Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense(freedom.press)
freedom.press
Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense
https://freedom.press/chelsea
166 comments
Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose.
There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despite those things, for various reasons Manning should nonetheless be found not guilty, or at least her sentence should be reduced. They will try to make the case not about straightforward factual events, but about Manning's intentions and motivations, the nature of the information involved, the impact of the disclosures, the broader social and political implications of finding her guilty, etc.
A straightforward legal procedure would certainly be cheaper. It'd also be one that would find Manning guilty without even considering the mitigating factors she's relying on for her defense.
There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despite those things, for various reasons Manning should nonetheless be found not guilty, or at least her sentence should be reduced. They will try to make the case not about straightforward factual events, but about Manning's intentions and motivations, the nature of the information involved, the impact of the disclosures, the broader social and political implications of finding her guilty, etc.
A straightforward legal procedure would certainly be cheaper. It'd also be one that would find Manning guilty without even considering the mitigating factors she's relying on for her defense.
So basically the point is that it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?
To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person - where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies.
I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the difference in our (moral?) thinking lies.
Isn't it close to the idea that the state should provide a humane living standard for those who can't provide for themselves. Such as not starving, basic healthcare etc - but anything beyond that is something that every person has to earn themselves. This seems like something close to a moral conviction to liberal-minded people, sometimes. "If you can afford it, you deserve it."
I'm wondering if it's the same thinking that guides you here. A basic "throw them in jail if they did it" law that doesn't allow for complicated cases, and a deluxe version that takes into account other things than "straightforward factual events", for those who can afford it?
I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm just not getting your point.
To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person - where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies.
I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the difference in our (moral?) thinking lies.
Isn't it close to the idea that the state should provide a humane living standard for those who can't provide for themselves. Such as not starving, basic healthcare etc - but anything beyond that is something that every person has to earn themselves. This seems like something close to a moral conviction to liberal-minded people, sometimes. "If you can afford it, you deserve it."
I'm wondering if it's the same thinking that guides you here. A basic "throw them in jail if they did it" law that doesn't allow for complicated cases, and a deluxe version that takes into account other things than "straightforward factual events", for those who can afford it?
I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm just not getting your point.
> "it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?"
More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not guilty because..."
in such a circumstance, you're essentially hoping to convince a judge or jury that your law-breaking was OK, which is significantly more difficult and requires significantly more research than if you merely needed to convince the jury that you hadn't broken the law.
More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not guilty because..."
in such a circumstance, you're essentially hoping to convince a judge or jury that your law-breaking was OK, which is significantly more difficult and requires significantly more research than if you merely needed to convince the jury that you hadn't broken the law.
No my point is that "I did it" and "I broke the law" are two separate things. One thing is about my actions, and the other is about how my actions are supposed to be interpreted by the law.
The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for.
For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...).
If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.
The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for.
For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...).
If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.
> "If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right?"
Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.
Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.
The question is, how do you make the system more fair? One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and the way to do that is to reduce its complexity. But what does a less complex system look like?
Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state) requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state elements. It's very time consuming, and therefore expensive, to litigate the question of what someone was thinking when they took certain actions. Did Manning leak that information? Was that information classified? If so, she's guilty. No need to spend lots of time and money arguing about what she was thinking or what motivated her to leak the information.
What you're talking about is a slightly different issue--who should bear the cost of allowing ordinary people to mount complicated and expensive legal defenses? That's outside the scope of what I'm talking about above.
Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state) requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state elements. It's very time consuming, and therefore expensive, to litigate the question of what someone was thinking when they took certain actions. Did Manning leak that information? Was that information classified? If so, she's guilty. No need to spend lots of time and money arguing about what she was thinking or what motivated her to leak the information.
What you're talking about is a slightly different issue--who should bear the cost of allowing ordinary people to mount complicated and expensive legal defenses? That's outside the scope of what I'm talking about above.
> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity.
You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.
You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.
There's a lot going on here. Partly, I think we're conflating having the best possible defense with having a fair trial. The latter probably does not require the former and, in any case, it is probably not possible under any reasonable system to provide the former for everyone. I think many defendants do receive fair trials, whether they can afford representation or not--though this does not mean their representation could not have been better.
In fact, today, for poor defendants, the lawyers on both side are already salaried state employees. Moreover, federal defenders and some state public defenders (particularly in big cities) are actually very good. Believe it or not, these are highly coveted jobs, despite the dismal pay and stressful work. But that doesn't mean it isn't still possible to go hire an even better lawyer. And, when your life is on the line, this is just what people will do if they can possibly afford it.
This will result in disparities, but it's unclear how we could prevent this short of preventing people from hiring private attorneys. This seems like a non-starter, so it's probably better to focus our resources on making sure everyone's representation is adequate, than on making sure everyone's representation is the same.
But the other problem, of course, is that, although many public defenders are actually extremely gifted, their offices don't receive nearly enough funding. This means that, although it is possible for a given defendant to receive good representation (and some do), in the aggregate public defenders offices simply cannot properly do all the work that needs to be done. This is, in theory, an easy problem to solve, but unfortunately, there is little public interest in solving it. Prosecuting criminals is popular. Defending them is not. (Of course, the whole point is that not all defendants are criminals, and we need good lawyers to help the system distinguish between the two. But that's not the message that sticks with people, for some reason.)
In fact, today, for poor defendants, the lawyers on both side are already salaried state employees. Moreover, federal defenders and some state public defenders (particularly in big cities) are actually very good. Believe it or not, these are highly coveted jobs, despite the dismal pay and stressful work. But that doesn't mean it isn't still possible to go hire an even better lawyer. And, when your life is on the line, this is just what people will do if they can possibly afford it.
This will result in disparities, but it's unclear how we could prevent this short of preventing people from hiring private attorneys. This seems like a non-starter, so it's probably better to focus our resources on making sure everyone's representation is adequate, than on making sure everyone's representation is the same.
But the other problem, of course, is that, although many public defenders are actually extremely gifted, their offices don't receive nearly enough funding. This means that, although it is possible for a given defendant to receive good representation (and some do), in the aggregate public defenders offices simply cannot properly do all the work that needs to be done. This is, in theory, an easy problem to solve, but unfortunately, there is little public interest in solving it. Prosecuting criminals is popular. Defending them is not. (Of course, the whole point is that not all defendants are criminals, and we need good lawyers to help the system distinguish between the two. But that's not the message that sticks with people, for some reason.)
so, it sounds like you're saying we could get a "pretty good" or maybe "good enough" solution with nothing more complicated than a drastic bump in funding to public defenders' offices?
I think that's probably right. The system wouldn't be perfect (in particular, you'd still have the problematic specter of the rich hiring whole teams of expert attorneys, giving rise to the suggestion raised here that the rich can, to some degree, buy the justice system), but I think it would be adequate so long as the defendant's resources were typically comparable to the resources brought to bear by the prosecution in a particular case. (Bearing in mind that, for run of the mill cases, the prosecution will not exactly throw every dollar they have at it either.)
This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to suggest it as a solution.
It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also often a bit hyperbolic.
This hints at some sort of rule that requires budget parity between the government's expenditure on the prosecution and on the defense in a given case, but I really haven't thought such an idea through sufficiently to suggest it as a solution.
It's also worth considering that, as with many other things, diminishing returns kick in at some point in one's legal defense. The objective reality of one's guilt or innocence does also, of course, play a role. Even a team of expert attorneys will have a hard time securing an acquittal with bad enough facts. So concerns about "buying justice," while real and important, are also often a bit hyperbolic.
[deleted]
You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright?
The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients.
You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.
The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients.
You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.
> You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.
A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
A common denominator is the only way to make things fair. You pointed out the conflict of interest; very well, that's a good point. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system we currently have is so vulnerable to corruption, that it wouldn't be hard to make something more fair.
It's worth bearing in mind that rich people play an important role in restraining the power of government. Our founding fathers were, after all, the wealthy elite of their time. Despots and dictators crack down on wealthy people who do not fall in line, and guaranteeing independent legal representation (which the Constitution does) is a bulwark against such overreach.
> A common denominator is the only way to make things fair.
This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
This is how you destroy civilizations. The Soviet Union and Cuba come to mind as places that tried to make society more fair by equally distributing poverty and oppression. You make society better by pulling the bottom up, not by pushing the top down.
That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.
Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person?
Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible.
If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness".
Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.
Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible.
If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness".
Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.
> The world is not fair. Deal with it.
I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair."
Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.
I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair."
Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.
Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to
force fairness.
Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant.
Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant.
Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.
> but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off
Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then.
It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking.
> How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else?
That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence.
> Your argument is rooted in envy
Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then.
It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking.
> How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else?
That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence.
> Your argument is rooted in envy
Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
Your original argument was that lawyers on both sides of a criminal prosecution should be public employees. One side is already always a public employee, the prosecution. That's what I'm referring to here. The fact that one person can afford a better defense in one case doesn't do anything to hurt the defense of some guy that can't in another.
We should. It could be us.
At the very least, having a fund or pool of some sort might not be a bad idea, and it would not cost us much.
Ordinary people sometimes require extraordinary legal defenses. Sometimes they deserve them too. We hear about the ones who didn't get what they deserve in the news.
We do prosecute on intent, and we often make judgements on intent too. Spending that time and money to determine intent is warranted.
At the very least, having a fund or pool of some sort might not be a bad idea, and it would not cost us much.
Ordinary people sometimes require extraordinary legal defenses. Sometimes they deserve them too. We hear about the ones who didn't get what they deserve in the news.
We do prosecute on intent, and we often make judgements on intent too. Spending that time and money to determine intent is warranted.
You probably meant: "Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state elements."
I kind of doubt the strategy will be to seek acquittal. They will probably try to build some sympathy and convince the court it was her intention to do good for America, not to help an enemy or earn money. They will probably also plead diminished capacity due to depression and gender dysphoria (if that sort of thing flies in military court). Hope for a lighter punishment and return to society before she's an old lady.
> I kind of doubt the strategy will be to seek acquittal
I'd be fairly surprised if two of the key points on which the defense will assert that legal errors were made at trial are not:
(1) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to due process by way of unlawful pretrial punishment, and
(2) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to speedy trial.
(Note that both of these trial-court legal decisions preceded, and formed part of the context for, the guilty plea; prior to those events, Manning had not entered a plea.)
The idea that the appeal will focus only on sentence seems to me to be quite unlikely.
I'd be fairly surprised if two of the key points on which the defense will assert that legal errors were made at trial are not:
(1) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to due process by way of unlawful pretrial punishment, and
(2) the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice due to the government's denial of Manning's Constitutional right to speedy trial.
(Note that both of these trial-court legal decisions preceded, and formed part of the context for, the guilty plea; prior to those events, Manning had not entered a plea.)
The idea that the appeal will focus only on sentence seems to me to be quite unlikely.
But this wasn't a case of doing something good for America. Manning stated they did this because of America's stand on gay marriage. This was not an act of moral compassion for America, this was revenge. We should not reward people who violate laws simply because they claim they were doing it "for the good of America."
You have a cite for that? His[1] public statements have been his opposition to US conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bradley-manning-ex...
[1] He's still Bradley in this article.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bradley-manning-ex...
[1] He's still Bradley in this article.
People are objecting to the costs that the defendant must bear, not the total cost.
> How can this be considered normal?
It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.
It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid
A better idea is common throughout the world.
A better idea is common throughout the world.
Please show me one country where there is 'legal aid' to the tune of 200k where the legal case is basically 'yeah so I totally did what I was charged with, law is totally clear but I should still receive a lesser sentence because <political reason>'.
Look, I'm fine with people advocating through the judicial process, but all things considered, of all people who are 'disadvantaged' in their legal proceedings and should 'deserving' of receiving government-sponsored legal aid (because there already is legal aid in this case, to the tune of <however much this amount in OP says right now>), this case's (and defendant's) scorecard looks pretty weak.
Look, I'm fine with people advocating through the judicial process, but all things considered, of all people who are 'disadvantaged' in their legal proceedings and should 'deserving' of receiving government-sponsored legal aid (because there already is legal aid in this case, to the tune of <however much this amount in OP says right now>), this case's (and defendant's) scorecard looks pretty weak.
Legal aid (which the US has) does not fix the problem in all cases, though it mitigates it somewhat.
That article says the US has legal aid...
Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work.
Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare but to a much lesser degree I'm inclined to believe.
Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare but to a much lesser degree I'm inclined to believe.
You are provided counsel when defending yourself if you cannot afford it. It is when you lose and do not accept a court's verdict. Even plead guilty to a good number of the charges and was given a sentence lower than requested by the prosecution.
there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free, else those convicted could simply keep their cases open at cost to the tax payer when guilt had been properly assessed.
there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free, else those convicted could simply keep their cases open at cost to the tax payer when guilt had been properly assessed.
> there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free
Neither are automatic appeals, or this whole thread wouldn't be happening. The appeal here is automatic.
Neither are automatic appeals, or this whole thread wouldn't be happening. The appeal here is automatic.
In the US, you're already entitled to an attorney for your defense. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good attorney.
Gideon v. Wainwright established that indigent defendants are entitled to free legal representation. There's no such right for non-indigent defendants.
Not even when the price of legal representation is above my means to pay?
Note that "Cannot pay" is often interpreted to mean "Has already mortgaged the house and liquidated all things", not "has an empty checking account".
States establish indigence standards. Generally if your income exceeds 200% the federal poverty line, you aren't entitled to a court appointed attorney. Even then, if you're above 125% the poverty line, you can be forced to pay for your court appointed attorney. You can claim financial hardship, but the court isn't obliged to accept your claims.
If you need an attorney and cannot afford one, one is appointed. If you can afford one, you can't really say "I'd rather not pay that."
In this context "afford" typically means you can still keep your home/apartment and go grocery shopping.
In this context "afford" typically means you can still keep your home/apartment and go grocery shopping.
That's why you should be able to chose the court appointed attorney within reason.
You'd need to pretty carefully define "within reason", though; it's not reasonable to select without regard to cost.
That's not an issue at all, if the government just acts as a lender to whoever is going to lose.
That also has the added bonus of making people think twice about engaging people in civil suits and prevents people and bad prosecutors from using the legal system for blackmail.
That also has the added bonus of making people think twice about engaging people in civil suits and prevents people and bad prosecutors from using the legal system for blackmail.
Well, if you go with a "loser pays" system you run into the issue of false convictions and economic-disparity again.
If I were to barely break even at the end of each month, and was tried for a crime I didn't commit I might still consider pleading guilty because the actual punishment would be less than the results of the financial penalty incurred by defending yourself and losing. If I were rich enough to easily pay the fees should I lose, I would risk it.
If I were to barely break even at the end of each month, and was tried for a crime I didn't commit I might still consider pleading guilty because the actual punishment would be less than the results of the financial penalty incurred by defending yourself and losing. If I were rich enough to easily pay the fees should I lose, I would risk it.
For criminal cases, that probably depends on the interest and repayment terms. If its means-contingent repayment without usurious interest, the incentive to plea guilty to avoid the cost of defense would be minimized, though the public expense would, correspondingly, be greater. OTOH, the expense would be going to assure that the guilty, and only the guilty, were punished and the government was less able to get away with punishing the poor-but-innocent to prevent a public image of dealing with problems while failing to actually get the guilty, so there is a public benefit (in addition to "protecting the rights of the accused") that comes from that public expense.
That's certainly a problem but it's a problem that would impact society overall negatively. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to weaken the "loser pays" system slightly, so that a balance between actual punishment and financial penalty is reached that prevents the latter from becoming an incentive to plead guilty. This could simply be done by having the government pay in these cases.
What's causing the prices to be so high? Is it the complexity of U.S. law? Would it help if you had 5 pages laws instead of 500 pages laws, or would that make things worse? (more room for loopholes) I'm inclined to believe simpler laws would help, though, because a lawyer wouldn't have to know tens of thousands of pages of laws by heart (or close to it), or at least wouldn't have to research tens of thousands of pages.
Would having to pay if you lose help, too? I imagine there would be fewer lawsuits then. I don't have any data to back it up, but it feels like the U.S. has the most lawsuits/capita. Other countries where you have to pay if you lose don't have that many.
Anyway, it definitely doesn't feel fair that you need hundreds of thousands of dollars for a good defense. That's why most people tend to take the plea deal even if they are not guilty of the charges they bring, or if they are "guilty" but only through some twisted interpretations of the law and the prosecutors, which could be invalidated in a Court, but they can't risk it (especially when the prosecutors tend to charge them with 10 different offenses and 30 years in prison for the least violent of crimes just to scare them into taking the 6 months in prison plea deal).
The U.S. prosecutors seem to be acting exactly like patent trolls - or the mafia: "We won't take you to Court if you just pay this small sum - or go to prison for this small amount of time."
Would having to pay if you lose help, too? I imagine there would be fewer lawsuits then. I don't have any data to back it up, but it feels like the U.S. has the most lawsuits/capita. Other countries where you have to pay if you lose don't have that many.
Anyway, it definitely doesn't feel fair that you need hundreds of thousands of dollars for a good defense. That's why most people tend to take the plea deal even if they are not guilty of the charges they bring, or if they are "guilty" but only through some twisted interpretations of the law and the prosecutors, which could be invalidated in a Court, but they can't risk it (especially when the prosecutors tend to charge them with 10 different offenses and 30 years in prison for the least violent of crimes just to scare them into taking the 6 months in prison plea deal).
The U.S. prosecutors seem to be acting exactly like patent trolls - or the mafia: "We won't take you to Court if you just pay this small sum - or go to prison for this small amount of time."
120k ~= 100 days of work for a reasonably skilled attorney who know about the (very niche) topic, including office costs (which in turn include the salary of the secretary, stamps etc). Or 150 days of work if it's split between a lawyer and some paralegals.
At this point one might object that lawyers make too much money, but then I'd like to say that most everybody on this site working for a big company, or working for their own, costs this much or charges this much (or should charge as much, if they're 'professionals' and not 'I can set up Wordpress'-style workers).
Also, let's say that there are no expenses, i.e. only lawyers who live close to wherever the cases are heard (no plane tickets, no hotels), that all proceeding are in the same location, that the defendant is held somewhere close as well, that everybody working the case drives cars that run on air etc.
So then we have ~ 6 months, for a single person with some part-time help to do the menial stuff, to research the case, prepare all briefs, do all trial prep work (I don't know anything about this case but let's say you want to call 3 character witnesses. That's a week right there just selecting them, convincing them to come, prepping them, filing the paperwork etc.); to do the PR; to work with other stakeholders; the actual proceedings (which might span several court sessions - motion for this and that, pre-trial hearing(s), the actual trial, etc. I think it's clear that a single person can't do all of this in 6 months.
It's just what things cost in the real world. But hey, it could have been worse, you could've gone to court in Europe - in which case you'd get to pay between 15 and 25% VAT on top of it (probably not in all European countries, before someone jumps on that).
At this point one might object that lawyers make too much money, but then I'd like to say that most everybody on this site working for a big company, or working for their own, costs this much or charges this much (or should charge as much, if they're 'professionals' and not 'I can set up Wordpress'-style workers).
Also, let's say that there are no expenses, i.e. only lawyers who live close to wherever the cases are heard (no plane tickets, no hotels), that all proceeding are in the same location, that the defendant is held somewhere close as well, that everybody working the case drives cars that run on air etc.
So then we have ~ 6 months, for a single person with some part-time help to do the menial stuff, to research the case, prepare all briefs, do all trial prep work (I don't know anything about this case but let's say you want to call 3 character witnesses. That's a week right there just selecting them, convincing them to come, prepping them, filing the paperwork etc.); to do the PR; to work with other stakeholders; the actual proceedings (which might span several court sessions - motion for this and that, pre-trial hearing(s), the actual trial, etc. I think it's clear that a single person can't do all of this in 6 months.
It's just what things cost in the real world. But hey, it could have been worse, you could've gone to court in Europe - in which case you'd get to pay between 15 and 25% VAT on top of it (probably not in all European countries, before someone jumps on that).
Well look at that after I hit 'reply', the top post is 'estimate cost for your apps'! It looks like one can buy a legal defense for a highly complex case with world-wide attention for the cost of 2 medium-sized iOS apps, with only 'basic' level of finish, and no more than some simple sign up and in-app purchase functionality!
From my limited understanding, the US has rather simple statutory laws. In other words, the legislature only promulgates 5 pages of law. But given that reality is complex, these laws cannot cover all the cases. So the judicial branch makes certain decisions themselves, and these decisions become binding to later and lower courts (a.k.a precedents). These precedent based laws are very complicated and amount to 500 pages.
So, I guess your idea won't work. Either the legislature thinks up front and publishes 500 pages, or the courts have to fill in the blanks between page 5 and page 500 themselves.
So, I guess your idea won't work. Either the legislature thinks up front and publishes 500 pages, or the courts have to fill in the blanks between page 5 and page 500 themselves.
It's not the pages of laws, the common law renders relevant the judgement in thousands of prior cases. In many cases what you're paying for is not rhetorical and theatrical flourish (to sway the jury), but the specialized knowledge and application of prior rulings (to sway the judge).
What causes the prices to be high is supply and demand driven by a combination of wealth inequality and frequency of legal action. There are people with enough money, and enough at stake, to offer the best attorneys lots of money, therefore quality legal services are quite expensive.
Bear in mind that this is also a military court -- not a civilian one. The rules are entirely different there.
"Selon que vous serez puissant ou misérable,
Les jugements de cour vous rendront blanc ou noir."
("According to your mighty or miserable position, The judgment of court will render you white or black.")
- Jean de la Fontaine, 1678
("According to your mighty or miserable position, The judgment of court will render you white or black.")
- Jean de la Fontaine, 1678
Here's a proposal:
1) At the beginning of the case, each party proposes how much money they would like to be spent on their side of the case.
2) The Spending Limit is set to the greater proposal. They then must pay the other party the difference between what they proposed and what the other party proposed (to be spent only on legal expenses for this case).
3) Both sides are prohibited sprom spending more than the Spending Limit on legal expenses for this case.
For example, if A and B are going to court, A proposes a $10k Limit and B proposes a $100k Limit; B has the larger number, so the cap is set at $100k, and B must pay for up to $90k legal expenses for A.
Clearly there are some details that must be worked out (eg what if someone wants to raise the limit halfway thru the case? What about money spent on preparation before going to court?) but i think this would be a good start. This proposal achieves substantive equality without sacrificing procedural equality and without preventing either party from spending as much as they want.
1) At the beginning of the case, each party proposes how much money they would like to be spent on their side of the case.
2) The Spending Limit is set to the greater proposal. They then must pay the other party the difference between what they proposed and what the other party proposed (to be spent only on legal expenses for this case).
3) Both sides are prohibited sprom spending more than the Spending Limit on legal expenses for this case.
For example, if A and B are going to court, A proposes a $10k Limit and B proposes a $100k Limit; B has the larger number, so the cap is set at $100k, and B must pay for up to $90k legal expenses for A.
Clearly there are some details that must be worked out (eg what if someone wants to raise the limit halfway thru the case? What about money spent on preparation before going to court?) but i think this would be a good start. This proposal achieves substantive equality without sacrificing procedural equality and without preventing either party from spending as much as they want.
What would prevent them from spending and not reporting it?
Fairness is based upon the information presented before the courts. Unfortunately, information is expensive to produce and subjective in nature. The art of legal council emerges.
I love the principle of complete fairness, but how is this technically possible? Moving to a purely fact-based society may come at the expense of liberty.
I love the principle of complete fairness, but how is this technically possible? Moving to a purely fact-based society may come at the expense of liberty.
Only tens of thousands?
To give another parable: According to Wikipedia, the Weatherman later known as "..the Weather Underground Organization, was an American militant organization that carried out a series of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots from 1969 through the 1970s." They committed acts of violence in the name of doing what was right for America. To save America from the evils of the government. Should we forgive and forget their actions, simply because it was in the interest of making America better? To righting what they perceived was unjust policy?
I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior.
Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.
I contend that's a very slippery slope, because where do we draw the line and say: If you break only these laws, it's ok so long as you're "doing it for America" but if you break these other laws, that's going to far. America should not be an excuse for unlawful behavior.
Laws exist, morally right or wrong, so that they can hopefully be applied equally to everyone. That never happens, but we cannot just turn a blind eye to some crimes versus others because of morality, or "doing what is right" for America. Ms. Manning broke a law willingly, knowingly, with full appreciation for her actions. She has admitted doing so in response to American policy towards gay marriage. She's guilty, and she should be punished.
[deleted]
I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns.
Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns.
That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.
Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns.
That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.
I'd suggest a more innocuous explanation: those who view her actions favourably are more "up to date" with her situation (including coming out as trans), while those who don't are less up to date and might not be aware.
In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he".
[1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible.
Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?
In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he".
[1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible.
Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?
This is the case for me. There's nothing nefarious about it. When the case was prominently in the media, "he" was Bradley Manning, and so that's what I think of when I see any headline just referring to her as Manning. It's only after reading the article or comments I am reminded that she is "Chelsea" now.
For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.
For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.
Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions.
Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).
>I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns.
I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.
I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.
I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably.
And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
> And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense.
It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.
I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense.
It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.
I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.
Why is leaking classified information special to the point where someone even accused of that crime is unworthy of help no matter the circumstances?
More generally, just because someone is indisputably guilty of violating some statute doesn't mean they deserve the prescribed punishment. You're taking a legal conclusion and imputing some sort of moral authority to it. The law often requires outcomes that are arguably immoral. Sometimes this provides the motivation to change the law. Other times, judges ignore the law. And sometimes, the government does terrible things because nobody does anything to stop it. It seems ridiculous to argue that someone who is arguably being punished for doing the right thing should just stand there and take whatever the law metes out.
More generally, just because someone is indisputably guilty of violating some statute doesn't mean they deserve the prescribed punishment. You're taking a legal conclusion and imputing some sort of moral authority to it. The law often requires outcomes that are arguably immoral. Sometimes this provides the motivation to change the law. Other times, judges ignore the law. And sometimes, the government does terrible things because nobody does anything to stop it. It seems ridiculous to argue that someone who is arguably being punished for doing the right thing should just stand there and take whatever the law metes out.
Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere
I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments. There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good of a nation.
That's quite an extreme view. I'm sure you've already taken into account the horrifying laws that have existed and do exist in the U.S. and other countries. I'm not sure why you mention multiple laws and good of the nation as you've already stated your position is that it doesn't matter what law is broken or what mitigating circumstances there are.
So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?
I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.
Whistleblowing almost always involves breaking at least one law. The general trend has been to bring in more laws to make it less likely that it is possible legally in any given situation. To say "I support whistleblowing but only if no laws are broken" is almost meaningless.
I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.
The world must seem so simple to you.
(Curious what the basis of the appeal is to be.)
I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to.
> I guess it would be an appeal of the sentence, rather than appealing her the charges she pled guilty to.
There were several legal motions prior to the guilty plea and on which it was predicated that are quite likely to be the subject of the appeal, particularly the motions to dismiss all charges (first for Constitutional due process violations involving unlawful pretrial punishment, second for violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)
There were several legal motions prior to the guilty plea and on which it was predicated that are quite likely to be the subject of the appeal, particularly the motions to dismiss all charges (first for Constitutional due process violations involving unlawful pretrial punishment, second for violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.)
So in other words, there is not a single law firm in US which will take on Chelsea Manning's crucial cause without eyeing for money? That's why she's resorting to ask for donations? Is that even possible?
The lawyers may very well not take any money but that's not what you need the money for.
For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out.
The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.
For a case like this with 100,000's of documents tons of witnesses and experts you need more money just for the discovery phase that any non-tv law firm will be able to put out.
The defense also needs to be able to bring their own experts which in this case might be psychologists, social liberty experts, computer security and forensic experts, anti-terror and national defense experts and more, all of those cost money and a lot of it even if they are willing to come out and testify at cost.
This is for the appeal. For the trial, the accused have a right to counsel. In federal court, public defenders are paid a nontrivial amount. In state court...
Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss.
Horrible but probably true.
Horrible but probably true.
I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).
That's a bit of a false dichotomy though, isn't it?
In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work.
Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!
In the same way that lots of tech firms release some open-source code (in some cases, quite a lot!), legal firms often do a fair bit of pro-bono work.
Releasing stuff/providing legal services for free doesn't mean you can't eat!
Lawyers charge a lot per hour but also have large overheads, especially trial lawyers. The amounts mentioned in the fundraising page seem small. I am guessing Chelsea Manning already gets a discount and that they will have to raise much more later on.
A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years.
A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers.
Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases.
But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.
A high profile criminal case such as the one against Chelsea Manning where the government throws in many man-years will only be successful if the defense also throws in a team of competent defense attorneys, researchers, assistants etc. In a huge case like this that stretches over several years and where there is vast information to deal with, this could amount to decades of man-years.
A one man boutiques usually can't handle such cases and the largest law firms typically don't take such cases. So the defendant often has to pick among law firms with 5-20 lawyers.
Such small firms usually cannot afford to allocate that much manpower to pro bono cases.
But even if they could afford it, there are numerous faster and cheaper options for marketing. As for professional satisfaction, there are plenty of cases that provide that and pays a salary meanwhile.
Good publicity is a good return if you're a lawyer and probably cheaper than marketing so it doesn't always work like that.
Otherwise, yep.
Otherwise, yep.
Last time i checked good publicity had zero-calories and also came with a goverment will set you on the black-list for all times.
In my view, a side effect of our legal system is that it's a very generous public gift to lawyers. And there's probably a perverse incentive for lawyers to manipulate that system to make it more lucrative and exclusive (e.g., more complex, so that regular people can't take care of their own minor legal issues). As such, I see no problem with maintaining a more equitable distribution of legal support.
The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.
The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.
That depends. Not everyone needs to work for money. There are also people who set aside certain amount of hours per week for pro bono work. Not everything has to be about money all the time.
> (eg, the lawyers need to eat).
At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture.
I have never seen a poor lawyer.
At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture.
I have never seen a poor lawyer.
My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.
> criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates
So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.
So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.
"Typical lawyers" make well under $100k per year.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/...
Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical hourly rate.
However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are working schlubs just like the rest of us.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/...
Average salaries are skewed because the top-end is so high. If you have all the bona fides (top-tier law school/clerking opportunities, high-paying specialty, good track record of winning cases) you can command an astronomical hourly rate.
However, the vast majority of lawyers don't get those opportunities, and are working schlubs just like the rest of us.
That depends on your definition of typical, I suppose.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/
There's indeed a lot of potential to make third-house money as a lawyer, but it is by no means a given, and it seems a lot less likely than you think.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/
There's indeed a lot of potential to make third-house money as a lawyer, but it is by no means a given, and it seems a lot less likely than you think.
Making your original comment some what of a "No True Scotsman"
You don't know many lawyers, then. Only the creme of the creme get rich. The average lawyer makes about $40k/year and works around the clock.
Put food on the table? Are you for real? Lawyers who work at the law firms that have expertise to represent Chelsea Manning are probably in 0.1% of top earners worldwide.
If they can't work pro bono, who can?
If they can't work pro bono, who can?
I was going to quote an article about how the wealthy 0.1% is a different demographic than the top 1% because the rest of the top one percent are workers for the top 0.1%. However, I guess these top one percent US people would be 0.1% worldwide.
A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0]
Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table.
[0] http://www.globalrichlist.com
Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table.
[0] http://www.globalrichlist.com
Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc
So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
>So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener.
>So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
Poe's law invoked.
>So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
Poe's law invoked.
Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc...
Money well spent if you ask me.
Money well spent if you ask me.
I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.
When I charged $45/hour before I quit to go back to school, I was nominally making $90k a year. According to the rich list website, that puts me at 0.09% worldwide. No, I am by no means wealthy. I have loans I am not done with!
> So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
less disposable income != less well off
less disposable income != less well off
The freedom to choose to take on greater discretionary expenses like that is the definition of being more well off.
You probably should have mentioned taxes. In the US, if most of your income is employment income, the tax system is still very progressive. Not so much for investment income.
Very possible. Being a despised minority sucks.
How is this exactly related to what’s happening? I’m baffled by that conclusion (or accusation).
Transgender people are probably more hated than any other minority and hate-speech that would be completely unacceptable made about any other group often goes unchallenged when made about members of the transgender community. So it's not at all surprising a member of this group is having trouble finding her legal defence. And that's a problem.
I'm not sure Bradley Manning would have had a considerably bigger chance of getting pro bono defense than Chelsea Manning does now. Her transition may be a factor, but I'd wager it's not the biggest one by far -- even Snowden is widely regarded as a traitor in the US and he was considerably more nuanced about what confidential information he handed to the press.
>Transgender people are probably more hated than any other minority
They are the second most hated. The most hated is the one hate groups compare all other minorities to when attacking them. The catch is that the most hated group has far better ability to pass than transgender individuals, meaning that a 'which group is worse off' classification is harder to determine.
They are the second most hated. The most hated is the one hate groups compare all other minorities to when attacking them. The catch is that the most hated group has far better ability to pass than transgender individuals, meaning that a 'which group is worse off' classification is harder to determine.
You don't think you're slightly playing the victim card here at all do you?
How is it "playing the victim card"? Do you think it's untrue?
She can't get free council because either
1. She's trans.
2. Her case is complex with many elements to it, requiring a large amount of money and time by many different people to argue correctly.
Or some combination of the two. I think 2 is far more likely here, while you seem to only think 1 is a factor. I find that position obsurd.
1. She's trans.
2. Her case is complex with many elements to it, requiring a large amount of money and time by many different people to argue correctly.
Or some combination of the two. I think 2 is far more likely here, while you seem to only think 1 is a factor. I find that position obsurd.
I have started to forget parts of this story. Does anyone know of a good refresher text?
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Sadly the odds will be stacked against her but I think it's worth donating if you can.
[deleted]
Sorry. I've already contributed to the funerals of those harmed by what Manning leaked.
Honest question: who were they? The last thing I read [0] had no direct connections between the leaks and people being harmed.
"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."
0: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning...
"Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."
0: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning...
It hasn't shown any wrong doing either. The only thing that made any noise was some records of some collateral damage, for which the US army already disclose statistics routinely and the absence of which would be surprising in any war. One can only claim to be a whistleblower if there is any wrongdoing exposed. Most reviewers of these notes mentioned that the US diplomacy was rather doing its job well.
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law.
He is a traitor who has endangered lives.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
He is a traitor who has endangered lives.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
A legal defense? He admitted to breaking the law.
So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?
Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?
Even if she is a traitor, even they have a right to a legal representation in any civilised place.
If you want to talk about people's rights - what about the rights of the identities he leaked? Where was there trial? I don't see much sympathy for them.
Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
> So people who confess don't deserve legal representation? Really?
Sure, but money doesn't change the facts.
After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.
> Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.
Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
Sure, but money doesn't change the facts.
After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.
> Well, maybe if you posted the stories of the tragedies that happened to them due to the leak there would be some sympathy. Where are they?
There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.
Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
Sure, but money doesn't change the facts. After a confession - the reality of the outcome changes.
That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point?
There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.
Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by.
Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".
That's a statement with which nobody disagrees. She still deserves a legal defence. What's your point?
There full names were leaked. Security for them has been compromised. Maybe they don't go to the news about it, they're private individuals.
Yeah, obviously tragedies get reported only when the victims mention them to news organisations. The rest just passes us by.
Bradley Manning seems to have a lot of free defense already. Not a lot of people defending the facts. He's confessed.
The fact that she divulged the documents isn't under dispute, not even by her legal team, so I don't see why would they need to be "defended".
> What's your point?
1. Why does need a fund? It won't make much difference, he has already confessed.
2. There are plenty of other people with their lives on the line who don't get the kind of sympathy he did.
He built nothing. He didn't rise ranks. He's a childish, selfish heartbreaker who hasn't shown an inkling of remorse for the damage he has caused.
> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Also, while I don't have an example of it, his security clearance also required a pledge. (Found it: The SF-312 http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_a...)
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926
These often state how leaking of such information can cause great damage. Snowden did the same pledge.
1. Why does need a fund? It won't make much difference, he has already confessed.
2. There are plenty of other people with their lives on the line who don't get the kind of sympathy he did.
He built nothing. He didn't rise ranks. He's a childish, selfish heartbreaker who hasn't shown an inkling of remorse for the damage he has caused.
> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Also, while I don't have an example of it, his security clearance also required a pledge. (Found it: The SF-312 http://www.sandia.gov/resources/employees/corporate_forms/_a...)
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42926
These often state how leaking of such information can cause great damage. Snowden did the same pledge.
So I have a question. How does a human being defend themselves from being turned into a woman, if their captors drug them and torture them in such a way that it makes them want to become a woman?
I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor, when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
> I find it very hard to believe that the U.S. Government will pay for sex change meds and procedures for a convicted traitor
Manning was not convicted of treason.
> when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.
Manning was not convicted of treason.
> when I can't even get them to buy me an aspirin.
Presumably, the US government isn't actively denying you the liberty to actively seek a living on your own, or to get your own medical treatments as a result of imprisoning you, so it isn't obligated to provide for your medically necessary treatments. If that was the case, OTOH, and the government still wasn't providing you with medical necessities, then the situations would actually be parallel such that your complaint might be meaningful.
It would be an interesting awful power to have, but I have to think that such a power would have had more "terror value" against extremely sexist Arab extremists than against random E-4s who are considering leaking some war porn to wikileaks. Why dump Osama in the ocean when you can just convince her she's a woman? All her former allies will reconsider their terrorist activities.
By all accounts, however, Manning's gender issue was present before enlisting, and certainly before she had access to classified materials.
By all accounts, however, Manning's gender issue was present before enlisting, and certainly before she had access to classified materials.
It's been pretty thoroughly established that reparative therapy doesn't work on trans people. What makes you think it'll work on cis people?
[deleted]
Perhaps some of the money spent on transitioning her would have been more profitably spent on legal defense?
It's remarkable that this has so many points. Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country? He wasn't a whistleblower: there are processes in place for whistleblowing, and there are inspectors general who would love to get a good case of misconduct to work on, and he never availed himself of them.
He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.
He pled guilty at trial, and received a fair sentence.
Perhaps because the existing whistleblower processes do not work.
Perhaps because exposing unethical and illegal activities carried out by your country is a service to your country, not betrayal.
Perhaps because she, like Edward Snowden, should be celebrated as a hero instead of rotting in jail.
Perhaps because exposing unethical and illegal activities carried out by your country is a service to your country, not betrayal.
Perhaps because she, like Edward Snowden, should be celebrated as a hero instead of rotting in jail.
>there are processes in place for whistleblowing
...that have been shown to be inadequate several times.
...that have been shown to be inadequate several times.
That might excuse improperly leaking something worthy of whistleblowing.
But Manning just took as much classified information as she could get her hands on and dumped it on an untrustworthy third party.
The vast majority of the information wasn't even leak worthy.
This isn't a case were some soldier found evidence of a crime or atrocity and was compelled to leak it.
But Manning just took as much classified information as she could get her hands on and dumped it on an untrustworthy third party.
The vast majority of the information wasn't even leak worthy.
This isn't a case were some soldier found evidence of a crime or atrocity and was compelled to leak it.
>Why would so many be keen to contribute to the defense of someone who violated his oath and betrayed his country?
He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
He did? He exposed traitors. Funny how the narrative has been forcefed.
> He exposed traitors.
Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.
Words mean things. In the United States, 'treason' is 'levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' (Constitution, Article III, Section 3). Whom did Manning reveal to be levying war against the United States? Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
No-one. He didn't expose a single traitor.
>Words mean things.
Yes, let us let the fox define all the terms with regards to the hen house. What could go wrong?
>Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
Everyone involved in covering up our mistakes that served to further recruitment efforts of our enemies. Instead of admitting the mistakes and explaining how we would prevent such mistakes in the future. Instead, they covered it up so that Americans wouldn't see it (thus protecting themselves from blow back from us) at the cost of giving the enemy a far better recruitment tool.
Yes, let us let the fox define all the terms with regards to the hen house. What could go wrong?
>Whom did he reveal to adhere to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
Everyone involved in covering up our mistakes that served to further recruitment efforts of our enemies. Instead of admitting the mistakes and explaining how we would prevent such mistakes in the future. Instead, they covered it up so that Americans wouldn't see it (thus protecting themselves from blow back from us) at the cost of giving the enemy a far better recruitment tool.
Fox? He used the Constitution to definite the terms. Are you arguing against the Constitutional definition of what a traitor is? What definition would you want him tried on in court if not the Constitutional one?
So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
> So what you're saying is, in the United States "treason" is defined so that a helicopter gunner who murders journalists and unarmed civilians is a hero while the person who exposes this war crime is a traitor.
No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.
Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legitimate action against an armed group or individual within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't like the decision of those whose job it was to decide.
No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.
Now, was the specific act you referred to a war crime, or a case of mistaken identification, or legitimate action against an armed group or individual within a group, or something else? Beats me. It's not my job to decide. Nor was it Manning's job to decide, nor to leak that information because he didn't like the decision of those whose job it was to decide.
Those whose jobs it is 'to decide' have shown themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to uphold justice.
So fuck 'em, time for others to take on the responsibility.
Manning, Snowden and whoever else in future has access to information that would serve public interest and decides to risk their lives and their freedom to make it known.
They have my full support.
So fuck 'em, time for others to take on the responsibility.
Manning, Snowden and whoever else in future has access to information that would serve public interest and decides to risk their lives and their freedom to make it known.
They have my full support.
The documents regarding that incident were pulled from an Inspector General's folder regarding an open investigation. That hadn't shown themselves to be anything. They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning tainted the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being served.
There is a difference between releasing data that is strictly related to the public interest and taking massive amounts of data, including information about very sensitive operations and diplomatic discussions and releasing them without regards to the damage they may cause. It's reckless.
There is a difference between releasing data that is strictly related to the public interest and taking massive amounts of data, including information about very sensitive operations and diplomatic discussions and releasing them without regards to the damage they may cause. It's reckless.
> They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning tainted the investigation and may have even prevented justice from being served.
Let's be realistic. This never would have seen the light of day and those involved would never have faced justice.
Let's be realistic. This never would have seen the light of day and those involved would never have faced justice.
>No, what I'm saying is that murdering journalists and unarmed civilians is not treason, because…it's not.
It is directly aiding the enemy by giving them a great recruitment tool. A soldier would be hard pressed to find a better recruitment tool to give the enemy.
It is directly aiding the enemy by giving them a great recruitment tool. A soldier would be hard pressed to find a better recruitment tool to give the enemy.
Accidentally confusing a cameraman for an RPG gunner during an actual fight with insurgents isn't murder. And it isn't a war crime.
Manning didn't commit treason either unless he was trying to aid the insurgency, but there is no reason to believe that.
Manning didn't commit treason either unless he was trying to aid the insurgency, but there is no reason to believe that.
Exposed traitors? Such as? The cabals are online so it should be easy to back up that statement.
Because Manning exposed terrible people doing terrible things.
We need those terrible people to understand that we will stand by good people who expose them for what they are.
We need those terrible people to understand that we will stand by good people who expose them for what they are.
I very strongly disagree with what Manning did, but misgendering her is a vile, hateful act of bigotry.
I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k?
How can this be considered normal?
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." - Universal Declaration of Human Rights §7
"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way" - Pericles (431 BC)