ShareThis Page
Chelsea Manning sent back to jail for refusing to testify | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Chelsea Manning sent back to jail for refusing to testify

Associated Press
1170002_web1_1170002-0478821dc1c84151a4e2e8a46b64e23d
AP
Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks with reporters, after arriving at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, May 16, 2019. Manning spoke about the federal court’s continued attempts to compel her to testify in front of a grand jury.
1170002_web1_1170002-b0ae4ee81fbb4e2e8c01e565734daa81
AP
This Thursday, May 16, 2019, booking photo provided by the Alexandria Sheriff’s Office, in Virginia, shows Chelsea Manning. Former Army intelligence analyst Manning was ordered back to jail Thursday, May 16, 2019, for refusing to testify to a grand jury, even after telling a judge she’d rather ‘starve to death’ than cooperate with prosecutors.
1170002_web1_1170002-464482a291634490b22acdb23e20a5c7
AP
Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks with reporters, after arriving at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, May 16, 2019. Manning spoke about the federal court’s continued attempts to compel her to testify in front of a grand jury.
1170002_web1_1170002-9c2bd0aa96b14886a8dd0d0e17a9d94d
AP
Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks with reporters, after arriving at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, May 16, 2019. Manning spoke about the federal court’s continued attempts to compel her to testify in front of a grand jury.
1170002_web1_1170002-a157a4ab686449828320b9d0d6e3fb80
AP
Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks with reporters, after arriving at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, May 16, 2019. Manning spoke about the federal court’s continued attempts to compel her to testify in front of a grand jury.
1170002_web1_1170002-40cd42a74da24ae6b9a4b6412a2f7fb0
AP
Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning speaks with reporters, after arriving at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, May 16, 2019. Manning spoke about the federal court’s continued attempts to compel her to testify in front of a grand jury.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning was ordered back to jail Thursday for refusing to testify to a grand jury, even after telling a judge she’d rather “starve to death” than cooperate with prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga ordered her to remain incarcerated at the Alexandria jail either until she agrees to testify or until the grand jury’s term expires in 18 months. He also imposed fines that will kick in at $500 a day after 30 days and $1,000 a day after 60 days.

Manning already spent two months in jail for refusing a previous subpoena to testify to a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. She was released last week when that grand jury’s term expired, but prosecutors quickly hit her with a new subpoena to testify to a new grand jury.

Manning has offered multiple reasons for refusing to testify, but fundamentally says she considers the whole grand jury process to be unacceptable.

Trenga was unimpressed with her rationale and noted that grand juries are embedded in the Constitution.

He said he hopes that while incarcerated “Ms. Manning would reflect on the principles she says she’s embracing … and whether those views are worth the price she’s paying for them.”

Manning’s lawyers had argued that she should not be jailed because she has proven that she will refuse to testify no matter how long she’s jailed. Under federal law, a recalcitrant witness can be jailed for civil contempt only if there’s a reasonable possibility that the incarceration will coerce the witness into testifying. If a judge were to determine that incarcerating Manning were punitive rather than coercive, Manning would not be jailed.

“Whatever you might think of her, Chelsea Manning is a principled person,” said her lawyer, Moira Meltzer-Cohen. “She’s more willing to put herself at grave risk than to betray her deeply held principles.”

Manning herself told the judge directly: “I would rather starve to death than change my principles in this regard.”

Prosecutors, though, said that so far Manning has only faced up to two months in jail. She has not faced the reality of being incarcerated for up to 18 months.

“Simply put, Ms. Manning has not spent enough time in jail to arrive at the time” where she could argue that she can’t be coerced into testifying, prosecutor Thomas Traxler said.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia G. Zachary Terwilliger said after Manning’s hearing that Manning is not being asked to do any more than any other citizen who might have relevant information.

He noted that the grand jury has given her immunity for her truthful testimony and that grand juries’ role in the legal system is to serve as a check on prosecutors by requiring them to present evidence to a group of ordinary citizens before obtaining an indictment.

“All we want is for her to truthfully answer any questions,” he said.

Manning served seven years in a military prison for leaking a trove of documents to WikiLeaks before then-President Obama commuted the remainder of her 35-year sentence.

The grand jury in Alexandria has already obtained a separate indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for his role in helping disclose the documents Manning gave him.

Manning has argued that Assange’s indictment is proof that her testimony is no longer needed and is merely intended to harass her.

Grand juries, though, often issue superseding indictments that can outline additional charges to those spelled out in an additional indictment. Terwilliger declined comment on why Manning’s testimony is needed now.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.