> When is your workplace ever certified disease free?
Never, but taking these actions in this situation is definitely negligence at best. It's like running a hospital forcing people to work without providing soap or hand sanitizer.
> Facebook is not telling them they have to come into the office. Rather, it’s the contracting companies that these people actually work for.
Though that's one of the benefits of outsourcing: you get all the benefits of squeezing your workers to the maximum (which helps the bottom line), while still having deniability for PR purposes.
Facebook is responsible unless they loudly and publicly order their vendors to treat their employees better.
> Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off.
It's not bullshit. Manning was basically obstructing justice by disobeying a court order. If sanctions like this didn't exist, people wouldn't have any incentive follow court orders at all, and the court system would become ineffective and break down.
Also, I'm not sure if the concept of "charges" is even relevant here. Aren't those leveled by a prosecutor? In contempt cases the judge is directly punishing noncompliance with court proceedings.
Using a method which has been called incompatible with basic human rights (by the EU), has been labeled as torture (by the UN), and compared to the governmental processes of countries like North Korea, China, and Iran (by various reporters).
Also notably the immunity they granted her would not have protected her from various other legal troubles. The law in question (which then implies use of coercive incarceration) is a violation of the 5th amendment protections of self incrimination.
By Order dated May 6, 2019 [Doc. 2], the Court granted Chelsea Manning full use and
derivative use immunity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002, and ordered Ms. Manning to testify and
provide other information in the above-captioned grand jury proceeding ("Grand Jury").
All she had to do was testify truthfully about the matters she was being asked about. Fifth amendment is irrelevant in this context.
> Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now.
I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.
> I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.
I think you are misunderstanding my point because you are not arguing against it here. And the link you provided supports my point. My point was that truthful statements made by her under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 could still be used to prosecute her, it is not blanket immunity. And the link details how courts don't believe prosecuting past perjury using compelled truthful statements violate the fifth amendment, even though some of the justices expressed "discomfort" with that.
> That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:
Sure, but the supreme court is also apparently fine with secret wiretapping courts and torture. The supreme court is a political branch of government it's not like their interpretation of the constitution is inherently right, it just happens to be the law of the land.
> There's no cure. Bodies will pile up regardless.
There's not cure, but there is treatment. Many deaths will be avoidable if we can slow down the spread, to spread out the load to avoid overwhelming the medical system too much.
We're already slowing down the spread. The country is pretty much shut down. And you aren't going to be able to test ~60 _million_ people who will ultimately be infected with this (using 2009 H1N1 estimates). This is not an excuse to the utter CDC/FDA incompetence/sabotage we're witnessing, it's just a statement of fact. We're in the uncharted waters with this, countermeasures of even the _current_ magnitude have never been applied before.
No, it isn't yet. I'm in the office right now, with thousands of my colleagues.
> And you aren't going to be able to test ~60 _million_ people who will ultimately be infected with this
Maybe not, but you don't want to discourage people from getting tested now. Getting a positive test is an important cue to take extra stringent isolation measures.
Aggressive testing helps reduce the need for stringent, general measures like lockdowns:
> Politicians should not take advantage of emergencies by tacking wish list items on to bills that address the emergency.
What exactly are the unrelated wish list items here? Everything I'm seeing here looks on point and directly relevant to this crisis.
Workers need rights to sick time right now, or the virus will spread even more quickly and this will be worse. People are going to be losing jobs or hours because of this, and if they don't have extra cash they're going to need food assistance. Medicaid is about to get hit hard, just like every health insurance program. The elderly and disabled people are vulnerable groups, and are going to need greater levels of assistance during the coming disruptions.
> "Hey, it's an emergency, pull out your wish list for the past four decades."
All the proposals listed in the article makes total sense in the context of this crisis. Sick time for people to quarantine, food assistance for the people whose incomes will drop due to the fast approaching recession and isolation measures, all totally on-topic.
The US has long-understood systematic problems that will contribute to making this crisis worse. If you want to mitigate the crisis, you'll want to fix those issues that you can.
> Because if we do react strongly, and it does largely contain the virus, that will also be "proof" (quote-unquote) that it wasn't anything we needed to be so proactive about in the first place.
Even if every other country has Y2K levels of success containing the Coronavirus, we can still point skeptics at the example of places like Italy to prove it was a real threat.
> A pardon is not possible because she has not been convicted of any crime.
Is that true? Wasn't Nixon pardoned for his crimes without actually being convicted of anything? He didn't even manage to get impeached, since he resigned before that could happen.
A quick web search shows this to be a matter of some dispute. Some cases have been ruled in favor of the executive being able to pardon contempt while others have declared contempt to not be an offense as defined by the Constitution and therefore not pardonable.
Never, but taking these actions in this situation is definitely negligence at best. It's like running a hospital forcing people to work without providing soap or hand sanitizer.