I don't see any mention of an offer of immunity.
If I didn't have immunity, you can be damn sure I wouldn't be answering any questions on a subject that might get me prosecuted again.
If I didn't have immunity, you can be damn sure I wouldn't be answering any questions on a subject that might get me prosecuted again.
I think this is about not supporting what she feels is supporting an unjust and corrupt system. I don't blame her. I doubt that I would act the same way, but she felt strongly enough about the Army's actions in Iraq to break the law while fully aware of the consequences. She's probably got the guts to keep her word when she says she has ethical concerns about the grand jury and won't be answering any questions.
Immunity does appear to be on the table as part of the request, though I'm not sure why you would browbeat someone into testifying with jailtime and threats that amount to bankruptcy if you aren't seeking to entrap them in some fashion.
If a person has evidence that a court of law wishes to obtain, under American law the court is permitted to compel immunized testimony. Someone who refuses to comply is likely to be treated as someone who has committed an act of contempt of court.
Chelsea Manning isn't special here. Anyone who refuses to testify before a grand jury is likely to be treated this way. There's no need to postulate that it's a further attempt to punish someone for political reasons to explain all events here.
Her testimony is on file, and some parts of it are even a matter of public record. She has already extensively testified in the past.
In most court cases, there is a wish to limit the number of witnesses in a case. Where you can take testimony by reports, affidavits, and other records, you take it, as it speeds up the process considerably.
The only reason to call Manning is if you believe that you can show that new testimony conflicts with old testimony.
I have questions for the court, because they have chosen to act in a way that doesn't seem to follow standard procedure. My query is one of legal practice.
But it's a wrong dichotomy. It's more likely the judge suspects that she knows something incriminating about somebody else, maybe Julian, she doesn't want to tell. Which answers your question about legal practice.
Seeking new testimony when complete testimony is already on file, leaves open the door to parallel construction of unrelated cases. The witness may be convinced to say something that violates the terms of previous deals.
If the judge truly believes her testimony might aid in convicting Assange they have no reason not to already use the extensive testimony on file. Manning has already been extensively interrogated about Assange, for a number of years. The court has those filings available to it.
There is no reason to expect that new testimony with new evidence is available.
I assume that her testimony from her own trial can be used by the grand jury. But maybe she plead the 5th some in her trial, so they want immunized testimony about any of that. Or maybe there's stuff that she just wasn't asked about.
0) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/government...
We "never once made this about anything other than obtaining immunized testimony in furtherance of an investigation," he said, adding that "all we want is her to truthfully answer questions as our constitutional republic requires of our citizens."
If she has been offered immunity then she can't incriminate herself. Also answering questions regarding an offense she has already been convicted of isn't incriminating herself.
If during her testimony she believes that answering a specific question would incriminate herself she can refuse to answer it upon that basis.
What she can't legally do is refuse to answer any questions whatsoever.