Hacker News Reader

Comment by sadris | Hacker News Reader

It's actually fairly common when being held in contempt.

Judges in America have an egregious amount of power.

I'm actually pretty confused; does the USA not have a law that protects an individuals right not to testify if they'd incriminate themselves by doing so? That's seen as a pretty fundamental thing where I live.

It has been argued for a VERY long time that grand juries (which is why she can be put in jail repeatedly like this) are unjust. Many states do not even use them because of it. Grand juries get special privileges, like compelling people to testify without lawyers, or through double jeopardy as is the case here.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/fifth-amendment-grand-ju...

The U.S. certainly does. It's set out in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution.

In this instance, however, Chelsea Manning has been given immunity from prosecution -- meaning she can't "plead the Fifth".

There is that, but it’s also a grand jury. There technically isn’t any jeopardy there, they convene and recommend what a prosecutor should do and it’s all supposed to be secret with pretty strict punishment for violating that.

Fair or not, this is an interesting stand to take.

Because the hearing is secret. If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony.

By even showing up, you are putting yourself at risk from people thinking you snitched.

>If you even show up, they could claim you said anything, do anything they want based on that made up testimony.

I’d be interested in reading your proof of this, because I’m fairly certain you just made this up.

Doesn't the 1st amendment apply? Surely the right to free speech includes the right to decide what NOT to speak?

The U.S. does protect that right. Here, Ms. Manning is apparently being asked to incriminate Julian Assange, not herself.

She hasn’t been asked to incriminate herself. She’s already been convicted and had her sentence committed and been granted immunity from her further testimony.

She got immunity, So she can’t incriminate herself.

And yet, someone who is likely broke in more ways than one, is demonstrating that she has more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com