More proof that it is unlawful to continue holding her, as the Grumbles motion her team submitted last month stated. Further imprisonment will not cause her to talk, so it is unlawful to imprison her.
Hope she recovers quickly.
Hope she recovers quickly.
Chelsea has been kept in inhumane conditions which completely violate her human rights, for years. She has been very seriously tortured - physically, psychologically - by any measure.
Chelsea has had no justice. She is not a criminal, but rather a victim of a criminally corrupt military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex hell-bent on having its crimes covered up, by any and all means possible. "National Secrecy" has meant, for too long, 'our citizens will burn us to ashes if they find out what we have done'.
Secrecy corrupts. The empire will come unraveled with every secret kept, revealed.
The degree to which extremely corruptive measures (indefinite detention, 'black sites', secret courts) are taken, is indicative of just how much criminal behavior is being 'protected' by the Defense Department's lawyers ..
> Can you imagine going in from of a judge and saying "my client attempted suicide in prison, that means it's unlawful to hold her." The precedent would allow basically any prisoner who attempts suicide to be released.
In order to support that point, I provided a concrete example. Jeffrey Epstein attempted to commit suicide in prison, but Jeffrey Epstein was also the exact type of person who shouldn't be freed from incarceration.
You will be imprisoned to coerce you to comply with the order. If you are uncoerciable, it is unlawful to imprison you for refusing the order.
Anybody can get out of an order like this, just most people can be coerced.
No, it's not. It's just a different process (criminal contempt, which is punitive, instead of civil contempt, which is coercive.)
Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater scandal, is an example of someone receiving both maximum civil contempt sanctions and subsequently being charged with criminal contempt for the same incident.
What does it mean "uncoerciable"? There's nothing particularly "uncoerciable" in Manning - we don't know the future and Manning is as human as anybody else. If this law applies to all other humans, it applies to Manning too.
By your logic, we should not imprison recidivist criminals, as prison is clearly not enough to deter them from further crimes. So we should just give up, shrug and release them, because apparently nothing can be done about it. In fact, if the criminal solemnly swears they'd go back to the life of crime as soon as they are released from prison, we should immediately release them as it is clear that keeping them in prison would not coerce them to comply with the law, and thus is completely pointless.
Criminals are in prison as judgment for being convicted of their crimes. Manning is in prison to be coerced to comply with the grand jury, not as punishment for any action. This is they key difference you are missing. This isn't "my logic," this is the current law of the US, see "Grumbles motion."