Chelsea Manning: what's new

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by Anonymous, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. DeathHamster Member
    Unfortunate, but seems normal for a superficial criminal background check at the border. Hopefully a higher level or political intervention can reverse that, but it'll be tough if they're going by the book.

    Montreal and Vancouver? That's a bit of a trip.
  2. The Wrong Guy Member

    Exclusive: Chelsea Manning Tells Off Harvard and the CIA

    The CIA’s boss may have called her a ‘traitor.’ Harvard may have said inviting her was a ‘mistake.’ But Chelsea Manning tells The Daily Beast she is going to keep on speaking up.

    By Spencer Ackerman, The Daily Beast


    Chelsea Manning never ended up lecturing at Harvard University after loud objections from the Central Intelligence Agency. But late Monday afternoon, the day she was supposed to begin her fellowship, Manning did talk about surveillance, tech, and social repression down the street—at the similarly prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    For someone who enlisted in the Army at a young age and spent most of her adult life in prison, seeing the prevalence of domestic surveillance and the militarization of policing is “like I’m walking out into the most boring dystopian novel I can imagine,” she told The Daily Beast shortly after her talk. “It feels like American cities, certain parts of them, are occupied by an American force, the police department.”

    Having traveled across the East and West Coasts since her release, one of the 21st century’s signature whistleblowers is trying to reconnect with her country and spread an activist message about political engagement. She ran up against an obstacle last month: the current and former intelligence officials who pressed Harvard to reject her fellowship.

    Yet the result was an MIT conversation with the ACLU’s Kade Crockford that encouraged the software engineers of tomorrow to think through the applications of their innovations that might aid a more expansive surveillance apparatus—itself a statement of defiance to those who’d rather respectable institutions shun her.

    “What’s important here is that the Central Intelligence Agency and associated people in the intelligence community, they think they can stifle dissent, all forms of dissent, all across America and use academic institutions as a battleground,” Manning said.

    Last month, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government withdrew a fellowship offer it had extended to Manning. Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, set off a backlash by resigning his own Harvard fellowship over outrage that “leaks by Ms. Manning put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk.” Mike Pompeo, the current CIA director, followed up by calling Manning an “American traitor.” (Never mind the fact that Pompeo promoted WikiLeaks, the outlet that published Manning’s leaks, during the 2016 campaign.)

    Manning said she couldn’t be bothered by the spymasters’ words. “I’m not going to be afraid and I’m not going to be intimidated,” she added.

    Her MIT talk, delivered to about 130 students and other attendees, was the result of a post-Harvard invitation extended by Joi Ito of the MIT Media Lab after Manning reached out through a mutual friend, MIT confirmed. In it, Manning said, she touched on living in the panopticon of prison as a “microcosm” for tech-fueled advancements in repression, “when it comes to facial recognition, surveillance, using databases and techniques to monitor and surveil people,” as well as how she depended on other inmates for support while imprisoned.

    Then she issued a warning to the engineers MIT will matriculate: “While we might be making a piece of software that does one thing, for medicine or marketing or advertising, it can be used in a military context or to suppress dissent. These technological solutions are kind of universal in that sense that they can be misused.”

    ‘Aiding the Enemy?’

    The MIT talk was the latest skirmish in a battle over Manning’s legacy—one that shows no sign of stopping.
    “One of the things we wanted to make sure was that it was about the substance of the conversation, we didn’t want this to be just about snubbing Harvard,” Ito explained in introducing one of the first public talks given by a figure who has been defined for seven years mostly by hostile, powerful officials.

    Contrary to Pompeo’s invective, a military judge in 2013 specifically acquitted Manning, then known as Bradley, of knowingly “aiding the enemy.” She was convicted of multiple counts of leaking classified information and received a 35-year sentence. After serving seven years, to include pre-trial detention, President Barack Obama commuted her sentence in January. She walked free from Fort Leavenworth in May after confinement so severe—it included a yearlong stint in solitary—that a U.N. special rapporteur on torture called it a violation of her “right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of [her] presumption of innocence.”

    Manning’s deployment to Iraq and exposure to the material she leaked disillusioned her to the U.S. war effort. She said at her sentencing: “It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.”

    Pompeo and Morell made points frequently invoked by Manning’s detractors, and not often carefully. In the wake of her disclosures’ publication by WikiLeaks in 2010, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff charged that the group “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

    Yet an actual taxonomy of any harm resulting from Manning’s leaks, something that might allow for a balanced assessment of what she did and the punishment she subsequently endured, is not a matter of public knowledge seven years after Manning’s saga began. Detractors in the intelligence agencies say doing so would put more sources and methods at risk, compounding the damage; Manning supporters consider that too convenient, permitting overblown accusations against her to remain in perpetual circulation.

    Manning’s defense counsel in her military trial was not permitted to read a classified document assessing the impact of her leaks of thousands of tactical military reports and diplomatic cables.

    But BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold obtained the document earlier this year after transparency litigation and wrote that the multi-agency task force found her leaks “largely insignificant and did not cause any real harm to U.S. interests.” The 2011-era document found the leaks had potential to “serious[ly] damage… intelligence sources, informants, and the Afghan population” and would have their greatest likely effect on “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”

    Academics and human-rights groups have said that contacts with the U.S., revealed in the diplomatic cables, complicated their jobs and potentially placed them in danger in authoritarian countries. But there remains little certainty over whether those leaks actually led to someone suffering harm.

    Evidence the leaks contained about greater civilian deaths and injuries than the Pentagon had disclosed, something Manning’s defenders cite to demonstrate her leaks’ importance, could damage “support for current operations in the region,” the task force found, focusing more on the leaks than on the deaths they revealed.

    That matched contemporaneous reporting, which found the Obama administration’s claims about the damage Manning caused exaggerated. A congressional official briefed on the leaks’ impact in 2011 told Reuters they were “embarrassing but not damaging.”

    ‘An Historic Embarrassment for American Academia’

    In a confusing statement following the CIA pressure, Harvard’s Douglas Elmendorf called extending the fellowship to Manning “a mistake.” Elmendorf said the initial invitation to her was defensible but neglected the impact of the “perceived honor that it implies to some people,” which opened up Harvard to criticism for hypocrisy in honoring, among others, Sean Spicer, who repeatedly lied from the White House podium as President Trump’s press secretary. As a consolation, Elmendorf offered Manning a one-day opportunity to “spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak in the Forum.” That isn’t going to happen.

    The filmmaker Eugene Jarecki told The Daily Beast that Harvard’s decision was “an historic embarrassment for American academia.”

    Jarecki interviewed Manning at a public event on Nantucket shortly after Harvard’s about-face and pronounced himself impressed with her willingness to engage with hard questions.

    “She’s a remarkable human being who really is a walking concentration of several-hot button issues in American life,” Jarecki said. “It was both a surprise and no surprise, in a way, to see an institution such as Harvard quake in their boots when Chelsea’s name is mentioned.”

    Despite the CIA pressure and Harvard’s acquiescence to it, Manning indicated to The Daily Beast that political activism will be a feature of her unfolding life as a free woman.

    In prison, she learned “we are our own political agents,” depending on one another—a message that seems to inform where she’s going next.

    “I’m trying to live my life, but I realize I can’t go back to the life I was living before. I need to be with the people I care about, and we need to be with each other. It’s not about me—I’m very concerned about the direction all of us are going in,” she said.

    “I think it’s important people understand they have power. Nobody can give them power and give them rights, we need to assert that.”

    Out in the tech world, Manning said she got the sense engineers are “expecting someone to tell them what to do” with their innovations, rather than figuring out their social utility through dialogue with their neighbors.

    “The reality is people need to... have these conversations in our communities right now. We can’t wait for someone to come up with a final product, idea, [or] solution,” she said. “There’s no roadmap to the future. We have to chart our own course.”

  3. The Wrong Guy Member


    Chelsea Manning | Global Thinkers 2017

    For forcing the United States to question who is a traitor and who is a hero

    By Jenna McLaughlin


    In September, when Douglas Elmendorf, the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School, revoked Chelsea Manning’s invitation to be a visiting fellow there, the decision had little to do with issues of LGBT identity in the military, the topic central to Manning’s participation in the program. Instead, Elmendorf seemed to bend to pressure from prominent intelligence officials including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who canceled an appearance at the university in protest, saying it was “shameful for Harvard to place its stamp of approval upon [Manning’s] treasonous actions.” The dean, and by extension Harvard, appeared to be taking sides in a divisive American debate. Was Manning’s leak of some 750,000 classified and sensitive documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 while working as a U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq justified because it revealed U.S. wartime transgressions? (Among the disclosures was evidence of a U.S. airstrike in 2007 that killed two Reuters employees and a dozen civilians in Iraq.) Or was it a betrayal that endangered the lives of American service members?

    At first, the answer seemed clear, at least to the U.S. government: In 2013, a military court convicted Manning, then a soldier in the U.S. Army, on numerous charges, including six Espionage Act violations, and sentenced her to serve 35 years in prison at Fort Leavenworth. While incarcerated, Manning announced that she identified as female and came out as a transgender woman.

    Things got more complicated at the beginning of 2017, however, when just three days before leaving office, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence. After seven years in prison, “justice has been served,” Obama declared. Human rights groups (and a host of celebrities) lauded the announcement, while others, including Republican Sen. John McCain, called her release a “grave mistake” that would inevitably “encourage further acts of espionage and undermine military discipline.”

    Manning became an all-purpose exemplar in a divided America: a “leaker” speaking necessary truths to corrupt power; a treasonous threat; and a transgender pioneer whose requests for hormone therapy and treatment for gender dysphoria were initially denied in prison, leaving her suicidal on multiple occasions. Her plight drew attention from around the world; in 2012, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture called her treatment “cruel” and “inhuman.”

    To be a living symbol is to be objectified. So Manning decided to do something about it. Following her release in May, Manning began to align herself with various movements, becoming a public spokesperson for social activism. And she has used her growing social media profile to build a powerful brand. Her jubilant tweets opposing President Donald Trump (“there is more to politics than elections #WeGotThis”) and promoting LGBT rights and whistleblower protection reach more than 300,000 followers every day.

    Yet controversy has inevitably followed. During an interview with NBC News in January, Dean Spade, a transgender activist and professor at the Seattle University School of Law, called Manning an “immensely important figure for the trans movement,” while Dana Beyer, the executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, cautioned against hero worship, noting that “the community is divided on [Manning’s] actions.”

    These days, Manning travels the country, supporting groups like Black Lives Matter. Recently, she participated in an anti-hate rally protesting white supremacy in Berkeley, California. She also plays video games, writes articles for the New York Times, and reads. Still, she says, this new public persona was merely incidental; Manning claims that she had hoped to disappear from view after leaving prison but that media attention on her case has placed her in the spotlight.

    “I came out of prison, and the world is a different place. It’s scary out here,” she says. “I see how [pervasive] problems I anticipated in Iraq have [found] their way into our society today.” Which, she adds, is “what I was worried about in the first place.”

    Jenna McLaughlin is a staff writer at Foreign Policy.

    • Like Like x 1
  4. The Wrong Guy Member

    Chelsea Manning files to run for U.S. Senate in Maryland | The Washington Post


    Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army private who was convicted of passing sensitive government documents to Wikileaks, has filed to run for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, according to federal election filings.

    Manning, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, would be challenging Democrat Ben Cardin, who has served two terms in the Senate and is up for re-election in November. Cardin is Maryland’s senior senator and is considered an overwhelming favorite to win a third term.

    Manning, 30, who is formerly known as Bradley Manning, was convicted in 2013 of the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Last year, then President Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to time served and she was released from a military prison in Kansas.

    The news of Manning’s filing caught Maryland’s political class by surprise on Saturday afternoon.

    Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has an extensive fundraising base within Maryland and is not considered particularly vulnerable to a challenge from within the state. However, an outside candidate with national name recognition, such as Manning, could tap a network of donors interested in elevating a progressive agenda.

    Cardin’s spokeswoman did not return two messages seeking comment.

    Manning moved to Maryland after her release and friends and family raised more than $175,000 to support her through an online campaign. Since then, she has written for The Guardian and Medium on issues of transparency, free speech and civil liberties, according to her web site.

    Manning’s statement of candidacy was filed with the Federal Elections Commission on Thursday. She is running as a Democrat and refers to Maryland as her “home state” on her web site.

    Manning’s first column for The Guardian said Obama’s election in 2008 was a political awakening for her. Manning wrote Obama left behind “hints of a progressive legacy,” but very few permanent accomplisments.

    “This vulnerable legacy should remind us that what we really need is a strong and unapologetic progressive to lead us,” Manning wrote. “What we need as well is a relentless grassroots movement to hold that leadership accountable.”

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  5. It's really good.

    Hacker who gave up Wikileaks source dies
    Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker best known for passing on information that led to the arrest of Chelsea Manning, has died aged 37.
    In online messaging conversations, Manning confided in him, describing confidential military material Manning had sent to Wikileaks.
    Wikileaks published the video of a US helicopter strike that killed seven people, including a journalist working for the Reuters news agency.
    The cause of Lamo’s death, confirmed to the BBC by the Sedgwick County coroner in Kansas, has not yet been made public.
    On Facebook, his father Mario wrote: “With great sadness and a broken heart I have to let know all of Adrian's friends and acquittances [sic] that he is dead. A bright mind and compassionate soul is gone, he was my beloved son.”
    Lamo's own record as a hacker included some high-profile targets, such as Microsoft and the New York Times.
    'Thrust upon me'
    Speaking to the Guardian newspaper in 2011, Lamo described his decision to give up Manning as “not one I decided to make, but was thrust upon me”.
    Lamo said he would have "lasting regret" if Manning was handed a long sentence.
    Manning, known at the time as Bradley Manning, was eventually sentenced to 35 years in prison. However, President Barack Obama later commuted her sentence and she was released in May 2017.
    She is now attempting to become the Senator for Maryland, her home state.
    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on Friday described Lamo as a “petty conman and betrayer of basic human decency”.
  7. Chelsea is free and living a productive life and that's a bonus for all of us especially her.
  8. The Wrong Guy Member

    Disclosing Subpoena for Testimony, Chelsea Manning Vows to Fight

    By Charlie Savage, The New York Times, February 28, 2019


    Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst convicted in 2013 of leaking archives of secret military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks, revealed in an interview that she had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury — and vowed to fight it.

    The subpoena does not say what prosecutors intend to ask her about. But it was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia and comes after prosecutors inadvertently disclosed in November that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has been charged under seal in that district.

    Ms. Manning, who provided a copy of the subpoena to The New York Times, said that her legal team would file a motion on Friday to quash it, arguing that it would violate her constitutional rights to force her to appear. She declined to say whether she would cooperate if that failed.

    “Given what is going on, I am opposing this,” she said. “I want to be very forthright I have been subpoenaed. I don’t know the parameters of the subpoena apart from that I am expected to appear. I don’t know what I’m going to be asked.”

    Ms. Manning said she had retained Moira Meltzer-Cohen, a New York attorney, to represent her in fighting the subpoena. Her website lists grand-jury representation as a specialty, saying: “We will work to quash the subpoena on all available grounds, assist you in identifying lawful ways to resist the subpoena, and work to prevent a contempt finding in the event that you refuse to testify.”

    Mr. Assange has been living for years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to avoid arrest. It has not been clear what the sealed charge or charges relate to, but prosecuting him for publishing government secrets would raise novel issues about the limits of First Amendment press freedoms.

    Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the office of the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, declined to comment. But there were multiple reasons to believe that the subpoena is related to the investigation of Mr. Assange.

    Among them, the subpoena was requested by Gordon D. Kromberg, an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District. After an inadvertent court filing revealed that Mr. Assange has been charged under seal, it was Mr. Kromberg who successfully argued before a judge that any such charges remain a secret and should not be unsealed.

    Moreover, Ms. Manning said, Mr. Kromberg has told her lawyers in vague terms that prosecutors wanted to talk to her about her past statements. During her court-martial, Ms. Manning delivered a lengthy statement about how she came to copy archives of secret documents and send them to WikiLeaks, including her online interactions with someone who was likely Mr. Assange.

    “It’s disappointing but not surprising that the government is continuing to pursue criminal charges against Julian Assange, apparently for his role in uncovering and providing the public truthful information about matters of great public interest,” said Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Mr. Assange.

    In recent years, Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have become notorious for their role in disseminating Democratic emails stolen by Russian hackers as part of the Russian government’s covert efforts to damage the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help Donald J. Trump win.

    The antisecrecy group, however, had previously vaulted to fame by publishing archives of classified documents — including logs of significant events in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and diplomatic cables — that revealed many things about what was secretly happening in the world. All of those initial files, it eventually emerged, had been provided by Ms. Manning.

    In 2017, WikiLeaks published documents about C.I.A. hacking tools. A software engineer, Joshua A. Schulte, has been charged with that leak.

    After Ms. Manning’s leaks, the Obama administration had considered trying to indict Mr. Assange. But while it has become common to prosecute officials under the Espionage Act for leaking files, using it against someone who merely received and published leaked files raised fears about chilling investigative reporting.

    The Obama legal team eventually shelved the idea. But the Trump legal team moved forward with developing a sealed criminal complaint against Mr. Assange — for something — last summer, providing a potential basis to seek his extradition were he to emerge from the embassy.

    The subpoena to Ms. Manning, dated Jan. 22, says that she was ordered to appear on Feb. 5 before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va. But she said that date got pushed back, and she is now supposed to testify on March 5.

    During her court-martial, Ms. Manning took responsibility for her actions and said that Mr. Assange had not directed them.

    “No one associated with W.L.O.” — an abbreviation she used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” she said at the time. “I take full responsibility.”

    Because that account would seemingly be helpful to the defense, she said she wondered if prosecutors wanted to try to get her to back away from it. She would not do so, she insisted, while criticizing the secrecy that surrounds grand jury proceedings.

    “I am not going to contribute to a process that I feel is dangerous and could potentially place me in a position where I am forced to backtrack on the truth,” she said.

    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Wrong Guy Member

    This is from May 29, 2013:
    WikiLeaks Veteran: I ‘Cooperated’ With Feds ‘in Exchange for Immunity’

    A grand jury probe that began nine years ago is ongoing. And one of Julian Assange’s old crew is now talking. “I’m on the street... not in an embassy,” he tells The Daily Beast.

    By Kevin Poulsen, Daily Beast, March 1, 2019


    Chelsea Manning isn’t alone.

    Late Thursday, Manning revealed that she’s fighting a subpoena to testify before a grand jury that’s been investigating Julian Assange for nearly nine years. But Manning isn’t the only one being dragged into the aging probe of WikiLeaks’ first big haul. A former WikiLeaks volunteer who was also personal friends with Manning was subpoenaed last May. But unlike Manning, he did not fight the subpoena. He accepted an immunity deal offered by prosecutors.

    It’s the second person in Assange’s broader orbit publicly known to have cooperated with prosecutors in their nearly decade-long pursuit of WikiLeaks.

    Manning told the New York Times that she’s been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia on March 5th. Manning, who was released from prison in 2017 on a clemency grant from Obama, vowed to fight the subpoena in court. “I am not going to contribute to a process that I feel is dangerous and could potentially place me in a position where I am forced to backtrack on the truth,” she told the paper.

    She made good on that vow Friday morning by filing a motion to quash the subpoena, according to her attorney, New York lawyer Moira Meltzer-Cohen. “At the insistence of the clerk, the motion was filed under seal,” said Meltzer-Cohen in an email to The Daily Beast. “Our position is that litigation regarding the enforceability of a subpoena does not implicate grand jury secrecy, and we will move to have it unsealed. Chelsea, as you might expect, wants to bring some transparency to this process and hopes to be able to share the filing soon.”

    Manning’s subpoena is the latest surge of action in an old case given new life under the Trump administration. Though the paperwork doesn’t specify what she’s expected to testify about, a case number is visible at the top of the page. It’s the known case number for a grand jury probe into WikiLeaks that began nine years ago in the middle of Assange’s dump of the hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables and Army field reports leaked to him by Manning.

    The existence of case 10GJ3793 first became public in early 2011 when prosecutors were papering companies like Google and Twitter with demands for records of key WikiLeaks activists. With the government’s consent, Twitter notified five users that the feds were after their records, and three of them went to court to challenge the lawfulness of the search, backed by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    After two years of litigation, in 2013 an appeals court sided with the government against the three WikiLeaks activists: Jacob Appelbaum, Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, and Dutch businessman Rop Gonggrijp.

    The investigation continued mostly in secret after that, with artifacts of the probe occasionally surfacing after the fact. In June 2011 a handful of Manning’s friends in Boston were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. One of them, David House, was also a WikiLeaks volunteer, and he pleaded the Fifth Amendment in the grand jury chamber and released a list of the questions he was asked on the internet afterwards.

    Two months later, an Icelandic WikiLeaks staffer named Sigurdur Thordarson started secretly spying on the group for the FBI. He met with prosecutors in Virginia in February 2012 and later turned over eight hard drives of internal WikiLeaks chat logs and media. Around the same time the government obtained a search warrant for the Gmail inbox of another WikiLeaks volunteer in Reykjavik.

    The paperwork showed that the grand jury was investigating Assange for potentially violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Espionage Act in connection with the Manning leaks.

    But the case went nowhere. The Obama administration ultimately decided that prosecuting Assange for accepting and publishing leaked documents would run into First Amendment issues. The WikiLeaks founder has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since August 2012, when he breached bail to avoid extradition to Sweden over accusations of sexual assault and rape.

    After the election, that all changed. The FBI began reaching out again to the diverse cast of characters from WikiLeaks’ early days — most of whom had long ago parted company with Assange on acrimonious terms.

    In November 2017, German police relayed an interview request from the FBI to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Assange’s former second in command. “I don’t know much about the content, but according to what I was told, they wanted to question me about JA's relationship with Chelsea Manning,” Domscheit-Berg told The Daily Beast last year. “Which struck me as a bit odd and a little late in the game maybe. I quite naturally denied this request.”

    And The Daily Beast has learned that David House, the former WikiLeaks volunteer and Manning friend, was subpoenaed last May for an encore appearance before the Alexandria grand jury. This time he didn’t take the Fifth. “I decided to cooperate in exchange for immunity,” said House, who provided a copy of the subpoena. “You know, I’m walking around on the street out here. I’m not in an embassy.”

    House spoke briefly with prosecutors and then testified for about 90 minutes in front of the grand jury, he said. “They wanted to know about my meetings with Assange, they wanted to know broadly about what we talked about,” he recalled. Prosecutors seemed particularly interested in the potential for collateral damage in some of Assange’s leaks. The identities of some American collaborators were exposed in Assange’s release of State Department cables and Army field reports from Afghanistan, which triggered internal debate and led to the departure of some of WikiLeaks’ key staffers early on.

    “They showed me chat logs in which I was arguing vehemently with him about releasing documents that would leave people vulnerable and put people’s lives at risk,” said House, a computer science graduate and political activist now working on a centrist movement called the Pilot Party. “That was the only thing they put in front of my face that made me think, ‘This may be what they’re going after him for.’”

    Continued at
  10. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. The Wrong Guy Member

    Chelsea Manning sent to jail for refusing to testify in Wikileaks case | The Washington Post


    Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning will be held in jail until she testifies before a grand jury or that grand jury is no longer operating, a federal judge in Alexandria ruled Friday.

    Most of the hearing at which prosecutors argued for Manning to held in contempt was sealed, but the court was open to the public for Judge Claude M. Hilton’s ruling.

    “I’ve found you in contempt,” Hilton said. He ordered her to custody immediately, “either until you purge yourself or the end of the life of the grand jury.”

    Manning was called to testify in an investigation into Wikileaks, the anti-secrecy website she shared classified documents with back in 2010. Manning served seven years of a 35 year prison sentence for her leak before receiving a commutation from then-President Barack Obama.

    Outside court before the hearing, Manning said she was prepared to go to jail.

    “These secret proceedings tend to favor the government,” she said. “I’m always willing to explain things publicly.”

    Manning’s attorney, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, said it would be “an act of tremendous cruelty” to send the transgender ex-private to jail given medical and safety concerns.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 1
  12. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. conchosunwi Member

    Xã Bình Lợi dog ê 7 i _ q 8

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins