesale theft of the invaluable indexes of JSTOR's information, and of all the copyrighted material stored at JSTOR for repulication with no permission of nor acknowledgement to the authors, editors, or publishers of their entire publication database. In the process he was breaking the services for others. JSTOR does not "hoard research", they publish it worldwide far more broadly, usefully, and accessibly than ordinary publication provides even as a public domain docu
Re: Reading between the lines (Score:2)
Knowledge belongs only to the rich and well connected! Anyone who dares share scientific knowledge with the deplorable plebs is a TEWWAWIST!! Forget stomping 'em with the iron boot and tossing 'em into the gulag. I say, assassinate 'em with a drone strike! Ignorance and exploitation forever, whoo-whee!!1!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Epstein's case, the message was "no matter what you have on us, we can destroy you anyways". The situation here seems to be a bit different.
Re:Reading between the lines (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlikely. Ms. Manning will have no problem getting donations. More likely they do not want to have her blood on their hands. It may not come off easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope they are sheer unadultered arseholes. The attempt at suicide makes Manning an unreliable witness and the testimony questionable ie as a result of the suicide attempt Manning can not be considered of sound mind and body. So just being arseholes right to the end and the only reason for the release, the testimony would now be considered unreliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Grand Juries have different standards of evidence, since they aren't seeking a conviction (Which is also why they can compell you to speak). Its more of an open investigation than a trial, with no defence lawyers allowed , just. a prosecutor trying to convince a jury to let him indict someone (who may not even be aware of the grand jury)
Re: Reading between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
"Grand Juries are fishing expeditions wherein the rights of the accused are blithely ignored by power-crazed public persecutors"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Your rights are just fine considering the result of a grand jury is not a conviction. Don't go all Trump crazy thinking everything in the world happens like you see on Law and Order.
Re: Reading between the lines (Score:2)
Leave off, Euro-peon reactionary. Everyone knows you have contempt for freedom and human rights. Go whisper sweet nothings to your picture of Stalin.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone committing suicide is insane?
Next time she should do it at the front lines, we usually hang a CMOH on people who do it there.
Re: (Score:2)
" So just being arseholes right to the end and the only reason for the release, the testimony would now be considered unreliable."
She should have testified like Jefferson Beauregard Jeff“ Sessions III.
I do not recall. ...
I do not recall.
I do not recall.
I do not recall.
I do not recall.
I do not recall.
Re: Reading between the lines (Score:3)
Well, considering Manning was in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury and that grand jury is over, it kind of makes that Manning should no longer be held in contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering Manning was in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury and that grand jury is over, it kind of makes that Manning should no longer be held in contempt.
There had already been one, a second was empaneled.
Re: (Score:2)
...And she refused to testify there, too, and went through the whole contempt process again.
For those of you following along at home, she's now leaving jail for the third time.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you are expected to pay $250,000 in fines, which are still being assessed.
Re: (Score:2)
Manning has a *lot* of supporters. It shouldn't be too hard to raise that cash via crowdfunding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I assure you that bureaucrats don't care about how much tax payer dollars are spent.
The public relations damage is really what they are trying to avoid. And they don't want to pay the political price of another high profile suicide with conspiratorial fervor around it. It's much easier for them to release someone who is likely to fade away as they spiral out of control.
Disgraceful (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of Manning, Snowden or Assange [Assange especially is a monumental cowardly prick] but Mannings' treatment AFTER she served her sentence and subsequent jailing for not assisting the Grand Jury is outrageous and makes the US look like a banana republic.
Re:Disgraceful (Score:5, Informative)
Look like a banana republic? The US *is* a banana republic and has been for a number of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, how many bananas do we grow here?
And a number of years is 'more' correct IMHO.
Not just 3 but closer to two hundred.
It just got worse as time went on.
Re: Disgraceful (Score:2)
"The US *is* a banana republic and has been since at least 2001"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
At least since Johnson, to be exact.
The last decent president this country had was Eisenhower. Which pains me greatly, considering that the last thing I'd want is military to take over politics, but this guy got that right.
Re: (Score:2)
Look like a banana republic? The US *is* a banana republic and has been for a number of years.
Another framing is a bloc of nations the US claimed to protect and guide under the Monroe Doctrine (now as dated as Manifest Destiny) and client United Food subsidiaries.
The terms are like referring to a car as an automobile, but to disparage. Primitive. Not ready for democracy. The distinctions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd "world" nations were convenient to economic planning policies of how a global north would fairly and justly develop its south, but are now used as epithets to rationalize and maintain western cons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The hand of government is heavy. They hate it when you make them look bad so its punishment and nothing more. Whether you have an R or D in front of your name you're still playing for the same team at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
You needed Manning to know that?
Re: (Score:3)
So, not being hetro == unstable. How 1950's of you.
Did you used to be as openly homophobic as you are transphobic? If you don't like gay marriage.....
Re: (Score:1)
So, not being hetro == unstable. How 1950's of you.
Point out where I said anything about heterosexiual or gay. As odd as it would seemcoming from a member of the wokedom, how dare you assume the sexual orientation of a transgendered person!
Hard to imagine a woke person demanding strict cis adherence to old school sexual mores. How dark ages of you!
While I support a person's right to dress and act as they wish, when we move from there to cutting one's otherwise healthy sexual organs off, we are venturing into an area of instability.
Did you used to be as openly homophobic as you are transphobic? If you don't like gay marriage......don't marry a person of another sex. If having surgery on your pee pee gives you the willies....don't do it. It's really not that hard.
Nice attempt to bring up gender dysphoria and conflate it with sexual identity - again. The desire to amputate healthy organs is not normal. That you decided to freak about that merely illustrates that you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Exact same bigotry and panic with different words. So, you may have a distinction between homophobia and transphobia, but no difference. And I notice you dodged the question.
So now is Obama. Twelve years ago, he opposed it and pointedly campaigned with a prominent homophobe. It's as easy to find current "supporters" of gay marriage who used to oppose it as it is easy to find supporters of the I
Re: (Score:1)
Exact same bigotry and panic with different words.
Oh brother, I cite science, and you call me a bigot and Homophobe.
You dear Uberah have a really bad mental issue. And truth be told, you are tthe bigot. You just have a different target that you stereotype people with.
I've had convwersations with Neo Nazis who aren't as bigoted as you, Now go away, you disgrace humanity, and I hate having conversations with people that project their own evil on others, in a projecting effort to hid the evil in theor chardd souls. Good day. P
Re: (Score:1)
More like, what should've happened, is they cut is dick off and shoved it down his throat until he choked to death on it. Fucking traitor!
I agree that Manning is a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
but Mannings' treatment AFTER she served her sentence and subsequent jailing for not assisting the Grand Jury is outrageous and makes the US look like a banana republic.
That's fine the rest of the world doesn't judge considering contempt of court is a thing in pretty much every country with a legal system.
Monumental dumbfuckery (Score:2)
Publishing dirt on the rich and powerful is the polar opposite of cowardice, you incompetent boob.
Re: (Score:1)
Publishing dirt on the rich and powerful is the polar opposite of cowardice, you incompetent boob.
Seems his time spent in the Equadoran embassy would argue against that. Courage of convictions and all, you know.
He's a muckraker, and not much more. A brave person would dare the country he hates to put him on public trial.
Re: (Score:2)
More dumbfuckery. While Assange was granted asylum, Chelsea Manning was tortured with solitary confinement for eighteen months for working with Assange. And after the toady Ecuadorian president kicked him out, DO TELL why Assange is still in a British gulag to this day and wasn't back in Sweden by the end of last April. So Assange is a "coward" because he didn't want to be tortured, convicted in
Re: (Score:1)
Yes.
Re: No Masculine Pronouns (Score:1, Troll)
I dont think it was fake. He clearly has serious mental issues, and the suicide rate amongst trannies is off the charts. It was only a matter of time until he tried to end it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: why is this /. news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Transgender people are more likely to be shunned from family, homeless, and therefore depressed than other people their age. So with that, combined with people like you running around it's no wonder they have a greater risk of suicide.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: why is this /. news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Multiple studies show transgender youth have a higher rate of suicide than their peers.
But let me ask you something: you seem so fixated and hung up on the sexual reassignment surgery part. Beyond the fact that not even all transgender get sexual reassignment surgery, you only reference male to female, not female to male. Does it bother you for a FtM to get a double mastectomy? Does it equally bother you if someone gets a tattoo sleeve, or multiple piercings, or puts in sub-dermal prosthetics to look like they have horns? Body modification is body modification.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Having horns is not a treatment for a science based medical diagnosis.
It's not a good example, it would be more like criticising a man who had a testicle removed due to cancer because they "mutilated their genitals". I find that one particularly ironic considering that circumcision is legal and many of the people saying it are probably circumcised.
Depending on the circumstance such criticism might get you into legal trouble, e.g. in a work setting it would be bullying. Trans people are not even asking for s
Re: (Score:1)
Does it equally bother you if someone gets a tattoo sleeve
How dumb are the tattoos?
(I'm not being serious)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for people that want to look like a circus act. To me, that is a sign of bad decision making. I do know that it is a deal breaker in any hiring decisions
Seriously? Get over yourself. If they can do the job, if they get the job done, why do you care what they look like?
Re: (Score:1)
I have no sympathy for people that want to look like a circus act. To me, that is a sign of bad decision making. I do know that it is a deal breaker in any hiring decisions
Seriously? Get over yourself. If they can do the job, if they get the job done, why do you care what they look like?
It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with over 30 years with a diverse group of people. People with a lot of tattoos tended to make some impulsive and not always good decisions. If someone comes into an interview with old dirty blue jeans, provocatively dressed, or comes in smelling like liquor, It's a red flag moment.
An true example. A woman came in for an interview, with an extremely low cut blouse on (red flag) she kept bending over way more than needed (another red flag) was excessivly flirtat
Re: why is this /. news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Most of what you wrote onhad nothing to do with tattoos.
The tattoos are the badge, a warning signal - that indicates what the person is likely to be like.
I used this woman as an egregious example, because I really don't think we want to be going on about all of the examples. I do know that non-tatted people tend to be, shall we say, a little less extreme during interviews.
You don't see many tattoos in the board room. Now this being Slashdot, there is a widespread hatred for people who have gained a measure of success.
And you know, I've seen a lot of
Re: why is this /. news? (Score:2)
Issue requires nuance people won't give it. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But still very, very far away from being an actual comparison.
Re: why is this /. news? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Cause and effect are reversed for many, who find emotional refuge in "being special" and blaming their abuse or their discomfort on gender identity issues. It's too easy for them to become "ideologically possessed".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or, alternately, their mental condition causing "transgenderism" also has other symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not classified as a mental condition.
In any case depression is a common symptom of many conditions, e.g. cancer or PTSD. The secondary effects of having huge medical bills and becoming estranged from your friends and family are as much a symptom as your hair falling out due to chemotherapy. The only real difference is that they are preventable.
Re: (Score:2)
"Schizophrenic people are more likely to be shunned from family, homeless, and therefore depressed than other people their age"
We can say that statement about any serious mental issue as well. The real question is: is it just them being different and shunned causing issues, or is it a mental health issue that is presented, part of which is supposed gender dysphoria, that is the cause.
In case you wonder, I don't know the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The gov wants control over the narrative, and people like Manning want to reveal what they know. This is on the cusp of should it be news or should it be classified, and the judge just said essentially news.
I don't think Manning revealed anything of note, so I don't count myself as a supporter. But this is a win for people who believe in getting the truth out. If the truth hurts your side of the war, maybe do a better job instead of jailing those revealing the truth.
It's news here because it has been
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The USA escaped the UK legal system long ago but is now looking a lot like Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand with its use of laws to protect the security services...
Thats why it is news.. the right to speak, publish, to be the press, what happens when the US security services want more and more from US courts...
one word - msmash (Score:1)
When you see a completely off-topic SJW story, ir some sort of indignant PC bullcrap, you can almost always find msmash
Re: (Score:2)
Though, when arguing Manning, I'm guessing no nuts are involved?
Re: (Score:2)
Because just because the guy's got mental or physiological issues doesn't negate the public benefit of the actions he did. Without those actions (criminal or not), our government would to this day be able to negate all the unconstitutional (probably criminal) behavior that the documentation he liberated proves without question.
His personal issues are just that, his personal issues. But with or without intent, his actions benefited the public and changed government behavior for the good of all US citizen
Re: (Score:2)
Because /. has followed her story for 15 years now. Why is it that you are now complaining?
Why is /. deleting comments? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, Slashdot editors. I posted two comments on this story yesterday: one, posted anonymously, that was a complete and utter trolling comment that did exactly what I wanted it to do - get a reaction out of people... and then, when I'd thought better of it, another, more reasoned, comment under my actual username, which (while also being a bit snide) said something that I truly mean:
On a more serious note, I really do hope Manning finds help to overcome the mental stress of what has happened over all these years. Suicide is a sign of mental distress, even if gender dysphoria is considered normal by many today.
Editors, if you want those of us who've been coming to this site for years to keep coming here (and noticing your advertisers, and taking part in the discussions), please answer:
Why was my non-trolling, posted-under-my-actual-name-for-all-to-see-and-dox comment detached from this article?
And why is my valid opinion -- a belief that Manning's transgenderism is not a legitimate case, but a gambit made to try to get him/her off his/her charges -- being removed from the conversation?
Was my named comment removed because I had also just posted an anonymous comment that I thought better of, but had no way to delete? Or is it because my opinion didn't agree with your agenda?
Either way, it's your sandbox, and your rules. I just want to know if my opinions, and my time, are welcome in your walled garden.
I'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN TWICE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in my case is that both comments (the anonymous, snide one and the named one) did show up on the site and were visible for some time last night. The one that I posted under my own name still appears on my user page, but it is no longer attached to this article, and the acts like a broken link. [slashdot.org]
I know it's not a personal vendetta. I'm just trying to decide if it's a sitewide policy to delete comments that add to the discussion just because they're not politically correct. (I totally understan
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's bad, a few months ago Slashdot posted a story that was false. The day after they corrected that story by reposting it, editing the post itself without any reference to the original false claim and putting it at the top of the feed anew with all comments intact.
The result was a story that makes all Slashdot posters and moderators look like raving lunatics commenting on some non-existent conspiracy theory. They changed the context and in the process completely changed how every reply looked.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Words matter. (Score:2)
Your argument seems to be, that what we name something would not matter.
The whole damn point of a word is, that it has a stable meaning. That makes it useful in the first place. Otherwise we could call bananas wrences and sheets and tohuwabohu and whatever you feel like today, and it would be completely useless.
We can argue what we define the word "woman" to mean, and I'm fine with refining its definition to match new science (but not unscientific crap).
But in any case, we *have* to pick one thing. At least
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, if Manning really was born with a brain that developed female, in a male body ... (yes, that is not only possible, but a simple inability by the mother to keep the womb at the right temperature, already causes it) ... then will "she" be getting a female body too? It woul be fair.
James Damore would be very interested in this supposed difference between male and female brains...
The SJW echo chamber is a very interesting place that changes the narrative according to the specific situation. Workplace gender inequality? No difference. Gender reassignment? Of course brains differ, so the bodies should be adapted as the case requires. Reminds me of the HuffPost article of the Viking warrior remains that were identified as female by analyzing DNA. Sex a genetic, immutable characteristic?
Re: (Score:1)
James Damore would be very interested in this supposed difference between male and female brains...
It's a shame so few people have read Damore's memo, let along understood it or the context surrounding it. I bet even fewer people have read the Labour Board opinion on it.
It's a real shame it never got to court, it would have been a great opportunity to examine the issues and test his arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Cite, please.